[MD] Intellectual and Social

[Louise Pryor]

I see some confusion in this argument, where people are equating feelings
with emotion. I would say that feelings have to do with reaction, and
emotions have to do with socialization. A lizard will skitter away from any
fast movement - from the time it hatches out of the egg. That's reaction. A
new born baby will react when startled - but the emotion comes later,
through association, through a cause and effect chain that are on a
pre-thought level. The lizard will never make that association, and will
continue to react through it's whole life.

When a baby is born, it cries (reaction) due to the experience of discomfort
- hunger, cold, separation... The mother adjusts the environment (change
diaper, feed, hold) and the baby builds experience. Crying produces desired
result = (over time) sense of self.

 I have a friend who adopted a child with RAD (reactive attachment disorder)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_attachment_disorder

This baby was abandoned at birth, cord and placenta still attached. When
this infant cried, it elicited no response. There was feeding, diapering,
and warmth, but not in direct response to it's cries. The staff of the
orphanage were overwhelmed, and had to care for the infants on a schedule.
It has taken my friend over two years, and a lot of therapies to overcome
the RAD. It will be an ongoing process, because what is unconsciously
instilled from the time of birth, is essential for proper development of
appropriate emotional response.

I wonder; if you raise an iguana from the time it hatches, does it develop
attachment, and is that the key to emotion? I don't know, I've never raised
one. Anyone?

Lu

On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 2:58 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:

> Prospero Ano Nueva, Mary, Matt and Steve,
>
> Reading Mary's response piqued my dialogic interest, and so here goes:
>
>
> > Intellectual patterns could never eliminate social patterns
> > since if we had to first justify every action before acting
> > we would be paralyzed.
> >
>
>
> I assume you mean, intellectual patterning could never eliminate social
> patterning completely, but the fact is that intellectual patterns eliminate
> existing social patterns all the time, or what was the French Revolution
> all
> about?  Ditto the Communist.
>
> Justification of action seems to be something that occurs in hindsight
> usually, although a lot of it does occur pre-action when it's known that a
> certain resistance or reaction is likely to occur.  But a lot of our daily
> behaviour goes on with no intellectual reflection at all.  If I was aware
> of
> every single action I took, as I made it, would that be a bad thing?  It
> doesn't seem possible, but Buddhists practice a "mindfulness" that seems to
> set this forth as an ideal.  If the ideal is paralyzing, then why have it
> as
> an ideal?
>
> So I guess I don't quite agree with the chorus here.
>
> For the following, I do like Steve's formulation mostly.  I think he's
> missing key pieces tho. He leaves out the social/emotional matrix, for one:
>
> mechanistic cause and effect occur at the inorganic
> Actions occur at the biological,
> Emotions occur at the social
> Thoughts occur at the intellectual.
>
>
> > 1) actions occur at the biological level.
> >
> > 2) thoughts occur at the intellectual level.
> >
> > 3) a train of thought can continue on indefinitely.
> >
> > But his number 3)
> >
>
> An excellent point that hasn't been brought forward to my attention before:
>  All the levels have boundaries except the 4th.  A train of thought can
> continue indefinitely.
>
>
>
> > > all thoughts must pass through a social-authority matrix to turn into
> > action...
> >
> >
> Mary:
>
>
> > If you are saying that we do not take actions unless guided by a
> > pre-existing Social level pattern, I disagree.  Bacteria take action
> > without
> > benefit of social organization.  Babies cry without benefit of language,
> > logical thought, or social conditioning.
> >
> >
> John:
>
> Right.  Action is a second level activity.  The formulation works so stick
> with it.
>
> Mary:
>
>
> > I do not think our inference engine is controlled by the MoQ Social
> level.
> > I think our inference engine created the Social level.
> >
>
> John:
>
> Excellent inference Mary.  I agree completely.  Inferences and hypothesis
> come from higher up, not lower down the ladder.
> 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/
>