[Ham] 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":
[Krimel] I commented on your comments. I was not making neurophysical (sic) speculations I was commenting on an very extensive body of research in a very active field of study. If philosophy has a hard time keeping up with the flow of knowledge, that is philosophy's problem. You, like dmb, have an aversion to allowing anything to disrupt the free form flowing of your philosophical speculations. Anything that might actually allow someone else to reach a conclusion other than your own is dismissed out of hand with some nasty label. > [Krimel] > 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. [Ham] 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. [Krimel] I was not characterizing your particular issues with that comment. The point I was attempting to make or that I should have been attempting to make is that free market capitalism, like social Darwinism is based on faulty premises regarding human nature. Of course experience personal but what we are geared to do is share experience. We depend on others for our survival and the notion of "everyone for themselves" is just stupid. No society can succeed with that strategy. In fact the very concept of "society" cries out against this distortion. Your problem specifically is that you would rather make up your own language than communicate. For example 'cerebrates': WTF is that supposed to mean. Locus of sensibility, value-sensibility and the ever popular, pseudo- Heideggerian "being-in-the-world". [Ham] When you say "mediated by social patterns", do you mean "experienced by the individual"? [Krimel] No, I mean that the expression of individual emotion is controlled by social context. It is not proper to laugh at funerals or to feel rage in church. Different cultures have different attitudes with regard to the appropriate times and places to express emotions. 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/
