Strangely, I cannot.
i thought "abandoning me" in the woods to chase a squirrel and attempting to see that as similar to forsaking me for another person (akin to human infidelity), but that requires a lot of extra baggage and does not work. All the behaviors I can think of are simply "other," not "anti." davew On Sat, Jul 13, 2024, at 2:00 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > Without going backward in my conversation, you and I could add this new data > to the data-pack on go on. > > Let's go contrarian for a few strokes. can you think of things that your > Dusty has done that are inconsistent with love. > > Nick > > On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 1:23 PM Barry MacKichan > <barry.mackic...@mackichan.com> wrote: >> __ >> 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/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . 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/
