[MD] Sociopathy (wasRe: Step Two)

[Jan-Anders Andersson]

Is that NSA code?

John

I am just curious about our picture of the evolution seen through the MOQ magnifying glass. RMP says it began with level 1 the inorganic a while ago. 
Was the social level then? No.

Is the social level present now? Yes.

Well somewhere in between was the step. When or what was the start?

Can we discuss it together or what are you afraid of?

Jan-Anders

> 27 aug 2014 kl. 20:19 skrev John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>:
> 
> Jan-Anders,
> 
>> On 8/26/14, Jan Anders Andersson <jananderses at telia.com> wrote:
>> Yes
>> 
>> There is a razor too, the dividing principle, known as ethic betterness. The
>> betterness of jumping into a superior level.
>> 
>> "So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything,
>> is an ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of
>> reality create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've
>> done so because it's "better" and that this definition of "betterness"
>> -this beginning response to Dynamic Quality-is an elementary unit of
>> ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based.” Lila
>> 
>> The hunt for step two is to find the very threshold from organic into social
>> betterness.
>> Where is it?
>> 
> 
> Sometimes when trying to find something, it's helpful to look at its
> opposite.  I came across a passage on sociopaths, that while it might
> be more relevant to step 3, is still relevant in that it shows what an
> un-ethical step looks like.
> 
> Taken from Time, Will and Purpose by Randy Auxier:
> 
> The problem of the sociopath is precisely the failure to credit the
> *value* of the possible experience of others, and the metaphysics that
> follows from such a condition fails to credit the possible reality of
> the same. Only with such a perverse move can there be a "problem of
> other minds" and other pseudo problems which 20th century philosophy
> so often occupies itself.  The real issue is not the reality of other
> minds, but the tendency among some to trust ungrounded abstractions
> above concrete experience, deemed "the philosopher's fallacy" by James
> and Dewey.  More pointedly, all forms of abstractionism and
> reductionism are sociopathic and we lament that this is the current
> state of professional philosophy and a great deal of science, both
> social and natural. ... The human being who strives to be a person by
> serving institutions that have been warped risks taken into himself or
> herself the defects of purpose and memory that are immanent in the
> activities of the institutions themselves.  Thus one can, under the
> right circumstances, get individuals such as Hitler, who thinks he is
> serving the genuine purposes of the Fatherland by purposing policies
> that destroy the very cause he sought to advance, or one can get
> scientists such as Dawkins and E.O Wilson, or philosophers such a
> Dennett, these little fascists of the intellect ensconced within their
> tiny domains of thought who are engaged in the academic and
> educational equivalent, cleansing the Reich of human thought of
> whatever strikes them as impure.  They tell human beings, without
> apparent shame and without any hint of humility, that we are nothing
> more than our biology or our physical aspects, or whatever the Zyclon
> B of their pet theories happens to be, and often this is not even
> recognized as a fundamental assault on human dignity and the full
> range of the human experience.
> 
> ----
> 
> Now, I hear you asking me, J-A, what does this have to do with the
> step from biological to social patterning?  This:  It's important to
> remember that the evolution we speak of, is not a mechanistic
> evolution.  DQ is more than that.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> John
> 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