On 8/13/06, Doyle Saylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The society can define a standard emotion structure for society: What works for EVERYONE to be connected to society.
And therefore we would then offer an emotion structure workers can use.
Here's where you lose me, Doyle. I keep hearing in what you say intimations of some overarching beneficent "we" or society that does all this emotion structuring work and I can't help but ask, if there is such a doting collective why hasn't it already accomplished the task that you set out for it? If there isn't such a collective, doesn't the practical goal have to be attuned to the stark fact of that absense rather than to an abstract ideal of its (non-existent) presence? I guess what I'm saying is that given the choice between theology and automatic emotion programming, I would stick to theology. And when I say "lose me" I don't mean "I disagree." I mean I literally am unable to follow your train of thought into what becomes for me an unfathomable abstraction. It's impossible for me to get past the unified "we" premise. -- Sandwichman
