[MD] Sociability Re-examined

[Dan Glover]

John,

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:33 AM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dan,
>
> Mr. slow comes around...

No hurry on my end. Take all the time you need. Sometimes I can get
back to you right away but other times it takes a while.

>
> 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 it is. Which is why it behooves us to use the term in the context
of the MOQ, at least when we are discussing it here. Otherwise we are
simply talking past each other.

>
>
>>> 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.

Dan:
Again, context is key to any discussion... to any worthwhile
discussion. That is why I asked you for the specific quote which you
attributed to Robert Pirsig and him saying he could not think of
anything that wasn't a social pattern. It is too easy to attribute
words completely out of context.

>
>
>
>> 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.

Dan:
Unless we start with a firm foundation, or good ingredients, whatever
we build or bake is going to stink no matter how many doors and
windows it has or how much you slice it.

>
>
>
>
>>>>> >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?

Dan:
According to the MOQ culture is a collection of social and
intellectual patterns of quality.

JC:
> 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:
I cannot buy that. It flies in the face of common sense. There are
plenty of religious people around, lots of churches, and tons of
believers. Subject and object metaphysics is a term used by Robert
Pirsig to describe a mind set pervasive in Western culture... it is
not a religion.

>
>
>

>
>
>
>>  >
>> > 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.

Dan:
One always has to establish the context before attempting to define a
word. 'Social quality patterns' is a context specific term used in the
MOQ. To use it in a discussion with someone who has not read Lila
would require so much explanation you might as well just hand them the
book.

To continually use the term out of context is to create confusion. The
MOQ is meant as an expansion of rationality, not a destruction of it.

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

Dan:
I have yet to see Jan-Anders offer anything to indicate he understands
the MOQ. I keep holding out hope for you but it is beginning to wane.

>
>> >>>> >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.

Dan:
I don't think anyone is pretending religion doesn't exist. I know I'm
not. Nor am I ignoring it... I am addressing it as directly as
possible. From what I gathered, you were not addressing the religious
aspects of the third level so much as you were equating it with the
third level, as if human beings are bound up with religion to the
extent they cannot live without it, that it drives all their social
values, and without it we would be lost. It is that nonsense that I
cannot abide.

>JC:
> 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.

Dan:
I suspect if you were to ask any person of religion what SOM was, they
would have no idea what you were talking about. No... I would say the
growth of fundamentalism is the vine strangling the tree.

JC:
>  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.

Dan:
I don't see that at all. I think part of the problem is the preaching
of a static religion vs a Dynamic understanding outside the boundaries
of any religion... something like this:

"There's an adage that, "Nothing disturbs a bishop quite so much as
the presence of a saint in the parish." It was one of Phaedrus'
favorites. The saint's Dynamic understanding makes him unpredictable
and uncontrollable, but the bishop's got a whole calendar of static
ceremonies to attend to; fund-raising projects to push forward, bills
to pay, parishioners to meet. That saint's going to up-end everything
if he isn't handled diplomatically. And even then he may do something
wildly unpredictable that upsets everybody. What a quandary! It can
take the bishops years, decades, even centuries to put down the hell
that a saint can raise in a single day. Joan of Arc is the prime
example.

"In all religions bishops tend to gild Dynamic Quality with all sorts
of static interpretations because their cultures require it. But these
interpretations become like golden vines that cling to a tree, shut
out its sunlight and eventually strangle it." [Lila]

Dan comments:

That is the key to marrying science and religion. It will not happen
by thumping all the bibles in the world or by throwing around any of
the other holy scriptures. When you praise religious leaders, who are
you talking about? The bishops, of course, and not the saints. Saints
are too 'out there' to lead anyone anywhere. They may have followers
but they are not leaders.

As far as I can see the MOQ does not denigrate science or the academy.
If anything, it is the static conventional religion that the MOQ finds
wanting, the fervent fundamentalists who close their eyes to anything
not written in their so-called sacred texts.

Here in the United States we have the creationists striving to
undermine science while in the Middle East there are those just like
them who desire to live by strictures so outdated no normal person
would believe it, which is what gives these people their power. There
is no arguing with them and the sad thing is that they will give rise
to a whole new generation.

A little static religion can be a dangerous thing... a lot of it can be deadly.

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com