Krimel 23 Oct. you wrote
[Bo] had said: > > 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? [Krimel] > What these experiments illustrate is that higher consciousness > functions to evaluate the conditions of an emotional response in terms > of the internal and external circumstance that give rise to it. But > this in no way suggests that the basic emotions are anything other > than biological patterns. Social patterns certainly establish > conditions for the appropriate context for the expression of emotion. > But the emotions themselves are autonomic and biological. I guess this was written before my last to Mel - or you not noticing it - so a little introduction. By rejecting the S/O split in favor of the Dynamic/Static one there is no consciousness (mind) that evaluates what goes on in its body. This configuration (mind/body) belongs to MOQ's intellectual level's science thus (as said to Mel) the MOQ has no dispute with science .... OTHER than if/when science claims that the S/O split (mind/body in this context) is existence's fundament. >From these SOL premises you ought to understand the rest, but this discussion clings to the orthodox way of how the MOQ subsumes SOM and ends up in a hopeless debates of this kind where you represent the scientific (physiological, psychological ...etc.) understanding and make it sound as if science contradicts the MOQ. The said orthodox "harmonization" claims that the two lower levels are "objective" and the two upper "subjective". This places the mind/body borderline between biology and society and makes the MOQ a quasi- alternative to science (ref. Pirsig's Q-variety of various scientific disciplines) and further claims that this resolves the SOM-induced paradoxes (platypis) This is not feasible. I would have liked to pursue this issue but ... > It is interesting to note however that certain emotions do seem to be > uniquely human and depend entirely upon social conditions. No wonder, only humankind has reached the social level. > The emotions of pride and shame for example are only meaningful in the > context of others. I think this illustrates how socially dependant > creatures we are. The social level is infinitely older than the intellectual and a "safer latch". Pride was terribly important in the Victorian times (society's last stand in the Western world: "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen) Shame likewise. A Victorian lady would better be dead than .... you know. > That something as biologically based as emotion could evolve and be > encoded genetically says something about fundamental human nature. That the social level (emotions) is "out of biology" is plain, but you (rejecting the MOQ) are at the 4th. level intellect where mind experiences what goes on in the body as f.ex. emotions. The crux is the social level which isn't science's "sociology". There is no mind in the MOQ the biological level's Quality response is SENSATION, the social ditto is EMOTION and intellect's is REASON, the two former are as much - or less - mind as the latter. > Some here claim that human nature is fundamentally about individuals > seeking personal gratification. But the presence social emotions, at > least to me, suggests that our dependence on others is much more > fundamental than pure selfishness. This is another intellectual (scientific) S/O dichotomy and as such impossible to reconcile. You seem to lean towards social dependence, but the case for selfishness (genes?) is the just as strong. This quandary the MOQ resolves by relegating it to its static intellectual level where the said distinction is enormous useful, but ends in frustration if one asks what is THE cause, this because the static S/O isn't fundamental. Enough for now. Chris, Ham and DMB will speak for themselves. Bo 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/
