From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Mar 05 2005 - 23:08:28 GMT
dmb said to Sam:
Emotions are intentional in the sense that they are about some aspect of
the world? Again, I have a different impression. It seems that for Nussbaum
all emotions are about the ego of the emoter, if you will. I think she is
saying that all emotions are egocentric. As she puts it in "Upheavels of
Thought",..
"I do not go about fearing any and every catastrophe anywhere in the world,
nor (so it seems) do I fear any and every catastrophe that I know to be bad
in important ways. What inspires fear is the thought of damages impending
that cut to the heart of my own cherished relationships and projects. What
inspires grief is the death of someone beloved, someone who has been an
important part of one's own life. This does not mean that the emotions view
these objects simply as tools or instruments of the agent's own
satisfaction: they may be invested with intrinsic worth or value. They may
be loved for their own sake, and their good sought for its own sake. . .
.[Nonetheless], the emotions are in this sense localized: they take their
stand in my own life, and focus on the transition between light and darkness
there, rather than on the general distribution of light and darkness in the
universe as a whole."
Sam replied:
Now, does anyone else have the impression from this that DMB has a) read the
Nussbaum book, and b) took down his copy to type in this particular
reference? After all, it's what might be expected when someone says "I have
a different impression.... I think she is saying...." Given that I've been a
fan of Nussbaum for quite a while, and have mentioned her before, I was
struck by the way that DMB referred to her here, as if he was familiar with
her work - which I found surprising, as that hadn't come up before. So I did
a quick Google search on one extract from that quotation. And Lo! And
Behold!! http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0210/reviews/oakes.html
The reviewer writes this: "For Nussbaum, all emotions are egocentric. As she
puts it..." and then gives the exact same quotation from Nussbaum that DMB
used. Now, I could be making 2+2 = 5 here, and falsely impugning DMB's
integrity. If so, I apologise. Should we have a rule against 'passing off'
other people's opinions as our own though? Just a thought <grin>
dmb confesses:
I do not own the book and have not read it. Never said otherwise. There is
no way to prove it to anyone, but I can honestly tell you that the idea came
first, then the search began, then I read the review, which only confirmed
the original hunch. Suspicious of your assertion that "intentional" emotions
are about the world, rather about the way our intentions effect the way we
feel about the world, I went and asked Mr. Google and was happy to find a
relevant quote from her book so quickly. However, I should have mentioned
the reviewer or used a different term than he did or both. So I'd have to
say that you've Correctly inpunged my integrity and no apology is required.
But the point remains even while my integrity lies in tatters...
dmb had continued:
"My own cherished relationships and projects." See, this is the ego-self,
the Ayn Randian self, that Pirsig views as a kind of fiction. I suspect that
trying to fit such a thing into the MOQ may be one of those square peg/round
hole things. ...At the very least we would have to make some serious
adjustments to discuss it. I don't want to be a party-pooper, but it might
even be doomed from the start.
Sam replied:
This is what makes me think DMB hasn't read Nussbaum. To accuse her (simply)
of working within SOM is pathetic. But Matt has already made that point
eloquently.
dmb says:
Again, I never claimed to have read the book. There were several books and
authors mentioned in the review that prompted this discussion and I never
claimed to have read any of them. But a guy can look into it. A guy can read
reviews and exerpts. And I did not just "accuse her". I SHOWED her working
within SOM. That was the purpose of quoting from her book, to show this in
her own words. I agree with Matt, actually. People toss that SOM accusation
around all the time for very flimsy reasons. People use it as an escape
hatch. But this discussion has lead us into that territory where we are
trying to sort out the difference between conventional feelings and emotions
on the one hand and the primary empirical reality on the other. The point
here is to show that Nussbaum is talking about static reality, the reality
that is full of loves and hates, goods and evils, heros and villians. The
primary empirical reality is prior to all that static sorting and sifting.
dmb said to Sam:
I think two different ideas are getting squished together here. When we
say that DQ is the primary empirical reality, it is an assertion about the
MOQ's epistemology and not about the relative value or worth of DQ. When we
say DQ is the primary empirical reality, the word "primary" means first in a
sequence, the most basic kind, the starting point. It does not mean DQ is
better than sq, more important than sq or anything like that. I think we all
can recall Pirsig's repeated insistence that both are vital and necessary.
Seen this way, there is no conflict between the idea that DQ is primary and
the idea that DQ and sq are "a contradictory identity".
Sam replied:
Your point only holds true if you take time to be an absolute and not itself
a high quality intellectual pattern. That's not very mystical of you David
;o) ...This could be a major point, so I'm going to go off and look at
Anthony's PhD where he talks about just this subject...
dmb says:
I think I know what you mean. The paradox is revealed if we include time
itself in the Pirsigian formula. How can we say that the primary empirical
reality is PRIOR to static patterns in TIME if time is itself one of those
static patterns. I think it is a genuine paradox. The whole idea of an
evolutionary migration presupposed the idea of time. The MOQ makes no sense
without it. But that's just the nature of trying to put mystical things into
terms we can comprehend, a genuine paradox. Let me know what you find in
Ant's book. Maybe you'll sugggest a new topic accordingly?
I have to add that my hunch about Nussbaum was at least partly based on
theme I detect throughout your posts. I don't just mean lately. It seems
that you have tried to re-introduce the ego-self into the MOQ in various
ways. Your eudaimonic MOQ, with its emphasis on "human flourishing", is an
example. Also, if its not too much of a stretch, your concern that the worst
thing about 9/11. Your distaste for the idea that DQ is a God without
concerns for human affairs. There are other examples too. It seems that this
wish to put that concept of the self back into the MOQ has been quite
persistent. As I see it, its the same square peg in various forms and it
never fits, no matter what the angle of attack happens to be. Maybe there is
a good reason for that and it helps to explain why I could confirm my hunch
in a matter of minutes.
Thanks,
dmb
__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 06 2005 - 01:19:17 GMT