hey krim,
let me say that your point is a very important one - ie how is dq, felt experience, not another form of emotivism. i'll try and phrase this well: emotivism presumes the subject and object. there is my body in which i feel an emotion which is then registered by consciousness. in pre-intellectual experience there is no distinctions only the experience. there is no body, or mind, or objects of any sort; the subject is absent too, strictly speaking. no observer just ongoing observation. this is partly a semantic game, as ludwig would have probably said, before he reneged on himself....but there is something of value here and it is logical. emotivism is SOM. hey all isms are SOM! but that's a cheap shot that explains not much. geez man this is tough stuff: forgive my past transgression, impudence, anger, rancour, etc...it is all borne of frustration at my own discursive impotence and also the immense inertial resistance intrinsic to any paradigm shift. do you see how a body is necessary for emotion? maybe this is the best way to show how emotivism is still SOM - still dualistic - still presumes the separate physical self. the MOQ is predicated on mystic truth, on the incontrovertible exclusively mystical nature of truth. period. to fashion a metaphysics from this base is always going to be an essentialy paradoxical affair, why mess with it - you just hide truth surely? but then again some analogues point better than others to the shiny shiny moon. obviously you have some degree of attachment krim: you sense the value in pirsig's schema otheriwse you wouldn't be such an ardent, intelligent poster. all i can say is suspend disbelief: whether its som or moq - they are both fictions: see which you like best. don't worry about which is true cos truth is like a butterfly: pin it down and you kill it and fell like a philistine. --- On Sun, 26/10/08, gav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: gav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Emotions' place? and why thinking is not SOM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: Sunday, 26 October, 2008, 9:34 AM > sq is any pattern abstracted from the flow of experience > (dq) > > thinking is an experience; therefore there is no subject > and object when we are engaged in original thought (habitual > thought is different): we are immersed in the experience. > > read lila zenith, it is a prereq for talking about it. > > your final para is spot on zenith. > > the stimulation -dq, immediate exp - is conceived as being > separate from the emotion in the MOQ, as the major > distinction in the MOQ is dq/sq. if emotion is static > quality, and all named patterns, repeating patterns, are sq, > then, within the MOQ, it is conceived as being separate from > the unrepeatable, unnameable cutting edge of exp - dq. > > all patterns are abstracted from DQ. the mind creates > static reality through this process. the int. level is about > the awareness of this process: reflecting (upon) it, > representing it, understanding it. > > SOM is the current dominant paradigm or program that is > used to try and comprehend the nature of reality. it > hasn't been able to do it because of its presumption of > duality - self and other - being final and real. > this duality is the schizophrenia of our culture - the > aristotelian excluded middle that drives a wedge between the > essentially complementary and dynamically unified yin and > yang. we don't want god or the devil, we NEED both, for > they are the two aspects we need to marry to get a better > picture of how shit goes down and goes up. > > cos reality is unified, experiential reality, phenomenal > reality is not divided, it is flowing - the undifferentiated > aesthetic continuum. duality only kicks in through us > mentally freezing the flow, dissecting it, naming the bits, > relating them etc. > > the nature of dq - the cutting edge, is aesthetic, not > emotional. there is a difference. emotions are motivating > forces felt within the body and reinforced/refined by the > mind. they are a psycho-somatic response to the initial > *aesthetic* experience - which in other words is the > experience of quality - ineffable, beyond def (once you try > you lose it). > > dq - unified immediate experience: aesthetic stimulus that > gets the emotional rollercoaster rockin. the stimulus is not > the emotion. > > and remember all this is clever word stuff. really there is > no dq and sq, just Q - even the dq/sq split is an > essentially imaginary first cut. just more fundamental than > the secondary cut of the static levels > > --- On Sun, 26/10/08, Zenith Uzbeckistan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: Zenith Uzbeckistan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [MD] Emotions' place? > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Received: Sunday, 26 October, 2008, 5:26 AM > > > Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 09:54:08 -0700> From: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [MD] Emotions' place?> > > [Gav] > emotions are static quality> > pre-intellectual > > exp is dynamic. > > I'm not sure exactly what this means. Certainly if > > someone (dmb) is going to accuse someone of not > > understanding the MoQ, that person should be willing > and > > able to explain it (SQ/DQ) to someone who hasn't > read > > Lila, namely me, to defend his claim of superior > > understanding. Perhaps in another thread or to me > > personally. Please. (:P) Briefly, if possible. > > I could guess what I think it means, but I've > learned > > not to try. > > > > > emotions are psycho-somatic patterns registered > in the > > wake of dq. > > > > Is dq here the same as pre-intellectual awareness? > > > Emotions are not the immediately felt quality of > the > > situation because they are defined, whereas > > > the immediate felt quality is not.> > static/dynamic > > Referring here to intentionality, I suppose. The > thoughts, > > conscious or unconscious, that go along with the > feelings > > are arguably part of the emotion. Excitement is > > distinguished from fear only through those thoughts. > Of > > course I cannot prove this. > > > > I would argue all thinking incorporates S/O > distinctions. > > Arosal is arosal until we have the simultaneous > thought, > > "she's attractive" or, alternatively, > > "this bridge is dangerous." Can we have one > > without the other? This is the real question. Just > because > > they are logically seperable doesn't mean they are > > actually causually seperable. > > > > I believe that the disagreement is over the definition > of > > whether the stimulation, (dq or sq?) is seperate from > the > > emotion, and whether the emotion includes both the > > stimulation and the thought or not. > > > > Tell me different. > > -Zenith > > > > > --- On Sun, 26/10/08, Krimel > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > From: > Krimel > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > Subject: Re: [MD] > > Emotions' place?> > To: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Received: Sunday, 26 > > October, 2008, 2:30 AM> > dmb says:> > I > > don't suppose you'd be interested in > talking> > > > about reductionism, would> > you? If > it's not > > clear to you what I mean by> > reductionism, > please > > review the> > statements above. Your comments > depict > > it exactly.> > Obviously you do not see> > > this > > as a problem. Quite the opposite. You take my> > > > complaints about it to be> > the problem. > Apparently, > > you think anti-reductionism is a> > kind of> > > > > romanticism, as a kind of anti-scientific stance. This > > is> > simply not the> > case. The > > anti-reductionist does not oppose science. He> > > > simply opposes> > reductionism. There is a huge > > difference. The> > anti-reductionist wants > to> > > > improve science and knowledge by removing the > > reductionism.> > > > [Krimel]> > > Whatever > > the relative arguments over reductio > > nism might be,> > what you have> > > presents is > > sheer chicanery. You simple define> > > > "reductionism" as whatever> > Krimel > says > > and then run and hide under your security> > > blanket. > > I do define> > that as romanticism and it is > typical > > of your style. I> > would add that there> > > have > > certainly been calls to change our understanding > of> > > > reductionism since> > the 1930s and I embrace > that. I > > am as against your strawman> > as you are. > The> > > > fact remains that emotions are biological sources > of > > value.> > We are attracted> > and repelled > as a > > result of our emotional responses to> > > experience. > > There are> > several reasons for coming to this > > conclusion. > > > > First as you your self > have > > noted we share emotional> > responses with > other> > > > species in fact most mammals. This can not be the > > result of> > learning. It is> > either > inherited > > are derives from some supernatural agency.> > > > > > > Second, emotional reactions are common to people > > everywhere> > on earth. It is> > a form of > unive > > rsal communication within our species. We> > > can > > recognize the> > emotional states of people from > > nearly every other culture> > on earth and > they> > > > can recognize ours. This is not learned; this is > built > > in> > and hardwired.> > > > Third, > these > > emotional responses are physiologically based> > > and > > outside of> > conscious control. We do not > decide to > > feel sad or happy.> > We can not> > > consciously > > control blushing or smiling, we can not> > > consciously > > suppress a> > startle response or unless we are > a bit > > psychotic, we can> > not choose to> > > leave our > > asses burning on a hot stove.> > > > > Fourth, > > like it or not there are regions of the brain that> > > > > when stimulated> > produce emotional responses. > > Likewise when emotions are> > produced these> > > > > regions light up under various kinds of brain > imaging> > > > scans. These same> > regions are activated > in > > other mammals as well. Any> > account, > reductionist > > or> > not should be prepared to explain why this > is > > so.> > > > Fifth, even in cases > > where brain damage disrupts the> > conscious > > experience of> > emotion, the physiological > responses > > remain.> > > > To dismiss all of this on > the > > basis of some imagined> > philosophical> > > > technicality it simply disingenuous.> > > > > The > > real point is, all of this interferes with your> > > > > romantic conceptions of> > pure experience. You > seek > > to glorify the pre-intellectual> > and what I > have> > > > been saying threatens your romantic conceptions. > Let > > me> > repeat: Emotions ARE> > > pre-intellectual. > > They ARE pre-verbal. They ARE "the> > > immediately > > felt> > quality of the situation". They > occur > > prior to> > conscious evaluation. That is> > > not > > reductionism that is based on the everyday > experiences> > > > of everyman.> > James actually took this a > bit > > further in his paper> > "What is an > > Emotion." > > > > [dmb]> > > Take, for > > example, the scientific paper you recently asked> > > me > > to read and> > comment upon. You probably recall > that > > it was about the> > brain states of> > > > meditators. And hopeful > > ly you remember that I said that was> > all > fine > > and> > good because data are data but I also > > criticized your> > reductionistic> > > > interpretation of that study and suggested that > their> > > > findings need to be> > supplemented by the > > perspective from within the meditative> > > state.> > > > > > [Krimel]> > What exactly would > have > > asked the meditaters? In the course> > of the > > studies> > they were told to exercise their > usual > > practices. They were> > asked what their> > > > > practices were and control subjects received > > instructions> > on how to do the> > same > kind of > > thing. The reports of subjects were included> > > in the > > conclusion> > of the study. The point of the > study was > > to measure the> > brain activity of> > > > experienced versus non-experienced meditaters. It > found> > > > that the more> > experienced meditaters > have > > significantly different brain> > activity than > > less> > experienced meditaters. To me this > suggests > > learning. As> > meditaters practice> > > they get > > better at it. I can see where th > > is interpretation> > threatens your> > > world > > view but so be it. You seem to think that the > verbal> > > > reports of the> > subjects would somehow > alter > > the conclusion but the best> > that one could > say> > > > about the subjects' description of these > states is > > that> > they have an opinion> > about the > > meaning of those states. Nothing in these studies> > > > > could confirm or> > deny the validity of the > > subjects' reports other than> > to say that > the > > states> > are accompanied by this or that > subjective > > report.> > > > [dmb]> > ...the > experience > > as it was had by the meditators> > themselves > rather > > than> > JUST what the researchers observed from > the > > outside. See, I> > was not saying> > that > their > > findings are invalid or that they should be> > > > dismissed but that> > they are partial. And I > mean > > they are "partial"> > in both senses > of the > > word,> > which is to say they are biased and > > incomplete. That's> > why they need to > be> > > > supplemented by other perspectives. And that's > what> > > > perspectivalis > > m is all> > about. It says we need to take on > board > > all the various> > perspectives and> > > sort of > > add them up. Otherwise you get.... you guessed it;> > > > > reductionism.> > > > [Krimel]> > As > noted > > above the subjects WERE asked about what they were> > > > > experiencing and> > how they produced the > experiences. > > The results of all such> > studies are> > > > partial; in this case because more research is needed. > > But> > if we look at> > partial in sense > of > > biased then I suspect any bias was on> > your > touchy > > feely> > side. The research was promoted by the > Dalai > > Lama and the> > researchers> > conducting > the > > study were selected by him. > > > > I have > > omitted the book report from your latest class. It> > > > > is certainly nice> > have to support one's > > personal biases with the opinion> > of someone > else. > > But> > you know as well as I do that such > debates > > as> > reductionism/antireductionism> > or > the > > various theories of truth are by no means settled. > I> > > > am sure that you> > take great comfort in > the > > fact that there are arguments> > that support > > your> > romantic notions but blanket labeling > and > > strawman> > arguments are cheap> > tricks > and > > fail utterly to address the issue I have been> > > > raising.> > > > The argument I presented > about > > Pirsig's failure to> > understand the role > of> > > > emotion in science comes from Antonio > Damasio's > > book> > "Looking for Spinoza:> > Joy, > > Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain". From this> > > > > perspective science could not> > proceed if > scientists > > had no emotions. They would have no> > basis of > > deciding> > what to ask, how to proceed or how > to > > evaluate their> > answers. Rather than> > > > challenging Pirsig's position it points straight > to > > the> > source of Value:> > > > pre-intellectual-emotional experience.> > > > > > > [dmb]> > I don't expect you to give up on > your > > reductionism> > because of this> > > explanation. > > But I do hope you'll at least start to see> > > what > > reductionism is> > and why so many people might > be > > against it.> > > > [Krimel]> > What > I see > > is you hidin > > g under your blanket. You have an> > > emotional> > > > commitment to these notions you cherish. You want > > the> > pre-intellectual to be> > something > lofty > > and lovely but you know not what. You want> > > > mystical> > experiences to be some guide to > Truth, > > with a big T and> > meaning whatever> > > feels > > good to you. I think this is the road to a warm > fuzzy> > > > delusion. The> > function of conscious > > intellectual processing is not to> > eliminate > > emotions> > but to augment them. Higher > consciousness > > serves as a check> > and balance> > > against > > unbridled and uncontrolled emotional responses. > You> > > > should try it> > sometime.> > > > > > 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/> > > > > Make the switch to the world's best > email. > > Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail> > 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/ > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The > Wordsmiths > > show you how. > > > http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008 > > 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/ > > > Make the switch to the world's best email. > Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail > 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/ Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail 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/
