John, Matt and all:
JB said:
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.
DMB says:
Welcome back and thanks very much. I wish I'd known you were back because I
wanted to discuss Wilber's criticism of Campbell with you. Its getting too
late to start that now, but maybe next weekend. I think I'll jion you in
your resolution and at least TRY to focus on the big picture. And I think
you're quite right about the difficulty of cross-level communication. I used
to think that some people like to play dumb and be disengenuously coy as a
debating tactic, but have since come to realize that they're being quite
sincere in their incomprehension. I'm at a loss there. Trying to explain
things in plain, simple and literal terms usually just ends up being met
with charges of arrogant condesension. At the same time, the insights that
excite me most are usually met with silence, as in the case of the perennial
philosophy. I prefer to think of Wilber's "elitism" as a profound respect
for excellence, but I think he's quite right in either case.
JB said:
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.
DMB says:
Now you're talking over my head, but at least I know that much. Tell me
more. I tend to think that people here turn to the meta-meta stuff and to
mysticism whenever they get into trouble. It is used like a fighter jet's
ejection seat. Its used to escape from the issues, not to clarify them. If I
read "the map is not the road" or "the Tao can't be named" one more time I'm
going to puke.
JB said:
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.)
DMB says:
Now you're talking. I tend to see through that term. I think information,
spirit, God, consciousness, the void, nothingness, the undifferentiated
aesthetic continuum, the ground of being and a whole host of other labels
work just as well as the word "Quality". Its not a bad term, but sometimes I
think Pirsig uses mostly because of that simple question was posed once way
back in Montana; "Are you teaching quality?" (Did I ever tell you that my
wife's mother worked there and was good friends with the woman who asked
that question?) But moving to the manifest realm, the reality we all know so
well, I think the differing views comes from that cross-level thing. That
is, the harsh truth is that people are not cognitively and morally equal.
Its a heart breaking truth.
JB said:
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".]"
DMB says:
Yea, I thought that was a worthy quote too. Thanks Matt.
JB said:
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.
DMB says:
Its not easy for me either. To be a first rate critic one has to be
generous, honest and relatively egoless in trying to really understand what
the person is saying. Its almost Saintly and its tough to be that way in
such an anonymous and sometimes hostile enviroment like this. I'll confess
that I haven't read your essay, but if anyone could surprise me and write a
great one, it would be you. I was turned off a long time ago when somebody
put up an essay on Ayn Rand and the MOQ. It was so stupid that I blushed. To
me, it looked like a big flashig neon sign that read, "Warning! Serious
thinkers beware. This site is for right-wing hacks only!" So I gave up on
the essays a long time ago. Don't take it personally.
Until next time,
DMB
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