I disagree completely. We definitely have emotions, just like we have a steak dinner, or have a loving relationship. As I tried to point out with the Wolpert article, just because your monism can be fully iterated out, reverse-derived from leaf node to trunk, doesn't falsify the intermediate, local scopes used in the derivation.
The more you say things like "emotion is not something we 'have'; it's something we do", the less people will pay attention to you. The less they'll take you seriously. We have emotions in exactly the same way we have fingers and toes. Sure, some purist somewhere might argue we *express* fingers ... so you don't have a thumb, you *grew* a thumb, you *do* your thumb. But sheesh. Come on. Similar to my argument Friday where I claimed we *are* bundles of dis-integrated contradictions and to be integrated would be hell on earth, we *are* a dynamic interplay of scoping. Sometimes I *do* my thumb. Sometimes I think of my thumb as some other thing, not part of me. This is what we do when we reflect on our condition. And we do it all the time. To say we don't do that would be simplistic nonsense. On 8/23/21 11:06 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > And emotion is not something we “have”; it’s something we do. Or, if you > prefer a dualist sensory metaphor, it’s a particular mode of feeling the > world. -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
