[Krimel] But, as you recently mentioned agreement tends to be the real conversation killer so I am just adding a few twists here and there.
[Arlo] Always good to hear your input, Krimel. You tend towards a clarity and precision that I admire, and find always helpful. If nothing else, its nice to be reminded that most on this list are interested in dialogue, not bombast as with Platt. This latest round of inanity has left so many angels wingless, I am just sad. "The spur of the moment does not appear constantly" (Platt). I still weep for the angels maimed by that monstrosity. [Krimel] I think this means, that in fact, we are not stuck in the immediate NOW. Conceptualization allows us the build a three dimensional representation of four dimensions. It allows us to travel backwards and forwards in time. To recall the past and plan the future. [Arlo] Agree fully. This is the power of symbolic discourse, that emerges as biological beings gained a level of neural complexity, does indeed allow us to "escape from time". Until that point in evolution we were trapped in the Dynamic, immediate NOW. [Krimel] Immediate experience is the anchor. Perception is the undefined stream of the ongoing. It is prior to and dictates to, whatever conceptual frameworks we erect. [Arlo] Agree. [Krimel] But building conceptual frameworks is what we are programmed to do. Concepts must assimilate the immediate or accommodate to it. Building a solid but flexible conceptual framework is the task of a lifetime. It is the lens through which we take in other points of view and "reflect" on the points of view of others. [Arlo] I would also agree with this. I think one of the key points of Tomasello's evolutionary paradigm is that feedback changes the foundation. Namely, back in prehistory when our earliest ancestors developed a neural complexity making symbolic representation possible, the advent of this also began altering the biological level. Our brains have evolved over eons of social participation. Tomasello notes that for millions of years BEFORE socialization, the archeological record indicates very little change in the primate brain. But AFTER, in a comparatively minor timeframe, the brain has evolved significantly. NOW, today, we are born with brains long evolved for the primary task of symbolic representation. We are biologically attuned to language. [Krimel] Isn't that what "enlightenment" is: understanding that DQ is there at every second with every breath? It isn't in the special mystical it is in the understand that every moment is a special mystical moment. [Arlo] Yeah. You would think that wasn't rocket science. Given it was the primary message of ZMM, you would think someone professing to understand Pirsig would see this is as "well, duh". [Krimel] Right and not all experience is "good" or "betterness." Many times it sucks. [Arlo] Exactly. And not all responses to experience create beneficial outcomes. [Krimel] I would go so far as to say that Pirsig has it exactly backwards. What is "Good" and "Betterness" is Static Quality. [Arlo] I'm going to have to sit on this a bit. But my gut instinct is you may be right. More soon. [Krimel] But notice that until patterns at the inorganic level are held static for billions of years, dynamic biological patterns cannot occur. Until biological patterns are static for millions of years, social patterns cannot occur. Until social patterns are static for thousands of years intellectual patterns do not grow. [Arlo] Okay. Not sure I like the wording of this, even though I agree with the sentiment. Only because I think "chance" is never eliminated at the lower levels. "Static inorganic patterns" are merely those that are very, very, very highly probable. They are not "held static", they are "static" by virtue of having an extreme degree of probability based on subatomic particles responding to their environment. All things tend towards patterns of repeated preferences; atoms and squirrels and people and cultures and math equations. But this never removes "chance" from the zero-moment. Agree? [Krimel] The fact is nothing is fully static and nothing is fully dynamic. It is always a mixture and our point of view; our conceptual framework; determines how we regard the relative merits of either. [Arlo] Well, I'd say "nothing" is dynamic. Period. Dynamic is the undefined uncertainty of the zero-moment. Whenever we see "something" we are seeing "static patterns", patterns of preferred response. But in the sense that these "static patterns" are always responding to that zero-moment, they are always in a state of flux on some level, in some ways. "Static" is an illusion. It is a Gestalt that we see on the flux of the cosmos. [Krimel] Right the MoQ is not about a particular map. It is about cartography. [Arlo] Yep. That's how I see it too. 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/
