Greetings Economists, Fair enough. I've been trying to express this clearly. I'll make another stab and then if I fail I'll study my conceptual foundation for a better way to get at the idea. On Aug 13, 2006, at 5:16 PM, Sandwichman wrote:
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.
Doyle; The whole nation often speaks a common language. That part I'm sure you understand as the nationalist concept of 'we'. Of course that founders when a national territory contains two competing languages, though many states can function with multiple languages. In that case 'translation' from one language to another especially bi-linguism is more or less optimal at this time to unite a people in a single national territory. This is what the Soviet Union dealt with from 1917 onward. The 'we' base of emotion structure is not that different from the religious theory about moral universals. 'We' feel united with the family in Christ as it were. That means for large scale population groups 'what' unites humans is those emotion based ways of being that allows large numbers of strangers to treat each equitably in a Christian culture. Say global broadcasts of soccer championships where large numbers of people feel an emotional commitment to a soccer team. The Angl/U.S. law is a concrete example of a 'theory of emotion structure in widespread practice in society. What hinders this practice is the assumption that verbal description of emotion structure is adequate. For example morality is supposed to suffice for knowing emotion structure by verbally describing emotion propriety. Computing technology can record facial expression more accurately than any verbal description can of emotions. That's not in the future, but available now as an interactive application. Thus making a realistic representation of what people feel without resort to verbal reports. The technology is being built in places like MIT for emotion based automated features and is available to some degree for some small scale uses. The automation is simply a representation of an emotional relationship to whatever is required. If you need to feel an attachment to your cat but your disability doesn't allow that, then it supports establishing a relationship between you and your cat. For the most part that is not needed. People don't have to relate to cats if they don't feel like it. But the need for large groups of people who don't know each other to feel emotionally connected is very high on the lists of social priorities. That's really the basis of success of religions to theorize a common group mind in which large groups of people cohabit a space without bloody murder. 99% of communicating an emotional relationship is a face symbol of emotions. A cartoon (if you will) that adequately expresses an intimate connection between you and 'it'. Emotions are not fixed but variable and transient knowledge in relationship to something else. That something else if it is inanimate cannot generate an emotional relationship unless we provide a means to do that. So Disney can animate a mouse so we feel it is anthromorphized emotional being. Sandwichman writes; 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? Doyle; Why haven't realist socialists taken on the presumption? Well I suppose rationalist prejudices come in the way for a starter. Since it is assumed emotions are 'subjectivity' incarnate. Secondly, religions claim to solve the moral questions for society. So we know they are a crock why should socialist waste their time? Thirdly, emotion structure is a parallel knowledge process that is a difficult thing to describe verbally, and to which only in our life time have interactive tools emerged to offer a chance to see the work process materialistically arise. So for the most part people rely upon face to face to get emotional information exchange. Beneficent is your teasing or cynical way of questioning the premise. But I think it is highly appealing for socialism to offer a loving version of socialism. Just because a lot of leftist think that's crap doesn't stop that being a powerful goal. Especially because it's more likely a female desire than male. I can hear you saying what stops this from being deformed? I can hear echoes of Stalin using fear as a means of governing. Then a socialist must understand what is an equitable emotional relationship to the state? The answer consists of a realistic knowledge of what emotional connection really is in it's own form, not a verbal description of it. A regulation of emotion so that abuse is not fostered between people. That in itself is worthy goal of a realistic emotion structure project in socialism, to proscribe emotional abuse. It is not far fetched in my view given a focus on the technical development of computing resources to manufacture emotional connection in such a way to supplant how person to person emotion is manufactured now. To demand that include large groups not be based in face-to-face small group relationships. If this makes no sense Sandwichman I accept your verdict. It does not mean I will stop trying by admitting my failure to clarify for you beyond theoretical abstraction for the time being. The conversation helps me to develop and I am happy with that despite my failure to move this forward. thanks, Doyle Saylor
