Bo, Ham, ml and dmb, This is a subject I have attempted to address several times in the past and I have really had to exercise restraint in jumping in here. I have been pleased to note that mel is pretty much on target in his observations and beyond a few minor adjustments I find little to disagree with. Whatever nits I pick below with mel's analysis pale in contrast to our areas of agreement.
Krimel [Bo] There is the experiment of people being injected with adrenalin. Those told in beforehand felt the restlessness, but took no further notice, while those who didn't know, reacted emotionally, they felt danger threatening (flee or fight). This because humans are social beings and interprets the biological sensations emotionally. A silly example: A stab of pain: Am I ill, will I die? [Krimel] What these experiments illustrate is that higher consciousness functions to evaluate the conditions of an emotional response in terms of the internal and external circumstance that give rise to it. But this in no way suggests that the basic emotions are anything other than biological patterns. Social patterns certainly establish conditions for the appropriate context for the expression of emotion. But the emotions themselves are autonomic and biological. It is interesting to note however that certain emotions do seem to be uniquely human and depend entirely upon social conditions. The emotions of pride and shame for example are only meaningful in the context of others. I think this illustrates how socially dependant creatures we are. That something as biologically based as emotion could evolve and be encoded genetically says something about fundamental human nature. Some here claim that human nature is fundamentally about individuals seeking personal gratification. But the presence social emotions, at least to me, suggests that our dependence on others is much more fundamental than pure selfishness. [Chris] It sounds about right that "emotion is the social "expression" (Sensation the biological and Reason the intellectual)" - a good clarification I think. When I was talking about greed, I meant that greed was one thing at the biological level (and there it can't really be called greed meaningfully) that social structures can then use, and build upon in order to maintain the social values that has been set up. Greed then becomes a powerful social tool, and the balance between social and biological can work quite well, because only with the intellectual level does things like human worth (människovärde) arise as an idea of Quality. [Krimel] There is a lot of confusion to unpack in this paragraph. While emotions can be mediated by social patterns they are still purely biological. One can not will to "feel" happy or sad or fearful. Nor can we wish these emotions away when they occur. We can attempt to create conditions that draw out or suppress emotions but they remain inherently biological. It is not clear to me what you are throwing sensation and reason in here for. Greed would certainly qualify as a social emotion if it is an emotion at all. Greed seems to me to be more a characteristic of behavior or clusters of behaviors than of an emotion in and of itself. [Ham] I define awareness as value-sensibility. Pirsig uses the term "pre-intellectual experience", which is confusing for those of us who equate experience with the intellectualized world (i.e., experiential existence). [Krimel] Emotions are a purely biological. They have the characteristic of valence in that they tend to summarize any given experience as good or bad. Emotions serve us in the same way they serve other mammals they attract or repel us for events in the environment that threaten or may benefit us. [mel] ... the seat of emotions is in the "reptile brain [Krimel] The seat of the emotions is actually known as the mammalian brain. It includes the limbic system in the mid brain. Those limbic structures give rise to emotions and are included in the neural pathways that lead to and from the higher cortical regions. Those pathways insure that virtually all experience is colored with emotion. As I tried to suggest above this means that all experience has "Value" or emotional valence. An example of this that serves me well, is that I have seen thousands of movies and I remember seeing almost every one of them I have ever seen. But I am very bad at recalling plot details. What I remember about nearly every movie I have ever seen is whether I "liked" it our not. What lingers is not the detail but the overall impression. Well that was the nits. I have little to add to the rest of your post on this. [dmb quotes Pirsig:] For years weve read about how values are supposed to emanate from some location in the lower centers of the brain. This location has never been clearly identified. The mechanism for holding these values is completely unknown. No one has ever been able to add to a persons values by inserting one at this location, or observed any significant changes at this location as a result of a change of values. No evidence has been presented that if this portion of the brain is anesthetized or even lobotomized the patient will make a better scientist as a result because all his decisions will then be value-free. Yet were told values must reside here, if they exist at all, because where else could they be? [Krimel] Here is another example of Pirsig have good instincts for the crux of the matter but failing to understand or address it adequately. We can identify specific areas of the brain that create emotional responses and if they are stimulated emotional responses do occur. In other words Values can be created and expressed by stimulation of the nervous system. In the case of damage or malfunction of these areas, emotions are impaired. A deeper problem with Pirsig's statement is that without emotional valence science could not and would not exist. If the emotional pathways to the cortex are disrupted emotions may have a physiological expression, (blushing, smiling, and accelerated heart rate) but no interpretation. That is, they will not be felt. People with this kind of condition find it very difficult to make decisions. They do not perceive Value and have no criteria for deciding among competing values. What scientists attempt to do is control for the effects of personal values. What the researcher feels or desires about an experiment should not influence its outcome. Researchers are looking for necessary on sufficient causes. In their search they attempt to eliminate or control for a myriad of extraneous variables that could have potential influence. Personal values certainly motivate scientists. They serve both to direct research and to evaluate outcomes but every effort to reduce their influence on experimental outcomes should be taken. [dmb] I've seen people interpret the hot stove example that way too, as a physiological response to the low quality of the situation. This tends to denigrate "value" as a low grade thing that needs to be overcome and adjusted by a more sophisticated understanding. And then beyond that, there's probably some confusion that involves the difference between value as a dynamic experience, as the immediately felt quality of the situation, and the static levels with which we can respond and which play a role in our subsequent explanations of the experience. [Krimel] The hot stove is an example of a reflex response it is hard to see any other way of evaluating it. I think what you say above it at the root of our frequent disagreements. You say, "This tends to denigrate "value" as a low grade thing..." This highlights your romantic inclination to elevate value to some higher order of existence. I think the frank recognition that emotions ARE Value elevates them to a position of fundamental importance. They are essential to survival. They are essential in guiding us to what is good and bad in the world around us. Higher levels of consciousness serve not only to override these fundamental traits but to elevate and interpret them. Emotions ARE pre-intellectual. They ARE pre-verbal. They ARE "the immediately felt quality of the situation." You are right on the edge here Dave, take my hand I'll help you take the next step. [dmb] I think it's interesting to notice that emotions are felt in the whole body. William James noticed that people blush before they even realize they're embarrassed. Ever notice how seeing a really hot babe will be immediately felt around the top of the belly and just below the heart. Bam! Like cupid's arrow, it seems to hit you as if from the outside. It doesn't seem to be located in the mind or the brain or even in the groin but rather the center of whole organism. [Krimel] James thought consciousness itself had these qualities. In "Does Consciousness Exist" he says, "The 'I think' which Kant said must be able to accompany all my objects, is the 'I breath' which actually does accompany them. There are other internal facts besides breathing (intracephalic muscular adjustments, etc., of which I have said a word in my larger Psychology), and these increase the assets of 'consciousness,' so far as the latter is subject to immediate perception..." Like the emotions, conscious experience arises in the brain and is "felt" throughout the body. [dmb] I swear my dog had a look the other day that said, hey I know it was wrong but I just couldn't help it so gimme a break. She was sick and pooped on the rug. Normally, she can wait for hours. Seems she can wait longer than I can, if fact. [Krimel] Is your dog's reaction a result of a sense of personal responsibility or a sense of fear of consequences based on past experiences of crapping on the rug? Certainly "guilt" is a human social emotion while "fear" is something a bit more basic. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
