[MD] Emotions' place?

Sat Oct 25 11:26:39 PDT 2008

> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 09:54:08 -0700> From: gav_gc at yahoo.com.au> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org> Subject: Re: [MD] Emotions' place?>
[Gav] > emotions are static quality> pre-intellectual exp is dynamic.
I'm not sure exactly what this means. Certainly if someone (dmb) is going to accuse someone of not understanding the MoQ, that person should be willing and able to explain it (SQ/DQ) to someone who hasn't read Lila, namely me, to defend his claim of superior understanding. Perhaps in another thread or to me personally. Please. (:P) Briefly, if possible.
I could guess what I think it means, but I've learned not to try.

> emotions are psycho-somatic patterns registered in the wake of dq.

Is dq here the same as pre-intellectual awareness?
> Emotions are not the immediately felt quality of the situation because they are defined, whereas 
> the immediate felt quality is not.> static/dynamic
Referring here to intentionality, I suppose. The thoughts, conscious or unconscious, that go along with the feelings are arguably part of the emotion. Excitement is distinguished from fear only through those thoughts. Of course I cannot prove this. 

I would argue all thinking incorporates S/O distinctions. Arosal is arosal until we have the simultaneous thought, "she's attractive" or, alternatively, "this bridge is dangerous." Can we have one without the other? This is the real question. Just because they are logically seperable doesn't mean they are actually causually seperable.

I believe that the disagreement is over the definition of whether the stimulation, (dq or sq?) is seperate from the emotion, and whether the emotion includes both the stimulation and the thought or not.    

Tell me different.
-Zenith
> > > --- On Sun, 26/10/08, Krimel <Krimel at Krimel.com> wrote:> > > From: Krimel <Krimel at Krimel.com>> > Subject: Re: [MD] Emotions' place?> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org> > Received: Sunday, 26 October, 2008, 2:30 AM> > dmb says:> > I don't suppose you'd be interested in talking> > about reductionism, would> > you? If it's not clear to you what I mean by> > reductionism, please review the> > statements above. Your comments depict it exactly.> > Obviously you do not see> > this as a problem. Quite the opposite. You take my> > complaints about it to be> > the problem. Apparently, you think anti-reductionism is a> > kind of> > romanticism, as a kind of anti-scientific stance. This is> > simply not the> > case. The anti-reductionist does not oppose science. He> > simply opposes> > reductionism. There is a huge difference. The> > anti-reductionist wants to> > improve science and knowledge by removing the reductionism.> > > > [Krimel]> > Whatever the relative arguments over reductionism might be,> > what you have> > presents is sheer chicanery. You simple define> > "reductionism" as whatever> > Krimel says and then run and hide under your security> > blanket. I do define> > that as romanticism and it is typical of your style. I> > would add that there> > have certainly been calls to change our understanding of> > reductionism since> > the 1930s and I embrace that. I am as against your strawman> > as you are. The> > fact remains that emotions are biological sources of value.> > We are attracted> > and repelled as a result of our emotional responses to> > experience. There are> > several reasons for coming to this conclusion. > > > > First as you your self have noted we share emotional> > responses with other> > species in fact most mammals. This can not be the result of> > learning. It is> > either inherited are derives from some supernatural agency.> > > > Second, emotional reactions are common to people everywhere> > on earth. It is> > a form of universal communication within our species. We> > can recognize the> > emotional states of people from nearly every other culture> > on earth and they> > can recognize ours. This is not learned; this is built in> > and hardwired.> > > > Third, these emotional responses are physiologically based> > and outside of> > conscious control. We do not decide to feel sad or happy.> > We can not> > consciously control blushing or smiling, we can not> > consciously suppress a> > startle response or unless we are a bit psychotic, we can> > not choose to> > leave our asses burning on a hot stove.> > > > Fourth, like it or not there are regions of the brain that> > when stimulated> > produce emotional responses. Likewise when emotions are> > produced these> > regions light up under various kinds of brain imaging> > scans. These same> > regions are activated in other mammals as well. Any> > account, reductionist or> > not should be prepared to explain why this is so.> > > > Fifth, even in cases where brain damage disrupts the> > conscious experience of> > emotion, the physiological responses remain.> > > > To dismiss all of this on the basis of some imagined> > philosophical> > technicality it simply disingenuous.> > > > The real point is, all of this interferes with your> > romantic conceptions of> > pure experience. You seek to glorify the pre-intellectual> > and what I have> > been saying threatens your romantic conceptions. Let me> > repeat: Emotions ARE> > pre-intellectual. They ARE pre-verbal. They ARE "the> > immediately felt> > quality of the situation". They occur prior to> > conscious evaluation. That is> > not reductionism that is based on the everyday experiences> > of everyman.> > James actually took this a bit further in his paper> > "What is an Emotion." > > > > [dmb]> > Take, for example, the scientific paper you recently asked> > me to read and> > comment upon. You probably recall that it was about the> > brain states of> > meditators. And hopefully you remember that I said that was> > all fine and> > good because data are data but I also criticized your> > reductionistic> > interpretation of that study and suggested that their> > findings need to be> > supplemented by the perspective from within the meditative> > state.> > > > [Krimel]> > What exactly would have asked the meditaters? In the course> > of the studies> > they were told to exercise their usual practices. They were> > asked what their> > practices were and control subjects received instructions> > on how to do the> > same kind of thing. The reports of subjects were included> > in the conclusion> > of the study. The point of the study was to measure the> > brain activity of> > experienced versus non-experienced meditaters. It found> > that the more> > experienced meditaters have significantly different brain> > activity than less> > experienced meditaters. To me this suggests learning. As> > meditaters practice> > they get better at it. I can see where this interpretation> > threatens your> > world view but so be it. You seem to think that the verbal> > reports of the> > subjects would somehow alter the conclusion but the best> > that one could say> > about the subjects' description of these states is that> > they have an opinion> > about the meaning of those states. Nothing in these studies> > could confirm or> > deny the validity of the subjects' reports other than> > to say that the states> > are accompanied by this or that subjective report.> > > > [dmb]> > ...the experience as it was had by the meditators> > themselves rather than> > JUST what the researchers observed from the outside. See, I> > was not saying> > that their findings are invalid or that they should be> > dismissed but that> > they are partial. And I mean they are "partial"> > in both senses of the word,> > which is to say they are biased and incomplete. That's> > why they need to be> > supplemented by other perspectives. And that's what> > perspectivalism is all> > about. It says we need to take on board all the various> > perspectives and> > sort of add them up. Otherwise you get.... you guessed it;> > reductionism.> > > > [Krimel]> > As noted above the subjects WERE asked about what they were> > experiencing and> > how they produced the experiences. The results of all such> > studies are> > partial; in this case because more research is needed. But> > if we look at> > partial in sense of biased then I suspect any bias was on> > your touchy feely> > side. The research was promoted by the Dalai Lama and the> > researchers> > conducting the study were selected by him. > > > > I have omitted the book report from your latest class. It> > is certainly nice> > have to support one's personal biases with the opinion> > of someone else. But> > you know as well as I do that such debates as> > reductionism/antireductionism> > or the various theories of truth are by no means settled. I> > am sure that you> > take great comfort in the fact that there are arguments> > that support your> > romantic notions but blanket labeling and strawman> > arguments are cheap> > tricks and fail utterly to address the issue I have been> > raising.> > > > The argument I presented about Pirsig's failure to> > understand the role of> > emotion in science comes from Antonio Damasio's book> > "Looking for Spinoza:> > Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain". From this> > perspective science could not> > proceed if scientists had no emotions. They would have no> > basis of deciding> > what to ask, how to proceed or how to evaluate their> > answers. Rather than> > challenging Pirsig's position it points straight to the> > source of Value:> > pre-intellectual-emotional experience.> > > > [dmb]> > I don't expect you to give up on your reductionism> > because of this> > explanation. But I do hope you'll at least start to see> > what reductionism is> > and why so many people might be against it.> > > > [Krimel]> > What I see is you hiding under your blanket. You have an> > emotional> > commitment to these notions you cherish. You want the> > pre-intellectual to be> > something lofty and lovely but you know not what. You want> > mystical> > experiences to be some guide to Truth, with a big T and> > meaning whatever> > feels good to you. I think this is the road to a warm fuzzy> > delusion. The> > function of conscious intellectual processing is not to> > eliminate emotions> > but to augment them. Higher consciousness serves as a check> > and balance> > against unbridled and uncontrolled emotional responses. You> > should try it> > sometime.> > > > 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/> > > Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail> 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/
_________________________________________________________________
Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008