Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [Platt] > Lila exists as a unique pattern. There's only one Lila, and only one Arlo. > > [Arlo] > With minds united as the cells of a body are united, and with unique > experience > from our bodily-kinesthetic "reality".
With unique experience at all levels, not just biological. Anyway, your mind and mine are anything but united, as anyone can plainly tell. > [Platt] > No, this is static biological pattern, predictable, repeatable. Nothing good > or > wondrous about it. > > [Arlo] > Watch your cat sometime, Platt. Do you feel it is a slave to predictable, > static biological patterns? Can you can not act "dynamically", that is move > towards "it's better here"? Mine can. So can mine. But it's a static, not a dynamic pattern, predictable, repeatable. > Tell me, though, if only humans can respond to DQ, what responded to DQ before > humans arrived? Did they loose their ability to respond to DQ as biological > patterns because somewhere else social patterns emerged? Well, if you read Lila you would know that responses to DQ become static patterns very quickly. When you show me a dog that can stare at its paw in wonder, then I will believe there is a biological response to DQ. > [Platt] > My cat has a self, a very individual, unique self. You don't have to be human > to be a self. A dog's response to a fire is not DQ; it's a static biological > pattern. > > [Arlo] > I have no idea how you reconcile those two statements. You cat has no concept > of "self", it responds only biologically. It has no culture, and therefore it > does not think, and therefore it has no "I am". How do you know what my cat knows? As far as I can tell, my cat is very much self aware. It doesn't lick any fur but its own. He doesn't need "culture" to know that he's different from the dog down the block. > [Platt] > All well and good, but hard-to-comprehend language is hardly the vehicle to > move us there. You will note Pirsig's moves us toward something better using > plain, simple, S/O based language. No reason why we all can't follow his > example. > > [Arlo] > There is a difference between using S/O language and reifying a S/O > metaphysics. Pirsig's "self" (or subject) does not exist apart from the world > (object), they are mutually containing. Whatever that means. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
