[MD] Step two

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[John to Craig]
I agree.  Social is really such a general category for so many kinds of patterns. How about the label "religion"?

[Arlo]
"Religion" is one of many evolved social pattern. It is not the foundation of all social patterns. And it certainly is not the catalyzing nature of a biological pattern that allowed for the emergence of social from biological. 

Whatever you're proposing as the catalyzing agent, the carbon atom, that seeded the emergence of the social level out of the biological, has to have its roots in the biological (as the carbon atom has its roots in the inorganic), and has 'something' that the "dynamic forces" can sieze.

This: "Biological evolution can be seen as a process by which weak Dynamic forces at a subatomic level discover stratagems for overcoming huge static inorganic forces at a superatomic level." (LILA)

Becomes this: "Social evolution can be seen as a process by which weak Dynamic forces at a subcellular level discover stratagems for overcoming huge static biological forces at a supercellular level."

And "shared attention", a "strategem" rooted in subcellular neurology fits this process precisely. 

As for a 'lens' we can use to see social patterns, 'activity' (mediated, purposeful, semiotic) sees them all. In your proposal of "religion", you are confusing one pattern with the level of patterns. It's akin to saying the biological level is the 'neural' level. Certainly, the brain is a biological pattern, but it is not the only biological pattern.