[MD] William James a wrong track..

[skutvik at online.no]

Andre, Mati, All

 Bodvar to Mati:
> A touching story Mati, but would a purely biological being - an animal -
> grieve the death of a parent, and it must if emotions origin is in
> biology. Grief, mourning .. etc. are genuinely human and as such social
> patterns. That the social level has biology "at its disposal" and causes
> (in this case)  tears, sobs, face grimaces and so on is plain.
 
Andre:
> Bodvar, you will not be surprised at me jumping in here as well. I
> simply cannot believe what you write. The contortions and twists nd
> presumptions you make to justify your interpretaton of the MoQ. I will
> ask again, how do you know what animals feel?

No I'm not surprised by anything from your side any longer. After your 
recent "conversion " from the SOL - that you never understood in the 
first place - you even outdo Ron in misrepresentation and slander. 

> How do you know what they experience? 

Because I have the biological level as part of my Q-constitution, thus I 
know perfectly what animals (at least the mammal kind ) experience. 
My hunger is an animal's hunger my pain is ..ditto, but here's a point, If 
the situation is (say) "dangerous" i.e. an animal is chased by a 
predator and wounded in the process pain isn't felt at all. Soldiers tells 
about wounds they were unaware of until it calmed down. So "pain" is 
no unequivocal process, but dependent on what the body priorities.     

> What you are doing is worse than a SOM interpretation. 

No I apply MOQ's magic wand which gives us the understanding that 
SOM were unable to provide. You just expressed (involuntarily) SOM's 
enigma: "How do you now what an animal experience?" We were 
isolated entities not only incapable of understanding animals but of 
understanding each other. And THIS you wail about!  

> Have you read gav's post about China in this issue? 

Gav has not addressed me and I have other things to do than read all 
all and sundry posts.   

> You are invoking an intellectual, totalitarian view of the
> animal/organic and social level. When you say: 'The fact that you could
> control the feelings by suppressing the biological expression I would
> think was was your intellectl's objective... it shows how much you have
> lost touch. You are propagating the disappearance of sentience! I
> really think you are turning into a Mr. Spock one thousand fold. 

It's not intellect that allows this analysis but the MOQ ... of which 
intellect is just another static level. I don't know what causes this your 
phony exasperated tone. 

> You continue in an effort to make your point:

    "...but emotions are something that lingers and would not only 
    include missing the young, but be extended to hatred of the 
    person who took it away and the need for revenge.   

Andre:
> Speak for yourself Bodvar! This may not be everyone's response.

I think this my remark "shook" you a little because it so well conveyed 
what the REAL emotion term is about. The fact that it isn't everyone's 
opinion I know only too well.  

> You are taking your SOL and its world-view to the extreme and once again
> neglect the existence of other intellectual patterns beside it.

As you display so well yours is no intellectual - objective -  criticism but 
all social (emotional) sound and fury.     

> I reall am amazed and shocked 

Sic!

> PS rather than respondig to this one alone, you have a long waiting
> list to go through beginning with Khoo Hock Aun. 

I have told Khoo, but he is like Ron regardless of responses they  just 
require more.

Bodvar