[MD] Sociability Re-examined

[Dan Glover]

John,

On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:29 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Dan:
I asked because I did not recall reading anything like you suggested
in any writings of Robert Pirsig. What you attributed was wrong.

>
>>
>>>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. :)

Dan:
I think we could say the same of many words. Context is key. Robert
Pirsig spent a book's worth of time explaining the foundation of his
metaphysics and followed up numerous times to explain the ambiguities
in Lila. Slicing the pie has nothing to do with the eatability of it
if the ingredients are rotten.

>JC:
> 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.

Dan:
That is quite a book to work through.

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> >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:
My point had more to do with being submerged in culture, human
culture. Everything we know is filtered through it.

>
> 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:
They are social in a scientific sense, perhaps, but they are not
submerged in social quality patterns as humans.

>
> 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.

Dan:
If you take the term out of context, yes.

>
>
>
>>> 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.

Dan:
What I was getting at was the context in which the word was being
used. Calling ants and bees social creatures does not mean they are
submerged in social quality patterns as described in Lila.

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

Dan:
We can all make up our own contexts for the terms used in the MOQ.
That would basically render it useless, however.

>
>
>>>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.

Dan:
I suggest we are often so entrapped by the patterns that we are like
fish asking, what water? That is one of the advantages of the MOQ...
it enlightens us to the nuances of subtle and not so subtle forces
binding us in place that we are often times completely unaware of. I
think what you call 'a concrete experience of society' is actually but
a set of dictates instilled within you long ago.

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

Dan:
I wasn't accusing you of anything other than misusing the term
'religion' for your own advantage.

>
>
>> 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.

Dan:
Again, I suppose context is everything. I could argue that by seeking
to find that solidarity with others you are inadvertently and without
ill intent also seeking to convert them to your religion but I won't.

>
>
>> 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.

Dan:
As do I.

>
>
>
>
>>
>>>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.

Dan:
Everything in moderation. If you keep that in mind, killing is always
extreme and something to be resorted to only in great need.

>
>
>>
>>>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.

You're welcome. Thank you too.

Dan

http://www.danglover.com