Krimel,
Right, keep the voodoo out of philosophy. Science is a useful social tool.
Marsha
At 02:36 AM 10/24/2008, you wrote:
Hi Krimel --
Bo, Ham, ml and dmb,
This is a subject I have attempted to address several times
in the past and I have really had to exercise restraint in jumping
in here. ...
I'm not sure why you invited me into this
discussion, as I don't have the reductionist
view of consciousness that you all seem to infer
from Pirsig's writings. The neurophysical
speculations you've made as an argument for
localizing the "seat of emotions" are beyond the
scope of traditional philosophy, and I think
your conclusions severely limit the concept of
value, even as Pirsig intended it. I also take
exception to what I assume is your
interpretation of Ham's "proprietary sensibility":
Some here claim that human nature is fundamentally about
individuals seeking personal gratification. But the presence
[of] social emotions, at least to me, suggests that our dependence
on others is much more fundamental than pure selfishness.
This totally misrepresents the essentialist
perspective of man as a being-aware. All
sensibility (i.e., sentience) relates to the
organism with which it is identified. In
cerebrates, self-awareness is the fundamental
locus of sensibility. In human consciousness,
fundamental awareness is value-sensibility, from
which the brain and sympathetic nervous system
differentiate value as the experience of
reality, along with emotional feelings,
intellectual concepts, and moral
judgments. Thus, for every individual,
being-in-the-world is a "personal" experience
expressing his/her values. I don't know how an
emotion can be "social", but to characterize
this structuring of value into finite beingness
as "personal gratification" and "pure
selfishness" demeans man's role in existence,
whether you subscribe to my philosophy of Essence or Pirsig's MoQ.
But since you're intent on treating emotions as
"biological patterns", I'd like to comment on
your response to a statement made by Chris.
[Chris]:
When I was talking about greed, I meant that greed was
one thing at the biological level (and there it can't really be
called greed meaningfully) that social structures can then use,
and build upon in order to maintain the social values that
has been set up. Greed then becomes a powerful social tool,
and the balance between social and biological can work
quite well, because only with the intellectual level do things
like human worth (människovärde) arise as an idea of Quality.
[Krimel]:
There is a lot of confusion to unpack in this paragraph.
While emotions can be mediated by social patterns they
are still purely biological. One can not will to "feel" happy
or sad or fearful. Nor can we wish these emotions away
when they occur. We can attempt to create conditions that
draw out or suppress emotions but they remain inherently
biological. It is not clear to me what you are throwing
sensation and reason in here for.
When you say "mediated by social patterns", do
you mean "experienced by the individual"?
If so, we're talking about "feeling" value
emotionally. I don't know that emotions can't
be controlled by the will, as you claim, since
Buddhists put much effort into eliminating
desire which they believe to be the source of
man's emotional angst. But regarding your
question to Chris about including reason with
the emotions, this reference may be of interest:
"The amygdala is a central processing station in
the brain for emotions, but Yale researchers
report that the amygdala also plays a role in
working memory, a higher cognitive function
critical for reasoning and problem solving. In
two different functional magnetic resonance
imaging (fMRI) studies with a total of 74
participants, individual differences in amygdala
activity predicted behavioral performance on a
working memory task, according to the report in the Journal of Neuroscience.
"'People with stronger amygdala responses during
the working memory task also had faster response
times,' said Jeremy Gray, senior author of the
study and assistant professor of psychology.
'This effect held even when people were
responding to neutral words, which can hardly be
called emotional'." --[Medical News Today:
Seat Of Emotions In Brain May Also Contribute To Higher Cognition]
If I may elevate this discussion from the brain
cell level of emotion to human awareness, I'll
conclude with a statement by Robert Lanza, vice
president of research and scientific development
at Advanced Cell Technology and a professor at
Wake Forest University School of Medicine. Dr,.
Lanza has written extensively on the
relationship of biology to philosophy, and this
quote from his essay "A New Theory of the
Universe" may offer additional food for thought
from an essentialist perspective:
"Without perception, there is in effect no
reality. Nothing has existence unless you, I,
or some living creature perceives it, and how it
is perceived further influences that
reality. Even time itself is not exempted from biocentrism."
Essentially yours,
Ham
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/
.
.
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in
which each is a reflection of all the others in a
fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.
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/
