On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 12:45 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]>wrote:
> [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? [John] Of course there are vast differences, Arlo. My poor human head gets so distracted by culture and science and books and movies and spin-offs and reruns that I can't keep a pure emotional state for five minutes, whereas my dog simply IS and has no problems with his feelings. > > 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"? [John] What dogs and people and killer whales have uniquely in common is we are all social carnivores. To a dog, this social reality is pretty much everything whereas we humans have gone off into intellectually distracting modes and don't have as much time for the experience of love. I don't spend much time with killer whales, so I can't speak to their experience. > > > 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] Well I'm with you on this one Arlo. The great author can't be great 100% of the time, after all. That's why he needs us to discuss and flesh out these ideas. :) > [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] Let me know next time a blues musician dives into a fight he knows he's going to lose, to save your butt, or a painter licks your face. Your examples show humans doing less with a richer palette to choose from, to express love. > > [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. [John] Huh? I don't get this point. Perhaps "basic" is the problem. I meant the basic reality of the social level, not the basis of all reality across the levels. I think. ------------ Self is simply Choice, so choose good ------------ 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/
