[MD] Social level for humans only

[Ian Glendinning]

I think we just have a definitional problem again when we use the word
social (or cultural as Dan did and I often prefer) in different
contexts .... clearly there are social animals and animals exhibit
social behaviour, but this is not social in the sense of Pirsig's
social (cultural) level.

Clearly the levels in the MoQ are from a human perspective - the
cultural evolution of human understanding and (dare I say) wisdom or
arete.

Ian

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:
> [Dan]
> We are human beings; everything we perceive is colored by our
> human-ness. Other animals perceive the world accordingly. In my
> opinion, it is arrogant to assume our cultural mores extend to
> non-humans, kind of like dressing up a dog. It might be good for
> giggles but it makes no sense. Thast's why RMP suggests drawing a
> boundary, imo.
>
> [Krimel]
> Odd, it seems arrogant to me to assume that much of anything about us is
> radically different than what we see in other species. We are a product of
> natural selection and the same rules apply to us as to every other species.
> Comparing our social manifestations to that of other species, looking at how
> they arise from similar conditions and serve similar functions seems, what
> the word I am looking for... natural.
>
> On the other hand assuming that we are unique seems to me, what's that other
> word... supernatural.
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>