[MD] A problem with the MOQ.

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Ham,
>
> Hi Tuukka --
>
> [Ham, previously]:
>> I don't see why the emotions -- love, desire, awe, joy, etc. --
>> are assigned to a social level inasmuch as they constitute our
>> most intimate personal feelings. Sure, we can enjoy or despise
>> something "collectively".  But feelings are subjective; they are 
>> proprietary to the individual self.  And this is true of all value 
>> sensibility.
>
> [Tuukka responds]:
>> If you want to know why emotions are assigned to the social
>> level, please see this: 
>> http://www.moq.fi/sets-of-quality/the-subjective/ . > It portrays the 
>> subjective side of emotions. The objective side of emotions are the 
>> emotions we are culturally expected to feel,
>> such as obedience for a king, reverence for a hero, contempt
>> towards a blasphemer, and so on. Intuitive perceptions of social
>> status are based on emotion, and even in isolation we reflect
>> on our relationship to other people. That is the reason why some
>> of our emotions are intimate and private. We specifically don't
>> want all people to know them - so the social component is
>> obvious. They are not socially neutral, but secrets. No thing
>> that is known to everyone is a secret.
> Ham:
> This compulsion to parse all experience and assign it to levels of 
> quality is a dead end from the start, in my opinion.  We don't 
> construct philosophy from 'numbers and sets' or comprehend it as a 
> finished gigsaw puzzle.

Tuukka:
Well, I don't know who has such a compulsion, but I don't.


> Ham:
> You speak of the "objective side" of emotions as those "we are 
> expected" to feel.  I don't know if conditioned behavior qualifies as 
> "emotional", but that's really what you have defined here.  Behavior 
> is not an emotion. Epistemologically all emotions are felt 
> subjectively or, as I said before, "proprietary to the self", whether 
> "other people know them" or not.  So that classifying some emotions as 
> "objective" has no logical justification.

Tuukka:
Yes they do qualify as emotions. If you had ever been a polyamorist 
conditioning oneself out of jealousy, you would be very familiar with 
this. I've done that.


> Ron:
> You've also categorized Quality as having "Romantic" and "Classic" 
> subdivisions.  Can you explain the difference to me?

Tuukka:
Pirsig did this already. But classic quality consists of dialectic 
truths. Romantic quality consists of non-lingual experiences, such as 
sensations, hearing, emotions, needs, intuitions.

> Ron: Better yet, can you offer any reason why positing such a division 
> would enhance our understanding of philosophy, or human relations, for 
> that matter?

Tuukka:
I don't honestly know _how_ it's supposed to do that, but if this 
doesn't do it, no philosophy does it. Not for me, anyway.

> Ron:
> It would seem more important to realize that Quality = Value, as Mr. 
> Pirsig formulated it, and that it does not exist until someone 
> actually senses it. I have made use of this realization by defining 
> the core self as "value-sensibility".  This sensibility enables 
> conscious subjects to be the agents of Value in a multiplistic 
> universe.  Since the contingencies "Value" and "Sensibility" are both 
> derivatives of Essence, my premise takes the mystery out of this world 
> of appearances, our proprietary experience of it, and how we relate to 
> the objective otherness called existence.

Tuukka:
I see no way how SOQ doesn't already do this.

> Ron:
> Please note that I haven't attempted to defined the essential Source; 
> I've simply named it Essence and suggested that it is the absolute 
> unity of all that is.  (I include Difference and Contrariety as the 
> primary characterics of existential reality which Essence transcends 
> by negating nothingness.)

Tuukka:
I am interested of what there is, not where it came from. I say this in 
a completely neutral tone.

> Ron:
> So, let me turn the table and invite you to read my thesis at 
> www.essentialism.net/mechanic/htm.  See if it doesn't clear up some 
> problems with the MOQ, as well as providing the fundamentals its 
> author decided to omit.  If you'll do that for me, Tuukka, I shall be 
> most happy to answer any questions you may have.  (Should you be 
> uncomfortable discussing this on the MD, please feel free to contact 
> me off line.)


Tuukka:
Let's see.

Best,
Tuukka