[MD] Sociopathy (wasRe: Step Two)

Thu Aug 28 12:02:04 PDT 2014

Jan Anders,

 I spoke out of turn.  My mind has been so much on step 3, you see.  And my
post pertained more to that -
the kind of social individual who can intellectualize - that I jumped the
gun.
Sorry, I'll wait for the discussion to get there
before jumping in.

John the over-eager

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Jan Anders Andersson <
jananderses at telia.com> wrote:

> John
>
> It's all static patterns. If a pattern can be considered both as an
> organic AND a social pattern, then there is no clear distinction between.
> If a pattern must be either organic or social (or at another level) then
> there is discrete distinctions between levels. Idon't think there are
> anything between because that would be another level.
>
> The definition of a step, according to Lila, is when a pattern is
> dependant upon and using another for it's own purpose then it is at a
> superior level. Organic patterns for example are using inorganic patterns
> for its own. Chemistry or geology would never be able to create trees or
> professors.
>
> The step two must be somewhere between step one and three. The step is not
> the borderline but the beginning of a new level.
>
> best wishes
>
> Jan-Anders
>
> > 28 aug 2014 kl. 01:23 skrev John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>:
> >
> > Afraid?  That's a strange assertion.
> >
> > I thought I made my point clear, but I'll repeat it - construing some
> > mechanistic step between levels doesn't make sense in the MoQ becau
> > the MoQ relies on undefinable Quality as it's chief  means of evolution
> > from one level to another.
> > There are statically defined rules that work within each level, but
> between
> > the levels?
> > I thought that was more a code of art, than science.
> >
> > JC
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Jan-Anders Andersson <
> > jananderses at telia.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "finite players
> > play within boundaries.
> > Infinite players
> > play *with* boundaries."
> > 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
> 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
>

-- 
"finite players
play within boundaries.
Infinite players
play *with* boundaries."