[John]
What level is controlling which? Who is in charge really? I think
that picture of Aristotle as the horse, says it all.
[Arlo]
There is no doubt that as biological beings, the biological
necessities of our embodiedness means we MUST respond to the needs of
these biological patterns. But this is just like saying, hey, we have
stomachs so we need to eat. Okay. Duh. :-)
But the biological level does not care about "Grocer Bob owns them
potaters", on the biological level there is "hunger" and there is
"eat". Property ownership is non-existent on this level.
So social patterns "control" the biological patterns, or if you
prefer "channel" them, in ways so that they can be met without being
destructive of the social level. The reason you do not pick up that
potater and eats it, is that social patterns are in control of your
biological patterns.
[John]
Interestingly you've got it exactly backwards.
[Arlo]
Even more interesting was that I was agreeing with you. I was saying
that "sadness" would seem to me to be more social than physiological
in origin, which is NOT to say that emotions do not effect
physiology. Stress amps up your blood pressure, for example, and I
think some forms of depression can actually change your brain chemistry.
For me I think a test would be something like this. If we imagine a
feral human being surviving in complete social isolation on a
deserted island with no human artifacts or presence whatsoever, then
ask, what "emotions" would this being feel? There would certainly be
an evident "flight response", and so I am comfortable saying that
such a thing is likely the product of complex neuro-physiology rather
than social appropriation. I don't know if I would expect this
"person" to be able to be "sad" though, because such a thing seems to
me to be reliant on a social-language/social-interaction. Same with "love".
So it seems to me, on first pass, that certain emotions (like sadness
and love) appear (as you said) to have "social roots". "Fear" may be
a social pattern that comes from the biological "flight instinct", so
if we are looking for a "root", that one may be on the biological level.
I guess, simplistically, the test would be "if it is instinctual, it
is probably biological, if it is 'learned', it is probably social".
Of course, this is why I think (in disagreement with Pirsig) that
certain non-human species should be seen as social, because to me the
emotions your dog has for you are learned via its social interactions
with you. They may not nearly be as complex as human emotions (we can
only guess from observation, we can't ask), and this may be a
restriction of their particular neurobiological makeup.
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
