Hi David and all other MOQ Wilber addicts,
----- Original Message -----
From: David Buchanan <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 10:36 AM
Subject: RE: MD Comparison of the levels
> Gary and all MOQ Wilbereens:
>
> Thanks for taking the criticism so well. Because of your reasonable
response
> we can continue the conversation, and that's how it should be. And even
> though I still disagree with your reasons for breaking up holons, I'm
> relieved to learn that you had a reason. Onward....
>
> Gary's response: My main purpose in the comparison below is to show that I
> do not think that Wilber and Pirsig's map are exactly the same. Which is
> why I do think you have to chop up Wilber's map to fit into Pirsig's MOQ-E
> map as given in Lila.
>
> DMB:
> No doubt about it. They're not exactly the same. If I had to pick just
one,
> I'd pick Wilber. His map is a summary of many maps that have been drawn by
> researchers. Its a condensed depiction of a mountain of empirical evidence
> generated by pretty wide range of scientific inquiry. In effect it shows
> where all that data overlaps. He includes a series of charts in his
INTEGRAL
> PSYCHOLOGY that lists all the major contributors and shows how they line
up
> with his summary. Its an astonishing feat of synthesis. And in SES he
> explains how many of these researchers tended to focus on a single
> dimension. Some looked at interior individual development, while some were
> looking at just the collective exterior or collective interior, etc. And
he
> was in the process of trying to figure out how it all fit together when he
> first concieved the idea of a holon.
GARY'S RSPONSE: Sorry for interupting but Wilber did not invent the concept
on the Holon. Check out page 17 of "A Brief History of Everything" and page
26 of "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality" [aka SES]. I now will return you to our
program that is still in progress....
In his attempts to reconcile all the
> various data, he sort of "discovered" the need for this concept. It must
> have been an "ah ha!" moment. My point? None of the researchers had access
> to the idea of a holon and neither did Pirsig, but they all still fit into
> Wilber's chart and there is no need to chop up the holons to make them
> match. Its never going to be a perfect match, but that's ok.
>
> Gary continues with: Pirsig purposely denies a social level to everything
> but humans in Lila. Wilber has a 'social'-like level for everything.
> Pirsig makes the Q-Intellect (level 4) exclusively human, while Wilber
would
> consider everything to have a sort of interior aspect which eventually
> becomes Q-Intellect in humans.
>
> DMB:
> Wilber has a collective aspect for everything, but that's not the same as
a
> social level. Galaxies, for example, are collective, but they are not
> social. As I understand it, when we describe animals or insects in terms
of
> human social organization, as in an ant colony, a school of fish or king
of
> the jungle, this is just an anthropomorphic analogy. I think that Wilber
and
> Pirsig both have no problem with the idea that human have evolved beyond
all
> other life forms and participate in levels of existence that animals
simply
> do not. Yes, the social and intellectual levels ARE exclusively human. No
> problem. Also, I think that Pirsig's "B values precondition A" indicates
> that even the most basic inorganic patterns have an interior dimension.
And
> Wilber's holon idea is a very good way to dissolve the subject/object
split.
> He is saying that EVERY THING is both a subject and an object
> simultaneously. And hopefully this only shows further how well their maps
> match.
>
> Gary said:What I was trying to do with the list below is to get anyone who
> was
> interested to consider the two maps. I do think that Pirsig has no notion
> of Holons, no idea of interior-exterior, no notion of all things having a
> 'collective'/ Social aspect. And thus Wilber's map gets chopped up when
put
> under the 4 tiered MOQ-E map of Pirsig.
>
> DMB:
> Right. Pirsig had no concept like holons. That's another good reason to
> prefer Wilber's scheme. But rather than chop up holons to make them match,
I
> think its better to add holon to Pirsig. This has the advantage of
expanding
> the MOQ without contradicting it. Its not too difficult to do this
addition.
> Pirsig tends to focus on interior dimensions because he's presenting an
> antidote to objectivity and materialism, but the other dimensions can be
> infered. He tends to focus on morals and values and such, but there is
also
> plenty of reference to collective and exterior dimensions in his examples.
> The great clash between socialism and fascism, for example, can be seen in
> individuals and in nations. Individuals can subscribe to the values of
those
> ideologies AND we can see that some cultures are more inclined toward one
or
> the other. We can add the missing dimensions to what Pirsig says with
> distortion. Hope this makes sense.
>
> Thanks for your time,
> DMB
Gary's final remark: Hey your right. There is no need to make a mess of
things like I did in my maps if we do realize that everything is a holon and
thus Pirsig's 4 levels are Holons also. Your also right that collective is
not the same as Q-Social. I was just trying to figure out how to describe
Pirsig with Wilber terminalogy, sort of creating a begining bridge how to
get from one to the other. I do think Pirsig's map is better when we focus
on ethics, hence my new idea of calling Pirsig's map in Lila MOQ-E. Leaving
us open to making new MOQ maps with different orientations. All this map
making is not to say that Reality is any different, it is to acknowledge
that our focus and consideration each time we make a new map has changed.
Gary signing off.
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