Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Fri, 11 Sep 1998 13:42:34 +0100
9 Sep 1998 16:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
Troy Becker wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, Magnus Berg wrote:
> > Is it always moral to intellectually fight or deny emotions such
> > as love?
> i'm inclined to view emotions as mostly intellectually valuable. i think
> of emotion (and reason, incidentally) as "complex" thinking. while some
> basic emotions seem to be biological impulses (fear, for example), when i
> am overtaken with emotions it is clearly more complex than animalistic
> response. when i "go on feelings" (even when i go on the feeling that
> *reason* is most appropriate) i am going on years of human experience and
> thought. even as a child, when i loved something, it was more than just a
> social pattern of value.
> i realize that i did not expand this argument to its fullest. also, i
> made several sub-points that are not at all traditional. we'll see how it
> flies.
Troy and Magnus!
I was writing to Magnus when Troy's letter anticipated my response.
Let me first address Magnus who doubted my statement that
Intellect's job was to control/dominate emotions (Society)
It hinges on my sequence:
INTERACTION - SENSATION - EMOTION - REASON
as "carriers" of the respective level's values. The MOQ's basic idea
is that all levels try to control/dominate the values of the parent
level, so if the above sequence holds up Intellect will try to
dominate emotions.
"Love is a many-splendored thing".... as the hit from old goes. It has
a strong Biological/Sensational (sensuous, sex) component and Society
tries to get it formalized into social rituals of marriage and order.
However, there is also a Social/Emotional component of sharing,
protecting..etc, and Intellect (which sees Society's restraints on
freedom as its target) gangs up with Biology and promotes free love.
This is not all good ("Ordnung muss sein" as the Germans say), but
before the MOQ there was no way one could see this grand picture. In
SOM lingo one was either a double-moral bigot or a liberal (seen from
Intellect) or an idea-ridden egghead or a responsible member of
society (seen from Society).
TROY!
The term "feeling" is even more ambiguous than love (still worse in
Norwegian where feeling and emotion are synonymous). However, one
feels basic sensations (impulses you call it), one feels complex
emotions and one even FEELS intellectual pleasure (by having a bright
idea). My hunch is that "feeling" is direct experience of Dynamic
Quality! Remember MOQ's most basic point: Experience=Quality.
This is a test balloon:
Without invoking SOM's sentient/non sentient platypus I think there
is "feeling" (=experience of Quality) at all levels. What would keep
the "little moral entities" we call matter particles from doing
"wrong" if there's no feeling of bad or good? If not we have to
revert to SOM's "forces of nature".
There is definitely a lot of feeling at the
Biological level, but here it is refined to bodily "sensation".
What keeps an ant from leaving the hill except feeling bad in
doing so? If not we have to revert to SOM's "instincts".
At the Social level the dynamic experience is elevated
further to "emotions", but the feeling of good or bad is as acute
as ever.
Finally, at the Intellectual level the value carrier
"feeling" is Reason; one feels good when reasonable; elevated
above (contemptuous) emotions and/or (low) sensations.
This was supposed to be a short commentary ;-)!
Bodvar
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:46 CEST