Squonk said to dmb: ..There seems to be an irony in that getting a mind and having a mystical experience with that mind?disrupts the patterns which constitute the mind in the first place. At least, descriptions of what happens seem to agree with this. Coupled with the observation that pre linguistic babies are in a state of bliss seems to describe the state a mind experiencing a mystical experience returns to, or assumes. Why not simply allow the pre linguistic state to persevere? If mystical experience is a mind-blowing event and you think its important to have that experience then why bother getting a mind in the first place if you are only going to do your best to?assume the pre linguistic stage anyway?...Babies need parents in order to survive, but for the first time in the evolution of static patterns technology could, theoretically, replace parents and maintain the pre linguistic state without any danger.
dmb says: It seems pretty clear to me that babies and mystics are different in important ways. I know what you mean, and agree that they have a "no-mind" sort of consciousness in common but there is almost literally a "world" of difference between them. Its like the difference between 'going to have' and 'used to have'. between immaturity and transcendence, between regression and growth. I've heard that there are plenty of thinkers who make this mistake. Ken Wilber calls it the pre/trans fallacy, meaning it is a mistake wherein pre-personal consciousness is equated with trans-personal consciousness. Or, to put it in other words, he wants to make a case that mystical experience is about surpassing whatever static patterns exist at the time and shouldn't be imagined as an undoing of patterns or a return to a blank state so much as a growth spurt. How does Pirsig put it? Without static patterns nothing can last and without dynamic quality nothing can change. Maintaining the pre-linguistic state of infants won't produce mystics. That would be a matter of disrupting the normal developmental process and it would only produce retarded child. Doing such a thing in real life would be morally objectionable, to say the least. If the goal is to maximize DQ on a vast scale, maybe we should rethink education and reform religion. You know, something that doesn't involve any such crimes or ethical nightmares. Thanks. Squonk: Hello David, How does Ken Wilber know there is such a thing as?a pre/trans fallacy? It can be stated, but why is Ken Wilber such an expert on the subject? I don't find this remotely convincing simply because Ken Wilber says it is. You insist that Ken Wilber's assertions are equated with Pirsig's view that without static patterns nothing can last. Technology will last if it is sufficiently sophisticated to self regulate and maintain itself. Pre linguistic brains will last as long as their biological integrity is maintained - which may imply a life span anyway - even pre linguistic brains have to decay. But pre linguistic brains maintained by technology will last as long as the technology can do what it is intended to do. No problem there. re. Crimes and ethical nightmares. This is your view. Thank you for stating it. squonk 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/
