[MD] William James a wrong track..

[Andre Broersen]

Bodvar to David T. Joe, Andre ...All

As said before: The purely biological creatures  - an animal in the wild
f.ex. - cannot "have emotions", it would not dare out in the open to
graze if feared death, or have offsprings if it mourned the previous
litter that was eaten ... and so on, it's embarrassing to have to remind
you about these obvious things.

Andre:
Bodvar, my question remains (since I asked it yonks ago) How do you
know that animals do not have emotions? And must say immediately that
I agree when you say that the social level, through its use of
language, interprets, assigns meaning to biological level
phenomena.But it leaves the question still open.
You bet an animal shows emotions (just ask Platt's Utou) But the
explanation from the biological level to the social level may come as
a real big surprise...if only it were possible.
To argue that an animal would not dare to go out in the open if it
feared death is a bit simplistic and plainly presumptuous.
If they do not fear death why do they run when chased? Why would they
stop fucking after their offspring has been eaten? Bloody hell! You
cannot presume that the social (SOM) interpretation of the biological
level is accurate or adequate. It is subject to organic patterns of
value. Subject to the patterns of the 'law of the jungle'.... as far
as we 'understand' them.

Perhaps animals (to continue your example) live much more in the 'here
and now' than we (at the social/intellectual level) do. A Law of the
Jungle 'here and now'. These animals have been here a lot longer than
the social or intellectual levels have.

And whilst we are on it. Do human beings stop going out on the road,
knowing that annually, lets say 1.000.000 people world wide die on
these roads? Do human beings stop copulating after they have lost a
child?

You are making too many presumptions Bodvar and are very judgemental.

Kind regards though.

Andre, the compassionate fundamentalist