[Ian to DMB]
Exactly, agreed. My point that if we allow common usage of the word
social to confuse our understanding of the social level, we may as
well give up, which I'm not planning to.
[Arlo]
I think my general problem with Pirsig's exclusion is that any
"definition" or "criteria" we set up to explain the social level will
unavoidably include certain non-human species, unless we arbitrarily
include "human" in the "definition". And I can't think of a good
reason to do this, as it (IMO) limits the power of a metaphysics of
Quality in explaining experience (which includes experience with a
plethora of non-human species).
Can you (in the plural) think of a way to define or categorize the
social level that does NOT include the "human restriction" in the
definition that would also set this restriction?
Personally, I think a good place to start looking at the
social-biological boundary is in the notion of "shared attention".
More on that later.
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
