[MD] Emotions' place?

[MarshaV]

Krimel,

Right, keep the voodoo out of philosophy.   Science is a useful social tool.

Marsha



At 02:36 AM 10/24/2008, you wrote:

>Hi Krimel --
>
>>Bo, Ham, ml and dmb,
>>
>>This is a subject I have attempted to address several times
>>in the past and I have really had to exercise restraint in jumping
>>in here. ...
>
>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":
>
>>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.
>
>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.  I don't know how an 
>emotion can be "social", but to characterize 
>this structuring of value into finite beingness 
>as "personal gratification" and "pure 
>selfishness" demeans man's role in existence, 
>whether you subscribe to my philosophy of Essence or Pirsig's MoQ.
>
>But since you're intent on treating emotions as 
>"biological patterns", I'd like to comment on 
>your response to a statement made by Chris.
>
>[Chris]:
>>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 do things
>>like human worth (människovärde) arise as an idea of Quality.
>
>[Krimel]:
>>There is a lot of confusion to unpack in this paragraph.
>>While emotions can be mediated by social patterns they
>>are still purely biological. One can not will to "feel" happy
>>or sad or fearful. Nor can we wish these emotions away
>>when they occur. We can attempt to create conditions that
>>draw out or suppress emotions but they remain inherently
>>biological. It is not clear to me what you are throwing
>>sensation and reason in here for.
>
>When you say "mediated by social patterns", do 
>you mean "experienced by the individual"?
>If so, we're talking about "feeling" value 
>emotionally.  I don't know that emotions can't 
>be controlled by the will, as you claim, since 
>Buddhists put much effort into eliminating 
>desire which they believe to be the source of 
>man's emotional angst.  But regarding your 
>question to Chris about including reason with 
>the emotions, this reference may be of interest:
>
>"The amygdala is a central processing station in 
>the brain for emotions, but Yale researchers 
>report that the amygdala also plays a role in 
>working memory, a higher cognitive function 
>critical for reasoning and problem solving.  In 
>two different functional magnetic resonance 
>imaging (fMRI) studies with a total of 74 
>participants, individual differences in amygdala 
>activity predicted behavioral performance on a 
>working memory task, according to the report in the Journal of Neuroscience.
>
>"'People with stronger amygdala responses during 
>the working memory task also had faster response 
>times,' said Jeremy Gray, senior author of the 
>study and assistant professor of psychology. 
>'This effect held even when people were 
>responding to neutral words, which can hardly be 
>called emotional'."      --[Medical News Today: 
>Seat Of Emotions In Brain May Also Contribute To Higher Cognition]
>
>If I may elevate this discussion from the brain 
>cell level of emotion to human awareness, I'll 
>conclude with a statement by Robert Lanza, vice 
>president of research and scientific development 
>at Advanced Cell Technology and a professor at 
>Wake Forest University School of Medicine.  Dr,. 
>Lanza has written extensively on the 
>relationship of biology to philosophy, and this 
>quote from his essay "A New Theory of the 
>Universe" may offer additional food for thought 
>from an essentialist perspective:
>
>"Without perception, there is in effect no 
>reality.  Nothing has existence unless you, I, 
>or some living creature perceives it, and how it 
>is perceived further influences that 
>reality.  Even time itself is not exempted from biocentrism."
>
>Essentially yours,
>Ham
>
>
>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/

.
.
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in 
which each is a reflection of all the others in a 
fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.