[MD] Emotions

[John Carl]

Whistle, applaud, stamp my feet and cheer....  YAY Mark!

"Emotion is the force which creates the self."

Well said.  I'm gonna get it tattooed somewhere.



On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:03 PM, markhsmit <markhsmit at aol.com> wrote:

> 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/
>
> 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/
>