[MD] Sociability Re-examined

[John Carl]

I'm on the sucky laptop tonight... as you can see by my ugly  >>


On 8/24/14, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
> John,

>> 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:  Thanks!  Maybe it will help me to avoid mis-attributions in the
future!  But I guess its not actually misattrubted.  I attributed the
right guy, just in the wrong place.

>
>>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:  my point was that the word social inherently contains a wide
range of meaning and so its not enough to use the word and expect
everything to be clear.  I thought my move of slicing it up
analytically into 3 domains was helpfull.  But if you don't like the
way I slice the pie, don't eat it. :)

In this case, I think Pirsig is right on, the best term for the 3rd
level IS social.  I can't think of any better alternative.  But since
the term does cover so much territory,

Apart from all that, I've been doing quite a bit of thinking on the
subject, working through Randy's book.


>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> >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?

Jc:  From a mechanistic SOM materialism, we don't communicate with
anything.  But Indians sure believe that we can communicate our
feelings to dogs and they communicate theirs to us.  I agree.

There is absolutely no logical basis that proves we don't communicate
in some way, with everything.
Words are a human affair tho.  We don't share abstract thoughts with animals.

Dan:


> Or an orca, or any other creature that cannot express itself in a
> common language?
>


Jc:  These beings have ways of communicating with their bodies,
certain moods and feeligins.  And people do form solid social
relations with their dogs.  It's the most clear evidence that
non-humans can be social and even socially oriented.

Dan:

> 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:  Yes, well... I agree the term covers too much ground. But I'd say
that's just the nature of the term.

.   If  you're going to use it, you have to do some work to exclude
the other common meanings of the term.   Defining every term is too
tedious for an already big novel.  That's why we do it here.  Arlo and
I have wrangled in the past, over what social covers.  It's not a new
topic.

"Social" is  a term somewhat  like Quality.  It's a lot bigger when
you open it up than it appears on its face.



>> 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:  Well there's another problem for you - the patterns are not
distinct , and truly social pattern incorporates and includes
biological and inorganic patterns also.  The lower patterns don't
disappear, they are incorporated into a larger context.  Therefore any
 pattern that is social, must simultaneously be biological.   Social
has to do with personal patterns interacting with other persons.
"person" can refer to supre-human (like a corporation) or sub-human
(dogs) but personal relationships between persons is the miliue of any
definition of social.


>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>

JcL  I have an understanding that works for me, but as usual, it's my
own only.
The 3rd level begins with abstract conceptualization and communication
- a code, a word.

The term in itself indicates other meanings as well, which are not
excluded from the 3rd but occur amongst a wider spectrum of beings.


>>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:  True, a society is formed  by social patterning.  But we see what
kind of patterns they are by what kind of society they form.  I'm
trying to talk about actual social patterning and the only terms I
have are concrete experience of society.



>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> >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:  No, I appreciate polite, Dan.  I was just shocked by the accusation.


> JC:
>> You are thanking me for converting or subverting?
>
> Dan:
> Asked and answered.
>

Jc:  Ok, just for the record, now and forever, It goes against my
deepest principles, to try to convert somebody to my "religion".  The
way I concieve religion is as a deeply personal attitude and my needs
are completely different than your needs.  It would be a "sin", to try
and persuade you or anybody of my religion.

At the same time, I freely admit and wintess to the fact that there is
a value in finding some religion - some way to express our religious
feeling and solidarity with others outside of ourselve.  It's a
frustrating but ultimately absolutely necessary aspect of increasing
individuality.  A conundrum, for sure.


> 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:  Well, I'm sorry.  I'm here to discuss, clarify misunderstanding
and understand terms that confuse me.  I appreciate the process.




>
>>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:  Well I don't think a moderate amount of killing rampage is any good.


>
>>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:  Touche.  I do appreciate you Dan, a lot.

Thanks!

John