Emotions woke my interest.
19 Oct.:
[Chris]
>> No, not all emotions are of the biological level, though they all
>> need the biological level, and of course the levels are
>> overlapping and interrelated.
(snip)
[Platt]
> What emotions do you think are NOT of the biological level? Pirsig
> wrote: "The MOQ sees emotions as a biological response to quality
> and not the same thing as quality. There are many cases,
> particularly in economic activity where values occur without any
> emotion." (LS, Note 141)
IMO emotion is the social "expression" (Sensation the biological and
Reason the intellectual). Animals wouldn't survive if they had
emotions. When an antelope has escaped a lion it continues to graze
as if nothing has happened. If it had been afraid in the emotional
sense it would never have dared venture out in the open again and
quickly succumbed.
But as Chris says, emotions "need the biological level". There is the
experiment of people being injected with adrenalin. Those told in
beforehand felt the restlessness, but took no further notice, while
those who didn't know, reacted emotionally, they felt danger
threatening (flee or fight). This because humans are social beings and
interprets the biological sensations emotionally. A silly example: A stab
of pain: Am I ill, will I die?
We are also "intellectuals" so for those told about the expected
reaction reason overuled emotions.
Chris continued:
>> But I do think that greed could be
>> seen as a biological pattern, the basic drive for survival is
>> greatly benefited by it.
"Greed" is an ambiguous term. One may eat greedily if hungry but this
is biology's SENSATION.
>>But when the social level comes along, it
>> is important that it (the social level) can get this under control.
To pursue hunger you are right, it is controlled by society into meals
and table manners. All bodily functions that animals just relieve are
similarly controlled.
>> Similarly it would seem to be the intellectual levels mission to,
>> when reshaping social structures, to direct this drive at something
>> intellectually Good. Ideally though,
Intellect doesn't directly "reshape" the social manners, but it may
overrule them. A silly example; The astronomer Tycho Brahe ruptured
his bladder in a drinking party where the king was present and it was
socially impossible to leave the table before the majesty. These days
reason would prevent such an outcome.
>> the MOQ will show the need for
>> balance, because of course the intellectual level cannot build only
>> for intellectual Good, that has been the problem before, there must
>> be a MOQ perspective.
Agree. The MOQ reveals the level interactions and limitations (the
lower must not override the upper, but the upper better not overwhelm
its parent)
Pirsig's
"The MOQ sees emotions as a biological response to quality
and not the same thing as quality. There are many cases,
particularly in economic activity where values occur without any
emotion." (LS, Note 141)
Emotions as biology see above. And "...not the same as quality" is a
bit strange. Everything is supposed to be responses to quality. Sad to
say, but Pirsig in "Lila's Child" seems lost on many issues.
