[MD] Sociability Re-examined

[david]

John on Fri, Aug 22:

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. ...



John on Sun, Aug 24:

Bo came to my rescue - One just have [sic] 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?"



dmb says:

I think it's pretty clear that the quote not only comes from a different place than you said, John, it also means approximately the opposite of what you said it did. Pirsig even uses an example that perfectly matches your particular mistake. (When you claimed that ants and bees "have social structures hard-wired into their DNA". In response, Dan quite rightly objected, saying "these are biological instincts, not social patterns". You made the same mistake when you said, "imitative sociability is that which we find amongst the wolves and the dolphins and all  mammals". This is exactly the sort of thing Pirsig objected to because when you do that it "extends the meaning" of the word social "to a point where it is useless for classification". If you do that, Pirsig says, "why even have the word"? 

As I see it, you have been caught red-handed saying something quite false and wrong. Even worse, when people complain about your errors, you put on this weird persecuted genius act and insult the complainers for being too dogmatic or narrow-minded. This level of ignorance and arrogance (at the same time) is very disturbing. It's delusional. And this is exactly the kind of nonsense I want to nap through. It's not just wrong, it's a boring and pointless waste of time. When you do this, we're not even talking about Pirsig's work anymore but rather just some nonsense you made up for god-knows-what reason. 

Will you please just go away and get a different hobby. Stay away from philosophy, especially Pirsig's. Go heal yourself and then teach Sunday school or something. Seriously. Reading and thinking is just NOT your cup of tea.