JONATHAN,
I'm glad you've written back. This forum is no fun without a healthy amount
of polemics.
As I remember it, you said something along the lines that "Nature favors
cooperation".
A statement like this is literally begging for attack. Was "nature" at a
fork in the road with one path
leading down a rocky trail that is 'competition' and the other headed for a
calm, safe route called
'cooperation'? The nature you describe could almost affectionately be
called "Mr. Nature."
What do you mean by nature? (The "nature" that I think I have a healthy
grasp on isn't an
independent, thinking thing, but more like a billion dots that combine to
make a vast mural.
"Nature" - vague term as it may be - doesn't really 'decide', or to use your
words, 'prefer' anything.
Surely you aren't saying that nature 'prefers' the force of gravity to other
equally enticing
alternatives? 'Nature' is a term we humans use to describe the [world
around us, its components
and its laws.]) Beyondthis desparity, I think we have a lot of similar
ideas.
You said:
>I am surprised I should need to explain this. A multicellular organism
>is a cooperative assembly of individual cells, a colony is a cooperative
>assembly of individuals, and an ecosystem is a cooperative interaction
>of many different types of organisms. This last one is interesting
>because it makes it clear that the interaction is both cooperative and
>competitive at the same time.
With the above, I think you raise some very good points. Maybe I am
misinterpreting
your position. I was under the impression that you thought nature was an
exclusively
cooperative (or primarily) arena (for lack of better words). However with
the above
statement, you are saying that both coop and comp are present. With the
case of the
multicellular organism, I'll agree that its components are inter-related and
cooperative.
This is a good point and one I never considered. However when I contended
that
nature was an almost exclusively competitive place, I was considering this
in
primarily biological and social areas (organisms - plants, animals, humans).
'Cellular
cooperation' is (in Pirsig's terminology) an inorganic description. [I
guess the reason
I am responding with such vigor is that I believe that competition is a
multi-faceteted
word which corresponds with dynamic quality. Competition is the means
through
which organisms, people, products, societies, etc. grow. Competition is a
struggle
for betterness. And in order to hold on to this position, I feel like I
have to 'hold my
ground'.] So- with regards to your description of a colony, a bee colony
comes to mind.
Inarguably this is a cooperative situation. But, there has to be an amount
of comp
among the drones when it comes to mating with queen. This competition
(sexual)
for organisms is absolutely essential in order to perserve the species. The
sexual
example continues all the way up the food chain. (Pirsig uses celebrity
potentially
as the human counter-part.) The best male species (most often determined by
fighting
with the other male members of the society) is allowed the benefit of
mating.
An ecosystem does show that there is a nice give and take of coop and comp
in
nature. I guess by definition, an ecosystem is a cooperation. However,
another
fundamentally defining element of an ecosystem is the hierarchy, or food
chain,
among the organisms. This stratification or hierarchy can only be dtermined
through (be it indirect)competition.
I mentioned in an earlier posting that Pirsig's "static" and "dynamic" are
almost
interchangeable with "cooperative" and "competitive". I guess this is where
I'm ultimately going.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan B. Marder <marder@agri.huji.ac.il>
To: lilasquad@moq.org <lilasquad@moq.org>
Date: Friday, April 09, 1999 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: LS Power and the MOQ
>Hi LilaQs,
>
>John and Jason both responded to my comment that
>cooperation is favoured by nature because it is more competitive.
>
>JASON:
>>Please qualify
>>this. At a biological level, competition is something like dynamic
>quality.
>>Barring cetain symbiotic relationships though, I can't really think of
>an
>>example where cooperation exists in nature. Nature is almost
>exclusively a
>>competitive situation. Secondly, why and how does "nature favor
>>cooperation"? Please, what are you talking about?
>>
>
>>
>In MoQ terms, we could take a good look at the biological and social
>levels. I have periodically stated that conflicts which arise within one
>of Pirsig's "levels" are mediated at a higher level, or even that the
>higher level is DEFINED by the interactions at a lower level. This is
>very clearly represented in human terms by the biological and social
>levels. The social level is entirely composed of a set of patterns which
>govern how individuals interact. The interactions may be competitive,
>but they are also cooperative in creating society.
>
>Jason continues:-
>>Also, you say that through coop., the weak become strong.
>>Hmmm.... who are "the weak"? And more importantly,
>>cooperation towards what? If "the weak" are this way
>>because of ignorance or stupidity, then how would they know
>>"what" to work towards?
>
>Well, I'd consider a single ant pretty weak and insignificant. But ants
>have evolved and flourished as a species because of their colonial
>organization. They can build large anthills and strip bare the carcass
>of a large animal. I'd call that power!
>They didn't "work towards" achieving this impressive cooperative
>organization - the evolutionary process "selected" this strategy because
>it was successful i.e. powerful.
>
>I'm not sure what's objectionable in all this - Jason?
>
>BTW, let me again advertise my essay on Causality in the Science
>Philosophy part of my web page at
>http://www.agri.huji.ac.il/~marder which I think is highly relevant to
>this discussion.
>(There have been some recent changes, notably an addition which deals
>with evolution - thanks to those who provided their critical comments).
>
>Jonathan
>
>
>
>MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:41 GMT