[MD] Emotions

[skutvik at online.no]

Andre and who it may interest.

11 Nov.:

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? 

I do not know the prelude to this question, but at least there is DQ and 
its four static layers, and we humans, are all levels. Thus quality is  
"expressed" four different ways and in its time I made this expression 
list: INTERACTION = inorganic,  SENSATION = biological, 
EMOTIONS = social and REASON = intellectual.. I still find this most 
useful. 

About emotions = biologyl is neither understanding the MOQ nor its 
level idea.. Emotions may as well be seen as having  their origin at the 
inorganic level in the sense that life's "bricks" are inorganic patterns. 
The  2nd. level's value is that of transforming inorganic patterns into 
SENSATIONS. But biology ends there. The social level's "bricks" are 
biological sensations and it value is that of transforming sensations 
into  EMOTIONS and intellect's ditto of transforming emotions into 
REASON. But these aren't "really" anything, emotion isn't really 
sensation, reason isn't really emotions, they are static value levels in 
their own right.   

I have the sinking feeling that most of you are intellect's hostages, 
where REASON  rules and demands an explanation what emotions 
really are, and since they have biological origin ... really are biological, 
but by this token they may really be inorganic. As mentioned earlier, 
animals can't be "anxious". Domesticated animals may show such 
behavior because their natural responses are damaged, but they are 
"artificial" creatures                   

Andre:
> 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 SOM-oppressed Phaedrus necessarily had to confront SOM and 
as your quote above shows, his first outline of a proto-moq is the new 
"non-intellectual/intellectual" divide. Later (in ZAMM) "non-intellectual" 
becomes Quality and  the subject/object aggregate its first fall-out, and 
from the initial non-intellect/intellect template, SOM necessarily must 
be "intellect". A conclusion Phaedrus draws (se the diagram page).

I would have liked to comment the rest of your post but if only this 
most basic point is understood the rest is plain going. But of course if 
destroying Phaedrus original Quality Idea (that I try to save) is people's 
mission ....alas  

Bodvar