[MD] William James a wrong track..

[Joseph Maurer]

On 3/14/10 2:18 PM, "John Carl" <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:

Strange situations are my forte, Bo.  Rest assured.
 
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:49 AM, <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> 
> 
> Strange situation this: Most people insist of emotions being biological.
> You agree with me that they are social, but then your "social" is far
> down into the biological, so confusion remains.
 
John
 
It seems so simple a concept to convey, I don't know why it's not
universally understood.
Self is a socially created concept. Self is born of infant nurture. Those
biological beings that engage in infant nurture, have a social sense and
create and protect and perpetuate further biological being through social
interaction.
 
The more complex the social patterns flow from the longer period of infant
nurture, with Mankind way, way at the top of the scale.  This confuses
people I guess, but obviously dogs are social creatures.  We socially bond
with them all the time.
<snip>

Hi John and all,

I want to talk about the first conscious level to evolve beyond the DQ
instinct at the organic2 level.  I call this first level, of evolution in DQ
consciousness, the emotional level.

Emotions are only DQ.  If I enumerate emotions like love, hate, sadness, joy
etc., I am surprised at the impossibility of a precise definition for each.
They are perceived descriptions of DQ.  The perception of emotion is not
piecemeal.  The intensity of DQ emotion is not subject to definition.

Evolution to the intellectual level in DQ consciousness is a further
evolution defining 1. The defined logic based on 1 is a higher level in
consciousness than the undefined DQ, emotional level. Consciousness,
however, can evolve further to two undefined higher emotional and undefined
higher intellectual levels in consciousness only in the actions of heroes.
Who can explain how they know to do what they do.

Two heroes conversing:  ³ When Jung said to Freud that many dreams had other
interpretations than those of retrogressive sexual wish-fulfilments and some
shewed useful prospective directions for personal development, he was told
that that kind of thing must not be admitted. Jung refused not to admit it.²
This was reported by Nicoll, one of Jung¹s students, in Psychological
Commentaries London, Stuart & Watkins, 1968, page 1607.

Nicoll goes on to comment in that same paragraph: ³To-day the quarrel with
science in general is with its interpretations, some of which are of
amazingly poor quality.  But many scientists are afraid to say what they
think.  To declare that there is intelligence behind the Universe means
ostracism.²

Joe

> Strange situations are my forte, Bo.  Rest assured.
> 
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:49 AM, <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Strange situation this: Most people insist of emotions being biological.
>> You agree with me that they are social, but then your "social" is far
>> down into the biological, so confusion remains.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems so simple a concept to convey, I don't know why it's not
> universally understood.
> Self is a socially created concept.  Self is born of infant nurture.  Those
> biological beings that engage in infant nurture, have a social sense and
> create and protect and perpetuate further biological being through social
> interaction.
> 
> The more complex the social patterns flow from the longer period of infant
> nurture, with Mankind way, way at the top of the scale.  This confuses
> people I guess, but obviously dogs are social creatures.  We socially bond
> with them all the time.
> snip>
> 
> 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/md/archives.html