From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sun Jul 24 2005 - 07:19:26 BST
Hi Paul,
> Paul: So do I. Mind is self-reweaving webs of intellectual patterns and
> GPTs are an important subset of them in terms of the way the patterns are
> organised.
That sounds good. It provokes the question - are there any ways in which the
overall set of intellectual patterns are organised? I think that there are.
And they relate to emotion. But I referred again to Damsio's work, and you
responded:
> Paul: I think you are confusing emotion with the experience of
> intellectual
> value. Both are aesthetic but they are, according to the MOQ, different
> responses to Quality - separated by evolutionary development.
Well, I don't think I am confusing those two things, but as there is quite a
bit here to be unpacked, I'll just respond to this bit before going on to
the rest of your post (either later today or tomorrow).
The word emotion is one of those that needs to be pinned down with a
definition, otherwise we're going to be going around in circles. In fact,
what I want to do is abandon the word altogether, and talk about 'somatic
markers', because the more formal description of Damasio's proposal is the
'somatic marker hypothesis'.
It is _precisely_ his assertion that the REPRESENTATION of visceral movement
has a determinative function in organising the contents of the mind (in
other words, it is the representation of visceral movements - the 'somatic
markers' - which are responsible for decision making, ie responding to
Quality). In MoQ terms the representation is an intellectual pattern; it is
an intellectual pattern in the same way that any other intellectual pattern
is. At least, so far as I understand them, which may well not be complete.
Damasio uses the example of a chess game (which I imagine we might agree to
be or have intellectual components). In determining the choice of a move, ie
which move has best Quality within the confines of the game, the player will
imagine various hypotheses and the somatic markers will guide the decision.
The somatic markers are built up out of biological responses (big animal ->
fear -> run away) but have been modified and developed so that they still
guide *all* our decision making processes. So when a mathematician is
considering various algebraic proofs, and wondering which line of enquiry to
pursue (ie which intellectual pattern is of highest Quality) then it is the
somatic marker which will be responsible for guiding that discernment.
And the most important thing (from my point of view) is that the somatic
markers are open to training. So a mathematician will accumulate experience
and insight which will guide the response of the somatic marker. The somatic
marker is not fixed, it is (to change analogies) 'programmable'. The social
level is responsible for a large part of the programming, rendering the
organism 'socialised' as they internalise the social response to certain
behaviour, but the somatic markers retain a capacity to respond to something
new (ie DQ) - and therefore they can blossom on the intellectual level.
This, by the way, is what lies behind my assertion that both you and the MoQ
are Platonist, in that the role of emotion (ie the body, ie somatic markers)
are denigrated and seen as a barrier to attaining the highest levels (as
with the Symposium argument). As you put it above "I think you are confusing
emotion with the experience of intellectual value. Both are aesthetic but
they are, according to the MOQ, different responses to Quality - separated
by evolutionary development".
In other words emotions are what we need to grow out of; they are just
biological remnants, and the more we are able to let go of these and
concentrate on the abstract realms (of the forms.... :o) the more
enlightened we will become.
Whereas I see emotions - the somatic markers - as a) irreplaceable as a
matter of fact; b) responsible for assessing value (and abstract concepts I
see as inert); c) educable and capable of evolutionary development.
Hence my disagreements. Which I hope are becoming clearer. I'm sanguine
about the prospects of agreement, but I hope at some point to be
understood - which I don't think I have been, very widely in this forum, so
far (I've been placed into the box marked 'religious, therefore not
intellectually up to it').
Cheers
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 24 2005 - 07:26:07 BST