[MD] Sociability Re-examined

[John Carl]

Dan,

Mr. slow comes around...

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

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

Well, you could argue of course, that I drew the wrong conclusion from
Pirsig's point, but the point itself, came from Pirsig
and I didn't exactly misattribute, as I did get the context of the
statement wrong.  But whatever Pirsig said, the point should be obvious to
any reasonable person - "social" is a term with wide scope.


>> 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.


Jc:  Many perhaps, but not all.  Words that carry a lot of baggage, need a
lot of sifting.
That's pretty much 80% of philosophical work.



> 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:  Well, I don't think the slice was rotten, I just think it needs
further slicing.



> >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:  I don't find it too heavy going.  Lots of questions I've had before
are being answered and new ways of seeing old problems.
I enjoy it but I take my time.   Auxier's favorite philosopher of all time
is William James and if he had to pick just one author to read it'd be
James.

But he has read so widely that he's done a lot of comparison and he's not
afraid to call James on his mistakes.  He doesn't care much for James
followers
tho.  On that he's been pretty excoriating.  Says they don't really know
logic and metaphysics and they don't read outside of James enough.  You can
probably see just
from that why I find his book so enthralling.

>>>> >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.
>
>
Jc:  Agree.  What is culture then but codified social patterns - turned
into rules and truisims, matters of law and matters of courtesy?
These patterns have a basic structure of known rules - rules that if you
break, society frowns in one way another.  The rules used to be handed
by the Church, but we've changed and the church is dead, as an arbiter of
morality anyway.  This isn't to say that we are truly post-religious,
however.  We've just changed
religions, that's all.  I'd say the modern religion is SOM.  Faith in the
objective affirmation for one's subjective status.



> >
> > 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.
>
>
Jc:  Fine.  Let me just add a caveat then, to offer those who think
scientifically.



>  >
> > 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, and guess what?  Social influences cannot be ignored.
Definitions are social agreements.
You can't go your own way on this.


>  >
> > 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:  Well more definition doesn't take the term out of context - it narrows
the context.



>  >
> >
> >
> >>> 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:  Exactly.  Yet the word social is the same, so how about spelling out
what's different about
human sociality?  Jan A was talking about the step from biology to
sociality.



> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> 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:   My proposal to address the religious aspects of the 3rd level is to
everyone's advantage, I hope.  If it wasn't, I wouldn't bring it up.
Religious thinking is at the root of more problems in the world than any
other level.  Intellectual disagreements are settled
through arguments.  Religious conflicts tho tend to more violent means.
But that doesn't mean we can solve all
these problems by ignoring religion or pretending it doesn't exist.

I would say that a strong component of the growth of fundamentalism in
varying religions is due to a reaction against the SOM
idea that there is no such thing as value.  So to a large extent, we are on
the right track with the MoQ.  However arguing solely against
SOMish science and academy seems an inadequate solution - too slow and
cumbersome and those institutions are too rigid.
Religious leaders can be rigid also, but they can also be amazingly dynamic
and much of the MOQ would be a great boon in their
fight against a values-free society.

I've got a lot more to say on this subject, inspired by some reading that
I'm going to share soon.  Different thread, probably.
Pirsig raised the issue of resolving science and religion in ZAMM, but
somehow since then its become a verboten subject.


Yours,

John