Marco and Group.
You wrote:
...snip.....
> And also they built a famous triumph arch (Arch of Augustus), and a famous
> stone bridge (Bridge of Tiberius). One week ago I walked upon that bridge.
> It was a warm spring night, I was observing the inscriptions carved in the
> stone and wondering about the people that 2000 years before me where walking
> on the same stones, among horses and carts. I imagined them wearing strange
> clothes and talking about the weather in a strange language. Similar to
> mine, as Italian derives in great part from Latin, but probably not
> understandable by me if talked as mother tongue.
Great description Marco and quite a story to read in its own right.
More please! Reminds me of the historian Toynbee (?) who once
was so carried away by his imagination that he literally "saw" an
event from the past - a battle - being enacted before his very eyes.
> ....snip......
> Pursuing backward the social path (Empires, nations, poleis, tribes,
> families...), I think we can get near the original constituent values.
> Let's imagine for a moment single animals everyday fighting for survival.
> What biological input drive them? Hunger, thirst, cold, sexual attraction..
> in one word, instincts. These instincts, driven by experience, are common to
> all biological individuals.
Your inquiry into the foundations of each static value level is most
important and a grat insight. You will possibly remember my own
search for what I called the "expression" of each value level and
that I arrived at 'sensation' regarding Q-biology. My objection to
'instincts' (aside from not rhyming) is that it is so SOMish, calling
to mind an automaton driven by a program. None of the above
biological urges (hunger, thirst...etc) isn't just as well described as
sensation. But your idea is so good that I won't insist of course.
> Humans have a superior set of instincts, AKA emotions.
I follow your reasoning.
> Love, hate, shame, joy, sadness, pride, solidarity... are biological and
> instinctual, but also are usually expressed in social situations. Couldn't
> it be that emotions were created in human beings as the most refined set of
> instincts to be the "entire design goal" of biological existence? And that
> these emotions pushed humans to live in families (love), to play games
> (joy), to hunt in group (solidarity), to defend the family (pride), to
> respect the customs of the tribe (shame) ?
Exactly. Emotions were my own social 'expression'. They are
".....the most refined set of instincts (or 'sensations'), the 'entire
design goal' of biological existence". IMO the crown of biology that
could not be contained by biology and became a new value plane.
> Seen from a biological point of view, emotions are seemingly a great refined
> reason to live, more dynamic than mere instincts. Seen from a social point
> of view, emotions often become something that must be hidden, while
> remaining the substratum of our social behavior.
Great Marco! This is it. Biology will not see emotions as "social",
it's the greates biological achievement. While emotions from the
social point of view is "itself" and thus hidden.
> Then arrived language (mimic, graphic, written...) to communicate (from
> Latin word "communis" = common) emotions, social purposes, memories, ideas
> .... but this is another story.
Even better! Language was the ultimate social achievement (tool)
that became too much for society and constituted the 'machine
code' of the next. I call it "reason", but won't complicate this
elegant picture by explaining that detail.
> If emotions are the social code, it's easy to understand that the limit for
> social patterns if that their behavior is subjected to emotional inputs: the
> Giant must provide to satisfy the collective emotions of members, no matter
> how to come to this goal. Intellectual patterns were firstly created (using
> language as code) just to control and lead these massive emotions.
Yes, intellect-language's origin was "in the service of society", but
outgrew that role and ....went out on a purpose of its own.
> And if language is the intellectual code, it's also its limit. Language (in
> every possible forms), used to communicate (even to ourselves), is the
> inherent characteristic of all intellectual patterns. As long as we use
> language we can't go out from 4th level. That's why we are "suspended in
> language". Just like my biological self is "suspended in DNA", and my social
> self is "suspended in emotions".
Its limit! Write it twenty times on the blackboard ! :-) See the
implications for our pending discussion about a development
beyond intellect? When intellect-focussed we are suspended in
'reason' or SOM. Intellect is blind to any development above itself -
it's intellect for ever.
> Any thoughts?
Methinks this is a most profound insight.
> p.s.
> I just read Bo's and David B.'s posts....etc.
Not to make this too long, let me return to your PS in a separate
post.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:21 BST