[MD] Sex, Rape and Law in a MOQ

[Arlo Bensinger]

[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.