>[gav] "And remember all this is clever word stuff." Wordplay indeed! Luckily it is something I sort of enjoy. Thank you gav for sifting through my post and replying.
> DQ is defined as the "flow of experience", aesthetic stimulus that gets the > emotional rollercoaster rockin'. > The stimulus is not the emotion. Agreed. > Static Q is any pattern abstracted from the DQ experience Not sure what a "pattern" is. > The intellectual 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 (by the > intellect) 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. > Duality only kicks in through us mentally freezing the flow, dissecting it, > naming the bits, relating them etc. In other words, the duality occurs when the modern intellect tries to comprehend reality (reality = SQ?) Or, as I like to call it: thinking! > [gav] 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. Apparently I need a definition of thinking. And it would be nice to know what you would call the act of "using a paradigm to comprehend the nature of reality", if it isn't thinking. > 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 definition (once you try you lose it). Don't know what "aesthetic" means in this sense. How can there be any awareness before an emotion or thought? As Krimel asked, what would characterize this awareness? Value? What does that mean? I KNOW that I have feelings and thoughts, but I have no evidence to back the idea that there might be awareness previous to those. Why should one choose to believe in something that cannot be explained (ineffable)? What use would that belief be? I know it would be easier to discuss this if I had read all the material on the MoQ, but there is no Lila at the bookstores or libraries where I live, and I cannot order it online because I closed my bank account (I'm a poor starving college student who leeches life-force and money from my parents) Thanks again, Zenith ---------------------------------------- > Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:34:58 -0700 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [MD] Emotions' place? and why thinking is not SOM > > 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 wrote: > >> From: Zenith Uzbeckistan >> 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 >> wrote:>>> From: Krimel >> >> 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/ _________________________________________________________________ Store, manage and share up to 5GB with Windows Live SkyDrive. http://skydrive.live.com/welcome.aspx?provision=1?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_102008 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/
