[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi David

18 Feb. 

This threatens to grow into a "Encyclopedia MOQannica" so I must 
summarize  

If "your" feelings are sense impressions we agree, but can't we call 
it "sensation" without sounding ...sensational .  

IMO any level is the former level raised to a new "power", thus an 
emotion is a biological sensation with added social content. An 
animal in pain just feels bad, while a human being adds anxiety: 
"Am I ill, will I die?" ... etc.  

"Negative value" is dubious, Pain is great asset at the biological 
level. To be insensitive is very dangerous.

Regarding "angry dogs" the growl and bared fangs are some 
doggy "society-in-biology's-service" not the true article. The dog 
will wag its tail the next moment while s true social level being may 
hate and/or demand revenge.    

I may back down regarding babies' smile and bawlings, it may be 
in the same "society-in biology's service" class as dog growls, but 
they learn quickly and soon enter the true social realm. 
 
> And thirdly, I think you need to watch one of those National
> Geographic Specials. Just about every animal capable of learning has a
> caregiver role towards their young and each species has a unique set
> of actions that communicate the young's emotional state to their
> parents. Mostly that state is hunger. Birds chirp, lions whimper and
> pigs grunt but they're all indicating hunger.

Again my glib "society in biology's service" reply. All mammals 
must take care of  their off-spring and the complex behavior my 
look like emotions, but it's all biology. If a "neighbor" kills and eats 
a pup there's no resentment, the mother will possibly mate with the 
perpetrator the next moment. 

Bo before: 
> > In the MOQ language emerged as a social pattern and while that level
> > ruled people did not regard words as "symbols". The animal and the name
> > were one and the same. In song & dance rituals animals could be forced
> > to obey their names and - f.ex. be brought to the hunting grounds ..etc.

David:
> OK, call me stupid. I'm missing something here; please give me your
> reference. I may need to take another brief sabbatical to get up to
> speed. I don't want to waste your time.

No stupidity, it's just me who have been through every conceivable 
argument and then some.  It's me who should have taken a 
sabbatical.   

> The point is that words and feelings are interchangeable beyond the
> biological spov.

Hmmm, a bit subtle this, but again my assertion that language was 
interchangeable, nay IDENTICAL with everything  while the 3rd. 
level was top notch. With the 4th. level this changed, words 
became abstract symbols different from what they symbolized.     

>  Words are symbols representing the feelings; and while feelings are
> biological, social and intellectual, words are limited to the social
> and intellectual.> 

This sounds like Pirsig's way of "encasing" SOM in the MOQ. The 
1st. and 2nd. level = objective, the 3rd. and 4th.= subjective, but let 
me return to this, it's too big. 

This too

> I'm thinking and thinking about this and I'm thinking I don't really
> understand you. Are we confusing "what a thing is" with " how we do
> it"? For me, intellectuality is any metalevel analysis of DQ. For
> instance B. F. Skinner would say that this forum is motivated by
> partial reinforcement. That's a metalevel analysis of what draws us to
> communicate with each other. How we do it is by language.  For me, to
> say that grammar, logic and mathematics can be independently
> manipulated is nonsense. You can say the number ten has no referent
> but you're just kidding yourself. Numbers are modifiers. It's always
> ten something: ten bears, ten worlds, ten chances. The number ten by
> itself is as meaningless as the colour brown without a referent. It
> has to be a brown something; brown cannot exist by itself. I don't
> feel I'm engaging you on this, please respond and I'll try to take
> another swing at it.

See you soon

Bo