Hi Bo (with asides to Jonathan and Marco):
> Platt said:
> > As for emotions, I'll stick with Pirsig's view that they are
> > biological level phenomena, the two most critical being the urge to
> > survive and reproduce, found in the lowliest virus and the basic
> > engine of evolution to higher levels. Human emotions, as Marco
> > suggests, are refinements of these with the possible exception of the
> > aesthetic response which appears to be solely human.
>
> You possibly find me stretching the MoQ to fit my pet idea. :-)
> However, if the urge to survive is called an emotion, it evokes the
> notion of "consciousness" (which is the very incarnation of SOM in
> my opinion). An earthworm wriggles when entered on a fishing
> hook, but this hardly indicates "fear" or "agony", rather an effort to
> escape what it senses as low biological value (this is with us still as
> reflexes) The same goes for the urge to reproduce. The sexual reproduction
> method is above earthworms, but even animal "heat" can't well be called an
> emotion. There is a value gap here.
It's hard to get agreement on the meaning of "consciousness." I like to
use "awareness" to indicate sensitivity across the board, from atoms
to humans, with consciousness coming into full bloom at the social
level and self-consciousness at the SOM intellectual level. (Note to
Jonathan: I have been an advocate of the "atoms of aware" theory since
the idea was first proposed.) A worm's reaction to being stuck on hook
is a reflex (static pattern) that had its "birth" from the survival urge
created by DQ (the life force) from the earliest days of cell formation.
(I'm beginning to really like Marco's birth idea.) Human and some
higher animal emotions such as "fear" or "agony" can be traced back to
the survival urge which, as we all know, is still very much with us.
Similarly, the human emotion of love goes back to the earliest
biological urge to merge.
> (continuing)
> Somehow sensing reached a complexity that made it into
> emotions. A glance at the primates may shed some light on the
> mechanism. A baboon "chief" needn't actually bite, baring it's
> fangs makes the subjects obey, the bite has become an
> "abstraction" (not into language yet!) while such abstractions are
> beyond the pure biological organisms. Among humanoids the
> abstraction trend went further: "Urges" became transformed to
> something more lasting, something that the individuals experienced
> as "society's will", not yet mediated by language, but complex
> social patterns could form mediated by this ability.
Sorry Bo. You lost me. The fact that a worm can't perform abstract
gestures or put his feelings into words doesn't mean it doesn't sense
the "emotion" of pain. From his reaction to being stuck on a hook, it's
reasonable to assume that he is aware (to the extent that worms are
aware) that he is at least uncomfortable and would be better off
someplace else.
But I've learned from past experience not to be hasty in consigning your
ideas to the recycle bin. I look forward to your further elucidation of the
emotions-at-the-social level concept.
Platt
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 - 16:01:48 BST