[MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society

[Joseph Maurer]

On 10/11/09 6:47 AM, "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no> wrote:

<snip>
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
 
Hi John, Bo and all,

This is my view in MOQ of a 7 level evolutionary hierarchy like that
proposed in esoteric literature:

Inorganic           DQ gravity.
Organic 1           DQ reproduction by single cell division.
Organic 2           DQ reproduction by penetration of female egg-cell wall
by a male sperm cell.

Social (emotional)  DQ consciousness, producing words for social life, e.g.
mother, father, child.

Intellectual        DQ consciousness SOL, producing words for evolution,
e.g.morality.

Higher emotional    DQ consciousness alone, producing words for heroes, e.g.
Pirsig, etc.

Higher intellectual DQ consciousness alone, producing words for
super-heroes, Buddha, Christ, etc.

                   Imho (Faith is another word for  ³consciousness alone.²)

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/