Hello David (Swift) 1 Mar. you wrote:
> DS says: You cannot possibly know how helpful it is to have you all > clear these things up for me, n or can you imagine how grateful I am > that you take the time to help a newbie get up to speed. Mighty glad to be of any use. > Bo, I want to clear up the use of "feelings" instead of "sensations". > Those words do not mean exactly the same thing for me. Sensations are > externally driven whereas feelings can be internally or externally > driven. IMO we can perceive, as per Descartes, both ourselves and the > rest of the world. That doesn't mean that I'm committed to a S/OM. You say that perception of the world is by "senses" while perception of ourselves is through "feelings". A silly example, but is a toothache "the world" or "self"? Anyway IMO the said ache it's feeling-as-sensation, but if the pain makes me anxious (maybe a root filling) it's a feeling-as-emotion. So, lets use sensation and emotion. An aside: I guess the issue of us perceiving our emotions (moods) will come up. This is SOM's "self-awareness", we may return to that. > Yeah, intellectual with intelligence I get it, thanks. If it means that you understand the pit-fall of confusing the intellectual level with intelligence (the ability to think) Great!!!! > OK the real discussion between us starts with emotions. ZAMM IMO is > almost nothing other than an attempt to understand emotions > intellectually. Pirsig is the normal? hyper-rational dweeb who can't > feel, focus on, acknowledge his own emotions. In ZAMM he sets out on a > trip to understand what all the fuss is about. He talks about the > musicians who tell him to just shut-up and dig it...... Yes, P. was hyper-rational and already his insight of an endless numbers of hypothesis ... etc. made him aware of a void under rationality (SOM's objective reality). This sent him out on his lateral drift and by and by the Quality epiphany But he simply HAD to be to unmask reason. Normal people who have a proper emotional ballast will not go to the length that Phaedrus went. He was "crazy" from the outset, thank Goodness. > They think that emotions cannot be described logically, rationally I > think they can ... Sure, by the MOQ we can sort things out, but this was a SOM- steeped time. and from SOM seen emotions and reason are worlds apart, "the wain shall never meet". > and that they are biological "feelings" rather than > "sensations"....... IMO Emotion is the social "expression", not biological feeling. Look, all the chemical compounds an organism employs are inorganic patterns, thus biological value is that of raising these to SENSATIONS, i.e. that one chemical spells pain and another spells pleasure. Next, social value is raising biological sensations to social EMOTIONS. As in my silly example a toothache may trigger anxiety . Intellect finally raises emotions to REASON, the said anxiety is transformed into an realization that only the dentist visit can stop the pain > IMO emotions define the relationship between, not S and O, but us as > objects and the other objects in the rest of reality. Or others > including other animals and the rest of their realities. -david swift You possibly mean empathy? Us putting ourselves in the place of other people (even animals) Yes that's a most complex emotion and a most useful social "tool". 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/
