Bodvar-
Thank you for the thorough explanation of your system. I agree that
there's surely a need to compress each level into one expression that
mediates its particular value. And while I also agree that emotion is a
powerful social motivator I can't help but feeling as though the term
seemingly excludes any impersonal social relationship. Perhaps
"Responsibility" is a better way to refer to the 'cement' of society.
Unless you consider "responsibility" an "emotion".
Richard Budd
At 07:07 PM 10/22/98 +0000, you wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 Richard Budd wrote:
>
>> For Bodvar (or anyone Qualified to answer)-
>> I understand the equating of Interaction with inorganic/chem. and
>> Sensation with biological and Reason with intellectual. However, I was
>> wondering how "Emotional" fits the Social level. I'm sure that this has
>> been explained previously (before I found this forum) but I wondering if
>> you would mind running it down again.
>> I was also wondering if this system comes from Pirsig. I don't
>> remember seeing it LILA (of course this could just be a problem with my
memory).
>> Thanks.
>> R. Budd
>
>Richard B
>Nice to meet you and welcome to the discussion. No, the
>INTERACTION-SENSATION-EMOTION-REASON thing is purely of
>my own making (with a little help from Magnus Berg on the
>"Interaction" part if I remember correctly).
>
>It came about after Maggie Hettinger had forwarded her "mediation"
>idea (hope I haven't misinterpretated it Maggie) and Hugo Alroe
>Fjelsted "representation" from the Autopoietics of Varela and
>Maturana (same to you Hugo); a kind of metaphysics that says that
>there is no object reality only (subjective) representation.
>
>Autopoietics sounds like subjectivism, and as the MOQ starts by
>rejecting both objects and subjects the Quality is not identical to
>it and my list is not to be taken as an "inner" experience in
>contrast to an "outer", but out of a need to compress the various
>levels' value into one expression through which they mediate
>their value.
>
>Over to your question how 'emotion' can be seen as the
>Social level's expression? What is the social cement if not
>emotions? Next to Biology's 'sensation' of pain and pleasure it is
>the strongest urge there is. Sorrow and joy ; tears, laughter,
>are immensely persuasive and "sharing" (contagious).
>
>The Quality evolution can be regarded this way: The Inorganic
>level's INTERACTION is the base on which the Organic level's
>neural signals of pleasure and pain build. Biology's immediate
>SENSATION developed into "abstract sensations" (feeling of joy and
>sorrow, and a million in-between shades) that can be socially shared
>(empathy) - which IS another name for EMOTION. In turn the "social
>feeling" abstrahized further by language into REASON; the capacity of
>feeling good or bad by merely "thinking". Feeling good over a
>beautiful idea, or bad over ugly one.
>
>This is merely another way of describing the Quality experience
>with "feeling" as the denominator and no challenge to Pirsig's
>original idea. Behind it all is VALUE which determines why the
>physical constants have their value, why pain hurts, why crying is
>sad and why an idea is beautiful?
>
>Hope this answers your question Richard.
>
>Bodvar
>
>
>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>body of email
>
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:36 BST