[MD] Social level for humans only

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ian to DMB]
Exactly, agreed. My point that if we allow common usage of the word 
social to confuse our understanding of the social level, we may as 
well give up, which I'm not planning to.

[Arlo]
I think my general problem with Pirsig's exclusion is that any 
"definition" or "criteria" we set up to explain the social level will 
unavoidably include certain non-human species, unless we arbitrarily 
include "human" in the "definition". And I can't think of a good 
reason to do this, as it (IMO) limits the power of a metaphysics of 
Quality in explaining experience (which includes experience with a 
plethora of non-human species).

Can you (in the plural) think of a way to define or categorize the 
social level that does NOT include the "human restriction" in the 
definition that would also set this restriction?

Personally, I think a good place to start looking at the 
social-biological boundary is in the notion of "shared attention". 
More on that later.