[MD] Social level for humans only

[Magnus Berg]

Hi

> Andre:
> Mr. Pirsig suggested (from the MOQ point of view) that to extend notions
> of 'society' as pertaining to the organic, and perhaps even inorganic
> levels as seeming to 'destroy the meaning of the word 'society'.It
> weakens it and gains nothing'(Annot.5) A society of sheep? A society of
> cells? A society of grains of sand(a mountain or a beach)?

I think that comment was directed at me, but I fail to see why it 
destroys the meaning. And if it does, then the meaning wasn't that 
clearly stated in the first place. I mean, how *is* the social level 
defined in Lila anyway? I can only remember a couple of examples, but 
nothing like a formal definition.

However, what I tried to do was to find that definition by making 
simpler and simpler societies and then see what that specific trait was 
that puts a society in a morally higher level than biology. But of 
course, to do that, one must first have a better definition of biology, 
otherwise we just end up with a system where a human being is *only* a 
biological pattern. But then, how is it possible that a human being can 
store all those intellectual patterns inside its brain? Because even 
Pirsig have said that for example the MoQ, *is* an intellectual pattern. 
So, how is it possible that a person can have the MoQ in its brain if he 
doesn't support intellectual patterns?

These are the impossible questions that we have to deal with. We can't 
just strike the ostrich pose and pretend it's not there. I won't anyway.

And regarding the meaning of the word society. Stacks are a very good 
way to keep the meaning of society for different purposes. For example, 
while we're in the human perspective stack, we can keep the meaning of 
society just as most examples from Lila, like church, school, government 
etc. But if we leave that stack and move on the universal stack, the 
stack where a human being is the end result that does support 
intellectual patterns, then we must find the social patterns that are 
supporting the intellectual patterns of the human brain.

Also, a society of sand grains? Just the example shows that he hasn't 
really thought about a good definition of social value, nor did he think 
about the level dependency. Not even I would regard a grain of sand 
biological, and social patterns depend on biological. So I guess it was 
mostly to try to ridicule me. But as I said, I had good reasons to do 
it, and he's just sticking his head in the sand by not dealing with it.


> I think that Mr. Pirsig suggests this to be clear about the boundaries
> of the MOQ levels.

What is "this" in this context. What should be clear?

> But a family does not make a society. It is a 'unit' thereof.

A unit? Is a city a social pattern?

Is a country a social pattern? If so, isn't the city just a unit thereof?

Is the EU a social pattern? If so, isn't countries just units thereof?

etc.etc.etc.

We have to accept that there are such things as societies of societies. 
The smaller societies doesn't lose its social status just because it 
becomes a part of a larger one.

> The social
> patterns of value that do 'bind' families into a socially cohesive whole
> (through which a society may be 'recognized') are such things as church,
> government, cultural forms, economic interests, political
> interests,'national' interests etc, etc.
>
> These latter(socially)binding patterns I have never seen at the
> biological or inorganic level.

That's a tautology.

> And I was under the impression that these
> are the defining features of the (MOQ) social level.

Defining features? Those were just examples. Not a definition.
What do they have in common? What separates them from biology? How are 
they dependent on biology? If you find crisp and clear answers to those, 
I'm all ears.

	Magnus