Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
as opposed to a semantic reaction...
Ken,
I suspect the visceral, AKA emotional, reaction you describe is part and parcel of the sematic reaction. Every word has some emotional charge attached to it--comes with learning any language's vocabulary. For that reason, I doubt that, short of killing them, we ever truly change anyone else's fundamental semantic reaction. We may suppress it (Marc's point about it being a short term event), but it will return, often at the most inopportune moments.
funny again.
Jeez. Can't even yank an occasional chain with a semantic quibble... :^)
Hi Ron,
I've used Goffman's Framing as a way of examining external environmental selection pressures in social settings. I find that it complements the work of Schutz and Luckmann (Structures of the Lifeworld, vol 1 & vol 2) while, at the same time, can easily go on top of neural networks. I read Cooley's work quite a while ago and, while I don't use it, I suspect some of it has stuck in my subconscious .
For the past, oh, 12 years or so, I've been trying to formalize the concept of "cultural schemas" at different levels: neurological, cultural and sociability. I'm still not happy with the models I've produced, but I think they are a decent start that would fit into this area.
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
I would appreciate any suggestions you might have on more directed studies realted to this type of process. Aside from the analytical side I have also started playing around with possibilities towards simulated abstractions based on real interactions, thus hopefully allowing for slightly more realistic fiction.
So To Speak
I realize this is so far beyond me it's not funny , but one must have goals.
Last edited by Ron Humphrey; 12-04-2007 at 04:48 AM. Reason: edit and add
hI rON,
lol - Life is fiction; at least in the sense of improvisational acting . The reference I have been tossing out recently is "This is your brain on music" by Daniel J. Levitin (book and web site). Rally good as a primer on both music and neurology, although not really getting heavily into the other aspects of cultural schemas except at a surface level.
Another good place for some basics is the Evolutionary Psychology Primer, by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, which lays out some of the model of the social effects of neural evolution. Then it starts getting tricky...
Who says it's beyond you?!? Go for it and have fun . BTW, I use some of this (without the references) in my Market Research consulting.
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
My favorite is still "Our modern skulls house a stone age mind" .
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
I couldn't keep from jumping in, as fear is one of my favorite emotions to discuss. Perhaps I could best contribute in a sociological vein (although my field is criminology). I think the previous discussion has been spot on regarding Hobbes, Rousseau, etc., and while I'd love to delve into the sociology of Cooley on fear (I think he forshadowed the whole symbolic interactionist notion of expectation or anticipation on that, as well as emphasized the social group - reference group - prerequisite for fear), I'm much more comfortable discussing Weber and/or Parsons on fear. It is the consensus of most sociologists that both of these thinkers downplayed the role of fear; Weber, in jumping from the centrality he gives it in Ancient Judaism to making it a residual ideal-type in Protestant Ethic; and Parsons, in attempting to give some play to "affective action" but falling back upon a dualistic interplay with "affective neutrality." Yet, there is insight to be salvaged from Weber and Parsons, particularly in the charismatic authority concept, which in large part, relies upon the manipulation of fear. This is looked down upon by much of modern sociology, but criminology accepts much of it (as well as the Hobbesean roots) while psychology has its concept of attitude. As a trans-historical phenomena that rests on no other legitimacy than its own strength, charisma plays an important role in heterogeneous societies. It manifests itself in local contexts, to be sure, but Parsons (and Shils) toy with the idea that charismatic fear (not punitive fear or magical charisma) provides societies with ways to identify their "danger spots" and hence draw together to face a common challenge. Turner's Charisma Reconsidered is a good essay on this.
Bookmarks