Rob, Rasheed, Marco and All.
ROB said:
> I would say that emotions are highly complex social behavior, not
> biological. The only animals that appear to show any emotion are the
> most socially complex animals. A dog will whimper when you leave and
> be happy when you return, a cat will barely notice. The difference:
> dogs in the wild have highly complex social behavior whereas the
> solitary hunter cat has very little social interaction.
Welcome to the "Tower of Babel" Rob. I whole-heartedly share your
opinion about emotions - will even say that emotions lead to social
behaviour. Dogs (as wolf descendants) display a strict social order,
but only among the primates does something resembling the
human reportoire show, and the we have come a long way even
from that stage.
RASHEED remarked to Rob:
> In response to your last post, in which you assert that emotions are
> exclusively social, what about human emotions? Does the fact that a
> person is isolated prevent her from having emotions? Emotions aren't
> just based on reactions to other people, they also arise from
> reactions to objects, events, etc.
This I find a bit nonsensical. A social being will naturally
experience emotions in isolation, and "reaction to objects"
(memories, nostalgia...etc.) will play a social role. "Events"? In
case of rituals they are at the heart of the matter too. In case of
doing something stupid and becoming mad with oneself, it is very
much social dependant.
MARCO wrote:
> Dear Bo, we have discussed infinite times of emotions and language and
> SOLAQI, and how to put things in the right level, and I must confess
> that recently I've changed a little my ancient positions. And, to a
> certain extent, I'm maybe a little closer to your SOLAQI...
I am greatly cheered, respecting your views as I do.
> No, don't
> worry, I'm not that crazy, and I've not become a SOLAQIst :-)
I have learned to count my blessings.
> Actually, I have many doubts about something we used to agree on. This
> post refreshes practically all those discussions.....
> My first doubt came about language. You know well how many times I've
> supported wholeheartedly the concept of language as the social "DNA of
> intellect"...
I have read your message - all of it - but can't reply to it in detail,
you are constantly following some new scent, though still able to
keep track of the fundamentals - a great ability! Will try to address
a few points though.
> ... but I started with this doubt: considering that language is the
> fundamental tool in order to share information, to communicate, that
> means "to be as one"... where does the idea of "self" come out? SOLAQI
> or nor SOLAQI, we both agree that the S/O dichotomy is the main
> intellectual form (even, you claim it is the intellect itself). How
> could I get the distinction between me and the world (S/O Logic) by
> means of a tool that can just unify me and the others?
First: When people talk about "consciousness" I believe it is "self-
consciousness" they mean (not shyness please). Conscious as
opposed to blacked-out is hardly the matter. As said a thousand
times (without anyone commenting this curious thing) ALL
creatures sleep, so all wake up to a reality different from sleep.
Next: The language give rise to the "self". You ask:
> . where does the idea of "self" come out?
Earlier I have referred to Charles Peirce's "Semiosis" (Sign)
metaphysics as an useful introduction to Pirsig's Quality because
nowhere does any mind enter matter (something keep messing up
the MoQ understanding at this forum ....for ever it seems). I will use
it from the social level upwards.
When the biological evolution reached a certain stage creatures
became able to read the meaning of body signs. They did not have
to SENSE to know the meaning (of bared fangs as one simple
example) the mere display evoked EMOTION. Enter another aeon
and humans who refined this "abstraction" to ever greater subtlety.
Finally the most subtle messenger - language - which made it
possible not only to interpret embodied signs, but make them into
concepts no less real than the actual article. Yet, this is still the
social level, the stone-agers lived in a magic reality where chanting
and cave paintings could bring animals to their pitfalls.
Millennia flash by. Spoken language was enlarged to signs
impressed in clay or engraved on stone. "Abstraction" reached a
level where it created an impression of a separate realm where
words/concepts were manipulated creating realities that did not
belong to the OBJECTIVE world. This subjective "mind" realm
became increasingly dominant: The SUBJECT/OBJECT division
was born. Was it John Beasley who referred to Julian Jaynes? In
an early letter (1993) Pirsig said that he associated this idea with
the emergence of Intellect. "The Gods' Voices in their heads" was
the society's morals controlling the individual, but with the above
development there came a separation: an individual with a mind of
its own. Then by and by the first Greek "thinkers" who explored the
new territory as described in ZAMM.
Do we have an agreement? My pledging for Intellect as the SOM is
valid .....IMO naturally.
You went on:
> As often happens, I've left the doubt in a wait state for some weeks;
> then last May, in a sunny Saturday, it's happened that I've gone to
> the beach with nothing to read. I was alone (!), and after a long swim
> in a very cold water (May's water is just good for Scandinavians here,
> but I have apparently Scandinavian origins!) I felt the wish to read
> something. .....
I very much appreciated your "nomadic" foray, and don't think I
make short thrift of your "division of labour" idea, it may be part of
the game, but not the kernel of it ....as always IMO.
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:25 BST