[MD] Sociability Re-examined

[Dan Glover]

John,

On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 4:07 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,

>>
>> 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.

Dan:
If you would like a copy I can send you one.

>JC:
> 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?

Dan:
Sure I remember that. But what he was saying doesn't seem to support
the meaning you put behind it. He was saying exactly what I've been
saying... that to use the term 'social' out of context in regards to
the MOQ effectively destroys the meaning of social quality patterns.
He does NOT say that he cannot think of anything that isn't a social
pattern.

>
>
>
>
>
>> >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.

Dan:
First of all, when we attribute the 'social' aspect of family to other
species besides our own, we are using our own terms, not theirs. How
would anyone know if a wolf thinks in common terms with human beings?
Or an orca, or any other creature that cannot express itself in a
common language?

Secondly, I believe you have misread the quote above. Robert Pirsig
did not say it is possible to extend the term 'social'... he said
there has been a tendency to do so and that it renders the term
useless.

>
>
>
>
>
>> >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".

Dan:
I did not say they were not social creatures. I said they exhibit
biological patterns, not social patterns. There are two different
contexts at work here.

>
>
>
>
>> 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.

Dan:
Not at all... as long as we correctly understand the term social
pattern of quality as it is used in the MOQ.

>JC:
> 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.

Dan:
Again, a society is not a social pattern.

>
>
>
>
>> >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
>>
>
>JC:

> Thanks for what?

Dan:
I was thanking you for the discussion. Is it improper to be polite? I
will take more care in the future.

JC:
> You are thanking me for converting or subverting?

Dan:
Asked and answered.

JC:
> 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.

Dan:
As I said, I have no problem with the term 'religion' but you are
using it here in an attempt to reshuffle the MOQ into something more
to your liking, at least that's how I see it.

>JC:
> 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/

Dan:
Everything in moderation. Green tea is good for the body but not
gallons of it a day.

>JC:
> 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.

Dan:
Renaming the social level the religious level does not seem to solve
any problems that I can see. You asked for thoughts and I gave you
mine.

>JC:
> Take care,

Yep. You too.

Dan

http://www.danglover.com