DMB says:
I deleted most of squonk's reply because I couldn't make any sense of it.
I sincerely apologise for my lack of clarity. May i remind you, and those
reading this, of what i said? (See posting: REMINDER.)
Now then, i should be most interested to hear from ANY member of this forum
who, like yourself, cannot make sense of my material in the above quote.
I do not ask for agreement mind you? I merely ask for understanding.
If you, or Jonathan cannot recognise this passage from ZMM as being DIRECTLY
relevant to core religious experience then you are indeed as silly as you
sound:
>From ZMM, p. 256.
"He read on. Line after line. Page after page. Not a discrepancy. What he had
been talking about all the time as Quality was here the Tao, the great
central generating force of all religions, Oriental and Occidental, past and
present, all knowledge, everything."
I got the impression that it was vaguely insulting toward me personally, but
presented in a way that was too confusing to warrant a response.
Your ideas are confused indeed, and that is not a matter for insult.
Either your ideas are high quality intellectual patterns or they are less
than that.
You may be insulted for holding to a static social pattern at the expense of
intellectual advancement, and that is what I, and many others in this forum
are free to judge for ourselves without you attempting to hide your
degeneracy.
I have REMINDED us so the process of judging the level of your complicity may
begin, and i openly invite all members to freely address the matter for
themselves.
But let me address the actual answer to the question, what makes you think
Wilber is a charlatan?
Panders? I don't think so. In fact there are lots of serious academics are
furious with him because of his criticism. He is critical of some of my
heros. He is himself a serious academic professional who does not even try
to popularize his ideas.
The matter of Wilber's seriousness is for us all to think about.
That he does not try to popularise his intellectual patterns of value through
social medium is simply incorrect.
The matter of popularisation is open for anyone to examine for themselves.
Compared to Pirsig, he is esoteric and mysterious.
My dear fellow, you have been presented with a text which projects Wilber in
this fashion. Social media again.
(By text i mean ALL media texts which include written, aural, and visual
texts.)
And the claim that his transpersonal approach would tend to reduce his
audience makes a little bit more sense, but flatly contradicts the pandering
charge.
On the contrary, as i point out with the T Lobsang Rampa analogy, if it where
not for pandering the audience may reduce but in fact does not.
Part. 2. follows.
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