babies are pure like animals; they are fully present, free of the reification that passes for reality in the adult world. this simulacrum has a function however - everything does. everything is as it is - as it should be. the function is the *isolation of the individual*; solipsism is a term used pejoratively to dismiss the purpose of self-conscious awareness: alienation is a waystation on the road to authenticity. gotta go through hell to get to heaven; the hero's journey is fundamentally *a solo thing*. so we get alienated, depressed, isolated, scared, depressed, desperate, suicidal, angry, frustrated, alone....and we go through this....we walk through the fire and how we walk through determines how long the fire lasts. the separation allows us to disenage from the collective entity that seeks our submission - the egregor. its voice is the voice in our heads; the voice that some subtle souls realise isn't them!!! and they are pronounced shizo rather than aware. ha!! when life craps on your face you don't give a fuck about keeping up appearances anymore and you free yourself from the egregious machinations of the machine head....now the journey turns the hairpin and we rejoin the collectivity - but this time as an 'agent of evolution'; babies are not agents of evolution. being an agent of evolution is fun....you get a '00' number and license to confuse. love and daggers g
--- On Fri, 4/7/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] moq thought experiement 1. > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: Friday, 4 July, 2008, 10:48 AM > dmb says: > Sorry, guess I figured the game was over. > The fact that Pirsig uses "dynamic function" > rather than "dynamic static > patterns" seems to make my point pretty well. I > understand that these dynamic > functions are found within the levels. I don't think > anyone said otherwise and I > don't know what you mean by saying they're > "not just between whole levels". > > Hi David, > This is all very blar blar blar, look at me, i'm good > at spouting what i've read. > Go to the top of the class. > > I asserted that some patterns are more dynamic than others: > 1. The moq states that DQ is real and moral. > 2. Static patterns regarded as being 'more dynamic' > maximise DQ and potential > for further evolution. > 3. It is therefore a moral imperative to promote 2. > Your?reply has been to consistently insist that the > hierarchy of levels determines which patterns are more > dynamic: > > Squonk said to Ron: > My own view is that the moq poorly states the relationship > between DQ and sq. I > think the term sq needs to be replaced by a spectrum of > patterns which convey > their dynamic status. > > Ron replied to Squonk: > I agree, coincidentally I'm in pursuit of this very > concept as we speak. > > dmb says: > I think the hierarchy of levels already conveys the > spectrum that Squonk > seeks for the MOQ. > > s:?This means: 'the relationship between Dq and sq is > well stated in the moq by the hierarchy of levels'. > > David: > If somebody made that claim, I missed it. > > s: You made the claim: > 'I think when Pirsig says some static patterns are more > dynamic than others he's > referring to the basic idea behind the hierarchy of levels. > You know, the four > levels of static patterns and then the code of art on top > of that, which more > directly involves DQ.' > > David: > Would have objected saying something like, "Huh, how > would that work"? > > s: Lame. But then, considering the Wandering through the > Mythos memory lapse, perhaps you are now telling the truth. > > David: > But my point was simply that a phrase like > "open structure" would be better than something > like "dynamic static pattern", > which you agreed was clumsy and undermined an important > distinction, sort of. > Anyway, the phrase "dynamic function" works > better for the same reasons. Like > "open structure", it is not an inherently > contradictory phrase. > > s: No, it wasn't as simple as that: You denied that > some patterns are more dynamic than others within levels: > '...but if I understand it the idea can be pretty well > expressed by saying that the higher levels of static > quality have structures > that are more open to change, are more flexible and are > better able to respond > to DQ.' > > As for the rest of it; the growth stuff, that's basic > moq ground - that is the way the moq says it is for > pity's sake. > > What fascinates me?is the extraordinarily Dynamic function > of a blank slate human brain: This fine isthmus between > biological patterns and the whole mythos seems way more > powerful than any evolutionary development?before it or > after it. A whole mythos could be erased because of it. > I intuitively sense there to be disproportion here, and i > think it may be significant. > > The game isn't over; the game is original thought; > seeing things that may have gone unnoticed, daring to be > made?a fool of, asking daft questions. > > > 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/ Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. www.yahoo7.com.au/mail 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/
