s:
> Hi SA,
> Two things:
> 1. Biological parents can be replaced by simulations.
SA: My evolution interjection has to do with this in another post, so, I won't
answer this so we don't get caught up in repeating ourselves.
s:
> 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.
SA: Wouldn't this lead to feral children? Feral brains in vats? Our brains
are not set-up for this at the moment it would seem.
s:
> 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.
SA: I hope you realize, I didn't use Wilber to support Pirsig, maybe I did
indirectly with the Zen koan, not sure, never read Wilber.
Secondary sense organs build up static patterns and this in no way takes
away from the experience of dynamic quality. One's effort might, but not these
static patterns in general. Effort is a static pattern and I do see how
biological sense organs allow static pattern cultivation, but tie in the 'feral
child', the Zen koan (the mountains are again mountains), and now we can live
static patterns and the static patterns can be realized to be dynamic quality;
this is what I'm talking about. We can discuss static patterns, master them
(not in a war-like way, talkin' peaceful intentions), and see static patterns
as something generative that can help us communicate dynamic quality.
good discussion,
SA
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/
