[MD] Emotions

[markhsmit]

Ah yes, the Emotions.  That primitive animal sensibility.

It is quite possible that that which we call the intellect is
simply an appendage of the so call emotions.  A small part
of our brain that developed so that we could communicate
such emotions.  A little region in the front of our brains that
somehow became all that there is.  A prefrontal group of
neurons that became so self serving, that it relegated the rest
of the body to merely an appendage.  

The intellect is used to transfer emotions.  It is no more separate 
from the rest of the body than the eye or the skin.  It is
part and parcel of sensibility.  To elevate the intellect above
the emotions is like saying the coach is the team, the ski is the
skier, the apple is the tree.

It's fine to have levels, but sometimes I think the MOQ has
got them completely backwards.  The intellect is such a small
portion of the inorganic that it is almost insignificant.

And, the emotions are so much more than the biological,
they are inorganic forces which create our selves.

Mark

On Nov 11, 2009, at 2:09:11 PM, "Andre Broersen" <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
From:   "Andre Broersen" <andrebroersen at gmail.com>
Subject:    Re: [MD] Emotions
Date:   November 11, 2009 2:09:11 PM PST
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Squonk to Andre,
Would you do me a favour please?
If quality is not the same thing as an emotional biological response
to it, how is quality experienced?

Andre:

Hi Squonk (and John):
I'll do my best. Phaedrus is quite clear on how it is experienced: 'He
simply meant that at the cutting edge of time, before an object can be
distinguished, there must be a kind of nonintellectual awareness,
which he called awareness of quality. (ZMM, p 241)

'The easiest INTELLECTUAL analogue of pure Quality that people in our
environment can understand is that 'Quality is the response of an
organism to its environment'[he used this example because his chief
questioners seemed to see things in terms of stimulus-response
behaviour theory]'.

Then the example of the amoeba comes in and he continues:

"If it had a nervous system it would act in a much more complex way to
overcome the poor quality of the environment. It would seek
analogues... .(ZMM, p 244-5).(my emphasis)

In other words the responses become more complex (as in varied) with
the complexity of the organism i.e. the more 'requisite variety' the
organism can display.
I am persuaded that there is an 'overlap' here between the responses
displayed by organisms called 'animals' and animals called 'humans'.

I also want to stress that all behaviours displayed at the inorganic
and organic (biological) levels have been designated with social level
symbols and interpretations [language] to wit: lots of 'animal' as
well as 'human' behaviours which are not necesarily untrue.

I think there are exceptions to this when it comes to emotions such as
 (for example) 'shame' and 'jealousy' which appear to me to be an
intellectual construction 'imposed' on social behaviour.

Hope I haven't shot myself in the foot with this one.

Is this helpful or have I muddled things up from a MoQ perspective?

Regards
Andre
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/