[John] Love as we usually mean it doesn't really exist biologically.... Love is an emotion that comes from a social reality most apparent in mammals.
[Arlo] So far you are only supporting what I've been saying. All I add is that the depth of that "social reality" imparts a richer experience. Would you say that there is no difference between the "love" a dog feels and the "love" you feel? Your social reality is far richer, far deeper, far broader than anything experienced by your dog. Why would this not inform your experience of "love"? For the record, Pirsig's MOQ excluded all non-human beings from the social level. This is a point of disagreement I have with the author which I've brought up many times. So within an ortho-moq-xy, if "love" is a social pattern, then animals do not experience it. [John] ... and says that these give his love a superior content to a dog... [Arlo] Let me know the next time you see a dog write a blues song, or paint a picture depicting love lost (or love found) or pen a poem, or the countless and myriad ways which demonstrate that "love" for a human is a far richer experience than for a dog. [John] It can get men so fond of abstraction that they forget basic reality... [Arlo] You just said "love" was not biological, but social. There is no "basic reality" then, there is only the depth and expanse of the social patterns the "individual" (dog or human) assimilates or matures within. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
