[FRIAM] Does Dusty Love Dave, and VV.

[Barry MacKichan]

Yes

--Barry

On 13 Jul 2024, at 22:39, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

> Oh, Barry.  I forgot to ask you the threshold question.  Do you agree 
> that
> attempting to extend the zone of honest agreement is a worthy goal.
>
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 3:00 PM Nicholas Thompson 
> <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
> 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.mackichan at 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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20240715/d5daba50/attachment.html>