[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[Platt Holden]

> [Arlo]
> I can take a picture of a city. In fact, I have several. Pirsig
> clearly says a  "city" is a "social pattern". Yesterday, I took a
> picture of our HOG group  Does that mean our group is a "biological
> pattern"?

So a picture of a city or your HOG group shows American society? I 
don't think so, any more than a picture of a group of Apache tents 
shows an Apache society or a picture of my street shows an integrated 
society. A photo of a group of people by itself signifies nothing more 
than a group of people. You have to be told it identifies your HOG 
group or, in my case, my model sailing club group. But a picture of a 
herd of sheep requires no such extra explanation.

> [Platt]
> Would Case and Arlo argue that atoms that combine to make a cloud are 
> a  society?
> 
> [Arlo]
> I would argue instead that "social patterns" are defined by symbolic 
> mediation  between the individuals of which it is made. Although the 
> human body is a  collective a cells, it is not a "social pattern",
> but an advanced biological  collective, just as the cell itself is a 
> biological collective. The levels  contain increasing examples of
> complexity, until at some point the jump is from "more complex" to
> "whole new thing".

So what has that got to do with calling atoms in a cloud a society? 
Where do you draw the line? When does a "collective" become a 
"society?" Do ants engage in "symbolic mediation?" 

Platt