View Full Version : Emotional Input (light), Orbitofrontal Cortex


mildadhd
02-14-13, 02:02 AM
i!i



Emotional Input (light). Right Orbitofrontal Cortex

Infants require more than the physical presence and attention of the parent. Just as the visual circuits need light waves for their development, the emotional centres of the infant brain, in particular the all important orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), require healthy emotional input from the parenting adults.

Infants read, react to and are developmentally influenced by the psychological states of the parents. They are affected by body language: tension in the arms that hold them, tone of voice, joyful or despondent facial expressions and, yes, the size of the pupils.

In a very real sense, the parent's brain programs the infant's, and this is why stressed parents will often rear children whose stress apparatus also runs in high gear, no matter how much they love their child and no matter that they strive to do their best.


-Gabor Mate, M.D.,In The Realm Of Hungry Ghosts, p 186.


.

SB_UK
02-14-13, 07:25 AM
Emotional Input (light).

There's a patten from previous threads which sees 'emotional light' recharacterized as a form of resonance.
A form of resonance which is satisfying to both parties.

It sounds an awful lot like the sort of bi-directional informational flow which keeps individuals of social organisms in check, fixedly social.

Synchronizing individuals within a social organism together requires an active scheme - the default, I'd guess (as we see in man) - is to struggle for one's own survival (satisfaction) caring little for how others suffer, as one consumes it all ... ...

SB_UK
02-14-13, 07:29 AM
They are affected by body language: tension in the arms that hold them, tone of voice, joyful or despondent facial expressions and, yes, the size of the pupils.I think what happens is that attachment/attunement and dopaminergic system activation occurs when parent is grounded ... ... and that when the parent is not (and those types of body language are being used) - that happy activation of baby's dopaminergic system does not occur.

Leading to a classical reflex reaction in which child sees the body language and feels bad accordingly ... ... when in actual fact, it's not the body language - it's the state of mind which the body language references in the parent
- which prevents parent from supplying child with dopaminergic system activation over the pair-bond 'pipe' ... ... or :-) love.

So - no different to Pavlov's dogs salivating upon hearing a bell ring; it's not the bell - it's the learned association between the bell and impending dopaminergic system activation through eating.

peripatetic
02-14-13, 08:52 AM
this kinda reminds me of the idea of art for art's sake. like..when do cultures start creating "art"? and i mean that more in a..."contemplative" sense...like...when does sound become not just about survival...alerting to predators...expressing needs...infant crying...etc...and when does it become "music" or 'poetry"?

it strikes me as kinda similar. if you're struggling for survival, especially if you are in a situation wehre you are or perceive self to be....solitary...like...that...nobody has your back...but...also, like, whatever needs you have, you're gonna have to meet them yourself....

if that's how you perceive situation...it seems there'd always be a fight or flight...what's next...struggle just to meet basic needs...and be fallling short all the while.


it's when there's that...when there's ........hmmmm....like...when one is part of...a member of...a community wherein....needs are met through collective efforts....there can be..art. there can be...emotional ...maybe if i'm understanding what you mean here...there can be that "emotional light' i will admit, of course, that what i think you're taking about here is as much if not more so a result of discussions we've had in other threads.

but here's one other note: i disagree with you.


i kinda see that last line...or two...where you talk about the "default' for man....

sb! you sound like hobbes :P you konw...the whole...state of nature being...every man for himself...what were the adjectives he predicated there? i want to say "nasty brutish and short"...thus...we enter the social contract. becauase the state of nature is a state of war. there is...no...what..i'm calling above (don't want to debate definition of art...welll...open to discussing always...but...another thread another time, my friend ;-) ) there is no art in that state of nature.


but here's my point: that state of nature is false construct. it doesn't exist and hasn't ever in that way. i don't think that humans...we NEED each other. that's why we're so ****** up when we don't get those supports because we are, as aristotle said, a social animal.

we can't...like.......herd animals...ruminants...ungulates...etc....they drop out and are on their feet and ready to migrate within minutes...a couple hours tops.

we, on the other hand...and i'm using a fellow mammal example...turtles...they hatch and drag selves to ocean when they're basically seabird food...

we...we are sooo dependent. we are ...we're the worst! an infant...without a support...game over.

but here's the thing: we somehow have been convinced of the obligation to meet physical support needs of a sense...like...you'd be jailed for not feeding your infant...but not loving it...not giving it that "nurture"...not feeding him/her emotionally...THAT hasn't really...like...i'm not saying peole don't see that as problematic or even abusive/neglectful...but....it's like...it's not *required* necessarily. and yet...looping back to above...maybe that's what's requisite to art.....

i agree that there isn't enough focus on what types of needs beyond basic/physical/....like....not being exposed to elements/protected from...hyenas ...or babyknappers....we know that's requisite...and we demand it of others and judge harshly when others don't meet those needs of infants/children/adults...but...if someone is just...i don't want to use adjectives that connote something that will get someone in a twist...but...there is sort of a...yeah...we need community to meet basic needs...but in some communities what's considered basic needs...are what i'd call subsistence...existence maybe...but not....hmmmmyeah...i just konw however i put it...isn't going to blend well with peole who fe....

eh...screw it: i think in order to fully have the most...richest...to access all permutations of "living" as a "person"...there's more than just getting food and not getting killed and having a water source.

cheers for considering. x

There's a patten from previous threads which sees 'emotional light' recharacterized as a form of resonance.
A form of resonance which is satisfying to both parties.

It sounds an awful lot like the sort of bi-directional informational flow which keeps individuals of social organisms in check, fixedly social.

Synchronizing individuals within a social organism together requires an active scheme - the default, I'd guess (as we see in man) - is to struggle for one's own survival (satisfaction) caring little for how others suffer, as one consumes it all ... ...

SB_UK
02-14-13, 11:36 AM
but here's one other note: i disagree with you.


Yes - you're right - I think a large part of the other thread is to suggest that the default in an inhuman social infrastructure is to develop psychopathically (selfishly)
... ... the default (to act competitively and selfishly) isn't the actual default - which could be realised in a human social context ... ... that is, one in which we don't have to struggle so (definitely so against our conscience) to just get by.