hey 3DW,
--On Wednesday, May 08, 2002 11:01 AM -0500 3dwavedave <dlt44@ipa.net>
wrote:rr
> "This is why it is important not to extend the term "society" beyond the
> dictionary definition: "a group of HUMAN BEINGS broadly distinguished
> from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic
> relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture." [MY EMPHASIS]
Elliot:
Whoa. A society is designated as human beings!? But human beings have
always been intellegint as long as there have been human beings, thats one
way we distinguish them from other species. How did society and intellect
develope simultaneously when the time between inorganic and biological, the
biological to social was so incredibly long? I thought a society was a
pattern of biological units (bodies) that made a pattern greater than
itself. Ants fit every definition of Pirsigs society i think. They
sacrafice their lives for the good of the colony without question, this
violates the biological code of survival. It is society which supresses
this bilogical tendency for the good of the society (colony). Not to
mention ants have evolved in such away that they cant survive
indeividually, the entire reproductive system is based socially. Same with
sardines. A shiney sardine by itself would be killed immediately, but in
large schools this attribute is beneficial. Society must be something
larger than just human beings lese their is no reason to have the term, if
society and intellect are both aspects of the same group and that group
only.
My 2 cents,
elliot
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:15 BST