Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Another world

Expand Messages
  • Jim Aiden
    If we could cut out the part of the brain that gives us emotion, would we be more human or less? My belief? Emotion is not a curse. Don t be suspicious of
    Message 1 of 35 , Sep 18, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      If we could cut out the part of the brain that gives
      us emotion, would we be more human or less?

      My belief?

      Emotion is not a curse. Don't be suspicious of those that have it. Be
      suspicious of those that don't. They only have an agenda of self
      because that is the only 'reasonable' thing to have within a single
      lifetime without the belief of the metaphysical.

      It's a gift that allows us to function as one. To grow as one.
      Completely remove it and we slowly destroy the foundations of that
      which made us prosper as humans. We slowly undermine the
      infrastructure of justice, politic, economics and purpose. Though a
      fat man grows, the piper is one day payed. A modern Sodom and

      Temper emotion with reason, or reason with emotion but be
      accepting of both. They by definition are part of the same being.
      Complete humans are not empty vessels devoid of 'soul'. If we destroy
      that, we risk destroying our collectiveness and ourselves.

      For those that don't care for emotion, feel free to return to the
      mud. I would not stop you. Perhaps a quick death to civilization or
      perhaps your society's infrastructure will imprison and protect you
      enough, to keep your existence and your childrens intact. The
      buildings will become more relevent than the temporary tenents. No
      'I', will be able to influence the machinery because no 'I' has a
      concern for it. Only the 'I' and how it might get advantage would mean
      anything. And perhaps not even that, because the skin of the
      importance of 'I' would drift away. Only the machine would matter.
      Another lifeform?

      We would become unemotional slaves to the machinery and would exist
      only in that context. I actually can really imagine a society like
      this. I've met enough people that glorify that persona in my life. I
      used to be one myself. (Remember my posts about deconstruction to the
      maximum?) I do not ignore the direction our society is trying to
      micromanage each existence. In fact, one day in the not so far future,
      I can imagine humanity coming to this decisive road and some chosing
      one path, and the other... another. Orwell, Huxley and others made
      mention of such people and places. I do not pass judgment on such
      beings or civilizations.... change is inevitable. Just do not tamper
      with my own civilization.

      Ahhh..... to address my question again. I didn't actually answer it
      did I?

      << If we could cut out the part of the brain that gives
      us emotion, would we be more human or less? >>


      0 < 100 (There is no morality or emotion in that mathamatical
      statement. It just is. Pure reasoning. Pure logic.)

      Perhaps this explains a little better why I argue so hard against
      the psychology of nothing? (Not the person but the idea). There are
      ways to destroy ourselves far more insidious and subtle than pollution
      and bombs. For those that wish to exist, to have hope of meaning, we
      have a choice.

      Of course we can always give up or belittle the emotions that drive
      us to exist, to create, to explore deeper into the puzzle. Neither my
      reason nor my emotion has much interest in living in such a place.
      Dare I say even true inhabitants would lack interest, as interest
      itself is a derived emotion of pleasure. No need for existence,
      creativity, search for truth. Why should one bother?

      Nature gave us emotion to help us exist. It's time people began
      remembering that about each other again.... to take their minds back
      from the Abyss.

    • William Harris
      Bookdoc, I was confused until your last paragraph, but that cleared it up .Ill give him your answer next week and see what he says. I have been canoeing the
      Message 35 of 35 , Oct 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Bookdoc, I was confused until your last paragraph, but that cleared it up
        .Ill give him your answer next week and see what he says. I have been
        canoeing the root river for the last three days, no lap top allowed. We had
        a running philosophical discussion between a mensa, atheist genius; a
        agnostic, christian physician; and myself. I tried to explain your
        philosophy, but was a dismal failure. I attempted to apprpach through
        existentialism, which both have some knowledge of. Empiricism impressed the
        athiest and he liked the individualism of exist thought but when I suggested
        he could not trust sense knowledge he wanted no part of that. The physician,
        who is also an author, was less dogmatic. He could accept an absurd world as
        a concept, especially as something to write about. In fact he mixed it in
        with his god as a unifying principle theory, as if god understands while we
        lesser beings just cant grasp it all. I would have expected the athiest to
        entertain the concept more than the agnostic, the agnostic however liked and
        felt comfortable with the unknown. He did not mind being ungrounded. In fact
        he will try to incorporate an absurdist character in his novel. He made an
        interesting comment, he was not an athiest because he would not undergo the
        angnst associated with a rejection of god, absurdism would not subject him
        to that rigor. See all the trouble you cause Bookdoc. Thanks, Bill

        nothing@... wrote:

        > <<He wished me to ask of you if the emotional component of
        > your concept of interest is fuled by a sense of social
        > obligation.>>
        > Bill? I am still not completely clear on this. I'd say no. Interest is
        > inherently self-centered, but I would suggest that the degree of
        > uncertainty plays a critical role. One cannot tell how real real is.
        > One must make an assumption that even though they cannot
        > define real, what he/she assumes as real has got to be
        > considered a 'best bet.' If one is interested in continuing the
        > current illusion, one does not step in its way (by performing cute
        > tricks such as stepping in front of a train). Inherently, there is no
        > social obligation. However, there is also no interest in
        > terminating interests of others by willful action. Murder is not
        > appropriate, but is not so much a social obligation as a result of
        > ignorance. I can't know what is right or wrong, but I can know that
        > willful disturbance of reality -- even if it is an illusion OR fiction --
        > will terminate interests.
        > To make this somewhat clearer, I believe I mentioned Einstein's
        > secret wish to become a clown. Again, that is a real thought,
        > though it might be able to be claimed as illusion or fiction. In
        > other words, I cannot deny that this is a possibility and potentially
        > true even if Einstein himself were to tell me so, as he might be
        > lying about it due to embarassment. In the same way I cannot
        > deny that there might be others who exist -- even if I can't prove it
        > -- but i can logically conclude that if I were to do something to
        > terminate their interests, that would be, potentially, disinteresting
        > -- so to speak.
        > I don't believe that adds up to 'fueled by social obligation.' At any
        > rate, it would be inconsistent if so, as that would suggest one
        > was positive there was a society. If there is no proof as to 'I', one
        > can hardly find motivation in society unless they decide to retain
        > the illusion of involvement within it. It would depend on your
        > illusions...
        > Idon'tknowifIansweredathing
        > ---------------------------------------
        > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
        > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.