[MD] Sociability Re-examined

[John Carl]

Horse,




On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:

> Hi John
>
> I have no problem with calling religion a social pattern and, for some
> communities, these patterns are highly significant but they are not the
> totality of the social level.
> What you appear to want to do, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is
> replace the social level with your 'religious' level, thus replacing all
> social patterns of value with religious patterns of value which is quite
> obviously incorrect. Religion and religious patterns are a part of the
> social level. If all religions and religious patterns disappeared in a puff
> of smoke tomorrow there would still be a social level.
>
> Horse
>
>
You're right.  There is a lot more to the social level than codified social
patterns (religion)  We are ALSO social in the other types of social that
we share with canines, etc.
But the part of social that is uniquely human, is that part that binds us
together with shared value.  Re-ligere means to Re-Bind.  Ligere as in
ligature, a word which means to bind.
That is the nature of religion - to bind people together efficiently   and
with the least amount of in-group conflict.  As such, it forms an important
role in human survival and when different religions clash,
great mayhem erupts.  What help can intellect offer to assuage this mayhem?

None at all if we won't even look at the subject.

John