>[Krimel] > I raised the issue of emotion because emotions tend to be autonomic > activities that encode experiences as being positive or negative. It is > this "valence" property that helps us establish Quality as we reflect on > our experiences. This valance is hard to over come. It helps to establish > our attitudes and influences our perception of experiences. Intellect > becomes a process of reconciling logic and emotional valence.
> This should not be terribly surprising since emotional valence is common > to mammals. It forms heuristics that tell even tree sloths that something > good happened under similar circumstances in the past and may do so again > when they occur again. > > Certainly intellect is not a property of tree sloths. It seems to be a > property exclusive to humans. It involves the use of language and > intersubjective agreement. [Platt] Agree. I would even go further and suggest emotion, understood as intensity of feeling, is part and parcel of intellectual processes. Many science types are passionate logical positivists. [Krimel] I was still thinking on a far more simplistic scale. Infants "know" that food is "good". Hunger is "bad". Warmth is "good". Cold is "bad". They are "attracted" to a caregiver. They are biologically equipped from the first moments of life to engage their caregivers in social dialog. To the extent that emotions have this plus or minus Quality, it can be thought of as a "sense of Quality". A primary perception if you will. > [Krimel] > As to the chicken and egg business of the MoQ level; I am not a fan. I > have said many times they are a misleading distraction. [Platt] If by "valence" you mean the dictionary definition: "the degree of attractiveness an individual, activity, or thing possesses as a behavioral goal," then I would suggest that the levels reflect the "valence" of the evolution of Quality. Maybe a bit of a stretch, but Pirsig's moral hierarchy encompasses the notions of "degree" and "goal." [Krimel] Have I mentioned in the past what an unfortunate choice Pirsig made in using the term Quality for Tao? Similarly his use of Value without reference to quantity? I meant valence in the sense of chemistry where valence is plus or minus and is a measure of their attraction and bonding capacity. But your definition works too. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
