On 7 May 2002 at 19:59, enoonan wrote:
> BO: Infinitely interesting these things. You do know my so-called
> "expression" list?
> Interaction - Sensation - Emotion - Reason
> ERIN: yes i do remember. I thought your first statement implied a
> stage-like process with interacation first then sensation then emotion
> then reason. In this latest statement you imply that the chain
> reaction go the other way no?
> BO: I would say that it is emotions that start the
> tears and blows (the social level influences the biological level).
> Even Intellect can enter this "chain reaction" by smothering emotions
> and thus prevent biological blows ....or pulling of triggers.
> ERIN: Is it safe to conclude that they are simutaneously interacting
> rather then a stage-like process?
Hi again Erin.
It's difficult to "dissect" these things - cutting it open to show where rod
A pushes valve B ...etc. - it's like in a living organism where the
evolutionary neural levels (we share the spinal cord with the fishes, the
brain stem with the reptiles, the limbic system with the mammals and
the neocortex with the fellow humans) creates our existence without our
noticing any jumps. Likewise the quality levels create a seamless reality
An aside
SOM's impotence is its mind fallacy where we are locked into our so-
called "consciousness" with no access to experience at other
(biological) levels, but is an illusion: We ARE fishes, reptiles and
mammals and humans simultaneously.
> In a different thread I was discussing a jazz session as an analogy
> for a quality event (thus why simultaneous was more intuitive to me).
You are right, "simultaneous" it is, but when Intellect starts dissecting
things its time pattern kicks in.
> Not sure if I read you right or not. I agree that james/lange
> statement is not intuitive but was wondering how we KNOW what comes
> first--just because it is a higher level does it have to come last was
> what I was trying to ask.
A valid point this Erin. The higher level comes last in the q-
evolutionary perspective, but the "chain of command"?? ..... Let me
muse over it a little. In the said biological-neurological system the
influence can go both ways, but the best is upward. (When neocortex
intervenes with the limbic system it creates all sorts of awkwardness. A
dancer who thinks how to move is a bad dancer), but in the Q-level
system (where it must be stressed that the intellectual level isn't
identical with neocortex or "thinking" as such) the good way is
downwards, while the other way creates evil (a lower moral order
devouring a higher)
Yet, all the levels are there and dynamic focus shift according to the
situation.
Thanks for the interest.
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 - 16:02:15 BST