Rob. D, John B. and Discuss
ROB wrote:
> There are three layers of the brain, one
> built on top of the other in terms of evolution from animals up to
> man. The reptilian brain, the limbic system, and the cortex. (see
> below). Sounds so much like the static levels of quality that it is
> almost astonishing. As if those level were picked not arbitrarily
as
> neat divisions but because out brain is actually divided into those
> segments.
The following for John B. I wrote last night and did not notice your
last message in the "Things and level's" thread until this morning.
D... it, that was one good piece of information Rob, it seems to
back up MoQ's static level hierarchy as well as sensation-emotion-
reason sequence ...here the emotions-as-social theory.You also
say something terribly important:
> Obviously the levels of
> quality are our system of classification. As if by classifying a
> platypus as either a mammal or a reptile has any effect on what a
> platypus actually is. It's simply our way of understanding how they
> fit into our framework. The framework itself requires a division
> point, a natural place where divisions in levels of quality arise.
It often seems like people treat "social", "biological" etc as if it is
the subject/object kind. What you have noticed is that this is the
QUALITY kind of classification. Good!
*******************************
JOHN B. You ended your post (of 27 July by saying):
> I think emotions are such a complex set of phenomena that it is
> just foolish to try to lump them all in a category such as social.
What do we make theories for except creating order out of
complexity. A metaphysics is the most general theory there
is and if it can't handle something so important as emotions
because it's "....such a complex set of phenomena...." what use is
that?
Then to your various examples of the impossibility of emotions as
Q-Social.
> I hit my finger with a hammer. Apart from the pain there will be
> emotions such as (perhaps) anger (at my stupidity), frustration
> (now I won't be able to play my guitar tonight), sadness (this
> confirms my suspicions that my dexterity is slipping away), and so
> on. Yet the causal event is physical.
A fart is also "caused" at the biological level, yet (may) have social
effects. In the same way your anger, frustration and sadness are
social dependent. You are of social value even if alone.
> My girl friend leaves me. A social situation will cause the various
> emotions connected with this to arise. (But I now have a
> significantly higher risk of developing cancer in the next twelve
> months.)
That the upper level influences the lower is an important tenet of
the MoQ. Emotions cause biological changes. Blushing for
instance. Cancer .....? Possible.
> I hear that Nelson Mandela has been released from prison. While
> the event may be partly social for Nelson, for me it is relief,
> pleasure, jubilation, or whatever, that a higher intellectual good
> has prevailed over a lower. In other words, the trigger for these
> emotions is predominantly intellectual, though not without a
moral
> component.
Again. The upper - here the intellectual - level influencing social is
according to the MoQ. And ...what is without a moral component
in the MoQ?
> I watch a TV program on the moons of Jupiter. I experience a
variety
> of emotions including interest, fascination, wonder, etc derived
> from my purely intellectual interest in this topic.
Need I comment?
> (Hypothetical) I meditate and experience a sense of oneness
with
> everything. According to those who do experience such things,
there
> can be profound emotions including well-being, joy, equanimity,
> release, etc as a result of this interior experience.
"Oneness" is THE social goal and the feeling is great. "Interior
experience"? Is that "subjective"?
> Some people think there is a core group of emotions (anger/rage,
> sexual, pleasure, sadness) which are associated with the brain
stem
> and the so-called reptilian brain. These may well be shared with
> other organisms. Most other emotions would seem to be
restricted to
> humans, and some are quite sophisticated, eg anticipation, or
> reminiscing.
About the reptilian brain you are correct (ref. Carl Sagan's "The
Dragons of Eden"), but anger, rage and sadness is way beyond
the reptilian range. "Sexual pleasure" perhaps, but that's a
sensation in my book. What would make living things proliferate if
not connected with pleasure? Naturally, most emotions are
restricted to humans. Also see Rob's post!
Thanks for reading
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:26 BST