[MD] Sex, Rape and Law in a MOQ

[John Carl]

Andre,  I posted the following reply in our ongoing dialogue, and in
the interest of full disclosure, I'm gonna send it along.  But I did
take a big pause and tried to figure out maybe a better way of
understanding where you are coming from, and how to communicate better
what I mean.  I'll append what I've come up with in the last few days
at the end of this, but here's my knee jerk response ("knee-jerk" in a
literal sense IS a biological reaction - as opposed to an emotional
one so it's an apt metaphor here)

---------------

How about intellect then, Andre?  Is it also biological?  Ideas are
created inside of brains, does this mean all ideas are biological?
>From my perspective, this makes a complete hash of the levels.  We end
up with the MoRon view (metaphysics of randomness, ontologically
necessary) that  inorganic randomness is the cause of everything and
nothing has meaning.

Well, actually, that's a pretty widely held view, so I'm not
surprised.  I just thought the MoQ had something more to say than
that.

My "point of orientation" is that my biological reactions are the
effects of my emotions, not the cause of my emotions.

My intellect influences my social status,
My social status influences my feelings.
My feelings influence my body,
my body influences materialistic reality.

My point of orientation is  from the top down.  If you think I'm out
of touch with myself, I'd sure like to hear, in MoQ terms, how that's
even possible.

What "I'm"?  What "self"?  What "touch"?  Fair warning to you and all
like you; anybody who uses the term "literally", better be able to
back it up.  Because the common misuses of that term literally drive
me crazy.

And yes, that was a sort of joke, but tell me Andre, how does one get
in touch with oneself "literally"?    I mean, I'm literally touching
myself right now, does that count?


John

-------------

Ok, that was then.  This is now.  One thing that seems plain to me is
that for us to have such disagreement, we must be making some
fundamental confusion in our terms.  And since in the most basic
formulation of our dispute - you say emotions are biologically caused
and I say they're caused by social relations - that perhaps the
problem is how we differ in our understanding of "caused" in this
case.  For there is no doubt that emotions are bound up with our
biological being.  "Feelings" are something we feel with biological
bodies and in this sense, feelings are biologically experienced
(caused).

But the cause of feelings as I mean "cause" is that the emotions are
driven by social concerns and patterns, primarily.  We can derive a
certain intellectual satisfaction from a profound orientation, but
that emotion is usually pretty dry compared to the joys and
depressions the stem from social rejection or affirmation.

And that's probably about the best I can do, at explaining my
understanding of the relation of emotions to the MoQ 3rd level.  One
way to view it, is that emotions are biologically experienced as a
code of translation between the 3rd and 2nd level patterns.  We feel
good because it creates a biological sensation which reinforces
correct social orientation.

Hope you find yours, Andre,

John