Hello fellow focussers,
Thanks so far for this month's most encouraging and inspiring discussion. I
can't remember following any of the past topics of discussion that closely. The
'giant-theme' is the one I do apply the most often to what I see in society and
politics; besides I intended to make a similar proposal a few month ago (I was
to late, as so often)
Magnus Berg wrote:
How do ant colonies and such transcend biological sq?
>
> An ant colony doesn't die when an ant die. I also very much doubt that a beehive
> dies when even the queen dies. I'm no expert here but I believe the queen role fairly
> quickly is taken by someone else. Anyone knows?
Johannes: (Who is also not at all an expert of biology in general, nor a bee- or
ant expert in special :-) )
I would not bet on the following, but as far as I know bees have the 'full
program' in their genes. For the working bees can I say, that's for sure, that
the program, which makes them being 'working bees' starts to run in their 'early
youth' (a few days). their program can be changed if 'society' is in urgent
need for other social functions. In case a new queen is needed (for whatever
reason there is), an individual is prepared to be queen. I can't say, wether
this preparation takes place before or after 'birth'. The chapter from where I
got this information is titled 'socialization' and the beehives are called
'closed anonym association', to which are counted also Wasps and termites. So
far the scientific (SOM) part.
> Think of it this way, an anthill is more long-lived than any ant. I don't
> know how long an ant lives but when every ant in an anthill has died and is
> replaced by another ant, the anthill will still be the same anthill. Just as
> my hometown is still the same town that was here 200, even 700, years ago,
> even though nobody is alive that were alive then. The anthill, or town, is
> the social pattern, or Giant, that I'm talking about. This social pattern
> would be nothing without the citizens, but it doesn't matter which citizens
> occupy the Giant right now, the Giant is still the same.
>
> Magnus
Johannes:
I completly agree with Magnus' point of view. The lifetime of an anthill or a
beehive is not limited to the lifetime of a bee or an ant. It's characteristics
are different from those of the single bee (or ant!). A beehive is higher form
of value patterns, than that of a single bee and a single bee is, no doubt,
subordinate to the beehive, because of the above mentioned 'changing of
function', that a single bee is determined to be able to. Therefore we are
allowed to make Magnus' (and others!) analogy. A city is higher form of value
patterns, than an individual human being, nevertheless both belonging to the
class of the 'social level'.
( Despite I'm, just like Bo, not very satisfied with the definition of the
levels, especially the intellectual- and the social level). MoQ is, IMO, not
making any restrictions, what kind of hirachy exists in between the levels; they
maybe higher and lower forms of social- organisation, instituition or any other
'above individual systems'.
So an individual making his contribution to a society, suppports a higher form
of value patterns, than he is itself, no matter if he is a bee or a human being.
In case he is a human being, consisting not only of social, but also of
intellectual patterns (Allright, I forgot about the biological and Inorganic
levels) the case is becoming, indeed, more difficult. His social patterns
correspond to the social patterns of the 'community level', but his intellectual
patterns may force him to contradictionary (to the social level) actions. The
relationship between social and intellectual patterns, in this case, is quite
vague to me.
Has anybody ideas, what role the intellectual patterns of an individual human
being plays here? Does it correspond to the social value patterns as far as the
'social giant' is concerned, and how does it?
Greetings to all of you,
JoVo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:21 BST