From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 16:38:20 BST
Hey Johnny and all,
> >R
Why would it matter if they
> >had come into contact with another society or not?
J
> Well, the "other" society could be a better version of the same society,
one
> that used this new method to find food. Maybe that seems like a cop-out,
> but my feeling is that any thought that is about society is an
intellectual
> thought (or pattern) and thoughts about society are relational between
this
> society and other possible societies.
R
That's why I like "built on social patterns". Because saying you need "two
societies" sounds like you mean "two cultures".
> R
> > It's just a different way
> >of looking at the social patterns. You can see them in terms of their
sum
> >(the culture, the giant, etc) or you can see them in terms of how they
> >specifically apply to given people or institutions. When the theory of
> >relativity was born it wasn't "German culture" as whole that came up with
> >it, it was that particular part of German culture called "Albert
Einstein".
J
> But who was Albert Einstein? If we cloned him and put him in the womb of
a
> woman in Toledo, would he come up with Realtivity again? I doubt it.
(Have
> you seen Star Trek Nemesis yet?) But that's what you are saying, Albert
was
> a particular part of the culture, that particular part came up with it.
R
Right, "Albert Einstein" is just the name for some social patterns.
I haven't seen 'Nemesis' (I don't really get into the Star Trek stuff too
much, although I did like the one with the whales, and the one where aliens
go back in time to try and stop Earth from achieving space travel).
J
> Would you agree that it is the relationships of or between biological
> patterns? (or at least like-biological patterns)
R
No. I don't think all relationships of or between biological patterns give
rise to social patterns. I think it has to be copied, repetitive behavior.
Behavior that is genetically hard-wired isn't social.
J
> Find food *better* than the society already finds food, find food in a way
> that a better society would. Hence, the two societies, this one and the
> better one. ??
R
I think that's a needlessly complicated way of saying it. Just say that
social patterns develop intellectual patterns to help themselves find food
in better ways.
> > Biological patterns are what form when units of carbon are
> >configured by DNA.
J
> That comes up a little short to me, though I confess it is concise. DNA
> just replicates itself and replicates proteins.
R
It comes up a little short to me too... but I've never heard a definition of
life that doesn't.
J
> I'm confused about it too. But I think there should be some unified
manner
> that all the levels relate to the one below, it shouldn't be different for
> each level, else that seems arbitrary. I like to think that the higher
> level is what evolves when the lower level patterns interact in a way that
> isn't just another lower level pattern, but is somehow "about" the lower
> level patterns. I will accept that DNA has something to do with how the
> second level is about the first.
R
What it all has to do with is FREEDOM at the inception. Each new kind of
pattern emerged to the level below it as an avenue of escape from the static
patterns of the then currently dominant level... and then went off on its
own purposes. Eventually, another new level develops to offer freedom from
those purposes, etc.
J
> So when you go to the movies, you don't expect to have fun?
R
Yes J, I go to the movies because I expect to have fun. But I don't have
fun because I expect to.
> >J
> > It is a simultaneous meaning: morality does what is
> > > expected because it is better to do what is expected and that's why it
> >is
> > > expected that it will do it.
> >
> >R
> >Ah yes, your familiar refrain. I still don't find it valuable.
J
> Have you ever wondered about the dual meanings of those words? (Expected,
> supposed, should) What came first, the imperitive or the probability? I
> say that neither came first, the whole came first.
R
I know you say that. And I understand your idea about how the 'dual
meanings' of the word "expectation" coalesce into what you believe to be a
moral imperative of some kind. I just don't agree that that moral
imperative has any relevance or value to actual moral reasoning (certainly
not in mine). I don't think it's always better to do what society (or
anyone, or anything) expects. I think your making two much over the
etymology of a single term.
J
> OK, fun wsn't the right word, but "satisfying" might be. When the
> unexpected is fun it's because we expected to be surprised. If we don't,
> it's not. It's not fun when you find a mouse in your cereal, or the house
> burns down.
R
This is exactly the kind of silly, circular conclusion that your obsession
with 'expectations' has you continuously returning to, I mean, it literally
sounds like you're saying 'Something is moral if it's expected, and immoral
if it's unexpected. But if it was unexpected and turns out to be moral, it
must have really been expected. And if it was expected and turns out to be
immoral it must have really been unexpected.' That's what it sounds like
you're saying to me, and I think it's pointlessly post-hoc and useless.
Sorry J, I don't we'll ever agree on this point. It's not that I don't see
'expectation' as important or powerful... it's just that I don't see it as
determinative, and certainly I don't see at as synonymous with "morality".
J
> cool mark twain quote
R
Love Twain. Glad you like him too :-)
take care
rick
Expect nothing, live frugally on surprise. - Alice Walker
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 16:49:59 BST