[MD] Sociability Re-examined

[Craig Erb]

 From: Craig Erb <craig_erb at ymail.com>
>To: "moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org" <moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org> 
>Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 5:16 PM
>Subject: Re: [MD] Sociability Re-examined
>  
>[Craig, previously]
>> What we would call 'braves' go on what we would call a 'hunt'.  After the hunt each brave usually brings his or her gain back to what we 
>> would call the 'chief', who distributes it amongst the entire (what we would call) 'tribe'. If a brave fails to deliver the gain and the chief finds > out, there is a conflict between the brave and the chief (and perhaps with the rest of the tribe).  The brave can decide to risk keeping his 
>> gain or give it up.   At this point IMHO there is no right or wrong in the matter; it is a matter of biology.  What would need to be different for > this to be a third level situation?
>
>
>[JC]
>> Interesting thought experiment but unfortunately it's too hypothetical
>> to have any explanatory value. 
>
>Its point is not "explanatory value", but to locate the divide between the 2nd & 3rd levels. When the pack just hunts, it is 2nd level. When everyone promises to share the gain, it is definitely 3rd level. Somewhere in between is the divide.    
>
>[JC]
>>  Your "individual" brave doesn't think
>> like that...He'll cheat and steal for the good of the tribe, but
>> he identifies too strongly WITH his tribe, to individuate in the way
>> you describe.
>
>No, this is YOUR "individual" brave. My example was different.  You have introduced a competing tribe which can be cheated or stolen from, and so you have complicated the example I was trying to keep simple.
>
>Craig   
>>>>
>>>>    
>>>
>>>    
>>
>>    
>
>
>