Two Points of View

[Dglgmut]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

You want, it's appeared, to put emotions ahead of a mind.

No. The original question was whether emotions precede thought. The answer is yes. Asking which comes first, emotions or consciousness, makes no sense. Emotions are inherent to consciousness. What emotions are supposed to crudely reflect, value, comes before consciousness. (This connects to Michael's previous question, since other species that would not be considered conscious do have values.)

 

Now there's no point continuing unless you want to take a stab at telling me the process by which one decides to be rational. What's the sequence?

[tmj]

Uncoordinated mental gymnastics aside, tabula rasa would logically preclude universality , no?

[Jon Letendre]

She knows to remove the strings ... by instinct?

 

 

[Dglgmut]

5 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

She knows to remove the strings ... by instinct?

 

 

I think I heard it say, "These strings contradict my values."

 

I liked when it took them off the baby's head. A dog would not have done that, even it had arms.

[anthony]

4 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

No. The original question was whether emotions precede thought. The answer is yes. Asking which comes first, emotions or consciousness, makes no sense. Emotions are inherent to consciousness. What emotions are supposed to crudely reflect, value, comes before consciousness. (This connects to Michael's previous question, since other species that would not be considered conscious do have values.)

 

Now there's no point continuing unless you want to take a stab at telling me the process by which one decides to be rational. What's the sequence?

Several subjective assertions without substance or validation...

Amounts to - I feel this way about my feelings because I feel this way about my feelings - because I feel ... because they just ARE!

"Asking which comes first ... makes no sense"? Then you've understood little. How can there be an emotion without the pre-existence of a consciousness? How can there be a consciousness without the pre-existence of existence? I must assume you reject the explanation of axioms.

"Value comes before rationality"? It gets no better. How do you ~know~ what's of value (to you) and what's not, before you identify - what it IS?

Who has been filling your mind with this? really, don't listen to them you do better alone.

You've not even addressed my post's full content so getting through to you is a waste of time.

What you plainly continue asserting is primacy of consciousness/primacy of emotion. I.e. "I feel therefore I am". 

(This "age of Infantilism" explained in brief: Primacy of consciousness).

 

[anthony]

Btw, My "original question" in fact was "Who here thinks emotions are independent of consciousness?"

Apart from Dg, no one wants to take a shot?

 

[Peter]

42 minutes ago, anthony said:

"Who here thinks emotions are independent of consciousness?"

No one. Emotions are not things. They may be electrical / chemical / and psychic? in a good way.  I was thinking about that "independence." What if you were a human or a lower animal for that matter, and you got bit by an ant? What would that entity experience?  Pain . . .  OUCH~ but then something emotional attached to the sensation of pain,  which requires a consciousness to respond, in  ANY way. 

[Dglgmut]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

No one. Emotions are not things. They may be electrical / chemical / and psychic? in a good way.  I was thinking about that "independence." What if you were a human or a lower animal for that matter, and you got bit by an ant? What would that entity experience?  Pain . . .  OUCH~ but then something emotional attached to the sensation of pain,  which requires a consciousness to respond, in  ANY way. 

This is why I make a distinction between consciousness and awareness. Consciousness includes self-awareness.

[anthony]

22 hours ago, Peter said:

No one. Emotions are not things. They may be electrical / chemical / and psychic? in a good way.  I was thinking about that "independence." What if you were a human or a lower animal for that matter, and you got bit by an ant? What would that entity experience?  Pain . . .  OUCH~ but then something emotional attached to the sensation of pain,  which requires a consciousness to respond, in  ANY way. 

Simple and true. The human begins with his senses to accrue knowledge equally to accrue his value-system.

[tmj]

And it seems all that accruing starts implicitly, how can that be ?

[anthony]

3 hours ago, tmj said:

And it seems all that accruing starts implicitly, how can that be ?

Like the animal bitten by an ant, I think an automated association is made: This ¬thing¬ hurts. Or eating a berry off a bush, ugh, sour! (spits it out). And many more associations between entities and the visual/touch/taste senses: The thing's appearance -and- how good/bad it is for me (the animal).

So not implicit, rather innate and automatic. Automated 'judgments' and 'identifications' made without discerned choice. I think is valid to say, our senses are performing double-duty - investigatory and self-protective. Further on, the rational animal evolves to - explicitly, effortfully - forming complex 'associations', his abstract concepts. And still: What is it? What is its value? Which emotions arise from my judgments?

[Peter]

On 6/28/2020 at 9:59 AM, Ellen Stuttle said:

Figure out which things yourself, if you can (doubtful).

What? Who said, “The connection between "the shadow" and evil is that, when we deny our unattractive characteristics and attempt to push them into unawareness, then they can take on a life of their own and become more powerful.”

Whoa. Dark shadows! I think I have reposted this before but it is relevant to any “Platonists” currently posting to OL.

From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: jung and such Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 01:33:56 -0500. After a long and tiring day, I pulled in my e-mail to find some 140 ATL posts, among them several with references to Jung. I'd like to comment -- though I'll only do so briefly for now -- on these speculations by Joe and Christian:

Joe B writes: "but he [Jung] did seem to uphold a sort of Platonism, from what I've gathered so far...which may be why he hasn't been linked to Rand"

Christian says: I'd hazard to guess a significant reason why Rand and Jung have not "been linked", is that they held disparate views regarding consciousness. For Rand, the primary significance of consciousness was it's process, while for Jung, the emphasis was on content.

Christian, I'm not understanding what you mean in saying that the "primary significance of consciousness" was process for Rand, content for Jung.  Could you elaborate?

What I see as some of the important differences between Rand and Jung are that:

(1) For Jung the ego is not the ultimate boss in the psyche's "house."

(2) Jung was to an extent influenced by Kant and thought that there was a "noumenal" world the nature of which we could never know.

(3) Jung didn't give reason the centrality Rand did, though he didn't denigrate reason.  But he thought that there are non-rational ways of knowing.

(4) Jung's model of consciousness was circular -- a model of different "functions," schematically represented as if on a wheel, and each function to be given its role in turn -- whereas I think I'd describe Rand's model as hierarchical as a structure of ascending levels.

(5) Rand thought that man is born "tabula rasa."  Jung didn't.

Regarding this last point, it's an interesting question whether he upheld "a sort of Platonism."  Depends what you mean by "Platonism." Jung was often accused of proposing a theory of innate ideas, and he often hotly denied that this was what he was proposing.  On the other hand, he often analogized the archetypes to Plato's forms. I think the clue to the discrepancy is that he thought of the archetypes NOT as having content, thus not as being "ideas," but instead as being formative *principles* common to the psyches of all persons.

The above is hasty and sketchy, but it might provide some leads.

I'd like to correct a possible misunderstanding of Jung's idea of "the shadow."  Although in common parlance, and even at times as used by Jungians, the term is equated with bad characteristics, precisely speaking, Jung used the term "shadow" to include *everything* of which we're unaware about ourselves, good, bad, indifferent.  The connection between "the shadow" and evil is that, when we deny our unattractive characteristics and attempt to push them into unawareness, then they can take on a life of their own and become more powerful.  Often, too, such denied characteristics are projected onto others with the result that we think we see in other people's behavior what we don't want to acknowledge in our own. Ellen S.

From: PaleoObjectivist To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: "I've outgrown Ayn Rand" Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 01:56:54 EDT Ellen Stuttle wrote: Interestingly, I think that I have some idea of what the discovery of Rand was like for many Objectivists because of what happened next.  In 1981, I began to read the work of Carl Jung.  Looking back, I would think how odd it was that I'd never read Jung before I'd reached the age of nearly 39; I'd several times felt curious about his ideas because of little glimmers I'd heard about them, but I'd always been too busy reading other material.  What finally did the trick of inspiring me to embark on the delayed project of reading Jung was that a friend of mine -- a talented writer -- kept saying that my thoughts about psychology sounded Jungian. In early '81 -- almost twenty years after I'd first read *Atlas* -- I bought a couple volumes of selected essays by Jung and I began with an essay titled "On the Nature of the Psyche."  Within a few pages, I had to close the book and just sit there for awhile feeling the strangest sense of combined desolation and joy:  joy at what I'd found; desolation at the thought of *all those years!* (the phrase kept going through my mind), all those years when I'd yearned and hadn't known that what I yearned for was available to be found, had  I only looked in the right place.

I certainly understand and appreciate what Ellen is sharing here. Although my particular interest is in Jung's personality type theory (and its elaborations and applications by Isabel Myers and David Keirsey and others), I have to say that learning of it was the second greatest "aha" experience of my intellectual life – the greatest being Rand's philosophy.

> Circling back to the thought which began my reminiscing:  I have personally found that as a result of my participation on this list, my appreciation of Rand's genius has grown to be deeper and more informed than it was before.  And George's essays *connecting* Rand to the history of thought have been the strongest contribution to my enhanced awareness of what Rand accomplished.  For me, seeing Rand in the light cast by historical context heightens not diminishes her luster.

Agreed. Another person who has helped me see Rand in historical perspective is Chris Sciabarra, especially in his ~Ayn Rand, the Russian Radical~. I was barely 20 pages into his book, on a fateful day back in 1996, when I realized that he knew what the hell he was talking about, and he had nailed the essence of Rand's intellectual process when she considered what was wrong with the traditional views of the great philosophical problems. She had the great gift of being able to intellectually transcend false alternatives, to see the partial truths they contained, and to understand what was the fuller, more complete view of the truth. In case after case, the objective transcends the subjective and the intrinsic, and Rand was the one who discovered and systematized that realization. She did not emerge out of nothing with her views; she studied the historical context, saw the shortcomings, identified their root, and formulated the solution to problem after problem. In a somewhat similar way, so did Jung in his ~Personality Types~, as did Camus in ~The Rebel~. I recommend both of these works to those who have not yet had the pleasure of reading them. Thanks, Ellen, for sharing your personal experience with us. Best 2 all, Roger Bissell

[Dglgmut]

9 hours ago, anthony said:

Automated 'judgments' and 'identifications' made without discerned choice.

You said judgments were made consciously, now they're automated?

[anthony]

Automated only at the sensory pain-pleasure level that warns/guards all of us animals. Man doesn't stop there, he needs to volitionally think, to identify/assimilate knowledge to live as 'man' and his basic, automatic pleasure-pain faculty evolves in step with his conceptual knowledge to a much higher order. He has to make ~conscious~ and deliberate good/bad judgments of new knowledge which he calls value-judgments. The physical pain-pleasure he instead experiences now as his emotions - those instant signals that tell when his values are threatened (or lost), or reward him when they do well. 

[Dglgmut]

On 6/29/2020 at 8:08 PM, anthony said:

How can there be an emotion without the pre-existence of a consciousness?

Because the two are inseparable. There is no emotion without consciousness, and there is no consciousness without emotion.

Quote

How do you ~know~ what's of value (to you) and what's not, before you identify - what it IS?

What does this have to do with value being determined consciously? You admit the pleasure-pain mechanism functions automatically, but what about the value of those sensations? Do we know pain is bad automatically?

 

You've avoided my question and it's pretty obvious why... It's impossible for you to explain how we would choose to be rational, because if we don't choose to be rational, then it is automatic, and if we choose to be rational, it is an irrational choice. So which is it?

[anthony]

37 minutes ago, Dglgmut said:

Because the two are inseparable. There is no emotion without consciousness, and there is no consciousness without emotion.

What does this have to do with value being determined consciously? You admit the pleasure-pain mechanism functions automatically, but what about the value of those sensations? Do we know pain is bad automatically?

 

You've avoided my question and it's pretty obvious why... It's impossible for you to explain how we would choose to be rational, because if we don't choose to be rational, then it is automatic, and if we choose to be rational, it is an irrational choice. So which is it?

There is "no consciousness without emotion" - is your repetitive, illogical take. And a reversal. The existence of consciousness is the prerequisite for acts of consciousness. I've said before you confuse the message with the messenger.

If one doesn't choose to be rational, meaning one's application to reality and conceiving reality - consciously - and evaluating reality - consciously - one will inevitably depend on or gather one's ideas and values, from others/society/authorities/etc. - subconsciously.

As for my avoiding, I directly answered you but you refuse to consider these explanations about the process of moving from biological pleasure-pain to advanced emotions. .

Do we know pain is bad automatically? Pain-bad should be self-evident to a sentient creature - if you're unsure try putting your hand in a fire.

[Peter]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

There is "no consciousness without emotion" - is your repetitive, illogical take. And a reversal. The existence of consciousness is the prerequisite for acts of consciousness. I've said before you confuse the message with the messenger.

Here are a few interesting quotes from Harry Binswanger’s book “How We Know.”

 page. 31, footnote no. 8: Imagined content is usually compared to perceptual content, but it would seem to be more closely related to the content of memory. Imagining an absent friend’s face seems to have just the same inner quality or “feel” as remembering it, which is in line with the point that imagination is the ability to rearrange *stored* perceptual data. 

page 38: In general, animals have to move to get food; consciousness enables them to locate their food. It also enables them to avoid being eaten, but food is the fundamental: life is not fundamentally the avoidance of death but the gaining of the materials for self-sustenance. Consciousness does also enable animals to obtain other goals; e.g., to find mates for reproduction, but getting food is the fundamental.

In the preface Harry writes: Mankind has existed for 400,000 years but 395,000 of those years were consumed by the Stone Age. The factor that freed men from endless toil and early death, the root cause of the elevated level of existence we now take for granted, is one precious value: *knowledge.* The painfully acquired knowledge of how to master nature, how to organize social existence, and how to understand himself is what enabled man to rise from the cave to the skyscraper, from warring clans to a global economy, from an average lifespan of less than 30 years to one approaching 80.

[Dglgmut]

No, a reversal would be saying emotion comes before consciousness... that's not what I said. Try to be more precise.

Quote

The existence of consciousness is the prerequisite for acts of consciousness.

Yes, so? Emotion is not an "act" of consciousness. Thought is an act of consciousness. Thought is fueled by emotion, but we control the accelerator.

Quote

Do we know pain is bad automatically? Pain-bad should be self-evident to a sentient creature - if you're unsure try putting your hand in a fire.

So we automatically know pain is bad, got it. That value judgment happens automatically, but that's where it stops, according to you? You realize that argument can be used to support emotions being automatic, rather than consciously programmed, right? If you're unsure, try leaving your family. Is that fair? If not, maybe you should try another angle to make your point about pain.

[Dglgmut]

2 minutes ago, Peter said:

page 38: In general, animals have to move to get food; consciousness enables them to locate their food. It also enables them to avoid being eaten, but food is the fundamental: life is not fundamentally the avoidance of death but the gaining of the materials for self-sustenance. Consciousness does also enable animals to obtain other goals; e.g., to find mates for reproduction, but getting food is the fundamental.

What does "fundamental" mean? What animals are more likely to choose: sex, food, or not getting eaten, is clearly not the standard he's using here.

[Peter]

Just now, Dglgmut said:

What does "fundamental" mean? What animals are more likely to choose: sex, food, or not getting eaten, is clearly not the standard he's using here.

I think he is. I would suggest that "fundamental" is being used in a “food is important but not an emergency” way. A carnivore’s roar or a bear coming into a caveman’s residence is an emergency. A few more quotes from “How We Know:” What is the basis for holding that focus is volitional? Introspection – the only direct source of information about the nature and actions of consciousness.

Comparing the in-focus state to the out-of-focus state presents a certain difficulty: to the extent that one is out of focus, one is not introspecting. But upon coming into focus, it is easy enough to recall the preceding moment. That is what one does when one catches oneself daydreaming. The difference between a recalled state of non-focus and a present state of focus is striking and undeniable: being alert, purposeful, actively in charge vs. being passive, aimless, not in charge (or actively evading.)

Volition is experienced directly in one’s sense of *agency* and *effort.* one cannot avoid being aware of oneself as the active agent in the cognitive process. Initiating and sustaining focus is something that one *does,* not something that just happens to one.

[Peter]

From The Weather Channel. New data says flood prone areas are growing. I am 14 feet above the high tide mark.

Discussing “fundamentals” like food made me remember some of my Dad’s WWII books with pictures. It showed American GI’s being liberated from German prisoner of war camps. They were malnourished but not in terrible shape.  I also remember the walking skeletons from German concentration camps.  You couldn’t give Jews more than a small amount of food at first because a regular meal could kill them. 

[Dglgmut]

I don't understand. What about experiments where mice choose a stimulus over food, and continue to until they starve to death?

 

It's a combination of importance and scarcity. It's why sugar tastes good. And importance always pertains to the species, not the individual.

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Dglgmut said:

No, a reversal would be saying emotion comes before consciousness... that's not what I said. Try to be more precise.

Yes, so? Emotion is not an "act" of consciousness. Thought is an act of consciousness. Thought is fueled by emotion, but we control the accelerator.

So we automatically know pain is bad, got it. That value judgment happens automatically, but that's where it stops, according to you? You realize that argument can be used to support emotions being automatic, rather than consciously programmed, right? If you're unsure, try leaving your family. Is that fair? If not, maybe you should try another angle to make your point about pain.

You have a problem envisaging that a biological function, physical pain -pleasure, is the forerunner to emotional pain-pleasure? That's your problem, not mine. Use some introspection.

You said: "There is no consciousness without emotion". This is clearly a reversal of the nature of consciousness, stating outright that consciousness would not exist without emotions. "IS no" ... "without".. evades and negates the axiomatic nature of consciousness. Therefore, you say consciousness depends for its existence on emotions. Your sophistry and obfuscation can't hide your nonsensical statement.

And what else is an emotion but mental in its origins, as I've restated? Only chemicals? A mystical revelation? Arrived out of thin air?

I await your reply. 

Conveniently you keep forgetting what I've repeated several times. After making a conscious value-judgment, it soon becomes automated in the subconscious. (Like learning to drive). I don't have to think and re-evaluate, every minute of my day that e.g. my work, my child, etc.etc. is precious to me. I don't have to stop and think and reconsider if I see my child fall of the swing whether she is important to my value-hierarchy or not: I react with immediate fear and instantly run to her.

I quoted Branden saying something like that, about one moving without fail to one's highest value. Get it? self-programmed/automated in one's subconscious? AFTER making a conscious value-judgment? And following it up over a long period with many affirmatory thoughts and actions, especially and more so with one's higher values.

[Dglgmut]

9 minutes ago, anthony said:

I quoted Branden saying something like that, about one moving without fail to one's highest value. Get it? self-programmed/automated in one's subconscious? AFTER making a conscious value-judgment? And following it up with many affirmative thoughts and actions, especially and more so with my higher values.

So you give yourself one freebee, the "highest value." That one is done unconsciously, but then it's all conscious (and subconscious through self-programming) from there. Got it.

[anthony]

1 minute ago, Dglgmut said:

So you give yourself one freebee, the "highest value." That one is done unconsciously, but then it's all conscious (and subconscious through self-programming) from there. Got it.

There is no 'unconscious' unless you're asleep or in a coma. Everything that is in the subconscious had to get there through the consciousness. Aware of it and not.