[MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society

[John Carl]

On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 9:30 AM, <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > John]
> >
> > Then you and Pirsig are gonna have to explain to me the difference
> between
> > "source" and "cause".  You might as well say intellectual responses are
> > biological because they reside in a brain.
>
> Platt
> Using that logic you might as well say intellectual responses are
> inorganic because they depend on electrical impulses.
>
>

Right!  You get my point then.  That which we posit as a "source" is not the
stuff making up the pattern, but the higher thought which generates the
patterns out of stuff.  Biology is not the source of emotions.



> Platt
> Fear is an emotional response and the seat of emotions is biological.
>

Just like the seat of intellect is biological.  But that doesn't make
Q-sense when you draw it up, does it.



> There's no evidence of emotion at the inorganic level but lots at the
> biological. One observes rudimentary emotional behavior even among
> cells as they respond to their environment. At the root of emotional
> responses is the survival commandment, a basic characteristic of life.
>


A commandment we are all doomed to break.

Sorry, I'm in a bit of a gloomy mood, what with contemplating my mortality
and winter coming and all.

Since emotional responses can arise in many different ways, including the
abstract and intellectual joys
of aesthetic appreciation, I don't see it as useful at all labeling them
"biological".



>
> Platt
> According to the author of the MOQ, the social level exists only on the
> human level of being.  As for the source of emotion being Quality,
> Quality is is source of everything. Unless you take into account the static
> levels and DQ, you might as well attribute the source of emotions to
> God's will.



I understand Pirsig's use of the term "social" in labeling the 3rd level,
but you can't keep the term exclusively to denote that, for I need a term
for the relationships of beings that spans the continuum - from wolf packs
to me and hot stoves, all life is a relation of beings labeled self and
other.  These relations are what generates all emotions, which are
expressed, felt or experienced by my biological being in a very real and
empirical way, which I then perceive in other beings and thus have a grasp
on how to relate to them.

I'd say Bo is right.  I'm confused.  Confusion is suffering.  Suffering is
good.  Suffering brings about evolution.


Here is the essence of my confusion,  you could take most of what has been
said about Quality, and apply it to "positive feeling".  The apprehension of
Quality as I experience it is a feeling of "good" - an emotion.  When I get
praise for something, that good feeling is the reinforcing agent of
intellectual evolution which encourages the intellectual behavior that
generated the praise.

When I play chess with my father-in-law, I feel a certain way when I win,
and a different way when I lose.  When I look at a great painting - one
shining with DQ - I FEEL something.  I can't even always express the
feeling, but from Pirsig's writing and my own reflection, what else is this
emotion than the experience of DQ?  If so, then DQ is "just" another word
for "emotional reaction".

Intellectually speaking, I realize there is more to this  than My emotions.
 But the immediate experience, the stove-top direct feeling, is the closest
analogue I've got to the metaphysical entity we call "Good".



> Platt
> "Humility" is a reminder to myself and others that we don't know
> everything, including what's good for others. Forgetting or ignoring
> humility leads to low quality bigotry and despotism.
>
>
Well I have denigrated Paul the apostle here, but he said some quite useful
things too.  I believe his statement "I die daily" is a high quality
intellectual construct which has influenced Western Civilization in the
ability to let go of static patterns and thus frees up men to grasp what is
evolving rather than cling to what has evolved.


Humility is actually a more useful trait than intelligence, because all
intelligence is a measure of speed - how quickly you can grasp something.
 But a humble guy, even being slow, will get there eventually while the
super-intelligent will often lean too long upon the fact of their ability.

Besides, intelligence is hard work.  It's easier to be humble and I, am
basically, a lazy guy.

But I could be wrong about that.

John





> 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/
>