insight?

[grinninfoole]

In the past few days I have had cause to consider how people end relationships to others. I found myself reflecting that the pain of breaking up with a living boyfriend is similar to that of bidding farewell to a suddenly dead one, and akin as well to the pain of simply being separated by distance and oceans (though with differences in degree, intensity, and other factors.) I wondered why it's so hard to cope with love no longer in relation to an actual, present person--why aren't feelings absolute, but only relative? I can't speak to that yet, but it came to me that 'hey, humans are social animals, primates programed to live in closeknit social groups of around 100-150 people.' Changes in relationships, especially breakups and deaths, mean dramatically reordering our social networks, our packs. This sort of change can make things tough for a small, interdependent group of foragers. So, some of the pain in our existence might be attributed to our evolutionary history, to the ingrained behaviors that have kept (and probably keep) us alive.

Consider, then, a non-human entity (primate or otherwise) capable of forming intellectual and emotional attachments. If it belongs to a more solitary species, it might be quite comfortable with long-distance relationships, feel less distress at loss since it doesn't impinge upon their sense of survival, and even accept the death of a loved one calmly, since their feelings would not have changed, and perhaps wouldn't need to. (which gets back to absolute versus relative feelings.)

Hmm. Perhaps too much game design and trying to imagine non-human individuals and cultures... Well, I have wasted the morning, so off to the library to try and salvage the afternoon.

Comments

[millari.livejournal.com]

ok, I can extrapolate some of the inspiration behind this post, but because I am human and therefore egocentric, I have to ask, am I one of the causes you have to reflect on this question?

Re:

[grinninfoole.livejournal.com]

No. David and his teacher are. No connection to you at all. :)

Now, go to bed. It's late, and you need to get some rest.

I mean it.

Go.

Now.

[millari.livejournal.com]

Consider, then, a non-human entity (primate or otherwise) capable of forming intellectual and emotional attachments. If it belongs to a more solitary species, it might be quite comfortable with long-distance relationships, feel less distress at loss since it doesn't impinge upon their sense of survival, and even accept the death of a loved one calmly, since their feelings would not have changed, and perhaps wouldn't need to.

Interesting theory about the primates, one that is close to my heart at the moment, as I'm reading "Next of Kin" by Roger Fouts, about a researcher who worked teaching sign language to chimpanzees and wrote a memoir about it. (Incidentally, I was struck by your comment about not knowing what to pick for your research when reading this book because Fouts mentions how he intended to be a child psychologist and got this job tending the chimps purely for the research assistant pay. Nevertheless, he was taken down a path he never expected and his graduate thesis ended up being on an aspect of his work with the chimps.

As for solitary creatures not being affected by loss, well, consider the cheetah, which is a very solitary animal, to the point even where females raise their young without a partner. Yet, females nevertheless mourn their young. I suppose you could argue that they mourn because not having a genetic heir threatens the surivival of their line, but that doesn't seem to explain the special I once saw on cheetahs where a young female cheetah was dying (wasting away actually, from losing their mother) and her equally young brother did everything he could to take care of her, even denying himself food so she could eat what food he could capture for them. Evolutionarily speaking, it seems the most advantageous thing for the brother cheetah to have done would have been to abandon his sister and improve his own chances for survival without a mother to hunt for them.

I might argue that solitary creatures are likely to be more affected by loss because creatures used to turning to only one or a few others for their survival, will feel that loss all the more acutely.

just my .02

Re:

[grinninfoole.livejournal.com]

Actually, my thinking is a bit different on this matter. All mammals are affectionate, at least within narrow parameters in their lives. Some are more social and such than others, but all are capable of loving, empathizing and grieving. It's built into our brains. Such warm feelings can help us to survive. What I am positing is, I guess, a non-mammalian intelligence, that does not come programmed with a need for love and affection, or for a pack to belong to, but which chooses to care about someone. How different from us could it be before it becomes alien? Before we can no longer recognize it, empathize with it, humanize it, in a sense?