[MD] Sociability Re-examined

[Craig Erb]

[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?
>>
>>
>>[Arlo]
>>This IS a third level (social) activity. The conflict you are introducing is between satiating the biological drive of
>>hunger (biological level) or fulfilling the semiotically mediated activity relating to the "tribe" (social level).
>>
>>Consider a lion pride where the lionesses hunt & bring the catch back to the male lion to eat first. This is social (in 
>>the sense that ants & bees are social insects but moths aren't). But Pirsig does not consider it 3rd level because it
>>lacks something that on earth only human interaction has. I was trying previously to create a similar example, but for
>>humans.
>>That is, is there an example of humans acting in a social manner but which is not on the 3rd level?  If so, then we 
>>could consider what would need to change to make it a case of the 3rd level.
>>
>>
>>
>>Craig   
>>>>>
>>>>>    
>>>>
>>>>    
>>>
>>>    
>>
>>
>> 
>
>
>