Adam said:
.......snip
> For my first post I want to present a problem I've
> had. I'm having trouble classifying emotions in the
> MOQ architecture and it would be great if anyone could
> help me out. I don't know if this issue has already
> been dealt with, but a response would be appreciated
> greatly. Thanks, and I look forward to talking with
> you all.
Hi Adam, I know what you mean about having no one to talk to
about Pirsig's philosophy, but you may find this place too much
and miss the solitude :-). But until then and re. your question
...stand by.
Rick said:
> ---Bodvar used to have a theory... which I remember liking alot... but
> which I don't remember terribly clearly right now... about each level
> having a sort of mode of expression... I think he had pinned 'emotion'
> as the 'expression' of the sociological level. I'm searching for the
> posts in the archives.... But you should really pump Bo for the
> specifics.
Thanks for mentioning my "expression" theory Rick. It went like
this:
INTERACTION-SENSATION-EMOTION-REASON
(corresponding to the respective static levels)
and still holds up, I notice that Platt cites Pirsig about emotion as
biological and naturally there is a biological side to it ...even an
inorganic (See the next paragraph), but IMO it's the social
expression par excellance. I have written about this in several
posts, the gist of which is that emotions don't play any part in the
of lower life forms which is more pure biology than the primates
where traces of social value [emotions] have started to show ...not
to speak of humans with their complex social patterns that even
have spawned intellectual patterns.
Again I point to the MoQ tenet of a pattern outgrowing its parent to
become the next value increment, IMO emotions were the
BIOLOGICAL pattern that started off on a purpose of its own
(predator animals couldn't well feel sorry for their prey?) to become
the SOCIAL vehicle. What is it that ties individuals together if not
emotions?
I would have liked to work out the whole sequence in greater detail -
may I just mention that Denis Poisson once told me that in French
sensation = "sentir" and emotion = "resentir". Exactly, each value
level is the former RE-fined or raised to its second power, shortly:
Intellect is the 4th power of Matter!
John B. says (that Nussbaum says):
> Her thesis, in short, is that "emotions are not just the fuel that
> powers the psychological mechanism of a reasoning creature, they are
> parts, highly complex and messy parts, of this creature's reasoning
> itself." Hence emotions are a significant part of the intellectual
> level, despite Platt's quote from Pirsig.
Right. Reason - or the intellectual level - is emotions refined, which
proves another important MoQ tenet, namely that Q-intellect isn't
any "ascension" into a spiritual realm (MIND), merely anorther
value notch. Regrettably Pirsig has (also) said that he regards
intellect to be equal to mind ...but then also that the mind term
should be avoided?
I agree with Squonk:
> One must remember that the book you mention is written by a prominent
> Aristotle commentator, and her position as stated above is entirely in
> accordance with a reading of post Cartesian concepts of mind back into
> Aristotle's' psuche. I feel this is all rather old hat. The individual
> is it must be said, is an excellent authority on the subject, and
> worthy of high recommendation.
Sure, Martha C. Nussbaum has never heard about the MoQ, yet
she may say something true. My intention with the said
"expression" list is to generalize the levels to a degree that relieve
us from the exhausting task of asking where this or that
phenomenon belong. .....because one will find everything is
smeared over the whole value range leaving us more confused than
ever ...like Rick here (sorry old pal)
> As for myself, I think what is called 'emotion' is not any single
> pattern or of any single level. Rather, I think 'emotion' is a handful
> of different value patterns collected from (mostly) the biological and
> sociological levels.
An example: You may "feel good" for having a good idea, but that
does not mean that emotions are intellectual value, rather that
Intellect is "out of society" (an idea with no listeners is nil) so it's
our social self that "feels good" (Reason is not supposed to feel). It
in turn influence our bilogical self that produces the feel-good
hormones. Biological sensations in themselves may be
overwhelimingly powerful, but without the (social) transformation
they have no solidity ...no lasting effect.
> Any good shrink will tell you that your emotions
> can be influenced by everything from your DNA and diet to your
> environment and upbringing. I believe if you think closely about what
> you mean 'emotion' you will find yourself thinking about things as
> diverse as sociological concepts like 'admiration' and 'respect'....
> to biological concepts like 'adrenaline rushes' and 'pain'.... And
> then there's an emotion like 'love', which seems to fit into both bio
> and socio because it has several distinct (although not altogether
> unrelated) meanings.
> In sum, maybe you should try classifying each respective emotion,
> rather than 'emotions' as a broad catch-all category.
I believe that the social-emotions are easily distinguished from
biological-sensations. Adrenalin, pain ...and love!! Those were my
very examples, but this is already too long.
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 - 16:01:47 BST