[Dave] > "social" is now and was in 1991 when Lila was published commonly defined > as...[insert Wikipedia definition]
Yes, of course, but the definition of 'social' is not what is at issue. Rather, animal social is at level 2 of the MoQ, while only human is at level 3. Refer to Lila rather than Wikipedia. [Craig, previously] > IMHO this distinction lies in the self-conscious rule-following and > institutions of humans. > However, note that there is nothing in principle that prevents other animals > from obtaining the 3rd level. > It just hadn't happened in Pirsig's time. > And conversely there is the human social 2nd level. [Dave] > This would violate [Pirsig's] "discreteness" rule by splitting social > qualities between two levels. No. If the same spov were on level 2 & level 3, that would violate the "discreteness rule". But in my examples different spov's are on different levels. [Dave] > by using common words in a fast > and loose fashion it makes it virtually impossible for anyone other than > Pirsig to say what is or is not on any particular level. We say a peach is biologically fuzzy & a concept is intellectually fuzzy. You've got to try hard to misunderstand this. Craig 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
