John, On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:47 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > I have noticed a lot of conflict and confusion over the years of this > discuss, on what is meant by social. > Pirsig himself admitted as much in the Baggini interview when he said when > it comes right down to it, it's > hard to think of anything that isn't social in some way or another. And > this is true because everything that is, > is in relation. Therefore, I've been thinking a bit about the matter and > have come to the following conclusions:
Dan: Since I didn't notice this during my readings of the Baggini interview I went over the transcript again. I don't see any mention of this. Could you please offer the specific quote? It is entirely possible I overlooked it though I did run a search for the word 'social' and did not find anything like what you represent. >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: > Instinctive includes the ants and the bees, which have social structures > hard-wired into their DNA. Dan: These are biological instincts, not social patterns. 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: > 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 http://www.danglover.com 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
