----- Original Message -----
From: enoonan <enoonan@kent.edu>
To: MOQ <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 4:59 PM
Subject: MD a Quality event
> Hello BO,
>
>
> BO
> > "This answers the Quality Event question. DYNAMIC focus shifts
> > between the static levels and constantly creates the world by one
> > moment sensing existence from biology, the next feeling it (emotions)
> > from society and then reasoning about it from intellect." [Gary here:
This is very similar to what I elaborated in my essay: "What's wrong with
this picture?"]
>
> ERIN: How can we know emotions precede thought in the quality event?[Gary
here: The Quality event is first, but there is not just one event! I define
"Thoughts" in this example as "comprehension" which is what I beleive you
are doing. comprehension is thus not emotions. The process is not static
but on goingly dyanmic. A single event could be mapped as nonverbal sense
data-physiological reactions-feelings-thought-verbal emotions & conscious
awareness-conscious comprehension. But, from the veiw point of conscious
awarness the sequence is : awareness-thought/comprehension -verbal emotions-
therefore a thought "there must have been feelings & there must have been
somthing that triggered those feelings" - awareness of the fact that there
was sense data- a thought "Ah Ha there was a Quality Event!" emotions
precede the comprension in one sequence but not in the other. Both
sequneces are valid maps to describe the actual territory.]
>
>
> 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?
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
>
> Erin
Hi, all, this is Gary. I think all of this: the step/stages, the 'chain
reaction', which come first and the higher level questions, etc. are all
problems with the tools you are using. Every tool has limitations and the
user will suffer the effects of the tool. You are all using Aristotelian
logic tools. The idea that something is a fixed sequence, the idea that
there can be no middle ground- it is either a or b, the idea that a
hierarchy of levels is separate and the chain of command is top down only,
etc, all good and useful A logic metaphors and tools. But reality in its
actuality exhibits phenomenon beyond the confines of A logic. Which is the
realization that Alfred Korzybski had back in 1933 when he wrote "Science &
Sanity" A formulation of a Null-a logic [non-Aristotelian]. [check out the
website http://www.general-semantics.org/] [Just as Einstein's physics is
null-Newtonian and there is a non-euclian geometry. All of this use of the
'non' term means beyond or subsume the prior old systems.] It would help
you all to check out my first post Gary Jaron "What's wrong with this
picture" Sun May 05 2002 - 17:48:14 BST). In that essay I explain some new
tools. They are: Holarchies, the fact that nothing is separate,
multiplicity of layers and levels, the layers of activity of the human mind,
the fact that consciousness/ awareness is fixed within its limitations of
sequential, etc. With all of these tools your troubles addressed in these
post would dissolve.
There is a continuum of events which we consciously construct as fixed
sequences "Interaction-Sensation-Emotion-Reason" But reality is not the
words we use! The 'map' is not the territory. The brain process is
simultaneous on all three levels [see my essay] and it is sending signals up
and down the holarchy so that each level is effecting the other faster than
we at the upper conscious level can be aware of. Our awareness can only be
sequential. The process is not one single chain of events but multiple
chains.
Sort of like this discussion group, we have many discussion topic chains
going on all the time, some of which we are aware of, some of which we
ignore. Is one discussion thread 'before' another? No and Yes. A
discussion topic started at a fixed point in time, so yes one thread is
before the other. But sense data/discussion chains and internal thought
processes/the analysis in each email response are going on all the time and
they are interacting with each other. So, that which came first starts to
become less and less meaningful as the seconds go on. The interaction up
are happening so quickly that they are effecting each other and it is almost
"safe to conclude that they are simultaneously interacting rather then a
stage-like process."
We humans create the map of sequence out of our limitation of the tools we
are using: words and the conscious mind. Both words a conscious mind are
limited to, are trapped within the properties of those tools. The territory
that we are describing is not human made and will exhibit properties not
limited to our tools- hence seeming paradoxes.
When you ask "how we KNOW what comes first--just because it is a higher
level does it have to come last?" The answer is yes and no. Since we
humans have a infinite ability to make maps we can and do make maps to
describe reality that will give a yes answer and a no answer. It all
depends on what aspect of reality we are trying to describe at the time. It
is hard but, try to remember that human words/maps are not the actual
nonverbal thing/territory.
Hopefully the above will make more sense after reading my essay.
Gary Jaron, "People shape, and are shaped by, ideas."
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