[MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society

[John Carl]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:06 PM, <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> I don't consider emotions to be either right or wrong.  They are primarily
> responses to biological quality, are largely uncontrolable by others,  and
> vary widely from person to person. So I tend not to judge them one way
> or another: "The MOQ sees emotions as a biological response to quality
> and not the same thing as quality." (LC, Note 141)
>


Ok, this may lose me my plattanoid rep, but I quibble with both you and
Pirsig.  I quibble a lot.

Emotions.  Name one.  Name two.  Name fifty...  what do they have in common?
Let's take the first two to come to mind - Fear and desire.  I fear a
saber-toothed tiger and I desire a hot fudge sundae.  Surely explainable as
biological phenemona.

But what of the actual emotions I experience empirically every day of my
life?

99.3% socially generated.

Somebody cuts me off in traffic, my wife makes a sarcastic remark, my kids
come home with good grades, my boss praises my work... the SOCIAL matrix of
my life is the main generator of all my emotions.  In fact, here is where
the mind works wonderfully because the emotional truth often presents long
before the intellect catchs up to what's happening socially.  My biological
needs rarely enter into my emotional life.  Only when they are threatened!
 Then they assert themselves big time, but I don't have much emotion when I
eat my normal lunch and take a crap.  My emotions are responses to social
relations.

Sometimes I get really excited about an idea.  That's a good day indeed.
 But as Ron posits about true 4th level evolutionary DQ,  those times are
rare.




>
> Behavior that results from emotions is another matter. That is
> controlable by others and society imposes many strictures to insure that
> biological emotional behavior doesn't undercut societal bonds.
>

Wolves compete viciously when they're young, but when they get older they
work by rules of politeness designed to keep the fangs from flesh.


As I indicated, the  feeling of compassion when acted upon can do harm
> as well as good.



Compassion is a very important human social value, but it is true that
compassion should be guided by intellect.  Just being compassionate in
itself is not helpful.  It happens a lot where kids are trained this way, to
learn to think of oneself and others as *being* compassionate is a selfish
motive and often ends up causing more trouble than help.

And the examples are endless!


> Perhaps the most egregious historical example is the
> Spanish Inquisition when heretics were burned at the stake to save their
> souls from eternal damnation. Other horrific actions taken in the name
> of a compassionate "public good" are familiar to all of us. For a less
> bloody but nevertheless telling example is when a children's ball game
> score is changed to 0-0 out of compassion for the losing team's feelings.
> Compassion trumps truth.
>
>
Compassion is when I hurt with my child for his pain.  Foolishness is when I
change the score - instead of teaching how to deal with losing - which is at
the heart of dealing with life, eh?  Nobody needs to be taught how to deal
with winning.



> When Pirsig wrote the following about suffering perhaps he had in mind
> that there are consequences from behavior, and that those who are
> protected from those consequences out of a feeling of compassion are
> prevented from growing.
>
>
way I look at it is, without ups, you can't have downs.  But you know me,
Mr. roller coaster simpleton.



> "That's why the absence of suffering last night seemed so ominous and
> her change to what looked like suffering today gave Phaedrus a feeling
> she was getting better. If you eliminate suffering from this world you
> eliminate life." (Lila, 29)
>
> A long answer I'm afraid. And as always, I could be wrong.
>
> Platt
>
>

Fear not, Platt; nor retract, equivocate  or apologize.  Get it done and let
the bastards howl, I say.

Howl.