[MD] Step two

[Jan Anders Andersson]

Arlo

I don’t think social patterns must consist of humans. Most animals and herbs are using sexual strategies to breed.

"Celebrity is to social patterns as sex is to biological patterns. Now he was getting it. This celebrity is Dynamic Quality within a static social level of evolution. It looks and feels like pure Dynamic Quality for a while, but it isn't. Sexual desire is the Dynamic Quality that primitive biological patterns once used to organize themselves. Celebrity is the Dynamic Quality that primitive social patterns once used to organize themselves. That gives celebrity a new importance.” 
Lila 

The term biological vs organic is confusing me here. I see the 2nd level as the organic level which is basically founded on reproduction as the step where organic molecules benefit from using the inorganic matter but for its own purpose. The use of biological level implies a need for a 5th level between the organic and the social.

The third step for social patterns, where they are using organic patterns for their own good and still dependant of the organic are where they share a common purpose, a shared intention, to gain from the situation. The main divider seem to be the shift from mitosis to meiosis according to RMP.

"the shift in cell reproduction from mitosis to meiosis to permit sexual choice and allow huge DNA diversification is a Dynamic advance. So is the collective 
organization of cells into metazoan societies called plants and animals. So are sexual 
choice, symbiosis, death and regeneration, communality, communication, 
speculative thought, curiosity and art. Most of these, when viewed in a 
substance-centered evolutionary way are thought of as mere incidental
?properties of the molecular machine. But in a value-centered explanation 
of evolution they are close to the Dynamic process itself, pulling the pattern 
of life forward to greater levels of versatility and freedom.”
Lila.

Jan-Anders

17 aug 2014 x kl. 16:56 ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> snip

> Whatever you're proposing as the catalyzing agent, the carbon atom, that seeded the emergence of the social level out of the biological, has to have its roots in the biological (as the carbon atom has its roots in the inorganic), and has 'something' that the "dynamic forces" can sieze.
> 
> This: "Biological evolution can be seen as a process by which weak Dynamic forces at a subatomic level discover stratagems for overcoming huge static inorganic forces at a superatomic level." (LILA)
> 
> Becomes this: "Social evolution can be seen as a process by which weak Dynamic forces at a subcellular level discover stratagems for overcoming huge static biological forces at a supercellular level."
> 
> And "shared attention", a "strategem" rooted in subcellular neurology fits this process precisely. 
> 
> As for a 'lens' we can use to see social patterns, 'activity' (mediated, purposeful, semiotic) sees them all. In your proposal of "religion", you are confusing one pattern with the level of patterns. It's akin to saying the biological level is the 'neural' level. Certainly, the brain is a biological pattern, but it is not the only biological pattern. 
> 
> 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