clark (clark@netsites.net)
Fri, 9 Jan 1998 18:43:29 +0100
----------
> From: Bodvar Skutvik <skutvik@online.no>
> To: Multiple recipients of <lilasqd@mail.hkg.com>
> Subject: LS ? - Sensation - Emotion - Reason.
> Date: Friday, January 09, 1998 4:37 AM
>
> Ken and Hugo!
> Thanks for offering me your suggestions for the "subjective" side to
> the Inorganic level and for the highly relevant commentary.
>
> Ken's entry:
> > Good points and good discussion. The only thing that comes immediately
to
> > mind for the inorganic level is "PATTERNS'. Would this be unambiguous
> > enough?
>
> Hugo's:
> > I really like that question - 'What do we call the 'mind' of
> > matter?' !! Might I suggest the term RELATION.
>
>
> In addition Hugo says that emotion (as mutual representation) takes a
> little explaining. Agreed! However I find it defensible and the
> sequence ? - SENSATION - EMOTION - REASON has a beauty that I would
> love(!!!!) to see completed.
>
> Emotions has been the stepchild of philosophy. I know no thinker
> who integrates feelings into his/her system (perhaps the American
> Martha Nussbaum, but in a very contrived manner). They have been
> considered disturbing, irrational, threatening outcasts. Pirsig does
> not explicitly treat emotions (that I know), but the MOQ gives room
> for that deduction.
>
> The obvious objection to emotions as the social value "carrier"
> (Hugo's "mutual representation" is a very good expression) is that
> they may be negative as well. Love is expedient in building
> relationships, but what about hatred, contempt, disgust etc?. Well,
> they are repellent, but always in some relationship. It takes
> two (at least) to hate and the negative emotions are the strongest
> motive for societies to stick together when directed outwards - to
> "aliens". No, I think we're on to something here. I FEEL it!
>
> Now, to your suggestions: PATTERNS and RELATIONS. As there are no
> sentient organisms involved below the Bio level it sounds outrageous
> to ask for an Inorganic representation (the "mind" of matter) , but
> as MOQ rejects the primary division of SOM I feel free to follow that
> path. Even if I recognize your intentions I'm not fully satisfied
> with either, but please keep on thinking. The ..on ending in English
> is preferable, but as Hugo knows it is not as easy to make it
> coherent in "Scandinavian".
>
> Bo
>
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
Bodvar,
Another thought. How about origin. We could spell it origion if we
wished. Or we could knock off the ori and just work with gin. More fun and
wisdom that way. Might think about Genesis. Maybe a phonetic dissonance
would be appropriate in the leap from non-life to life.
Anyway, I look upon the universe as a living system with the solar system
as a stepchild. What would that make us. Probably a pimple on the buttocks
of the universe.
I have been thinking of writing a treatise on the contemplation of my
navel. Think where one could go with that. It could unfold into a
discussion of everything. Remember in ZMM where the girl wrote on the front
of the opera house, or maybe just one brick. Now that I think of it, one
could start anywhere with anything and wind up with the Big Bang.
I want to warn the squad that I have been harboring some ideas about
Pirsig's intentions that are at variance with the general opinion of the
squad. When I feel confident that I have a good enough grasp of the
situation I may start a furious argument before long. It seems to me that
the squad may be starting down a similar path to the one the Greeks led us
into so long ago.
Why is it that the farther back one looks the wiser people seem to get?
Is it because we can't imagine anything of value coming out of our stupid
neighbors. Probably something in the old saying that familiarity breeds
contempt. I think somewhere we must have someone as intelligent as Socrates
and Plato and Aristotle.
I just got up and my mind (excuse me, my Dynamic Quality augmented by
static quality or is it the other way around. Its circular isn't it?))
hasn't assumed the weight of the world yet. When I am serious for too long
I get antsy. Where did I see the question-did God have a navel? Diana,
maybe the squad needs a logo showing an anthropomorphic universe with God
as its navel. I seem to be fixated on navels this morning. Probably
something to do with being bottle fed as an infant. If you have not looked
at the squad list lately you will find that my daughter has joined the
squad. She is smarter than I am, not as pretty, but smarter. Ken
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:37 CEST