Hi David,
I have been back from rainsoaked Britain for some weeks, but content to
lurk.
DMB:
"And speaking of the perennial philosophy ... I have to say that its strange
that nobody has really responded to this idea ... 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..."
As you know I am a great fan of Wilber's, and thoroughly concur with your
comments and your 'defence' of Wilber after Squonk's ill conceived
criticism.
Part of my reason for lurking has been that in almost every debate over the
past six weeks or so I have found myself pretty closely in agreement with
your views. I also admire your ability to get to the nub of the issue, and
express yourself clearly. I am tiring of the endless pettiness of much of
the debate on this site, and have made good resolutions, which I am sure can
be easily broken, to ease out of the detail. I also find I get fired up by
what I see as someone's unbelievable attitude in one post, to find myself
agreeing with them a few post's later. It's all very confusing. Much of this
is explicable in terms of Wilber's stages, and the genuine difficulties of
communicating between levels. And this remains one of the most unpalatable
aspects of Wilber's thought; his unabashed and realistic elitism.
I find I have a few deeper interests. The first is exploring how we
communicate. It used to be enough to argue the point. But these days we end
up arguing meta- meta- issues, typically involving language. It would be
interesting to attempt to build a 'worldview' that starts with communication
as the fundamental. This would particularly interest me in relation to how
communication is involved in the making of a mystic.
Secondly, I would like to explore more deeply the 'nature' of quality. I
have consistently critiqued the MOQ on the 'wooliness' of undefined quality.
If the word has meaning, then that meaning can be explored and teased out,
even if not defined. If it has no meaning, or means whatever I choose to
make it mean, then the MOQ becomes little more than a truism - "Quality is
everything". What is most difficult for any religion or belief system to
explain is why the fundamentals of that system are not just plain obvious to
everyone. Hence Christian belief in a good God must struggle to explain the
reality of evil. The mystic struggles to explain the overwhelming appearance
of ego. The MOQ, in my view, must explain how it is that if nothing emerges
without quality, there seems so much low quality stuff around. This links
with my first point, above, in that we need to be able to explain how
seemingly intelligent people can differ so fundamentally about the nature of
quality, when their different views are all explained as derived from
quality. (I hope this is not too confusing.)
Thirdly, there was a wonderful quote introduced into Matt's devastating
criticism of Squonk. It was as follows.
"The 'third rate' critic attacks the original thinker on the basis of the
rhetorical consequences of his thought and defends the status quo against
the corrupting effects of the philosopher's rhetoric. 'Second rate' critics
defend the same received wisdom by semantic analyses of the thinker which
highlight ambiguities and vagueness in his terms and arguments. But 'first
rate' critics "delight in the originality of those they criticise...; they
attack an optimal version of the philosopher's position--one in which the
holes in the argument have been plugged or politely ignored." [from Richard
Rorty: Prophet and Poet of the New Pragmatism by David L. Hall, imbedded
quote from an essay by Rorty called "Posties".]"
My weariness with this forum seems to me to be largely because so much of
the debate seems 'third rate' or worse. I suspect much of my own criticism
of Pirsig has been 'second rate', in Rorty's terms. So I would prefer to
take some time to at least attempt some 'first rate' debate. I wonder if the
internet, with its stress on immediacy, tends to minimise this. (I am
thinking of Wim, for example, who persists in trying to develop a consistent
view on one issue, while almost everyone else seems to bounce around
throwing out new ideas or, worse, guru type statements that subtly put down
their perceived opponents.) Your rather sad comment on the essays posted in
the forum seems to confirm how difficult it is to generate high quality
debate here, since I assume most essays there have not been lightly
conceived.
Must go. I would be interested in your response.
John B
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 - 16:02:25 BST