XiXiDu’s favorites
Recently commented on
Neural correlates of expressions?
Is our world of sensation and motivation as rich as our language suggests? More precisely, are there neural correlates that underlie what our emotional and motivational expressions are signaling? Or are we maybe much simpler, psychologically?
I believe that the scope of what we can sense might be much less than the scope of sensations that we can emit, which we can signal outward. Our internal world of sensation could be bleak compared to the bandwidth of feelings that the literary art of poetry can predicate.
How is that possible and why might this be the case?
Why might this be the case? I believe such proficiency makes sense in the light of evolution. We are social animals, it is important how we appear to others. And it is also important to control others by means of deception in the form of persuasion. We lull other people with the evocative qualities of language, by playing heartstrings. We signal our gradual and fine-grained feelings to hide our rough base motives.
How is it even possible to emit what we do not perceive, to describe what we do not understand on an intuitive and sensible level? First a counter question, how can our intellectual world feature the richness of meaning and modern aesthetic without the prior existence of these qualities in the form of language, art and culture? I think our sociality gave rise to this memetic symbiosis, it is conditional. The necessity to live together demanded and drove the evolution of our abilities to act in and as a collective of beings. But I believe that our primitive emotional world is not reflective of this rich superstructure. Language rather seems to be an upper layer, semi-independent of our perception. A skill so recent that it doesn't tangent our, evolutionary, much older and more primitive emotional experiences and motivational basis.
Thus the literary world of sensation and signaling is social engineering at its finest. But it might have nothing to do with what we consciously perceive on an emotive level, what motivates us, with our cause of conduct.
I believe that the scope of what we can sense might be much less than the scope of sensations that we can emit, which we can signal outward. Our internal world of sensation could be bleak compared to the bandwidth of feelings that the literary art of poetry can predicate.
How is that possible and why might this be the case?
Why might this be the case? I believe such proficiency makes sense in the light of evolution. We are social animals, it is important how we appear to others. And it is also important to control others by means of deception in the form of persuasion. We lull other people with the evocative qualities of language, by playing heartstrings. We signal our gradual and fine-grained feelings to hide our rough base motives.
How is it even possible to emit what we do not perceive, to describe what we do not understand on an intuitive and sensible level? First a counter question, how can our intellectual world feature the richness of meaning and modern aesthetic without the prior existence of these qualities in the form of language, art and culture? I think our sociality gave rise to this memetic symbiosis, it is conditional. The necessity to live together demanded and drove the evolution of our abilities to act in and as a collective of beings. But I believe that our primitive emotional world is not reflective of this rich superstructure. Language rather seems to be an upper layer, semi-independent of our perception. A skill so recent that it doesn't tangent our, evolutionary, much older and more primitive emotional experiences and motivational basis.
Thus the literary world of sensation and signaling is social engineering at its finest. But it might have nothing to do with what we consciously perceive on an emotive level, what motivates us, with our cause of conduct.
Add comment
| Promote (3) |
|
Add to favorites
|
| Create synapse |
|
