Arlo, Andre the incomprehending, and others interested: I'm going to try and be a bit more comprehensive, in the hopes of being a bit more comprehended.
John: > Sex is social. sex takes two and > occurs through a complex of social negotiation. > > Arlo: > > On the biological level, then, we have "sex", on the social level alongside > the > "rape stigma" I mentioned we have a lot of other social patterns attempting > to > guide and control and structure the path to this biological act. > John: "A lot of other social patterns" ... ya think Arlo? Because I'd certainly say so myself. A lot indeed. A lot of intellect as well, is expended upon this "biological act". For as I've often asked/challenged this forum, when an intellectual man presents an academic thesis, in order to land a good salary so he can marry and raise a family (breed), what level is really in charge of this picture? What level is controlling which? Who is in charge really? I think that picture of Aristotle as the horse, says it all. What aspect of being is a relative "causation" in this happy little scene? Sounds to me like the lowest is in charge. Does that make this an MoQ immorality? I sure hope not, because it's virtually the bedrock of all successful civilization. There has to be a higher value to this picture than you people seem to believe in. All social patterns are concerned with a chain of social relations - how am "I" doing, in the esteem values of others? We get very emotional about these patterns. We care, very, very much about them. They seem to hold the key to success in all our endeavors, and the implicit goal of virtually all we do. These, "merely" social patterns. When we feel strongly about something, it's because these patterns are disturbed. We can also feel strongly when our intellectual patterns are disturbed, but there's a difference, and a dependency. The dependency is upon our "we" - "our" intellectual patterns, where it is "we" which is the social construct - created out of a social matrix of being. If it wasn't for that caring matrix, we'd simply spit out answers to questions like an uncaring computer and our intellectual debates would not exhibit the character and thrust, they so obviously do. you dunderheads. :-) See? I was insulting, but only kidding, but deadly serious to make a point the point that we have sociality as the center of our communication - empathy is absolutely key to understanding. Otherwise one doesn't even actually speak the language of humans. Language of humans. Now we're getting into my beef with Andre and his spewing of my suggestion that "language = consciousness". But I'm afraid we're going to have to do some actual metaphysics, Andre, in order to make myself comprehended on this one. I think Matt could explain what I mean, because him and his "Rortyian conversation" seem pretty close to where I'm headed with this, but I'm going to go at it much more simplistically. Language is conceptualization. Can we start there? Do you have a problem with language being conceptualization? For in it's most simplistic and well -understood meaning, language is the mapping of concepts in our head, to the reality that we sense, and the communication of that conceptualization to ourselves and others. I don't know what wiki says, but that's how it seems to me, anyway. What is consciousness? Consciousness is awareness. We are conscious of things in the same way that we are aware of them. We hold ideas in our head - contents. That we hold ideas, is what makes us conscious, and outside of any contents, there is no consciousness that I can see or imagine. We think about something, therefore we are. This "conceptualization" then, is what is at the root of language, and at the root of consciousness, therefor, language is equated with consciousness. And Quality. Because this is the entanglement between. This is the birthplace of being. This is where the rubber meets the road, baby, and if you can't see that, maybe you oughta just hit the road, jack. Ok. Back to Arlo: > If we consider "sadness", and make it a biological pattern, then wouldn't > it be > something like "the flu"? Your body just "gets sad" when a particular > imbalance > or virus or something infects your biological system. > > John: Interestingly you've got it exactly backwards. I was on a long drive last night, back from my daughter's college, There was a guy on coast-to-coast last night, who sounded pretty much like a nut-job to me, but sometimes people are nut-jobs only because they are really on to something that the rest of society does not quite get, and they try and create rituals which only make them look silly. This guy's ritual was with magnets, and "clearing" emotional blockages along energy meridians. There's just enough truth in such things, to drive a guy crazy, but aside from that, his facts about the importance of emotions to biology were lined up - plainly the evidence is overwhelming and it'd be completely empiricially justified to say that emotions cause biological reactions, much more more than biological reactions cause emotions. People get sick and die, because of social rejections and such Arlo. It happens all the time, and only our western scientific world view is blind to this fact that more "primitive" societies understand clearly how important emotions are to well-being. But otoh, with ongoing scientific research and experimentation all the time confirming that the views of the primitive is more accurate than our own. You think you're sad because you're sick, because the two are coincidental, but you'll find its much truer that you're sick because you're sad. And speaking of sick and sad, > Andre: > Spot on Arlo. To suggest that sex is social is to misunderstand biological > values. You make a very important point when you say that (most) emotions > have a physiological basis. It reminds me of what James said (and turned > this thing inside out); you do not cry because you are sad, no, you are sad > because you cry... you do not run because you emote fear, you are fearful > because you run. > > John: You or William ever run and play with children Andre? How about running from a bear or a big man with a knife? If you guys had ever run in fear AND run in play, you'd know what a load of hogwash that is. Even though the running is the same, the emotional context is the nearer cause. Perhaps we know this better now in the modern age, because we have so much more experience with acting, but my MoQ point is that plainly our biology is the servant of our emotions, providing physical feelings to accompany our heartfelt emotional state. Mistaking THAT cause and effect, really makes me shake my head over the emotional intelligence of you, Andre. And anybody who thinks like you. Andre: > This does not apply to all instances of (social)emotive labeling. But the > order in which responses happen is important...the value comes first then > the labeling. > > John: And with that I do agree. The value comes with the labeling. The understanding with the conceptualization. The consciousness with the language and conversation. Andre: > Boy oh boy, that some contributors to this discuss still have so many > difficulties with this is incomprehensible to me. > > And with that also, I agree completely, John 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
