[MD] Social Imposition ?

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>:

> 
>      [Platt]
> > Twins qualify as a society? I don't think so.
> > Neither does a mosh pit.
> 
>      Here's a definition of society from an
> anthropology textbook.  Society:  "People share
> society - organized life in groups - with other
> animals."  (Cultural Anthropology; Kottak)  Society is
> different than culture.  Society just shows sharing,
> giving, for it is a group of people organized together
> by relationships.  Here's another definition of
> society from another anthropology textbook from a
> different editor.  "Society may be defined as a group
> of people who not only are dependent on each other for
> survival, but who share a common culture as well.  The
> way in wh9ich these people depend upon each other can
> be seen in such things as their economic systems and
> their family relationships; moreover, members of a
> society are held together by a sense of common
> identity.  Culture and society are two closely related
> concepts...  Some other species of animals, however,
> do lead a social existence.  Ants and bees, for
> example, instinctively cooperate in a manner that
> clearly indicates a degree of social organization, yet
> this instinctual behavior is not a culture.  Whether
> or not there exist animals other than humans that
> exhibit cultural behavior is a question..."  (Cultural
> Anthropology; Haviland)  The other definition I've
> been giving was one I learned in a sociology course. 
> A society is two or people organized together via a
> relationship.  I don't know where your problem exists
> with these definitions. 

The same problem I have with many abstractions -- too far removed from
direct experience to be very meaningful. 

>      [Platt]
> > In the MOQ, the social level is about humans only.
> 
>      Yeah, and then Dan asked Pirsig if sign language
> by a gorilla (I believe, but it was another primate)
> counts as thought or society (I can't remember, Dan if
> you might remember?).  Anyways, Pirsig is focusing
> only on human beings.  He would be similar to
> Confucius who only focused on human beings, meanwhile
> Daoists took a wider view on life and included nature.
>  Confucius philosophers accused Daoists of being too
> vague, and Daoists accused Confucians of being too
> narrow.  To not include other animals in society is a
> narrow-minded view.  Yet, it seems that the social
> level, to use to word social in the MoQ is very
> differently defined than the rest of the academic
> world.  Yet, Pirsig did not define it clearly, so,
> what do we have to use.  I'm using the simple society
> = beings in relationships and intellectual =
> thought/mind.  Yet, it seems you've used society to
> mean thoughts that have been shared.  And thoughts
> that aren't shared are thoughts on the intellectual
> level.  Is this correct?  How can we measure when a
> thought is old v. new, for you say Pirsig's MoQ is
> intellectual still cause its' new, yet, Einsteins is
> just social level cause its' old and been absorbed
> into society long enough.  How do we know what long
> enough is?  Also, a thought absorbed into society
> would be a helpful thought, and Pirsig's MoQ is not
> absorbed yet, and not many people understand quantum
> physics, I don't know what the test is here?  How many
> people have to know a thought for it to cross the
> threshold of intellectual level into social level?

Since it's Pirsig's MOQ, his definitions carry the day when the conversation
is about the MOQ. 

>      [Platt]
> > It includes the institution of
> > marriage but is not defined by a married couple.
> > Thinking of humans
> > as insects and other forms of vermin has led to all
> > sorts of atrocities. I'm
> > surprised you make the comparison.
> 
>      An insect has a leg and a human has a leg, oh my,
> I've made a comparison, oh we're sooo alike, help me,
> help me.  Sorry had to throw that in there, it just
> seemed funny.  :-)  We have arms and heads, too. :-)  

The history of societies that have compared some humans to vermin is horrible
to contemplate.

>      Society is not culture.  Society is simple
> organized relationships between beings (between
> people, between bees, between ants, etc...).  Culture
> is on the social level, too.  Except kinds of
> thoughts, such as U.S. v. say, Chinese thoughts. 
> These are cultural, yet, thoughts of the mind,
> therefore, are intellectual level.

To me it's individual to individual. Societies, cultures, companies, nations,
religions, etc., etc. generally mean trouble on a grand scale. 




-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/