[MD] Emotions

[mark_maxwell at talktalk.net]

Squonk to Andre:
The underlying reality of the scientist is, I would suggest, sanctioned by emotions. It may be more appropriate to think about a Romantic/Classic continuum; without the more fundamental Romantic there can be no additional Classic art.
Is RMP suggesting there is an experience that is not emotional?
I should like to know how that is done.

Andre:
Hi Squonk, I'll let Pirsig do the talking... he's much better at it than I am:
'[A] Northrop's name for Dynamic Quality is 'undifferentiated aesthetic continuum.

Squonk:
A critical thinker may note here that, ‘It is RMP’s interpretation that…’

RMP
[B] By 'continuum he means that it goes on and on forever.
[C] By 'undifferentiated' he means that it is without conceptual distinctions.
[D] And by 'aesthetic' he means that it has quality...

Squonk:
It could be asserted here that Northrop and RMP have diverging interests:
Northrop may be simply noting that Human awareness of what Humans are can be deeply emotional, and as such aesthetic.
RMP may be more interested in raising this awareness to the level of metaphysical speculation. In this sense, he is doing for emotion that which postulation does for truth, that is, raise truth to a metaphysical speculation (idealism).

Andre:
I think science would agree that 'Conceptually Unknown' is a good name for it.

Squonk:
This seems tautological to me. That which is not, by its nature conceptual, is therefore conceptually unknown.

Andre:
What science might not agree on is that this Conceptually Unknown is aesthetic.

Squonk:
This assumes the realm of the conceptually unknown to be appreciable of an aesthetic. Most of it may be, but some of it may not be?
For example, many undifferentiated experiences are low quality, which may suggest there to be ‘quality free’ experiences.

Andre:
But if the Conceptually Unknown were not aesthetic why should the scientific community be so attracted to it?
'If you think about it you will see that science would lose all meaning without this attraction to the unknown.

Squonk:
But not for science qua science - rather, the kudos solving a problem brings.
And Kudos is social status, and social status is biologically experienced as emotion.
The truly unknown is fearfully avoided, and scientists are not known for their fear of test tubes.

RMP:
A good word for the attraction is 'curiosity'. Without this curiosity there would never have been any science.

Squonk:
Curiosity is an inherited biological imperative for survival learned and evolved through play.
When the biological imperative is removed from its original context it will find other ways to occupy itself otherwise the animal will become stressed and neurotic via two possible routes:
1. Under-stimulation (boredom)
2. Over-stimulation.
Science is a good vehicle for overcoming boredom, and most of the time all it does is verify the accuracy of the current paradigm.
RMP seems to be thinking about true science in the sense of new paradigm creation.
New paradigm creation involves visualising a larger ‘Tetris’ which holds more complicated shapes than previous ones; It’s a game that satisfies the biologically inherited imperative to play.

RMP:
'This aesthetic nature of the Conceptually Unknown is a point of connection between the sciences and the arts.

Squonk:
I’m not going to insist, but this may be a very sophisticated way of saying that Humans have to be doing something in order to occupy themselves otherwise they become very anxious.

RMP:
What relates science to arts is that science explore the Conceptually Unknown in order to develop a theory that will cover measurable patterns emerging from the unknown. The arts explore the Conceptually Unknown in other ways to create patterns such as music, literature, painting, that reveal the Dynamic Quality that produced them.

Squonk:
This last assertion is an assumption that the previous statements may not support.
Metaphysical speculations are of this variety by their very nature I feel - they are most comforting in an almost religious way, and may be asserted with vigour.

RMP:
This description, I think, is the rational connection between science and the arts'. (SODV paper pp16/17).

Squonk:
This seems to be a re-statement of the Romantic/Classic continuum, and I note that it preserves the Classic/Romantic preference.
However, as DQ/UAC must, one assumes, be experienced, I ask myself how it is experienced.

Andre:
'Curiosity', a 'beginner's mind' attitude. If you consider these 'emotional' states then you are correct Squonk.

Squonk:
You see the point don’t you?
In an analogous way the brain doesn‘t see what the eye sees, so emotions don’t experience DQ because emotions are not DQ.
So DQ is never directly experienced.

Andre:
I call it the 'exploration' of the DQ/SQ configuration, the result of which may evoke an emotional response.
Regards Andre

Squonk:
I think the contention here is: DQ is never directly experienced.
That may be a problem.
All the best,
squonk