From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat May 31 2003 - 21:27:41 BST
Sam and all MOQers:
Sam said:
Seems like I'm going to have to get hold of at least one book by Wilber (how
to choose amongst the
plethora?), just to give substance to why I don't 'get' him (although, of
course, I could be bowled
over by his analysis). I'm just unclear as to what he adds to his
'colligation' of the various
thinkers, other than the new vocabulary of 'holons' and 'holarchies' etc.
Why shouldn't people just
read Erikson and Maslow first - and then, if they see quality in Wilber, see
what his comments on
them might add?
dmb says:
You underestimate the scope of his work. He doesn't just add comments to the
work of others, he's trying to synthesize all the major hierarchical systems
into a single picture, one that describes a universe that is evolutionary
and developmental from head to toe. Its not so hard too see why each of the
previous systems were incomplete. Some are premodern, some are flatlandish,
some are specialized like Maslow's, some only deal with individuals, some
only deal with cultural or intellectual evolution. Guys like Maslow simply
weren't doing such grand things, but their work is remarkable consistent the
most unrelated and surprizing hierarchies, such as is found in the premodern
perrenial philosophy. Its as if certain universal principles could be found
in many different places and contexts throughout history, but each of them
expressed only a partial picture or an incomplete picture of the whole, or
whatever. (In a simpler version of this, Alan Watts combined the rituals of
the Catholic and Orthodox churches to demonstate the complete cycle in the
hero's journey as described by Campbell, who in turn also wove a whole
picture by synthesizing disparate elements.)
Sam said:
And nobody ever came back to me on why he should be characterised as a
'scholar',
given his biography, which made me a bit suspicious. I wonder if there is
anyone on this list who
has *become* a fan of Wilber following all the references to him that have
been made, or whether
people arrive at the discussion having either read or not read him, and
become confirmed in that
stance from all the extracts? Just curious.
dmb says:
Credentials carry SOME weight in my view of things, but me thinks thou doest
protest too much. In 1905, when his theory of special relativity was
published, Einstein was a clerk in a patent office. And he barely got out of
school with it. Pirsig doesn't work in Academia either. I guess the only to
do is read a book and see for yourself. It looks pretty scholarly to me.
dmb said previously:
Your insistence that a footnote from LILA'S CHILD defines the
intellectual level as the ability to "manipulate symbols" also reduces the
4th level to mere abstraction.
Sam replied:
Interesting. When I disagree with Pirsig, it's 'outrageous' and
'narcissism'. Yet when you disagree
with Pirsig, that's OK? Why shouldn't we use Pirsig's clarifications of the
MoQ to better understand
his position?
dmb says:
Firstly, the narcissism charge. Sorry about that. I probably went too far
there cause I was bugged. You'd said you didn't respond to "the main thrust"
of my argument because you didn't recognize its relation to your own views.
You've done the same sort of thing a number of times and I find it very
frustrating. Its like I want to talk about ideas and the world and you want
to talk about what Sam thinks. Narcissism struck me as a good word, but I
wasn't thinking of it in terms of borderline psychosis, I just meant that it
was rude to brush off a person's main point for such a reason. I mean, its
hard to imagine how one could slam the breaks on a conversation any faster.
To ignore or otherwise avoid the main thrust of what the other person is
saying is a sure fire way to trash the debate, don't you think?
Secondly, I'm not saying that we have to choose between the MOQ as it is in
Lila on one hand and that single quote from Lila's Child. I'm saying you are
incorrect to think they are in conflict. The quote from LC is a very
specific answer to a very specific question. (One which is never included
with the quote.) But one thing is for sure. That comment does NOT erase the
MOQ as prestented in LILA. Its just a supplimental thought. The
clarifications presented in LC, by the way, do not clear up problems in the
orignal MOQ so much as they clear up the misconceptions of readers.
DMB
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 31 2003 - 21:27:09 BST