[MD] Emotions' place?

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

[Bodvar posted:]
> Emotions woke my interest.
>
> 19 Oct.:
>
> [Chris]
>> >> No, not all emotions are of the biological level, though they all
>> >> need the biological level,  and of course the levels are
>> >> overlapping and interrelated.
> (snip)
>
>> [Platt]
>> > What emotions do you think are NOT of the biological level? Pirsig
>> > wrote: "The MOQ sees emotions as a biological response to quality
>> > and not the same thing as quality.  There are many cases,
>> > particularly in economic activity where values occur without any
>> > emotion." (LS, Note 141)
>
>
> IMO emotion is the social "expression" (Sensation the biological and
> Reason the intellectual). Animals wouldn't survive if they had
> emotions. When an antelope has escaped a lion it continues to graze
> as if nothing has happened. If it had been afraid in the emotional
> sense it would never have dared venture out in the open again and
> quickly succumbed.
>
> But as Chris says, emotions "need the biological level". There is the
> experiment of people being injected with adrenalin. Those told in
> beforehand felt the restlessness, but took no further notice, while
> those who didn't know, reacted emotionally, they felt danger
> threatening (flee or fight). This because humans are social beings and
> interprets the biological sensations emotionally. A silly example: A stab
> of pain: Am I ill, will I die?
>
> We are also "intellectuals" so for those told about the expected
> reaction reason overuled emotions.
>
> Chris continued:
>> >>  But I do think that greed could be
>> >> seen as a biological pattern, the basic drive for survival is
>> >> greatly benefited by it.
>
> "Greed" is an ambiguous term. One may eat greedily if hungry but this
> is biology's SENSATION.
>
>> >>But when the social level comes along, it
>> >> is important that it (the social level) can get this under control.
>
> To pursue hunger you are right, it is controlled by society into meals
> and table manners. All bodily functions that animals just relieve are
> similarly controlled.
>
>> >> Similarly it would seem to be the intellectual levels mission to,
>> >> when reshaping social structures, to direct this drive at something
>> >> intellectually Good. Ideally though,
>
> Intellect doesn't directly "reshape" the social manners, but it may
> overrule them. A silly example; The astronomer Tycho Brahe ruptured
> his bladder in a drinking party where the king was present and it was
> socially impossible to leave the table before the majesty. These days
> reason would prevent such an outcome.
>
>> >> the MOQ will show the need for
>> >> balance, because of course the intellectual level cannot build only
>> >> for intellectual Good, that has been the problem before, there must
>> >> be a MOQ perspective.
>
> Agree. The MOQ reveals the level interactions and limitations (the
> lower must not override the upper, but the upper better not overwhelm
> its parent)
>
> Pirsig's
>    "The MOQ sees emotions as a biological response to quality
>    and not the same thing as quality.  There are many cases,
>    particularly in economic activity where values occur without any
>    emotion." (LS, Note 141)
>
> Emotions as biology see above. And  "...not the same as quality" is a
> bit strange. Everything is supposed to be responses to quality. Sad to
> say, but Pirsig in "Lila's Child" seems lost on many issues.

Hi Bo,

a Good post I think,  and I generally agree.

It sounds about right that "emotion is the social "expression" (Sensation 
the biological and
Reason the intellectual)"  - a good clarification I think. When I was 
talking about greed, I meant that greed was one thing at the biological 
level (and there it can't really be called greed meaningfully) that social 
structures can then use, and build upon in order to maintain the social 
values that has been set up. Greed then becomes a powerful social tool, and 
the balance between social and biological can work quite well, because only 
with the intellectual level does things like human worth (människovärde) 
arise as an idea of Quality.

The last paragraph can looked at as a bit strange, but to be fair, I think 
what Pirsig means here is that the static biological structures limit's the 
way in which quality can be perceived, and for each level there is a limit 
and a frame of Quality understanding - what do you think about that 
interpretation?

Regards

Chris