[MD] Emotions' place?

[skutvik at online.no]

Krimel

23 Oct. you wrote

[Bo] had said:
> > 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?

[Krimel]
> What these experiments illustrate is that higher consciousness
> functions to evaluate the conditions of an emotional response in terms
> of the internal and external circumstance that give rise to it. But
> this in no way suggests that the basic emotions are anything other
> than biological patterns. Social patterns certainly establish
> conditions for the appropriate context for the expression of emotion.
> But the emotions themselves are autonomic and biological.

I guess this was written before my last to Mel - or you not noticing it -
so a little introduction.

By rejecting the S/O split in favor of the Dynamic/Static one there is no 
consciousness (mind) that evaluates what goes on in its body. This 
configuration (mind/body) belongs to MOQ's intellectual level's science  
thus (as said to Mel) the MOQ has no dispute with science .... OTHER 
than if/when science claims that the S/O split (mind/body in this 
context) is existence's fundament. 

>From these SOL premises you ought to understand the rest, but this 
discussion clings to the orthodox way of how the MOQ subsumes 
SOM and ends up in a hopeless debates of this kind where you 
represent the scientific (physiological, psychological ...etc.) 
understanding and make it sound as if science contradicts the MOQ. 

The said orthodox "harmonization" claims that the two lower levels are 
"objective" and the two upper "subjective". This places the mind/body 
borderline between biology and society and makes the MOQ a quasi-
alternative to science (ref. Pirsig's Q-variety of various scientific 
disciplines) and further claims that this resolves the SOM-induced 
paradoxes (platypis) This is not feasible. I would have liked to pursue 
this issue but ...     

> It is interesting to note however that certain emotions do seem to be
> uniquely human and depend entirely upon social conditions. 

No wonder, only humankind has reached the social level. 

> The emotions of pride and shame for example are only meaningful in the
> context of others. I think this illustrates how socially dependant
> creatures we are. 

The social level is infinitely older than the intellectual and a "safer 
latch". Pride was terribly important in the Victorian times (society's last 
stand in the Western world: "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen) 
Shame likewise. A Victorian lady would better be dead than .... you 
know.  

> That something as biologically based as emotion could evolve and be
> encoded genetically says something about fundamental human nature. 

That the social level (emotions) is "out of biology" is plain, but you 
(rejecting the MOQ) are at the 4th. level intellect where mind 
experiences what goes on in the body as f.ex. emotions. The crux is 
the social level which isn't science's "sociology". There is no mind in 
the MOQ the biological level's Quality response is SENSATION, the 
social ditto is EMOTION and intellect's is REASON, the two former are 
as much - or less - mind as the latter.        

> Some here claim that human nature is fundamentally about individuals
> seeking personal gratification. But the presence social emotions, at
> least to me, suggests that our dependence on others is much more
> fundamental than pure selfishness.

This is another intellectual (scientific) S/O dichotomy and as such 
impossible to reconcile. You seem to lean towards social dependence, 
but the case for selfishness (genes?) is the just as strong. This 
quandary the MOQ resolves by relegating it to its static intellectual 
level where the said distinction is enormous useful, but ends in 
frustration if one asks what is THE cause, this because the static S/O 
isn't fundamental.  

Enough for now. Chris, Ham and DMB will speak for themselves.

Bo