From: nic nott (gnicgnostic@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jun 10 2003 - 19:44:25 BST
I think that our understandings of emotion need to be much more refined than this. Consider shame
(which I imagine most people would accept was an emotion). There is clearly a biological component
(changed physiology, blushing etc). There is also clearly a social component (it is the expected
disapproval of others which provokes the shame after all; ie the transgressing of social codes). Yet
it also seems to me that, in this complex of reactions, there is room for a fourth level input - one
can decide to reject the social codes (think of the sexual revolution); one can decide *not* to feel
the shame, one might even feel ashamed of feeling ashamed. The important thing for me is that, in
that last instance, where the decision is made to reject a social code, that decision cannot be
fully described without recourse to the emotional make up of the individual concerned, ie, to
describe a decision (a value preference) one must account for what is valued - and that is a
discernment of emotions. In other words, our emotions are how we determine what we value, and they
will do so for as long as we preserve our biological nature. (From Oatley and Jenkins,
'Understanding emotions': "An emotion is usually caused by a person consciously or unconsciously
evaluating an event as relevant to a concern (a goal) that is important...") What I find interesting
is how we refine our emotional repertoire, how we progress along the path of emotional intelligence,
ie wisdom. That's why I developed my 'eudaimonic' thesis.
Hence I view emotions as playing a role at the fourth level, so to say the emotional response is
redundant as we become more intellectual is to perpetuate an intellectualist fallacy - one which DMB
thinks is no longer prevalent in our society, but I disagree with him about that.
"Phaedrus is fascinated too by the description of the motive of 'duty toward self' which is an
almost exact translation of the Sanskrit word 'dharma', sometimes described as the 'one' of the
Hindus. Can the 'dharma' of the Hindus and the 'virtue' of the Ancient Greeks be identical?" - The
Eudaimonic MoQ says yes. "Lightning hits!"
Hi Sam
I certainly don't want to describe emotions as redundant , far from it I think they are fundamental to who we are . The only way I know my intellect is on the right track is when it makes me feel good , when it is beautiful . My point is that they are created by the intellect ( evolutionary intellect or concious intellect or both, if there is a difference ) and then when later found to be lacking , are refined or even replaced . Emotions are almost stored thinking . For instance , if somebody tells me a racist joke it makes me angry , I don,t think " this is humour based on the colour of somebodies skin - this causes people distress - this is detrimental to society and therefore to me - ergo this is not funny I'm going to get angry " . But something along that line of thinking is what iniated that emotion in me in the first place and later thinking might refine that thinking . I believe the truly enlightened person doesn't think right , they feel right ( the knower , I think ,
feels rather than calculates ) , but in order to feel right you have to first think right .
Not sure I'm explaining myself well here , but I,ve a feeling we're on similar lines , would love to read your thesis , is it in archives ?
Nic
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
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 : Tue Jun 10 2003 - 19:44:58 BST