dmb to Squonk: > 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.
???? Squonk, you mentioned infants theoretically may not need parents anymore.? Did you miss the point I was making about infants that are not touched? ???? Contact, touch, interconnectedness, these are intertwined snugly.? I see this vat getting in the way, towards a 'retardation', maybe of infants if your "theoretical" experiment would take hold. ???? I'll post a reply to your direct post to me, Squonk, this happened to jump out at me while I was catching up on this thread.? finally made it camping after the third try this year, no concussion this time, SA Hi SA, Two things: 1. Biological parents can be replaced by simulations. 2. Pre linguistic brains that are to be maintained in a state of pure immediate experience of unmediated DQ won't need secondary stimulation provided by sense organs. 3. It is the secondary sense organs that build up the static patterns that block pure immediate experience of DQ in the first place, unless you wish to insist on a Wilberian pre/trans fallacy. I am not sure it is a good idea to use Wilber to support Pirsig. 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/
