From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sat Aug 20 2005 - 08:19:46 BST
Hi and welcome Dario
On 19 Aug. you wrote:
> Hi Marsha (and Bo),
> At 05:28 PM 18/08/2005, Bo wrote:
> >"Love" must be the most worn expression the English language.
> >Make love and love to hate ...etc. Shortly it is an emotion and as
> >such it belongs to the social realm. Its "expression" so to say.
> >The opposite is Hatred, an emotion too.
> I doubt I will be able to agree with you that love is part of the
> social realm, unless you are talking about the love of the glossy
> magazines and trite novel for teenagers.
No, no I definitely don't men that.
> Emotions have been reported
> to be generated at biological level and it's well known their impact
> at social level.
If one takes a drink or harder stuff one experiences alteration of
mind (mood or thoughts). SOM has its mind/body model and
science has yet to discover the transformation mechanism
between these two realms (how stuff changes thoughts or how
thoughts changes the body). Thus SOM is obviously wrong.
Enter MOQ with its four-tiered reality and the tenet that each of
these four levels is the former "lifted" to a new reality. When a
mere biological (non-social) being spots danger it gets an
adrenalin shot and runs for its life. If it escapes, the adrenalin
dissipates, the excitement subsides and it grazes on. No fear no
hatred no anxiety. A social being however, a human being would
experience fear and the experience would linger on in dreams
and hatred of its foe.
The point of this (my favorite topic ;-) is to show that (in the
MOQ) it has no meaning to say that emotions have their origin at
biological level, if so everything has its origin at the inorganic
level. Adrenalin is an inorganic compound, only at the biological
level is it transformed to sensation. At the social level sensations
are transformed to emotions and finally, intellect transforms
emotions to reason.
> I am convinced that they play a much greater role.
Yes, I agree. The social level - emotions - is what sets the MOQ
apart and gives it its phenomenal explanatory power.
> Why did RMP write his books? I assume he wanted to do some good
> (something that has high quality). That sounds too close to a
> response to an emotional need and at the same time the product is
> too high quality to be a mere gratification for his biological
> needs.
Hmmm. Pirsig's former self Phaedrus obviously was an hyper-
intellect and pursued reason to its very brink and beyond. RMP
who tells about Phaedrus surely had good feelings (emotions) for
the book, but it was to "give reason a good trashing" which was
his aim, the good feelings the result of the process being
reversed: Reason creating emotions.
> I am not sure how all the above connects with an orthodox Christian
> God, but I finally gave up the idea to keep my intervention
> consistent with the thread and decided to jump right in.
Nor do I, religions are social patterns, they bring great feelings,
but who wants to commit intellectual suicide?
Bo
> P.S. a purely technical, totally off-topic question:
> How do you guys manage to have those fancy replies where the text of
> previous email is nicely quoted with the sender name and all ? Email
> me directly, please.
I recommend "Pegasus Mail"
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 20 2005 - 08:44:56 BST