Bo on Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:00 you posted:
DS:> 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. Bo: 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. DS: OK now I want three words to distinguish between different kinds of information "sensations" are externally sourced, "feelings" can be ex or internally sourced and emotions are always internally sourced. Examples: "Sensations" are like the light that reflects from the world into the eye affecting the rods and cones in specific patterns causing a visual feeling. "Feelings" can be like above or like an upset stomach. "Emotions" are a combination of any number of remembered feelings from either source coupled with the feeling (pain or pleasure) generated by a valued reflex. DS:> Yeah, intellectual with intelligence I get it, thanks. Bo: If it means that you understand the pit-fall of confusing the intellectual level with intelligence (the ability to think) Great!!!! DS: Yeah, I get it. Wasn't thinking. Thanks again. DS:> 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...... Bo: 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. DS: > They think that emotions cannot be described logically, rationally I > think they can ... Bo: 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 twain shall never meet". DS: I don't think so. I've seen many a red face in a supposed rational argument. We say that rationality is unemotional but, in fact, it's hot as hell. I think every piece of knowledge has a biologically necessary emotional component. "What is good Phaedrus and what is not. Do we need anyone to tell us these things?" > and that they are biological "feelings" rather than > "sensations"....... Bo: 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. DS: IMO Kant's great contribution was his realization that our minds would have innate characteristics. As I'm an empiricist I choose to believe that our minds and therefore its characteristics are biological. Kant says a mind can't function unless it automatically has concepts of space and time. One of RMP's great contributions is his realization that our minds cannot function without a way to evaluate Quality. See his discussion of world without Quality in ZAMM. A baby must recognize and evaluate mother's milk positively in order to survive, even a few days. See quote above even Plato recognized that all things are evaluated. I believe that this evaluation is one of the meanings that result from knowledge. And also that this meaning is emotional and that we couldn't survive even alone without it. Sure talking about your emotions will make you popular with the girls in bars but they also make choosing everything you need to live possible. Bo: 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. DS: Ibid > 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". DS: Emotions are also a social 'tool'. But I mean objects effect each other: a magnet effects iron filings, the sight of food effects a hungry person, electricity effects a light bulb. Emotions provide a means of evaluating that effect for objects that can evaluate (like us). -david swift 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/
