maybe was noam chomsky heard refer to this

what do people think, is that what’s happening in recent times, and is it significant?

transition said:

maybe was noam chomsky heard refer to this

what do people think, is that what’s happening in recent times, and is it significant?

Near as we know, humans have had organised societies for hundreds of thousands of years. It is hard to imagine a calamoty that would put an end to this other than the elimination of humans.

oh c’m‘on there’s already plenty of shithole cuntries with sociopathic murdering atrocity committing self enriching fuckwits in charge that good law and rules based international order abiding respectable cuntries should seek regime change for threads

dv said:

transition said:

maybe was noam chomsky heard refer to this

what do people think, is that what’s happening in recent times, and is it significant?

Near as we know, humans have had organised societies for hundreds of thousands of years. It is hard to imagine a calamoty that would put an end to this other than the elimination of humans.

perhaps consider what chomsky might have meant, if he said it

consider various liberal views, notions in the primitive form, philosophies in the more developed form, to do with self-organization, contrasted with more left concept of society, and organized, perhaps concepts of the state related, it’s place in societal organization

“perhaps consider what chomsky might have meant, if he said it”

I’m not his therapist

• end of organized society

It’s Christmas, everyone feels this way after going to the shops around Christmas…

furious said:

• end of organized society

It’s Christmas, everyone feels this way after going to the shops around Christmas…

chuckle, that’s funny

dv said:

transition said:

maybe was noam chomsky heard refer to this

what do people think, is that what’s happening in recent times, and is it significant?

Near as we know, humans have had organised societies for hundreds of thousands of years. It is hard to imagine a calamoty that would put an end to this other than the elimination of humans.

I find words hard too.

reading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_religion

distraction

SCIENCE said:

distraction

thought exercise for you, master science, you know you want it, that big brain, looking for something to do

consider organized in the idea of organized religion is very similar as used in the words arranged into the expression organized society

you’re probably feeling like that’s a heretical comparison

if you have an atheist brain, an evolved monkey brain, it may reject the comparison

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

distraction

thought exercise for you, master science, you know you want it, that big brain, looking for something to do

consider organized in the idea of organized religion is very similar as used in the words arranged into the expression organized society

you’re probably feeling like that’s a heretical comparison

if you have an atheist brain, an evolved monkey brain, it may reject the comparison

Electromagnetic Entropy.

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

distraction

thought exercise for you, master science, you know you want it, that big brain, looking for something to do

consider organized in the idea of organized religion is very similar as used in the words arranged into the expression organized society

you’re probably feeling like that’s a heretical comparison

if you have an atheist brain, an evolved monkey brain, it may reject the comparison

STEMocracy is the best form of governance even given all the others.

SCIENCE said:

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

distraction

thought exercise for you, master science, you know you want it, that big brain, looking for something to do

consider organized in the idea of organized religion is very similar as used in the words arranged into the expression organized society

you’re probably feeling like that’s a heretical comparison

if you have an atheist brain, an evolved monkey brain, it may reject the comparison

STEMocracy is the best form of governance even given all the others.

i’m trying to assemble a few ideas here, you make a bit more of an effort to pay attention

are the words used similarly in the two?

anyway, as a starter i’ll argue that humanity, a lot of it is not just abandoning organized religion, but also organized society

which i’ll get back to later, after jobs, you and I could have an argument, kick around a few ideas, you might even contradict me, dare to, blunt rudely if you want

so get some practice while i’m gone, mutter a few insults, whatever

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

transition said:

thought exercise for you, master science, you know you want it, that big brain, looking for something to do

consider organized in the idea of organized religion is very similar as used in the words arranged into the expression organized society

you’re probably feeling like that’s a heretical comparison

if you have an atheist brain, an evolved monkey brain, it may reject the comparison

STEMocracy is the best form of governance even given all the others.

i’m trying to assemble a few ideas here, you make a bit more of an effort to pay attention

are the words used similarly in the two?

anyway, as a starter i’ll argue that humanity, a lot of it is not just abandoning organized religion, but also organized society

which i’ll get back to later, after jobs, you and I could have an argument, kick around a few ideas, you might even contradict me, dare to, blunt rudely if you want

so get some practice while i’m gone, mutter a few insults, whatever

you mean libertarianism is just stealth anarchy damn that was a surprise nobody saw that one coming

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

distraction

thought exercise for you, master science, you know you want it, that big brain, looking for something to do

consider organized in the idea of organized religion is very similar as used in the words arranged into the expression organized society

you’re probably feeling like that’s a heretical comparison

if you have an atheist brain, an evolved monkey brain, it may reject the comparison

I’m not sure why you would think that atheist brains are likely to reject the suggestion that organised religions and organised societies were somehow connected.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

distraction

thought exercise for you, master science, you know you want it, that big brain, looking for something to do

consider organized in the idea of organized religion is very similar as used in the words arranged into the expression organized society

you’re probably feeling like that’s a heretical comparison

if you have an atheist brain, an evolved monkey brain, it may reject the comparison

I’m not sure why you would think that atheist brains are likely to reject the suggestion that organised religions and organised societies were somehow connected.

we agree with The Rev Dodgson reinforcing the fact that theocracy is indeed another form of governance which is inferior to STEMocracy even given all the others

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

transition said:

thought exercise for you, master science, you know you want it, that big brain, looking for something to do

consider organized in the idea of organized religion is very similar as used in the words arranged into the expression organized society

you’re probably feeling like that’s a heretical comparison

if you have an atheist brain, an evolved monkey brain, it may reject the comparison

STEMocracy is the best form of governance even given all the others.

i’m trying to assemble a few ideas here, you make a bit more of an effort to pay attention

are the words used similarly in the two?

anyway, as a starter i’ll argue that humanity, a lot of it is not just abandoning organized religion, but also organized society

which i’ll get back to later, after jobs, you and I could have an argument, kick around a few ideas, you might even contradict me, dare to, blunt rudely if you want

so get some practice while i’m gone, mutter a few insults, whatever

Society needs reorganisation, people should worship supermarkets that exist instead of the old way worshipping things that dont exist, they didn’t know about supermarkets 2000 years ago. Know people know about them and can drive there, pick things up and drive home again.

The Vatican segregates men and women, monks there, nuns over there, but that isn’t natural, you dont see animals living such segregated life, males over there, females over there, dont touch each other, that is forbidden, touching is forbidden at the Vatican imagine that.

The Vatican needs reoganisation with introduction to normality supermarkets and touching which might take another 2000 years when work is finally started.

Religion needs reorganisation with an introduction to understanding things that exist, and an introduction to understanding things that don’t exist, this might cause confusion so an introduction to understanding confusion will be required, that might take another 2000 years.

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

STEMocracy is the best form of governance even given all the others.

i’m trying to assemble a few ideas here, you make a bit more of an effort to pay attention

are the words used similarly in the two?

anyway, as a starter i’ll argue that humanity, a lot of it is not just abandoning organized religion, but also organized society

which i’ll get back to later, after jobs, you and I could have an argument, kick around a few ideas, you might even contradict me, dare to, blunt rudely if you want

so get some practice while i’m gone, mutter a few insults, whatever

Society needs reorganisation, people should worship supermarkets that exist instead of the old way worshipping things that dont exist, they didn’t know about supermarkets 2000 years ago. Know people know about them and can drive there, pick things up and drive home again.

The Vatican segregates men and women, monks there, nuns over there, but that isn’t natural, you dont see animals living such segregated life, males over there, females over there, dont touch each other, that is forbidden, touching is forbidden at the Vatican imagine that.

The Vatican needs reoganisation with introduction to normality supermarkets and touching which might take another 2000 years when work is finally started.

Religion needs reorganisation with an introduction to understanding things that exist, and an introduction to understanding things that don’t exist, this might cause confusion so an introduction to understanding confusion will be required, that might take another 2000 years.

I think it would be the ultimate fun project to start a new country and new society from scratch. A great utopia.

Well, it would be fun for the first little while, but will probably end in tears and ruins, like all good Utopias do.

party_pants said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

i’m trying to assemble a few ideas here, you make a bit more of an effort to pay attention

are the words used similarly in the two?

anyway, as a starter i’ll argue that humanity, a lot of it is not just abandoning organized religion, but also organized society

which i’ll get back to later, after jobs, you and I could have an argument, kick around a few ideas, you might even contradict me, dare to, blunt rudely if you want

so get some practice while i’m gone, mutter a few insults, whatever

Society needs reorganisation, people should worship supermarkets that exist instead of the old way worshipping things that dont exist, they didn’t know about supermarkets 2000 years ago. Know people know about them and can drive there, pick things up and drive home again.

The Vatican segregates men and women, monks there, nuns over there, but that isn’t natural, you dont see animals living such segregated life, males over there, females over there, dont touch each other, that is forbidden, touching is forbidden at the Vatican imagine that.

The Vatican needs reoganisation with introduction to normality supermarkets and touching which might take another 2000 years when work is finally started.

Religion needs reorganisation with an introduction to understanding things that exist, and an introduction to understanding things that don’t exist, this might cause confusion so an introduction to understanding confusion will be required, that might take another 2000 years.

I think it would be the ultimate fun project to start a new country and new society from scratch. A great utopia.

Well, it would be fun for the first little while, but will probably end in tears and ruins, like all good Utopias do.

ENTROPY, which is order to disorder isn’t well understood, once entropy within society is understood it might be possible to stop societies from falling.

We should be studying the Fall of Societies, instead of worrying about things that don’t exist.

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

STEMocracy is the best form of governance even given all the others.

i’m trying to assemble a few ideas here, you make a bit more of an effort to pay attention

are the words used similarly in the two?

anyway, as a starter i’ll argue that humanity, a lot of it is not just abandoning organized religion, but also organized society

which i’ll get back to later, after jobs, you and I could have an argument, kick around a few ideas, you might even contradict me, dare to, blunt rudely if you want

so get some practice while i’m gone, mutter a few insults, whatever

Society needs reorganisation, people should worship supermarkets that exist instead of the old way worshipping things that dont exist, they didn’t know about supermarkets 2000 years ago. Know people know about them and can drive there, pick things up and drive home again.

The Vatican segregates men and women, monks there, nuns over there, but that isn’t natural, you dont see animals living such segregated life, males over there, females over there, dont touch each other, that is forbidden, touching is forbidden at the Vatican imagine that.

The Vatican needs reoganisation with introduction to normality supermarkets and touching which might take another 2000 years when work is finally started.

Religion needs reorganisation with an introduction to understanding things that exist, and an introduction to understanding things that don’t exist, this might cause confusion so an introduction to understanding confusion will be required, that might take another 2000 years.

There are many animals that do indeed live solitary lives, coming together to only mate then back to solitary lives…

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

i’m trying to assemble a few ideas here, you make a bit more of an effort to pay attention

are the words used similarly in the two?

anyway, as a starter i’ll argue that humanity, a lot of it is not just abandoning organized religion, but also organized society

which i’ll get back to later, after jobs, you and I could have an argument, kick around a few ideas, you might even contradict me, dare to, blunt rudely if you want

so get some practice while i’m gone, mutter a few insults, whatever

Society needs reorganisation, people should worship supermarkets that exist instead of the old way worshipping things that dont exist, they didn’t know about supermarkets 2000 years ago. Know people know about them and can drive there, pick things up and drive home again.

The Vatican segregates men and women, monks there, nuns over there, but that isn’t natural, you dont see animals living such segregated life, males over there, females over there, dont touch each other, that is forbidden, touching is forbidden at the Vatican imagine that.

The Vatican needs reoganisation with introduction to normality supermarkets and touching which might take another 2000 years when work is finally started.

Religion needs reorganisation with an introduction to understanding things that exist, and an introduction to understanding things that don’t exist, this might cause confusion so an introduction to understanding confusion will be required, that might take another 2000 years.

There are many animals that do indeed live solitary lives, coming together to only mate then back to solitary lives…

Cold blooded animals mostly.

Peak Warming Man said:

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Society needs reorganisation, people should worship supermarkets that exist instead of the old way worshipping things that dont exist, they didn’t know about supermarkets 2000 years ago. Know people know about them and can drive there, pick things up and drive home again.

The Vatican segregates men and women, monks there, nuns over there, but that isn’t natural, you dont see animals living such segregated life, males over there, females over there, dont touch each other, that is forbidden, touching is forbidden at the Vatican imagine that.

The Vatican needs reoganisation with introduction to normality supermarkets and touching which might take another 2000 years when work is finally started.

Religion needs reorganisation with an introduction to understanding things that exist, and an introduction to understanding things that don’t exist, this might cause confusion so an introduction to understanding confusion will be required, that might take another 2000 years.

There are many animals that do indeed live solitary lives, coming together to only mate then back to solitary lives…

Cold blooded animals mostly.

Oi!

Peak Warming Man said:

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Society needs reorganisation, people should worship supermarkets that exist instead of the old way worshipping things that dont exist, they didn’t know about supermarkets 2000 years ago. Know people know about them and can drive there, pick things up and drive home again.

The Vatican segregates men and women, monks there, nuns over there, but that isn’t natural, you dont see animals living such segregated life, males over there, females over there, dont touch each other, that is forbidden, touching is forbidden at the Vatican imagine that.

The Vatican needs reoganisation with introduction to normality supermarkets and touching which might take another 2000 years when work is finally started.

Religion needs reorganisation with an introduction to understanding things that exist, and an introduction to understanding things that don’t exist, this might cause confusion so an introduction to understanding confusion will be required, that might take another 2000 years.

There are many animals that do indeed live solitary lives, coming together to only mate then back to solitary lives…

Cold blooded animals mostly.

Orangutans, sun bears, tigers, pandas, koalas, cheetahs …

Arts said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Arts said:

There are many animals that do indeed live solitary lives, coming together to only mate then back to solitary lives…

Cold blooded animals mostly.

Orangutans, sun bears, tigers, pandas, koalas, cheetahs …

Yeah, there’s some warm-blooded animals.

my personal philosophy on the subject of organised societies.

to begin with, there no absolutes except for the laws of nature – physics, chemistry, biology etc. Actually they are all derived from the laws of physics, chemistry is derived from physics, and biology is derived from chemistry, but think of them as layers. Human societies can only exist within the boundaries of the laws of nature. No human concept can be absolute. Humans are evolved to live in societies, and will naturally gravitate towards such a state. Societies need rules in order to function, because in a functioning societies each person gives up some of their own autonomy for the sake of the group. Humans have the innate ability to understand that there are some selfish acts might benefit them but harm their society, and generally these things are the subject of rules. But what rules each society adopts varies in place and time according to what each society decides is desirable or undesirable. There are no absolutes here.

party_pants said:

my personal philosophy on the subject of organised societies.

to begin with, there no absolutes except for the laws of nature – physics, chemistry, biology etc. Actually they are all derived from the laws of physics, chemistry is derived from physics, and biology is derived from chemistry, but think of them as layers. Human societies can only exist within the boundaries of the laws of nature. No human concept can be absolute. Humans are evolved to live in societies, and will naturally gravitate towards such a state. Societies need rules in order to function, because in a functioning societies each person gives up some of their own autonomy for the sake of the group. Humans have the innate ability to understand that there are some selfish acts might benefit them but harm their society, and generally these things are the subject of rules. But what rules each society adopts varies in place and time according to what each society decides is desirable or undesirable. There are no absolutes here.

not sure half that would stand as generalizations with a little scrutiny

I get the foundational thing there from physics – perhaps inescapable physics – though not sure the basics of human imagination are constrained by physics, imagination and perhaps even higher consciousness may need to be able to untether from physics to do what it does, of course internally the neurons are unlikely to be performing something supernatural, I only mean that untethering maybe required for things like abstraction for example, some magic that way

few other things in there, they don’t stand as generalizations maybe

living in groups – more loose groups – if you like, can increase the opportunity for autonomy, and privacy, or even high density housing, can lend to so much privacy you might not be missed at all if you died. The nearer stuff happening the more that is ignored.

I think there is a good list of universals across cultures somewhere, i’ll find it later, a lot of commonality across cultures, through time

re this “But what rules each society adopts varies in place and time according to what each society decides is desirable or undesirable..”

transition said:

party_pants said:

my personal philosophy on the subject of organised societies.

to begin with, there no absolutes except for the laws of nature – physics, chemistry, biology etc. Actually they are all derived from the laws of physics, chemistry is derived from physics, and biology is derived from chemistry, but think of them as layers. Human societies can only exist within the boundaries of the laws of nature. No human concept can be absolute. Humans are evolved to live in societies, and will naturally gravitate towards such a state. Societies need rules in order to function, because in a functioning societies each person gives up some of their own autonomy for the sake of the group. Humans have the innate ability to understand that there are some selfish acts might benefit them but harm their society, and generally these things are the subject of rules. But what rules each society adopts varies in place and time according to what each society decides is desirable or undesirable. There are no absolutes here.

not sure half that would stand as generalizations with a little scrutiny

I get the foundational thing there from physics – perhaps inescapable physics – though not sure the basics of human imagination are constrained by physics, imagination and perhaps even higher consciousness may need to be able to untether from physics to do what it does, of course internally the neurons are unlikely to be performing something supernatural, I only mean that untethering maybe required for things like abstraction for example, some magic that way

few other things in there, they don’t stand as generalizations maybe

living in groups – more loose groups – if you like, can increase the opportunity for autonomy, and privacy, or even high density housing, can lend to so much privacy you might not be missed at all if you died. The nearer stuff happening the more that is ignored.

I think there is a good list of universals across cultures somewhere, i’ll find it later, a lot of commonality across cultures, through time

re this “But what rules each society adopts varies in place and time according to what each society decides is desirable or undesirable..”

Well of course there’s a lot of sweeping generalisations in just one paragraph. Whole books have been written on the topic over the years, by the thousands.

party_pants said:

transition said:

party_pants said:

my personal philosophy on the subject of organised societies.

to begin with, there no absolutes except for the laws of nature – physics, chemistry, biology etc. Actually they are all derived from the laws of physics, chemistry is derived from physics, and biology is derived from chemistry, but think of them as layers. Human societies can only exist within the boundaries of the laws of nature. No human concept can be absolute. Humans are evolved to live in societies, and will naturally gravitate towards such a state. Societies need rules in order to function, because in a functioning societies each person gives up some of their own autonomy for the sake of the group. Humans have the innate ability to understand that there are some selfish acts might benefit them but harm their society, and generally these things are the subject of rules. But what rules each society adopts varies in place and time according to what each society decides is desirable or undesirable. There are no absolutes here.

not sure half that would stand as generalizations with a little scrutiny

I get the foundational thing there from physics – perhaps inescapable physics – though not sure the basics of human imagination are constrained by physics, imagination and perhaps even higher consciousness may need to be able to untether from physics to do what it does, of course internally the neurons are unlikely to be performing something supernatural, I only mean that untethering maybe required for things like abstraction for example, some magic that way

few other things in there, they don’t stand as generalizations maybe

living in groups – more loose groups – if you like, can increase the opportunity for autonomy, and privacy, or even high density housing, can lend to so much privacy you might not be missed at all if you died. The nearer stuff happening the more that is ignored.

I think there is a good list of universals across cultures somewhere, i’ll find it later, a lot of commonality across cultures, through time

re this “But what rules each society adopts varies in place and time according to what each society decides is desirable or undesirable..”

Well of course there’s a lot of sweeping generalisations in just one paragraph. Whole books have been written on the topic over the years, by the thousands.

certainly not diminishing what you said, your personal philosophy, i’m just chucking around a few ideas

seeing if anything in the idea people are rejecting organized society, could be a complete waste of time, whatever i’ll give it a bash

perhaps not directly related the subject, but here it is anyway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_universal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Universals

party_pants said:

my personal philosophy on the subject of organised societies.

to begin with, there no absolutes except for the laws of nature – physics, chemistry, biology etc. Actually they are all derived from the laws of physics, chemistry is derived from physics, and biology is derived from chemistry, but think of them as layers. Human societies can only exist within the boundaries of the laws of nature. No human concept can be absolute. Humans are evolved to live in societies, and will naturally gravitate towards such a state. Societies need rules in order to function, because in a functioning societies each person gives up some of their own autonomy for the sake of the group. Humans have the innate ability to understand that there are some selfish acts might benefit them but harm their society, and generally these things are the subject of rules. But what rules each society adopts varies in place and time according to what each society decides is desirable or undesirable. There are no absolutes here.

Humans exist as electrochemical bodies on an electrochemical world, the planet we live on is a chemical world, emotions are derived from chemistry within the electrochemical body, reorganisation of society should consider that.

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

my personal philosophy on the subject of organised societies.

to begin with, there no absolutes except for the laws of nature – physics, chemistry, biology etc. Actually they are all derived from the laws of physics, chemistry is derived from physics, and biology is derived from chemistry, but think of them as layers. Human societies can only exist within the boundaries of the laws of nature. No human concept can be absolute. Humans are evolved to live in societies, and will naturally gravitate towards such a state. Societies need rules in order to function, because in a functioning societies each person gives up some of their own autonomy for the sake of the group. Humans have the innate ability to understand that there are some selfish acts might benefit them but harm their society, and generally these things are the subject of rules. But what rules each society adopts varies in place and time according to what each society decides is desirable or undesirable. There are no absolutes here.

Humans exist as electrochemical bodies on an electrochemical world, the planet we live on is a chemical world, emotions are derived from chemistry within the electrochemical body, reorganisation of society should consider that.

People are born with six basic emotions, has the person develops, more emotions are formed over next 25 years or so, these emotions are derived from evolving chemistry within the body.

Duration of an emotion

Emotions can last anywhere from seconds to hours or days. The length of time an emotion lasts can vary widely between people, emotions, or even episodes of the same emotion.

When a person has a reaction to something in their environment,” she says, “there’s a 90-second chemical process that happens in the body; after that, any remaining emotional response is just the person choosing to stay in that emotional loop.”

https://www.alysonmstone.com/90-seconds-to-emotional-resilience/

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

my personal philosophy on the subject of organised societies.

to begin with, there no absolutes except for the laws of nature – physics, chemistry, biology etc. Actually they are all derived from the laws of physics, chemistry is derived from physics, and biology is derived from chemistry, but think of them as layers. Human societies can only exist within the boundaries of the laws of nature. No human concept can be absolute. Humans are evolved to live in societies, and will naturally gravitate towards such a state. Societies need rules in order to function, because in a functioning societies each person gives up some of their own autonomy for the sake of the group. Humans have the innate ability to understand that there are some selfish acts might benefit them but harm their society, and generally these things are the subject of rules. But what rules each society adopts varies in place and time according to what each society decides is desirable or undesirable. There are no absolutes here.

Humans exist as electrochemical bodies on an electrochemical world, the planet we live on is a chemical world, emotions are derived from chemistry within the electrochemical body, reorganisation of society should consider that.

People are born with six basic emotions, has the person develops, more emotions are formed over next 25 years or so, these emotions are derived from evolving chemistry within the body.

Duration of an emotion

Emotions can last anywhere from seconds to hours or days. The length of time an emotion lasts can vary widely between people, emotions, or even episodes of the same emotion.

When a person has a reaction to something in their environment,” she says, “there’s a 90-second chemical process that happens in the body; after that, any remaining emotional response is just the person choosing to stay in that emotional loop.”

https://www.alysonmstone.com/90-seconds-to-emotional-resilience/

crock

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

my personal philosophy on the subject of organised societies.

to begin with, there no absolutes except for the laws of nature – physics, chemistry, biology etc. Actually they are all derived from the laws of physics, chemistry is derived from physics, and biology is derived from chemistry, but think of them as layers. Human societies can only exist within the boundaries of the laws of nature. No human concept can be absolute. Humans are evolved to live in societies, and will naturally gravitate towards such a state. Societies need rules in order to function, because in a functioning societies each person gives up some of their own autonomy for the sake of the group. Humans have the innate ability to understand that there are some selfish acts might benefit them but harm their society, and generally these things are the subject of rules. But what rules each society adopts varies in place and time according to what each society decides is desirable or undesirable. There are no absolutes here.

Humans exist as electrochemical bodies on an electrochemical world, the planet we live on is a chemical world, emotions are derived from chemistry within the electrochemical body, reorganisation of society should consider that.

People are born with six basic emotions, has the person develops, more emotions are formed over next 25 years or so, these emotions are derived from evolving chemistry within the body.

Duration of an emotion

Emotions can last anywhere from seconds to hours or days. The length of time an emotion lasts can vary widely between people, emotions, or even episodes of the same emotion.

When a person has a reaction to something in their environment,” she says, “there’s a 90-second chemical process that happens in the body; after that, any remaining emotional response is just the person choosing to stay in that emotional loop.”

https://www.alysonmstone.com/90-seconds-to-emotional-resilience/

Note

When a person has a reaction to something in their environment
there’s a 90-second chemical process that happens in the body;

It would be interesting to see if all emotions are chemical based and if there are any emotions that do not rely so much on chemicals that are emotions on a higher level

So a spectrum of emotions ones that rely on specific chemicals and other emotions less so.

OK, how many emotions do we have?

Depends who you ask

6 to 34,000

https://focusmw.com/wheel-of-emotions/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27857503?seq=1

Seems people cannot agree on exactly how many emotions we have.

You hear that

We don’t yet know the spectrum of emotions available to us.

So in understanding ourselves we have some more work to do.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Humans exist as electrochemical bodies on an electrochemical world, the planet we live on is a chemical world, emotions are derived from chemistry within the electrochemical body, reorganisation of society should consider that.

People are born with six basic emotions, has the person develops, more emotions are formed over next 25 years or so, these emotions are derived from evolving chemistry within the body.

Duration of an emotion

Emotions can last anywhere from seconds to hours or days. The length of time an emotion lasts can vary widely between people, emotions, or even episodes of the same emotion.

When a person has a reaction to something in their environment,” she says, “there’s a 90-second chemical process that happens in the body; after that, any remaining emotional response is just the person choosing to stay in that emotional loop.”

https://www.alysonmstone.com/90-seconds-to-emotional-resilience/

Note

When a person has a reaction to something in their environment
there’s a 90-second chemical process that happens in the body;

It would be interesting to see if all emotions are chemical based and if there are any emotions that do not rely so much on chemicals that are emotions on a higher level

So a spectrum of emotions ones that rely on specific chemicals and other emotions less so.

OK, how many emotions do we have?

Depends who you ask

6 to 34,000

https://focusmw.com/wheel-of-emotions/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27857503?seq=1

Seems people cannot agree on exactly how many emotions we have.

You hear that

We don’t yet know the spectrum of emotions available to us.

So in understanding ourselves we have some more work to do.

So how can we teach emotional intelligence when we cannot agree on exactly how many emotions we have.