[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy

[skutvik at online.no]

Hello David (Swift)

1 Mar. you wrote:

> DS says: You cannot possibly know how helpful it is to have you all
> clear these things up for me, n or can you imagine how grateful I am
> that you take the time to help a newbie get up to speed. 

Mighty glad to be of any use.

> Bo, I want to clear up the use of "feelings" instead of "sensations".
> Those words do not mean exactly the same thing for me. Sensations are
> externally driven whereas feelings can be internally or externally
> driven. IMO we can perceive, as per Descartes, both ourselves and the
> rest of the world. That doesn't mean that I'm committed to a S/OM.

You say that perception of the world is by "senses" while 
perception of ourselves is through "feelings". A silly example, but is 
a toothache "the world" or "self"? Anyway IMO  the said ache it's 
feeling-as-sensation, but if the pain makes me anxious (maybe a 
root filling) it's a feeling-as-emotion. So, lets use sensation and 
emotion. 

An aside:
I guess the issue of us perceiving our emotions (moods)  will come 
up. This is SOM's "self-awareness", we may return to that.    

> Yeah, intellectual with intelligence I get it, thanks.
 
If it means that you understand the pit-fall of confusing the 
intellectual level with intelligence (the ability to think) Great!!!! 
  
> OK the real discussion between us starts with emotions. ZAMM IMO is
> almost nothing other than an attempt to understand emotions
> intellectually. Pirsig is the normal? hyper-rational dweeb who can't
> feel, focus on, acknowledge his own emotions. In ZAMM he sets out on a
> trip to understand what all the fuss is about. He talks about the
> musicians who tell him to just shut-up and dig it...... 

Yes,  P. was hyper-rational and already his insight of an endless 
numbers of hypothesis ... etc. made him aware of a void under 
rationality (SOM's objective reality). This sent him out on his lateral 
drift and by and by the Quality epiphany 

But he simply HAD to be to unmask reason. Normal people who 
have a proper emotional ballast will not go to the length that 
Phaedrus went. He was "crazy" from the outset, thank Goodness.       

> They think that emotions cannot be described logically, rationally I
> think they can ... 

Sure, by the MOQ we can sort things out, but this was a SOM-
steeped time. and from SOM seen  emotions and reason are 
worlds apart, "the wain shall never meet".  

> and that they are biological "feelings" rather than
> "sensations".......

IMO Emotion is  the social "expression", not biological feeling. 
Look, all the chemical compounds an organism employs are 
inorganic patterns, thus biological value is that of raising these to 
SENSATIONS, i.e. that one chemical spells pain and another 
spells pleasure.

Next,  social value is raising biological sensations to social 
EMOTIONS. As in my silly example a toothache may trigger 
anxiety . Intellect finally raises emotions to REASON, the said 
anxiety is transformed into an realization that only the dentist visit 
can stop the pain   

> IMO emotions define the relationship between, not S and O, but us as
> objects and the other objects in the rest of reality. Or others
> including other animals and the rest of their realities. -david swift 

You possibly mean empathy? Us putting ourselves in the place of 
other people (even animals) Yes that's a most complex emotion 
and a most useful social "tool".

Bo