[MD] Emotions for Joe

[118]

Hi Marsha,
I would present your statement in reverse.  "I am therefore I feel my
emotions."  This is where Descarte got it wrong and sidetracked
Western Logic.  "I think therefore I am" should have been "I am
therefore I think".  This is obviously much more logical.  We have to
be to think.  We cannot think that we are.  We are also not what we
think (what we eat maybe).

You do point to a correct interpretation of "I", in that I owns both
the brain and body, and is therefore neither.  Of course you knew this
from your readings of Buddhism.

So, we are ultimately in agreement.

Cheers,
Mark

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Ian Glendinning
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> Marsha asked
> "What role do emotions play in consciousness?"
>
> Well, our consciousness (the bundle of patterns that is us) are
> conscious of them.
> I feel my emotions therefore I am.
> (What happens next depends on how you use your brain / body.)
>
> BTW - I just blogged the clip you linked and also linked back to my
> earlier piece on Haidt's Happiness, and noticed Damasio featured
> heavily there too. I made a throwaway remark a few weeks ago that
> there really wasn't very much contentious left to be understood in the
> brain / mind workings these days - even things like "will" - one of
> the reasons I get frustrated when we continually recycle old debates.
> I still "feel" that's true.
>
> Haidt is/was (almost) a total Buddhist, but just pulled back to a
> position of dynamic balance in his conclusions.
>
> Regards
> Ian
> 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
>