[MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society

[skutvik at online.no]

Platt and John

10 Oct. 

Platt (I believe)
> > 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)

John 
> 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. 

Regarding emotions as biology I quibble with Pirsig too. The levels 
raise the former's patterns to a higher value plane, thus the biological 
level (its purpose compressed into  "survival") surely has a lot of 
survival techniques. But Q-biology isn't just mammal organisms but 
earthworms and lower and they surely don't "fear" or "hate" yet try to 
avoid destruction. Now to jump to the said mammals, they have 
developed much keener survival strategies, and yet an antelope on 
the Serengeti plains would not dare to venture out to feed if what it 
feels (when chased by a lion) was "fear" in the social emotional 
sense. It's wild eyes and pounding heart is purely excitement caused 
by the adrenalin rush. The moment it's over it does not give it a 
"second thought". 

The social level raises these purely biological survival responses to a 
new height where for instance the adrenalin rush is interpreted as 
"fear", an emotion that will linger and be transmitted to other 
members of the group as a "hate" (of wild beasts in this case). The 
purely biological sex instinct (which is dependent on "in heat" smell)  
with animals is overlaid by "desire" and/or  "love" that lingers on on 
the social level. This is at the lower strata of the social level, at the 
higher this is developed into a whole "cornucupia ...." (what's the 
word?) of more subtle emotions that need language to be conveyed 
properly, love of God, nation, the common cause (Cosa Nostra) .... 
etc..     

The thing is that the levels must not be considered as something we 
have left behind, human beings are all levels - at least 3 of them - 
and everything starts with biology (with the inorganic really, but in this 
context ..) and then what starts as biology go through these twists of 
the quality screw to end with intellect for those who have reached that 
level and finally at MOQ's meta-level for those so initiated, where this 
level context is seen. But John tries to interpret the Quality terms 
from his intellectual base and that brings much confusion ... 
particularly from the 4th. level's use of the term "intellect" which 
means ability to think , but is the objective, calm, detached attitude 
that shuns biological instincts and social emotions.      

The examples that John provide  f.ex. a traffic situation is plain 
dangerous and will cause the initial adrenalin rush and the automatic 
biological "survival" response, then comes the social anger (the 
finger) and then if one manages intellectual evaluation and a realistic 
view of it all. One with a feeble intellectual capacity will stay in road-
rage mode. 

Praise, encouragement agreement - positive social "signs" - release 
the basic biological response but not adrenalin, rather the pleasure 
hormones, dopamine and (I've heard) noradrenaline that are 
interpreted as pride, gratitude, self-esteem at the social plane. While 
scolding, sarcasm, critique releases the adrenalin "fight-or-flight" 
response and is translated as anger, irritation, revenge, hatred .... all 
to be modified by intellect if capable of that lofty stance. If the praise 
or critique is of a PhD paper, of cooking, driving habits does not 
matter.    
    
John said:
>  My emotions are responses to social relations. 

That EMOTION is the social "expression" par excellence is for sure, 
as it is that biology's is SENSATION and intellect's is REASON (for 
rhyme's sake the inorganic expression is INTERACTION.

Bodvar