| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
11 Jun 2005 02:29:21 AM |
| Object: |
Life's Three Different Sets of Rules |
One of the fundamental truths of human existence is that life is
operating on three different levels simultaneously. These levels are
the biological, social, and intellectual. Each level has different
rules and the complex interplay between these levels is what makes life
complicated.
Each of these three levels is a progressively higher level of
evolution. Evolution is of course not strictly a biological process.
There is also social evolution and intellectual evolution. In a sense
the higher evolutionary levels take precedence over the lower.
Probably the clearest example of this is the thousands of government
laws (social level) which exist to restrict biological functions such
as sex and aggression. Yet the higher levels of evolution developed
and exist primarily to facilitate the lower levels. A fundamental
example of this is the organization of tribes and villages (social
level) in order to facilitate the biological survival of the group.
Here we run up against our first major complication. The higher level,
i.e. social over biological, takes precedence and yet exists to
facilitate the lower level. This complication is handled only by
consistently remembering that there are some key rules of lower levels
that in fact take precedence over any rules of the higher levels. One
classic example of failed interplay between levels is the case of an
American religion commonly referred to as the Shakers. The Shakers had
a rule against sex that applied to all members of the religion. At a
social level of organization the Shakers did not support the biological
level rule of procreation. This religion's ability to recruit from
without did not make up for its inability to "recruit from within"
through procreation and therefore it died out.
The next major complication in the interplay between the biological,
social, and intellectual levels relates to the fact that each level has
its own rules. Many rules of one level are in fact often radically
different from rules on the same subject at a different level. So how
do we know which rules to follow for a specific situation? This is
clearly one of life's most important questions. Yet the task of
correctly chousing our actions (which rules to follow) is made harder
for those who are unaware that their mind is constantly accessing three
different and often contradictory sets of rules.
When I talk above about "rules" I don't want that to be too
narrowly construed. By rules I also mean values, morality, ethics,
right vs wrong, natural law, and in the sense that Robert M. Persig
used it "Quality." By rules I am not referring only to sets of
social dogma but also to the natural laws of cause and effect that
operate within the different levels of evolution.
For example, within the biological level there is the "rule" or
natural law of cause and effect that says if the race does not
successfully breed then it will eventually die out. But just as
important regarding sex and the biological level is the "rule" that
says if sex were not physically pleasurable it would not occur. In
fact most of the biological level rules are genetically programmed
instructions to "if it feels good do it." Our strong craving for
foods high in sugars or fats is another example. In fact our craving
for sugars and fats also serves to point out that some "rules" that
still exist within our programming are not helpful in our current
environment. In other words not all "rules" drive us in the best
direction.
How should we use the insight about human life operating on three
different levels and on three very different sets of values (rules)
simultaneously? Can we use this information to improve life's
quality? To begin with, it is critically important to study and think
enough about this subject to truly accept that the three very different
sets of values (rules) do exist simultaneously and are always
influencing our beliefs and actions. The next step is to make the
effort to actually use this information in an analytical manner.
Let us look at a specific issue for the purpose of illustration. In
the United States the subject of abortion is a very contentious issue.
Many people feel very strongly one way or another about abortion. Yet
often people with opposite views on this subject come from very similar
cultural and educational backgrounds.
My use of the abortion issue as an illustration is somewhat risky.
People have very strong emotional feelings on the subject. Even a very
simplified analysis of this issue as an example will come down in favor
of one side or the other. Thus I risk alienating some of my readers to
the point that they reject all that am saying about fundamental truths.
I could have chosen any other issue, such as drug abuse or gun
control, for my illustration. But I chose the abortion issue for a
variety of reasons, not the least of which is because it has proven
intractable to many other forms of analysis.
At the biological level there is that "if it feels good do it"
value mentioned above. But there are many other biological level
values as well. One of these values (rules) is to preserve, protect,
nurture and increase life. This is the "pro-life" position.
Obviously it is a position that is critical to survival of the species.
Yet within the biological level any arguments about a society's over
population, any arguments about the quality of life for a child, and
any arguments about quality of life for a parent are totally
irrelevant. Because at the biological level more life (people) is
better, period.
As stated earlier the social level is higher in evolutionary status
than the biological and yet much of the social level exists to
facilitate the lower biological level. Cooperative action and division
of labor (you guard the walls while I grow the food) on the social
level means far more individuals can be supported (increase life) and
that the biological quality of life can be much better (more food and
other feel good opportunities). Yet the social level can also address
more complex questions than can the biological level. Such questions
include: How much population optimizes the quality of our society and
the quality of life for the various individuals within our society?
How much society level moderation or over ruling of biological level
values is appropriate without risking a biological level disaster?
Remember the Shakers.
The next and the highest level of evolution is the intellectual level.
Now the word intellectual conjures up some very negative associations.
This is because through out the 19th and 20th centuries there were many
famous people referred to as "intellectuals." They were generally
academics, writers or philosophers who believed that the world could be
reshaped for the better by the power of intellect. But their idea of
intellect placed little value on history, practical experience,
science, or even truth. They were almost all far left radicals who put
their faith in various social engineering schemes. The most famous of
all these "intellectuals" was Karl Marx. In addition to the
blinders they placed on their own use of intellect, their understanding
of life's functioning at the biological and social levels was very
flawed.
The intellectual level of evolution is about ideas. But it is also
about using the higher functions of the mind to honestly and critically
analyze all the available information available on a subject. And it
is important to emphasize that functioning with over emphasis at the
intellectual level is just as dangerous as over emphasis at the two
lower levels.
Both the social and intellectual levels developed and exist to
facilitate lower levels. In James A. Michener's book Mexico he tells
the story of a major pre-Columbian civilization that drugged its self
into extinction. Clearly that was a biological level case of "if it
feels good do it", that did not work out.
The second important point I want to emphasize about the intellectual
level is that it developed and exists primarily to facilitate the lower
levels. One of the preeminent ideas at this level is the value of
individual freedom of choice. We like to choose for ourselves things
like spouses, jobs, government representatives, where we will live, the
products we buy, etc. These freedoms include what we call the
"market economy", which is responsible for our current high
standard of living. And yes, most women like to choose for themselves
whether they will have children. That is called the "pro-choice"
position.
Perhaps I should have chosen a less controversial issue as an example.
Be that as it may, you can see form the very brief analysis above that,
for cultures not at a survival or quality disadvantage due to under
population, abortion is not necessarily a wrong. There are values at
two different levels of evolution higher than the biological level,
which can make abortion the lesser of two evils. At the social level
the value is quality of life. Too many offspring for a parent or too
many people for a society (i.e. India) reduces the quality of life. At
the intellectual level the value is individual freedom of choice.
There is an interesting consistency in the fact that the founders of
the American anti-abortion movement were also very anti birth control,
another biological level "pro-life" value.
Does this extremely simplified example analysis of the abortion issue
imply that the values of a higher level of evolution (i.e. social over
biological) should always rule? Absolutely not. Remember that in each
of the two lower levels there are certain values that should almost
never be over ruled by any values of a higher level. Remember the
Shakers.
So why do people with very similar backgrounds often have diametrically
opposed views on issues such as abortion? I think that often it is
because for a particular issue different individuals are focusing,
consciously or subconsciously, primarily on only one or two of the
three levels of values. Many people are actually unaware that life is
operating on three different levels simultaneously. They view life as
a unified continuum that is covered by a single set of values, often a
specific set of religious values. Most people are unaware that the
values / rules / morality / ethics / etc. are generally very different
at each level and can appear contradictory from one level to the next.
It must also be said that of course no two person's backgrounds are
exactly the same and that small differences in learning / influences do
lead to dramatically different views. Many individuals rely far more
on the learning / influences of their past for their views than on any
in depth and on going personal analysis of an issue. The teachers,
traditions, institutions, etc. that have provided this learning /
influence to the individual were throughout there history also capable
of focusing primarily on only one of the three levels of values.
Obviously, some institutions did this narrow focus drill to a much
greater or lesser extent than did other institutions.
Everyone carries around inside them each of these three different value
sets. So it should not be very surprising that in the case of two
individuals with very similar backgrounds each individual might, on
some specific issue, focus primarily on a different value set. Thus
the individual focusing on the biological level sees primarily the
"pro-life" value while the individual focusing on either the social
or intellectual level sees primarily the "pro-choice" value.
The best decisions for the individual or for the human race can only be
consistently arrived at by recognizing that there is not one set of
values but in fact three very different sets. The complex precedence
and interplay between the biological, social, and intellectual value
sets must be analyzed in order to consistently make the best decisions.
Fortunately for the individual and for the human race, making
consistently good decisions turns out to be not absolutely critical for
survival.
.
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Life's Three Different Sets of Rules |
11 Jun 2005 03:23:15 AM |
|
|
wrote in news:1118456961.647003.223890
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
One of the fundamental truths of human existence is that life is
operating on three different levels simultaneously. These levels are
the biological, social, and intellectual. Each level has different
rules and the complex interplay between these levels is what makes life
complicated.
Nope. That's an artificial division.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplin and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is as vast as that, he is above
blasphemy; if He is as little as that, He is beneath it.
-- Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: Life's Three Different Sets of Rules |
11 Jun 2005 10:04:58 AM |
|
|
wrote:
One of the fundamental truths of human existence is that life is
operating on three different levels simultaneously.
Only in your feverish imagination.
RS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Life's Three Different Sets of Rules |
11 Jun 2005 01:20:03 PM |
|
|
On 10 Jun 2005 19:29:21 -0700, wrote:
One of the fundamental truths of human existence is that life is
operating on three different levels simultaneously
There's two kinds of people: those who break things up into arbitrary
divisions, and those who don't.
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Life's Three Different Sets of Rules |
11 Jun 2005 02:04:56 PM |
|
|
Breaking things up into artificial divisions is one of the primary
tools of all scientific and intellectual disciplines. Some divisions
are more appropriate than others are. In some sense all divisions are
artificial. What really counts is how useful the divisions are as a
tool for organization and analysis.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Life's Three Different Sets of Rules |
12 Jun 2005 07:55:54 AM |
|
|
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
news:k6pla1t4dhvg7g7m2op3lvip6fsc8ptdu2@4ax.com:
On 10 Jun 2005 19:29:21 -0700, wrote:
One of the fundamental truths of human existence is that life is
operating on three different levels simultaneously
There's two kinds of people: those who break things up into arbitrary
divisions, and those who don't.
No, no, no. There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary, and
those who don't. =D
--
Dr. Smartass -- BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
You can't please everyone all the time; your tongue will get tired.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
