Hi, Prof Dave n all, I would like us to come back to this point:
*Is Dusty (Dave) conscious of Dave (Dusty).* *Is Dusty (Dave) conscious of Dusty (Dave).* Using our progress around the word Love, I feel like we ought to be able to agree on the first two propositions. We agree that the two particiants are consciouus of one another. So, if I am correct about that, could we move on to dis cuss the second pair, whether each of the two is conscious of themself. This is really truicky and, to be honest, I have no idea where it comes out. Nick On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 12:59 PM Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com> 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/
