>On 18 Aug 2002 at 23:27, Rod Porteous wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>> A question has arisen which I have no answer to...
>> "How does our subconscious react to quality?"
>> If you accept that we are guided at times by our subconscious, our
>> emotions, the little voice that stops us from doing things we know we
>> shouldn't!, which of ourselves is reacting to the conflict in values,
>> and ultimately to quality?
>
>Hi Rod
>I believe that starting a psychological ...lever A pushes against rod B
which
>turns wheel C ...etc. is in vain because psychology profess to be a branch of
>science - a most hilarious claim, but nevertheless - and science is the
>dominant pattern at the intellectual level and as such occupied by what
>causes what in a somish (subject/object) manner. What psychology calls
>subconscious is the whole value range below intellect.
>
>Now, directly below intellect is society and that level expresses itself by
>emotions (IMO) and these aren't exactly "subconscious", we are well aware
>of the little voice (conscience) or of the bad/good feeling it induces in
>ourselves. And as society is the foundation of intellect it may "rationalize"
the
>emotional signals ...no, not in the psychological sense of superego drifting
>helplessly on top of "id", Intellect is an enormous value realm that in turn
>may modify emotion yet the two aren't independent.
>
>Another step down is biology, even more archaic and "sub", yet its
>value/signals are experienced as pleasure or pain and a million shades in
>between - by the senses (IMO). These are modified by society and intellect -
>suppressed even - you don't copulate in the street and you share things with
>other, but in dire circumstances it may take over completely and you turn
>into an animal.
>
>Which of ourselves ....was your question, better "which of our selves"? We
>are an amalgam of the value levels and focus shifts between them. When all
>biological and social needs are met those are "out of mind" and we can
>concentrate on intellectual matters, but the balance is precarious, a sudden
>ache; a feeling of not having done what you should do and our intellectual
>considerations goes phooof!
Bo,
Despite putting down psychology (no problem
with that) these last few sentences are basically
Maslow'a (a psychologist )hierarchy of needs.
I am not sure if I completely agree with Maslow/Bo viewpoint.
1. Pirsig said somewhere that he didn't say whether you could
skip levels or not. I think this point is not confirmed either
way.
2. it is unclear how strict "needs are met" should be
taken...e.g. starving artist
erin
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:20 BST