[MD] Sociability Re-examined

[John Carl]

Hi Dan,




On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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:  I remember the statement, but perhaps I mis-attributed it?  I can't
find the Baggini interview anywhere on the web, altho a search for it
does turn up interesting commentaries on that interview.

Bo came to my rescue -

One just have to go to Pirsig's letter to Paul Turner (2003) .

    There has been a tendency to extend the meaning of "social" down into
the
    biological with the assertion that, for example, ants are social, but I
    have argued that this extends the meaning to a point where it is useless
    for classification. I said that even atoms can be called societies of
    electrons and protons. And since everything is thus social, why even
have
    the word?





> >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:  What I was trying to do, was clarify the kind of social patterning
that is unique to humans.  Since its possible
to "extend the meaning where it's useless" as RMP says above.  The kind of
social patterns that are uniquely human are
those encoded as rules and laws and religions.  The social aspect of
family, for instance, is common to wolves, orcas and apes.

In this instance, I'm not arguing with Pirsig at all.  I'm just thinking
deeply about the words he is using.





> >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:  I agree that they are hardwired in the DNA, and that's biological -
but they also work as a conglemeration of individuals
working for a single purpose.  If that's not "social" to some extent, I
don't know what word you'd use.  Science defines them as "social insects".




> 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:  I did read that article and I agree completely.  But the gist of going
down that road is to contradict Pirsig and extend social patterns to
animals.

I'm trying to preserve the meaning of keeping it true to the original (this
time for a change) and making a distinction between what I see as imitation
- learned from
the group - and codified, which is more abstract and indicative of the kind
of societies that humans build.




> >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
>


Thanks for what?  You are thanking me for converting or subverting?  I know
there is a great deal of antipathy toward the term "religion" but
the fact that I think we should look more closely at the phenomenon and its
relation in the MoQ is NOT an attempt to convert anybody TO
religion.

Sheesh.

Religion is a big problem in the world today.  Even a seemingly benign
religion like Buddhism is fraught with issues of conflicts of the "us vs.
them"
variety.
http://time.com/3090990/how-an-extremist-buddhist-network-is-sowing-hatred-across-asia/

Furthermore, I believe that looking at SOM in it's religious aspects - a
set of common beliefs about ultimate value - can solve some logical problems
that have plagued the MoQ historically.  But if you just make the whole
issue a taboo (religious term, btw) then you are removing the philosopher
from
vital world problems.

Take care,

John