----- Original Message -----
From: "david buchanan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] moq thought experiement 1.
Squonk said:
Here is an argument: The pre lingual state can not be remembered because
there are no static patterns to remember. Therefore, not even Zennies can
remember the pre lingual state. So, how can it be asserted that this state
is not?identical to another?
dmb replied:
But there are countless accounts of this dynamic state and so they
obviously can remember it. And the infant's inability to give it any
meaning or recall it later is one of the key difference between babies and
mystics. This inability to preserve it is exactly what I meant when I said
that for an infant the experience is "literally meaningless". Your
argument is just a re-statement of my argument, the one that supposedly
wasn't given.
Apparently you're unaware of the fact, but pre-verbal infants and infants
in general have been the object of quite a lot of study. These studies
form the basis of the principles of developmental psychology. Among the
classical pragmatists, George Herbert Mead was the expert that Dewey and
James looked to most. He was able to show how the social self forms first
and must be in place before the individualistic ego can emerge, which
seems to be quite consistent with the way third level social patterns have
to be in place before intellectual patterns can emerge. Maslow and Piaget
would be more widely known. They also show that human development occurs
in stages and that the lower stages remain even while more and more are
added. Seems like every one I've ever encountered has a similar hierarchy
and I bet there are others I don't even know about. You can ask Mr. Google
and find out for yourself. I suspect he'll tell you the same thing.
All this seems completely obvious and reasonable to me and so I'm baffled
as to why you're resisting it so relentlessly. Its like you have a grudge
or something.
I'm also a bit stunned at your lack of concern for the hypothetical test
subjects. You're talking about robbing people of their lives, sir. May I
suggest that you ponder the full meaning of that?
Hi David,
I don't get much from Squonk's mental exercise, but I do not understand your
objection to his thought experiment. I would think the mind would be the
perfect place to perform such a controlled experiment. One could imagine
the problems, test different solutions, and thoroughly explore all aspects
without doing harm to anyone. (As has been pointed out by stating the
difference between an infant and an enlightened Buddha.) The question for
me is, if you would object to such a philosophical thought experiment, would
you also want to inhibit the artist's imagination?
Marsha
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/
