Thanks Arlo the anvil, for letting me bash these ideas around with you.
[Arlo] > There is no doubt that as biological beings, the biological necessities of > our embodiedness means we MUST respond to the needs of these biological > patterns. But this is just like saying, hey, we have stomachs so we need to > eat. Okay. Duh. :-) > > John: btw, "duh" contains an intrinsic ":-)", just so ya know. But beside that point, you are wrong, wrong, wrong, Arlo. The intellectual freedom of our being means that we can decide to diet, or fast, regardless of our biological imperatives. People even starve themselves to death, to make an intellectual point - it's called a hunger strike. So there is certainly no MUST involved in your example. We also diet to appear attractive so we can satisfy our urges for a mate - but I'd argue that's more social than biological also. My main point is about the primacy of value - the hierarchy, "what level is in charge" and by far we tend to intellectualize a diet, so we can lose weight and attract a mate. The social level is at the root of our needs, desires and motivations. And even more fundamentally, at the root of our identity as individuals. This is a confused issue around here, that needs some real examination. But as far as "biological drives" they are there, of course, but so often over-ruled and tamed that they really are completely beside the point. Hunger to starvation makes a good example. We don't fear death because of biology. Our mechanism admits its pain sensations, but it is a judgment call to know whether this is a life-threatening situation or a diet plan. The fear of death, the emotionality, is all wrapped up in the ego - the fears of an ego are what drive the emotional reactions, not the biological mechanisms of hunger. Sure, we get cranky when we're hungry. And there's a blood sugar - pain component to that. But it's our ego's attachment to our pleasure, which actually drives the emotion. The ego as a social - intellectual construct. Arlo: > But the biological level does not care about "Grocer Bob owns them > potaters", on the biological level there is "hunger" and there is "eat". > Property ownership is non-existent on this level. > > So social patterns "control" the biological patterns, or if you prefer > "channel" them, in ways so that they can be met without being destructive of > the social level. The reason you do not pick up that potater and eats it, is > that social patterns are in control of your biological patterns. > > John: Well, I definitely agree with you there. That's pretty much the point I'm making as well. > [John] > > Interestingly you've got it exactly backwards. > > [Arlo] > Even more interesting was that I was agreeing with you. I was saying that > "sadness" would seem to me to be more social than physiological in origin, > which is NOT to say that emotions do not effect physiology. Stress amps up > your blood pressure, for example, and I think some forms of depression can > actually change your brain chemistry. > John: Interesting then that we're in agreement but we like to argue anyway. :-) And yes, brain, body, the whole thing is intensely governed by our emotional states. Now, where do our emotional states come from? I've made the claim that they come from the social level, and arguing that the ego is a social creation and that most emotional states stem from ego then I've covered my base pretty comprehensively. Except for something very important. Emotions, good and bad, are also generated by non-social impetus. The contemplation of a beautiful sunset, a passage of music. These emotions seem to me to come from a moment of freedom from social concerns or formulations. The self is lost in the moment of contemplation of beauty and a powerful emotional component is felt. This is really what we mean when we say we experience Quality in a particular moment. And I say that doesn't obviate my formulation. It confirms it. For the isolated self, the ego, is always in angsty worry about how it's doing, whether it will be allowed to continue to survive and exist. This is a social angst, and when the ego is united with the whole, through the contemplation of beauty, the relief felt is a reaction against the social tension, and thus an important component OF that social tension. Whew. I think I get it. Arlo: > > For me I think a test would be something like this. If we imagine a feral > human being surviving in complete social isolation on a deserted island with > no human artifacts or presence whatsoever, then ask, what "emotions" would > this being feel? There would certainly be an evident "flight response", and > so I am comfortable saying that such a thing is likely the product of > complex neuro-physiology rather than social appropriation. I don't know if I > would expect this "person" to be able to be "sad" though, because such a > thing seems to me to be reliant on a social-language/social-interaction. > Same with "love". > > John: Well if the individual had never, ever been exposed to any other, I don't believe that individual would have any thoughts, feelings or being. Individuality is a social creation and without that creation, does not exist. You can anthropomorphize a rock or a flower, but that doesn't mean they really are individuals. You can anthropomorphize a bunch of biological flesh, but without any software, the hardware is meaningless. Arlo: So it seems to me, on first pass, that certain emotions (like sadness and > love) appear (as you said) to have "social roots". "Fear" may be a social > pattern that comes from the biological "flight instinct", so if we are > looking for a "root", that one may be on the biological level. > > I'm going in a different direction than that. Self is social. Emotions arise from a self. Plain. Simple. John the hammer 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/md/archives.html
