clark (clark@netsites.net)
Wed, 3 Dec 1997 03:10:26 +0100
----------
> From: Hugo Fjelsted Alroe <alroe@vip.cybercity.dk>
> To: Multiple recipients of <lilasqd@mail.hkg.com>
> Subject: LS Re: another question
> Date: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 6:09 AM
>
> [This mail have been rejected for some reason on both the old and the new
> server, I have tried putting it in a new envelope.]
>
> Martin, just a short note before I have to go, you wrote
> "Now about your example of social values. I don't understand what
> advantage that situation gave to the prey and predator. What
possibilities
> and freedoms do they enjoy? What's so much better about it?"
>
> I am not talking in the language of neo-darwinian adaptation, I am saying
> that in order for there to be prey and predators at all, there has to be
> social relations. What might confuse you is that I use my own definition
of
> the social level, which I have put forward in previous mails. In short:
> what characterizes the biological level is representative relations, as
> opposed to the simple relations of the physical level, what characterizes
> the social level is mutually representative relations and what
> characterizes the intellectual level is self-representative relations
> ('self-consciousness').
>
> I am aware that this is not at all agreed upon by others on LS, and
perhaps
> Pirsig would disagree too. But this structure is not coming solely from
the
> philosophy of Pirsig. And I think that we have to be careful not to be
too
> reductionistic and think that the four levels of Pirsig will be
sufficient
> to understand the complexity of nature.
>
> For instance there has been done some work on hierarchy theory, which I
am
> trying to utilize at the moment, and it looks like this work has been
> focusing mainly on levels of social relations (in my sense). You probably
> know the usual sort of systems theory levels, where a new level arises
and
> is maintained via the interrelations of objects on the first level, and
so
> on. These theories has had severe difficulties with describing nature, I
> know because I have been trying to use them.
>
> Anyway, the point I wish to make is that we have to work with a
hierarchy
> of levels *within* the social level, if we are to approach a useful
theory
> of the levels of nature. And my taking a different stand than others on
> where we can find the social level stems from our not being sufficiently
> aware of the fact that we are concerned with different levels of the
social
> hierarchy in our arguments.
>
> Martin again:
> "Organisms living on their own have to spend every waking moment of their
> lives just trying to stay alive. The introduction of social values, by
way
> of societies, gives living organisms greater freedom because they don't
> have to spend all their time 'just' trying to stay alive. When people
> formed civilizations they had enough spare time to start asking
> religious/philosophical questions."
>
> I agree that there are these 'founding' aspects of society as well as the
> constraining aspects.
>
> But we have to be wary of judging certain aspects of life good or bad,
> because the judging depends on where you take your stand. There is no
> biological value in being a prey, but there is social value. Our world is
> not a cute disney-world, there is killing and eating in nature too, and
> what I am saying is that we could not have our wonderful world, we would
> not be here, if not for the social relations of the prey-predator, or
> plant-herbivore, or host-parasite, or mutualism (mutually benifical (to
the
> organisms) relations). Gaia is a structure built on social value, it is
the
> mutual relations between organisms that make for the complexity of
> ecosystems.
>
> Gaia is a society in the sense that all the organism are mainly dependent
> on each other, and not only on physical nature, for sustained existence.
> This, I believe, there can be no doubt about.
>
> >Many truths to you,
> >Martin
>
> And to you too
> Hugo
>
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
Hugo,
Just sitting here reading the mail. I believe your communication problem,
as you have probably already found out, is that you were putting mail in
front of hkg.com.
With regard to your statement that there is no social value in being a
prey. I think it can be interpreted as being that there is a social value
'to the group' in being a prey. I think that the whole predator prey
relationship is the foundation on which the biological level is founded.
Without the regulating function of the predator prey relationship the
system would be unworkable. In a sense, I think Lovelock's DaisyWorld bears
this out if we consider the ambient temperature to be the predator then
predation would be beneficial to Daisy society as a whole.
I would be interested in your interpretation of how human sentience fits
into this picture. I have a little trouble with it myself.
I think that the picture of the interdependence of groups of organisms in
the biological level is a beautiful picture of mutually interdependent
benefit although admittedly hard on some of the individuals. If we wanted
to stretch a point we could consider disease organisms from the biological
levels as being beneficial to humans as a group. Ken
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:25 CEST