[MD] Transhumanism

[John Carl]

Arlo and Marsha,

Arlo, in conclusion, I think it would be cool if Pirsig participated more -
maybe not in a direct ham-handed way (no offense Ham) but a regular monthly
checking in kinda like what he does in Lila's Child.  I get your point there
and I guess I agree with you that it would encourage more participation on
the list (tho don't know if that's automatically a good thing.  Its a lot to
read and keep up on as it is!) and give us more concrete focus, I think.  I
can see the usefulness of Waiting for Godot, but sometimes you just want the
guy to show up and stop teasing.  Agreed.



It sounds to me like you've made the MoQ a thing to be strengthened.
> I know how tricky words can be.  They can be near impossible to make
> some important points.  But it does sound like you're reifying the MoQ.
> I do the same thing because of many decades of thinking in terms of
> objects.  It's not JUST language problems.  It is often old patterns that
> have things predefined as independent.  That's why I say when I'm in
> the 'not this, not that' mode I'm doing good, otherwise I might be running
> on automatic, which by default is subject/object dualism.
>
>
Interesting Marsha.  Because I sorta construe it the other way around.  Is
that weird or what?  "Running on automatic" seems to me a bit like Kerouac's
stream of consciousness, dynamic style, whereas "not this/not that" often
seems like just an automatic formulation designed to foil any more thinking
about a particular subject.

I'll have to think about that.

Yours,

John