>MARK:
>The emotions can often filter out reality. Lila's
>experience walking through New York was I think primarily
>emotional- she was attaching static patterns of value to
>her environment as a result of her fear, insecurity, anger,
>...
>
BRAD:
If reality is filtered out it's because static patterns are controlling the
emotions, not because of the emotions themselves. Fear, insecurity, and
ignorance are all caused by not knowing what to do, i.e., of being stuck
(you can't see Quality). The limbic (emotion) system is heavily integrated
with the neocortical (advanced thought) system, but what I was trying to
point out is that the limbic system is ultimately more important. A genius
whose limbic system was suddenly damaged might stand in front of a car
coming at her at 60 mph without any concern, i.e. she is unable to adapt to
the present reality. All that intellect is useless without a guide, a DQ
perceiver. Philosophers generally use the word "intuition" in a pejorative
manner, but neuroscientists are now making it very clear that it's no joke
at all. Intuition is one of our main tools as a species. The brain
structures that allows for it have passed nature's test and have been
selected for from among many other possibilities. Therefore, to address
this month's topic directly: If you feel (intuit), in living your life, that
dynamic is better than static, it is. And that's as legitimate a proof or
argument as a finely polished essay with airtight logic.
>MARK:
>Would such a person get off Pirsig's hot stove any quicker
>than a person with a fully functioning limbic system?
>
>BRAD:
The bio system that allows us to get off the stove (the autonomic nervous
system) is evolutionarily much much older (and therefore more basic) than
the limbic system. E.g., many reptile species have no limbic system and yet
they'd get off the stove as quickly as you and I (maybe quicker).
>MARK:
>Perhaps [the Zuni troublemaker's] existing environment
>was in conflict with his own social or intellectual value
>patterns- but I think Pirsig says that if you could have
>asked him why he was rebelling *he wouldn't have been able
>to put his finger precisely on what he was following- some
>vague sense of betterness.* [Brad's emphasis]
BRAD:
True! This is exactly my point -- the Zuni had no idea he was the next path
evolution would take in that specific environment. ROG (if I understand
him) is asking for a way to prove or be sure that one is doing the right
thing (going down the right path) BEFORE one does it. I'm saying that's not
possible. Rules of thumb -- which is what moral codes are -- help one to be
pretty sure one is doing the right thing, but you can never be completely
sure (because reality is dynamic and may have changed thereby invalidating
old rules or ways of doing things). The Zuni was just doing his own thing,
but that thing was SELECTED FOR by an enviornment that included something
other Zunis (especially the priest/rulers) did not know how to deal with
very well: the white tribe. This mechanism of SELECTION is the key to
evoltuionary logic. Organisms with biological structures that allow them to
be more tuned into DQ stay alive and reproduce more than those with
structures that are not as tuned into DQ (assuming these organisms are
competing for the same resources). Therefore, more dynamic (more tuned into
DQ/reality/the Tao) is better.
Brad
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST