From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Jul 31 2004 - 21:08:32 BST
Paul, Horse, MM and all:
DMB quoted Wilber:
"the core of the perennial philosophy is the view that reality is
composed of various LEVELS OF EXISTENCE - levels of being and knowing -
ranging from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit. Each senior
dimension transcends but includes its juniors, so that this is a
conception of wholes within wholes within wholes indefinitely, reaching
from dirt to divinity."
Paul replied:
...I've seen the phrase "transcend and include" used many times when
Wilber's levels are mentioned on this forum. I'm not sure but I don't think
this particular idea maps across to Pirsig. ...So, although each level of
patterns can be said to "transcend" the level below, it is difficult to see
how it can be said to "include" the whole of it. If it did, all inorganic
patterns would also be biological; all biological patterns would also be
social and so on.
Paul quoted Pirsig for support:
"Just as every biological pattern is also inorganic, but not all
inorganic patterns are biological; and just as every social [pattern] is
also biological, although not all biological patterns are social; so
every intellectual pattern is social although not all social patterns
are intellectual."
dmb says:
I think Pirsig is saying that bio (the senior level) is also (includes) the
inorganic (the junior level), but not the other way around. Its a
directional thing. The lower levels can't include the higher ones for the
same reason the an adult can have childhood memories but a child can't have
adult memories. They just aren't there yet. Neither Pirsig nor Wilber are
saying that it can go that way. They're both saying the senior includes (is
also) the junior. One of the reasons he goes after SOM is for its view that
intellect (senior level) was born without parents (the junior level) and
instead insists that such a thing is impossible. Pirsig's use of this parent
and child metaphor is very, very close to the junior/senior analogy, which
could easily refer to a father and son. And Wilber's description of the
levels as wholes within wholes only refers to the discrete nature of the
levels. Wilber is only using different terms to express the same idea, that
each level is distinctly seperate level of reality with its own purposes and
modes of being.
I had hoped that Wilber's description of the perennial philosophy would be
clear to those who had never even read Wilber. In fact, its not really about
KW, its about the perennial philosophy that Pirsig says is within the MOQ.
There are lots of people who could be used to describe it, but Wilber was
handy and I love to be sassy. I had hoped the similarity between he and
Pirsig would just pop out at the reader. If its not apparent to you, then I
wonder if anyone got the point. Woe is me.
Paul asked dmb:
Do you remember saying this? ...I think you now have the context in which to
understand my statement that the MOQ is an atheistic system.
"I think Paul's assertion that "the MOQ is an atheistic system" goes too
far. (According to our dear friend, Mr. Webster, "atheism" denies the
existence of any kind of God or deity, not just "the usual,
anthropomorphic" kind.) Since, in the MOQ, DQ is associated so closely
with religious mysticism, it can't rightly be called an atheistic
system." Date: Sun Feb 15 2004 - 18:49:18 GMT
dmb replies:
I do. Its one of the reasons I thought the "anti-theism" quote was so
interesting. You may recall that I asserted that "non-theistic" would be
better than "atheistic". Who knew Pirsig would go beyond both of those and
declare the MOQ to be anti-theistic? Not me. And when I saw that Pirsig had
been so explicit, I was thrilled. As most of the religious posters must have
noticed by now, I vigorously object whenever the MOQ is claimed as support
for sectarian religious views. The quote makes it clear that the MOQ doesn't
just fail to endorse the theistic religions, it explicitly rules them out.
Its actively opposed rather than indifferent. When Pirsig says, "The selling
out of intellectual truth to the social icons of organized relgion is seen
by the MOQ as an evil act", I feel my anger has been validated.
Paul said:
I think when Mark says, "Thanks for a great post rejecting Ken Wilber's
half baked approach to philosophy," he is picking up on the contrasting
views of Pirsig and Wilber regarding the philosophical use of the term
"spirit."
dmb replies:
I think MM's rejection of Wilber is half-baked. In fact, Wilber is critical
of religious non-sense is very much the same way Pirsig is. I can certainly
understand why Pirsig might want to avoid the word "spirit", but let's not
pretend he's also rejecting everyone and anyone who doesn't avoid the word.
The following quote not only re-inforces the similarity between the PP, KW
and the MOQ in terms of the levels, but also shows that Wilber is equally
critical of theistic clap trap.
"Mythology is true enough in its own world-spcae; its just that perspectival
reason is 'more true'; more developed, more diffferentiated-and-integrated,
and more sophisticated in its capactiy to disclose verifiable knowledge.
Thuus the higher truths of rationality pass judgement on the lower truths of
mythology, and for the most part mythology simply does not survive those
more sophisticated tests. Moses did not part the Red Sea, and Jesus was not
born by a biological virgin. Those calims, in the light of higher reason,
are indeed bogus. ...And if religion is to survive in a vialbe form in the
modern world, it must be willing to jettison its bogus claims, just as
narrow science must be willing to jettison its reductionistic imperialism."
Pirsig:
"The MOQ does not rest on faith. In the MOQ faith is very low quality
stuff, a willingness to believe falsehoods."
dmb says:
I think its important to hear what Pirsig is saying here. Look at the reason
for dropping terms like 'faith' and 'spirit'. I mean, if Ken Wilber were
trying to sneak traditional religion through the back door, there would be a
good reason to reject Wilber. But he's trying to prevent such sneaky moves
every bit as much as Pirsig. I very much agree with Pirsig's criticisms of
spirituality and religion, but I don't think they apply to Wilber. They
share too much in common.
Pirsig:
"When you hear the words 'spirit' and 'faith' always look for a
traditional religionist trying to sneak his goods in the back door.
..like the positivists, the MOQ drops spirit and faith, cold."
Wilber:
"Its no accident that wars fought in hole or part in the name of a
particular mythic Deity have historically kelled more human beings that any
other intentional force on the planet. The enlightenment pointed out - quite
rightly- that religious claims hiding from evidence are not the voice of God
or Goddess, but merely the voice of men or women, who usually come with big
guns and bigger egos. Power, not truth, drives claims that hide from
evidence."
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
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 Jul 31 2004 - 21:11:30 BST