Hi, Marcus Could you say a bit more about "going gangster", describe it in its detail and variation?
N On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 9:22 PM Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote: > > 1. The dog sitter I used in Santa Fe had a video feed. I could see > how Abby reacted to other people picking up their dogs using their video > feed. She did not. When I picked-up Abby, she would throw her body at the > plexiglass wall over and over. She did this every day. > 2. Now when I pick up Abby, other dogs are enthusiastic to see an > arrival for a pick-up. However, this dog sitter has no plexiglass. Not > until the last second do the dogs see who has arrived. When she sees their > enthusiasm, she will sometime go gangster on those dogs. This is of course > anti-social, but also strangely satisfying. > 3. Yes, the contented staring. > > > > *From: *Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Barry MacKichan < > barry.mackic...@mackichan.com> > *Date: *Saturday, July 13, 2024 at 10:24 AM > *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV. > > I feel permitted to barge in on this discussion, since my dog (well, our > dog) is also named Dusty. > > Frequently, I look up from what I’m doing or reading, and he is in his > chair looking at me, and we can spend several minutes with our eyes locked. > I call it love; he doesn’t want to talk about it. I’ve read that this is > common behavior, and that it results in an oxytocin kick to both > participants. I think that chemical evidence is a good addition to the > other data in this discussion. My starting assumption is that if a peptide > is shared between species, the effects of that peptide probably share > similar mechanisms. I.e., the simplest explanation is that if it affects me > through emotions, the effect in my dog is probably through something very > much like an emotion. I’ve never seen any evidence that this is *not* > true. > > Concerning the list of consequences of a loving relationship at the end of > your message, I would say all three are absolutely true. My wife had covid > for the first time several months ago, and whenever she was in bed, both > our dogs were there. When they see we are upset — a frequent occurrence in > this election year — they will keep their eyes on us and stick with us > until they are reassured that we are (sorta) OK. They sense emotions better > than many humans I have known. > > When Dusty was a puppy, and I was out of town, my wife took him on a walk, > off leash, in the arroyo and slipped and fell on the icy path. When she > opened her eyes a few seconds later, Dusty had his nose right up against > her face. > > -- > > On 12 Jul 2024, at 12:59, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > [Please, Friammers,, if you join this discussion, stay close to this or > other closely related down-to-earth experiences. > > > > Dave, you offer as data: > > > > *Dave is sleepy and calm.* > > *Dusty is anxious and afraid.* > > *Dusty crawls onto Dave's shoulder and finds reassurance and security.* > > *Dave is tolerant and does not shove Dusty off bed.* > > *Dave senses Dusty's need for reassurance and rests his arm across her > back and lets her stay as she is.* > > *Dusty relaxes and goes to sleep.* > > > > You then offer the following guide to interpretation: > > > > *Love is not present in this transaction, unless you presume that a series > of prior interactions created a kind of meta-state of Lovingness between > the two* > > > > I agree with you that love is a meta state in the sense that it is an > arrangement of other behavioral states. So I will leave that alone. > Having so stipulated, I think it is reasonable to say, on the basis of the > data you set forth, that a meta-state of lovingness exists between you. > (I would prefer to say you love one another, but partly in deference to SG, > I will adopt your lingo.] To call your joint behavior loving is to perform > an abduction. The test of an abduction is to examine the deductions that > flow from it: > > > > So, if Dave and Dusty have a loving relationship, then, on my > understanding, the following would be true: > > > > *You would protect one another against harm.* > > *You would attend to one another if either was sick, injured, or > depressed.* > > *You would become uneasy if you were separated for an unexpectedly long > time.* > > > > Are these things true? > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
