We are all connected through the interpersonal field. Research into attachment, limbic resonance, and interpersonal neurobiology is revealing how yawns, emotional states, and other nonverbal communications travel through the field.
At a collective intelligence meeting at Santa Fe Institute this summer, many lectures by social-animal researchers (including human) gave rigor to these ideas. Flocks and swarms and groups exhibit “social waves” either as a mathematical consequence of mere nearest-neighbor interactions, or (more for humans) anticipation of the whole (think stadium). The speed of the wave measures a kind of tension in this inter animal field.
First, in my experience teaching, though this is only anecdotal and I have no representative sample size, if I am not interested in being in the classroom, no matter how much I try to convey a positive contrary outward-facing presentation to the students, students still pick up on it, and not necessarily explicitly.
Second, because human beings are animals generally (sensitive, passionate, appetitive, imaginative) and only human particularly (rational), and because non-human social animals, or most any way, lack the kind of speech capacity of humans, it should not surprise us to have neurobiology confirm that all manner of affect not presented by facial or body posture or speech is capable of being communicated and sensed. And surely what you are saying is that it is sensed: "interpersonal field connects us; that an enormous amount of information is continuously being communicated through the field." After all, Theila senses you are boring.
Third, if what you describe is sensed, there must be a sense for it that can be articulated and understood along with the nature of the object it senses. But if (IF!) we want to be fully Aristotelian (De anima ii 5, ii 12) about all this: if we become aware of the limbic affects of others, our sensitive power for this is, in some way, moving from potentially being such as the limbic affect of the other is to being in actuality such as the limbic affect of the other is. If limbic affect is information that gets conveyed, then in becoming aware of this in another we are literally in-formed by it. And if what we are informed with is contrary to our disposition, it won't "feel" right—it won't be "on the same wavelength" with ours.
I look forward to reading how the thesis your are urging suggests that online therapy is rarely equal to in-person.
At a collective intelligence meeting at Santa Fe Institute this summer, many lectures by social-animal researchers (including human) gave rigor to these ideas. Flocks and swarms and groups exhibit “social waves” either as a mathematical consequence of mere nearest-neighbor interactions, or (more for humans) anticipation of the whole (think stadium). The speed of the wave measures a kind of tension in this inter animal field.
The research on emergent phenomena and complexity is fascinating, just as you say. I look forward to digging more into it in future notes.
Thanks for this, Gary. Three comments.
First, in my experience teaching, though this is only anecdotal and I have no representative sample size, if I am not interested in being in the classroom, no matter how much I try to convey a positive contrary outward-facing presentation to the students, students still pick up on it, and not necessarily explicitly.
Second, because human beings are animals generally (sensitive, passionate, appetitive, imaginative) and only human particularly (rational), and because non-human social animals, or most any way, lack the kind of speech capacity of humans, it should not surprise us to have neurobiology confirm that all manner of affect not presented by facial or body posture or speech is capable of being communicated and sensed. And surely what you are saying is that it is sensed: "interpersonal field connects us; that an enormous amount of information is continuously being communicated through the field." After all, Theila senses you are boring.
Third, if what you describe is sensed, there must be a sense for it that can be articulated and understood along with the nature of the object it senses. But if (IF!) we want to be fully Aristotelian (De anima ii 5, ii 12) about all this: if we become aware of the limbic affects of others, our sensitive power for this is, in some way, moving from potentially being such as the limbic affect of the other is to being in actuality such as the limbic affect of the other is. If limbic affect is information that gets conveyed, then in becoming aware of this in another we are literally in-formed by it. And if what we are informed with is contrary to our disposition, it won't "feel" right—it won't be "on the same wavelength" with ours.
I look forward to reading how the thesis your are urging suggests that online therapy is rarely equal to in-person.
Spot on, as far as I'm concerned. And your mention of Aristotle warms my heart!