Chris, Bo, Rasheed, Rob, John, Plat, all MD
I see that the riots about the level of emotions are all but solved.
My original message was not merely about emotions (actually the subject is
"Things and levels") and the very heart of the matter is that IMO all "things",
emotions included, arise in a certain level, then they are in the availability
of the upper levels' purposes. While it is an immoral nonsense to describe them
from the lower level viewpoint.
A good example of what I'm meaning is (in order to shift -just a bit- the focus
away from emotions) in the recent threads about drugs. I showed that drugs have
a good social value (the example of red wine in Italy). Someone guessed the
intellectual value of drugs (Pirsig and the peyote ceremony, Freud and cocaine,
LSD and the sixties....). It is IMO another example of how the levels can use
all what's below for their purposes. Let's face it: drugs are molecules that,
when interacting with a biological organism, trigger a biological answer. So the
alteration induced by drugs is IMO basically biological (actually It is very
meaningful to measure the alterations of heart beats and so on...); while it is
not inorganic, as It has no sense to measure the weight, so to say, of an
altered perception: of course you can describe the inorganic properties of the
body and the molecules involved, but it has no great meaning.
Then, society has been able to use drugs for its purposes (actually the very
disaster of drugs like alcohol and opium happens when people use them out of
their cultural context). And intellect seems to be able to use drugs for its own
purposes (not merely to "open the doors of perception", but, IMHO more
important, as medicine).
The point is that I don't see a great difference between a drug-induced
alteration and an emotional hormone-induced alteration. The mechanism is very
similar. Emotions arise as biological answer to value as I can measure the
biological alterations induced by an emotion. Even Bo admits that emotions play
a role in the biological health of the individual.... so I don't see what's
wrong in my point.
Back to the thread, there are examples of other "things" that arise, on their
hand, as social. Market for example. Or governments.
They are not biological or inorganic. It's a nonsense the weight of a
government, or the genetic code of a firm... while we can well measure the
social value of the money a nation prints and a bank keeps safe. Then, we all
intellectually agree that a democracy is a more valuable form of government than
a dictatorship; and likewise our intellectual patterns will discuss how a
competitive market is better than a monopolistic one.
Other things, in the end, arise purely at the intellectual level. It is immoral
to measure the value of human rights in dollars... or sell a metaphysics to the
Hollywood market.
Notice a simple point. Value is at the very basis of all that. Value arises
before any level, and any level uses, in the end, value as the row material for
its purposes. there's a inherent ability of pursuing value in everything. It can
have different names: Beauty, Consciousness, Good, Better, Excellence...... and
each level is increasingly more valid and quick in this effort; but, basically,
the thread of the story is Value. In this, I think I'm very close to Platt.
This is IMO the best way to solve the infinite riots of " the right level of
this and that". Let me offer my eventual solutions to the various arguments....
1) Chris' mathematician
Chris:
> Say that I am a mathematician who questions the validity of the Axiom of
Choice. If, in my mind, I decide that I will not except the Axiom of Choice or
any of its consequences, then that is a matter of intellectual ethics. If, when
I prove results and publish papers, I avoid using the Axiom of Choice and all of
its consequences, then that is a matter of intellectual morals. If, when
speaking or writing, I proclaim, "The Axiom of Choice is not valid," or I
snicker when another mathematician uses the axiom in a proof, then I am
expressing an intellectual emotion.
Marco:
hmmm, intellectual emotion... I'd say that your mathematician is using emotion
as tool in his intellectual activity. Sometimes it can be good: actually even if
intuition is more emotive than rational, indeed it is very useful for any
intellectual quest. But indeed an overuse would be on the other hand very
dangerous.
2) Emotions across the levels
Chris
Emotions seem to transcend the static breakdown of moral evolution. There are
biological emotions, social emotions, and intellectual emotions, at least.
Marco:
Actually, everything could transcend the static breakdown. Let's take heat, for
example. Heat expresses inorganic, biological, social and intellectual values,
be sure. But there are no *inorganic* emotions, it's a nonsense! That is,
emotions arise biological, while heat arises inorganic.
A similar point was held by
John:
> 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.
BO answered:
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?
Marco:
But John as a point. He clearly shows examples of biological, social and
intellectual effects of emotions. In my theory, biology is the "starting point"
of emotions... so I guess I can satisfy both John's observations and your need
for a rational theory.
3) Non-social emotive reactions
RASHEED:
> Does the fact that a
> person is isolated prevent her from having emotions? Emotions aren't
> just based on reactions to other people, they also arise from
> reactions to objects, events, etc.
BO:
This I find a bit nonsensical. A social being will naturally
experience emotions in isolation, and "reaction to objects"
(memories, nostalgia...etc.) will play a social role. "Events"? In
case of rituals they are at the heart of the matter too. In case of
doing something stupid and becoming mad with oneself, it is very
much social dependant.
Marco:
hmmm, even this is a bit nonsensical, Bo. Reaction to things (whatever "things"
are) play a social role? If I feel happy to lay under the sun, is this a social
situation? Is the Sun-Me interaction a society? Or, more simply, isn't the Sun
warmth triggering my biological endorphins? And isn't it the same happening in
practically all the animals? You see, giving even the animals this
characteristic to be able to do something according to an emotive *individual*
reaction, is good in order to show that every biological organism has a bare
possibility to do something of (socially) *useless*.
And what about art and beauty? Platt will be glad (I guess) to tell you the
emotions he felt before the David in Florence. Was it social? Beauty can evoke
a huge stream of emotions, and I don't see social interactions in all that. It
is VERY individual.
4) Language and sensation
BO:
When the biological evolution reached a certain stage creatures
became able to read the meaning of body signs. They did not have
to SENSE to know the meaning (of bared fangs as one simple
example) the mere display evoked EMOTION.
Marco:
"To read the meaning of body signs" is a very basic form of communication,
indeed. It is, IMO, the beginning of the social level. Anyway, I SENSE (vision
is a form of sensation, isn't it?) the signs of someone else, my brain
interprets them, and then I act as consequence, following a mix of more or less
rational and/or emotional biological responses. I agree that the emotions you
are talking about (triggered by the "mere display" of body signs) are the
biological response to a social interaction, in that case. But there's no
evidence that ALL the emotional responses come out triggered by social
interaction (as in the examples of Sun and beauty, above). It is IMO better
to guess that in your example the social level uses a biological emotive
response for its purposes. Actually, how many emotions our social convenience
asks us for keeping hidden?
5) Brain
Rob:
In terms of the brain, emotions are part of the limbic system. The limbic
system is the centre of emotions. 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.....
Marco:
Thanks Rob for the great description of the functionality of brain. But, it is
brain. That is, a biological organ. Does the Giant (social pattern) have a
brain? Or does a philosophy (intellectual pattern) have a brain? Can you
evaluate a government or a philosophy by means of an encephalogram? All that
brain stuff is IMO purely biological. A biological organ that biology, society
and intellect empowered in the past and still use for their different
purposes. It is probably true that the different parts of the brain play
different roles, even according to the MOQ levels. But, basically, It IMO simply
reflects an evolutionary specialization of a biologic organ induced in the past
by the different levels.
thanks for you attention
Marco
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