[MD] Sex, Rape and Law in a MOQ

[118]

Hi John,
Yes, there is some confusion, but I think that it is perspectives not
talking to each other.  I could comment all over this post, (because
that is just the way I am), but I will refrain to one paragraph and
SNIP the rest.  I don't think there is anything lost (or found for
that matter).

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:34 AM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> My main point is about the primacy of value - the hierarchy, "what level is
> in charge"  and by far we tend to intellectualize a diet, so we can lose
> weight and attract a mate.  The social level is at the root of our needs,
> desires and motivations.  And even more fundamentally, at the root of our
> identity as individuals.  This is a confused issue around here, that needs
> some real examination.

[Mark]
Being in charge is an intellectual concept.  As such, it can only be
in charge of other intellectual concepts.  More below.
>
> But as far as "biological drives" they are there, of course, but so often
> over-ruled and tamed that they really are completely beside the point.
> Hunger to starvation makes a good example.  We don't fear death because of
> biology.  Our mechanism admits its pain sensations, but it is a judgment
> call to know whether this is a life-threatening situation or a diet plan.
> The fear of death, the emotionality, is all wrapped up in the ego - the
> fears of an ego are what drive the emotional reactions, not the biological
> mechanisms of hunger.  Sure, we get cranky when we're hungry.  And there's a
> blood sugar - pain component to that.  But it's our ego's attachment to our
> pleasure, which actually drives the emotion.  The ego as a social -
> intellectual construct.

[Mark]
The fear of death is also an intellectual concept.  But now, I will
contradict myself, and say that Survival can be attributed to the
biological level.  It is that which controls our fear of death.  There
is no other reason, because logically we have been dead a long time
before now, and it wasn't so bad (was it?).

The ego presents itself as an intellectual construct.  We use such a
construct to try to explain how we can feel better about our selves.
The intellect controlling the intellect.  It is the intrusion of
psychology.  We cannot control anything biological, because it can be
considered all as deriving from the biological (or inorganic, or
emptiness if you want).

Now, I do like the concept of levels as analogies for meaning.  What I
cannot understand is how one level can control the level below it.
The biological level has its own consciousness and set of rules.  We
cannot control that, any more than we can control how a bee thinks.
We can change and reinvent our intellectual attitude towards it.

The biological level certainly cares about the social in terms of
survival, that is why it created such a thing.  If it wanted to create
something new, it would.  I have said before, that the current (real)
rise in autism is such an attempt.  Evolution is messy, and most of
the changes are wrong and die off.  But every now and again the right
mutation comes along which makes all the benign mutations work
together, and we get a leap.

We are the old species, we are do for a change.  Of course we are
talking evolutionary time, so I am not going to hold my breath.  I'll
just watch and comprehend.

Mark


>
> John the hammer
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>