Hi David, Jon, Platt, Andre, and all,
----- Original Message -----
From: David Buchanan <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 12:23 PM
Subject: RE: MD Understanding Intellect
> Jon, Platt, Andre and Y'all:
>
> DMB says:
> JM's description of SOM was, I think, quite good. But his conclusion, that
> the first three levels are enough and that there's no need for the fourth
> level, was incorrect for many reasons. It seems Platt put his finger on
the
> best reason to reject JM's conclusion....
>
> Platt said to Marder:
> Since you live in Israel right in the middle of a social vs. intellectual
> conflict, your denial of an intellectual level seems to me unimaginable.
> Further, denying the intellectual level pulls the rug out from Pirsig's
> analysis of the crises of modernity which is one of the major revelations
> of the MOQ. Finally, your denial of the intellectual level sounds
> suspiciously like "it's all in the mind" idealism which is probably not
> your intention but I can see no way to escape that conclusion if all
> patterns are, as you claim, intellectual.
>
> DMB says:
> Well, I'd characterize the conflict in Israel as a clash between two
> differing sets of social patterns, but otherwise I completely agree with
> Platt on this. (I know. I'm surprized too.) Denying the fourth level
"pulls
> the rug out from under Pirsig's analysis" in the biggest way. It destroys
> the MOQ's ability to work as a moral compass and as an explanatory tool.
> Since the MOQ is essentially a hierarchy of values, denying the 4th level
> denies the highest level of static values. Accepting JM's idea would
result
> in a moral nightmare that is far worse than the one created by flatland's
> scientific materialism. JM's conclusion would effectively put fascism,
> fundamentalism and other hair-brained reactionary movements on the same
> level as democracy, rights, pluralism, and the sciences. It would put
Hitler
> and Ghadi on the same level. It would put Socrates on the same level as
> those who condemned him to die. It would put Galileo on the same level as
> the Inquistors. It would erase the most important distinctions. It would
rob
> us of the ability to explain or solve most of the conflicts in the world.
It
> would rob us of the ability to understand intellectual history and the
> evolution of humanity. Its an epic blunder. And as Platt says, this
> conclusion sounds alot like idealism, or rather the worst kind of
idealism.
> To claim that "its all in the mind" is solipsism.
>
> Andre said to Marder:
> There is no need for any of the levels. They are
> useful, yet arbitrary patterns which some people like
> in order to have debate.
>
> DMB says:
> Arbitrary? I disagree entirely. As I pointed out last weekend, the idea
that
> reality is composed of a hierarchy of levels is expressed in all the
world's
> great religions AND it is confirmed by a mountain of empirical evidence.
> There is plenty of room for debate as to the number of levels, as to the
> best way to make distinctions and divisions between these levels and all
> sorts of things. But to dismiss the "need for any of the levels" is a huge
> mistake. The evidence in favor of a hierarchy of being is ancient,
> universal, cross-cultural AND scientific. If anything can be considered to
> be true, this is it. It is one of those things that's true on BOTH the 3rd
> and 4th levels. It was true 10,000 years ago and its still true presently.
>
> And speaking of the perennial philosophy...
>
> I have to say that its strange that nobody has really responded to this
> idea. (Except for 3WD's defensive back-pedaling) It seems to lend a great
> deal of support to the MOQ and is a compelling idea all on its own, no? It
> seems relevant in so many ways, no? Hmmm. I'm a little disappointed that
> this idea didn't excite you. So, at the risk of beating a dead horse, let
me
> throw those Wilber quote at you once more.
>
> "A TRULY INTEGRAL PSYCHOLOGY would embrace the enduring insight of
> premodern, modern, and postmodern sources. To begin with the premodern or
> traditional sources, the easiest access to their wisdom is through what
has
> been called the prennial philosophy, or the common core of the world's
great
> spiritual traditions. As Huston Smith, Arthur Lovejoy, Ananda
Coomaraswamy,
> and other scholars of these tradtions have pointed out, the core of the
> prennial philosophy is the view that reality is composed of various LEVELS
> OF EXISTENCE (emphasis is Wilber's) - levels of being and of knowing -
> ranging from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit. Each senior
dimension
> transcends and includes its juniors, so that this is a conception of
wholes
> within wholes within wholes indefinitely, reaching from dirt to divinity."
>
> "It should be realized from the start that these levels and sublevels
> presented by the perennial sages are NOT the product of metaphysical
> speculation or abstact hairsplitting philosophy. In fact, they are in
almost
> every case codifications of DIRECT EXPERIENTIAL REALITIES (emphasis is
> Wilber's), reaching from sensory experience to mental experience to
> spiritual experience. The "levels" in the Great Nest simply reflect the
full
> spectrum of being and consciousness available for direct experiential
> disclosure, ranging from subconscious to self-conscious to superconscious.
> ... Such is the priceless gift of the ages. This is the core of the
> perennial philosophy, and, we might say , it is the part of the perennial
> philosophy that has empiricall benn found most dnduring. The evidence
> continues overwhelmingly to mount in its favor: human beings have avaiable
> to them an extraordinary spectrum of consciousness, reaching from
> prepersonal to personal to transpersonal states. The critics who attempt
to
> deny this overall spectrum do so no by presenting conterevidence - but by
> simply refusing to acknowledge the substantial evidence that has already
> been amassed; the evidence, nontheless, remains."
>
> Thanks for your time,
> DMB
>
>
GARY'S RESPONSE: Yes, I too am a confessed Wilber reader. And I agree that
we can't or shouldn't reduce Pirsig's 4 levels down to just the first three.
There are significant differences between them all, all being the different
levels.
I'm beginning to believe that Pirsig's 4 levels are a Metaphysics of
Quality Ethics [MOQ-E ] and that we can make new MOQ maps when we consider
Reality from other perspectives.
A variation of Wilber and Pirsig could be made which would be useful and
now not in contradiction to the map Pirsig gives us in Lila, the 4 tiered
MOQ-E map.
Hmmm? How about: a new MOQ map from a theological [?] perspective. Not
sure what to label this perspective yet. [Note in this new map I am using
"/" to try to visually imply that the things listed are not parts vs.
wholes, or parts & wholes, but rather each thing is a Holon. A thing which
can be described at any one moment of time as either being a part or a
whole. But to describe it only as one or the other is to falsely reduce its
true dual nature. Each Holon has both perspectives implied in its
structure.]
new "MOQ-T map"
Quality [Nondual Goal of Being]
Spirit=individual / communities [??????]
Soul= individual / communities [??????]
Mind=Q-Intellect [level 4 of MOQ-E]/ Q-Social[level 3 of MOQ-E]
Organic=individuals/communities
Inorganic=individuals/communities
matter/energy=individual particles/collections of particles
Dynamic Quality/Static Quality
Quality [Nondual Ground of Being]
Just wondering & pondering in public,
Gary
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:24 BST