[MD] Intellectual and Social

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Louise

8 Jan. you wrote:

> 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. 

To say that I agree is an understatement ;-) and I also agree with John 
when he argued that emotions are social with Steve (was it?)

> 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.

Must be plenty lizards around your place, John also uses them as 
examples, but yes you're right. The flight (or fight) reaction is also 
called "instincts" and belongs with the biological realm. The 
emotion=biology misunderstanding (even perpetuated by Pirsig) is that  
the "chemistry" emerges in biological glands, but the wild eyes of a 
antelope chase by a chetah does not convey "fear". It's us 
anthropomorphising. Fear is something that lingers and would prevent 
the antelope from venturing out in the open again.        

> 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.

Well. Lu, if this is to prove "social" interaction, it's right, but I believe 
this is social value still in biology's service. Newborn (mammal) 
animals whimper, bleat, bellow ..etc. and the mother does its best to 
meet its need. But the human bay SMILE is unique and emotions wells 
up in the mother (and other) something that acts "downwards". It 
triggers tear glands, releases dopamine and what-not hormones and 
(biological) well-being ensues.  

>  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.

Oh yes, it's complicated and if the natural schedule is the interrupted 
many things can go wrong. 

> 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?

Iguana is a reptile, no? It surely has a well-developed biology for the 
iguana purpose and some rudimentary neural system (the reptilian 
brain according to Carl Sagan) but I don't think much emotional 
capacity (not even in biology's service) has entered at this stage. Birds 
however, I recently saw a parrot that had "fallen in love" with the hand 
of its owner and shamelessly (!) copulated on it ;-)

Bodvar











> 
> 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/
> >
> 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/
> 
>