Dan:
We are human beings; everything we perceive is colored by our
human-ness. Other animals perceive the world accordingly. In my
opinion, it is arrogant to assume our cultural mores extend to
non-humans, kind of like dressing up a dog. It might be good for
giggles but it makes no sense. Thast's why RMP suggests drawing a
boundary, imo.
John:
I'd say that the study of animal interactions
themselves, observing their patterns and behaviors apart from human
interference, reveals many commonalities of what I'd term shared social
patterns.
Andre:
Hi Dan,John,
Mr. Pirsig suggested (from the MOQ point of view) that to extend notions
of 'society' as pertaining to the organic, and perhaps even inorganic
levels as seeming to 'destroy the meaning of the word 'society'.It
weakens it and gains nothing'(Annot.5) A society of sheep? A society of
cells? A society of grains of sand(a mountain or a beach)?
I think that Mr. Pirsig suggests this to be clear about the boundaries
of the MOQ levels. Furthermore, of course there are 'commonalities',
after all we do share inorganic and biological patterns, and some of
these patterns are (biologically) very strong (e.g. family...blood
relations...'kin', emotional dependence).
But a family does not make a society. It is a 'unit' thereof. The social
patterns of value that do 'bind' families into a socially cohesive whole
(through which a society may be 'recognized') are such things as church,
government, cultural forms, economic interests, political
interests,'national' interests etc, etc.
These latter(socially)binding patterns I have never seen at the
biological or inorganic level. And I was under the impression that these
are the defining features of the (MOQ) social level.
Perhaps I haven't looked carefully enough?
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
