[MD] Sociability Re-examined

[Dan Glover]

John,

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:47 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have noticed a lot of conflict and confusion over the years of this
> discuss, on what is meant by social.
> Pirsig himself admitted as much in the Baggini interview when he said when
> it comes right down to it, it's
> hard to think of anything that isn't social in some way or another.  And
> this is true because everything that is,
> is in relation.  Therefore, I've been thinking a bit about the matter and
> have come to the following conclusions:

Dan:
Since I didn't notice this during my readings of the Baggini interview
I went over the transcript again. I don't see any mention of this.
Could you please offer the specific quote? It is entirely possible I
overlooked it though I did run a search for the word 'social' and did
not find anything like what you represent.

>JC:
> Social patterning has to be more than belonging to a set - so while the
> planets of our galaxy interact faintly with each other,
> they are not social because the special meaning of social must be
> restricted to life.
>
> In life we find three different types of society - Instinctive, imitative
> and codified.

Dan:
This may be the source of your confusion. Once again (for the
umpteenth time) you are equating society with what Robert Pirsig calls
social patterns of value.

>JC:
> Instinctive includes the ants and the bees, which have social structures
> hard-wired into their DNA.

Dan:
These are biological instincts, not social patterns.

JC:
> Imitative sociability is that which we find amongst the wolves and the
> dolphins and all  mammals (including humans) to a greater or lesser extent
> Codified, is that special realm of social patterning that is transmitted
> through oral or written rules that are passed from
> generation to generation which seems to be the exclusive domain of humans.

Dan:
You might like to read the article that Horse recommended:

https://www.facebook.com/captpaulwatson/posts/10152578876705932:0

I would say you are wrong on many levels. Crows have been documented
teaching other crows to use tools. Monkeys too. Elephants have been
shown to communicate through a complex language as well.

>JC:
> And tho many of you don't like the term, another name for codified social
> patterns is, Religion.
>
> The third level is then, the Religious level.
>
> Thoughts?

Dan:
I think this smacks of an attempt to sneak god into the MOQ through
the back door. I have nothing against the term 'religion' as long as
it is used properly. The problem arises when religion is used as an
attempt to convert and subvert others into a belief system contrary to
their own, which is exactly what you seem to be doing here.

Thanks,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com