[MD] humpty dumpty

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Dave]
> "social" is now and was in 1991 when Lila was published commonly defined as...[insert Wikipedia definition]

Yes, of course, but the definition of 'social' is not what is at issue.
Rather, animal social is at level 2 of the MoQ, while only human is at level 3.  Refer to Lila rather than Wikipedia.

[Craig, previously]
> IMHO this distinction lies in the self-conscious rule-following and institutions of humans.
> However, note that there is nothing in principle that prevents other animals from obtaining the 3rd level.
> It just hadn't happened in Pirsig's time.
> And conversely there is the human social 2nd level.

[Dave]
> This would violate [Pirsig's] "discreteness" rule by splitting social qualities between two levels.

No.  If the same spov were on level 2 & level 3, that would violate the "discreteness rule".
But in my examples different spov's are on different levels.

[Dave]
> by using common words in a fast
> and loose fashion it makes it virtually impossible for anyone other than
> Pirsig to say what is or is not on any particular level. 

We say a peach is biologically fuzzy & a concept is intellectually fuzzy.
You've got to try hard to misunderstand this.
Craig