John and all:
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
John said:
I was thinking on my feet, sort of, as I wrote that. I think the key would
be to try to link Wilber's understanding of holarchy, the stages of
development that each individual travels through, with a meta theory of
quality, that examines how quality impinges at each level to move us on to
the next. It seems to me that a mystic is usually 'made' through a process
of education, broadly speaking. (There are exceptions, such as John Wren
Lewis, who seemingly just fall into a mystical way of being, and he argues
that this may indeed be the norm, in which case my argument is wrong.)
DMB says:
I think you raise issues that are very interesting and their discussion
requires some real thinking. How refreshing. I'm so tired of defending the
obvious! I think I understand the way you've framed the issues here. The
stages themselves are static, but the movement through them is a dynamic
process. While DQ or spirit is available at every level, it can only be
understood and interpreted in terms of that level. In other words, a
mystical experience will allow DQ to break through, but that experience can
be held onto and made meaningful only in terms of one's level of
development. Static quality preserves it, so to speak. Wilber's criticism of
Campbell serves as a good example of this idea. The core of the pre/trans
fallacy in this case centers around Campbell's insistence that a literal
interpretation of myths is the wrong way to understand them. Wilber points
out, quite rightly I think, that the mythic level of thinking has no other
way to see it. He is critical of Campbell's insistence that myths can only
be properly understood when they are read as metaphor, as a symbolic
language that must be "decoded" by an intellect that does not see myths as
the literal truth. But, again, Wilber points out that virtually no one had
access to these higher level functions and therefore it wasn't possible for
mythic humanity to read myths in this non-literal way. I think there's alot
of truth to this objection. But I also think that your suggestion, that we
examine "how quality impinges at each level", sheds light on this specific
issue. And I think that it gets at the various ways of communicating. Two
main ideas come to mind. The first is that there is a world of difference
between a mythic understanding in the historically mythic age, which was
only proper and completely adequate, and mythic understanding in the present
age, which requires the rejection of rationality and scientific truths. The
former was perfectly acceptable and respectable, but the later is a
regression and defines the nature of reactionary fundamentalism. In other
words, a literal interpretation of myths is quite all right for those who
lived a thousand years ago, but today such views only represent an arrested
level of development. The second idea gets at the difference between those
who inherited myths as part of their culture and language, and those who
created and first articulated them. I think the shamans and poets who first
gave us the myths were expressing mystical realities in terms that could be
understood by the rest of us. This is precisely where DQ impinged upon the
mythic level. I strongly suspect that the myth makers knew more than most,
were the most advanced cutting edge figures of their day. They were the
rocket surgeons of the pre-rational world, if you will. But the had the
wisdom to express their insights and experiences in terms that could be
widely understood. So, I conclude that we can sort of split the difference
between Campbell and Wilber. Campbell is quite right to complian about
literalistic interpretations as are found in contemporary fundamentalism,
but Wilber is right to point out that we can hardly expect anything else
from the vast majority who lived in previous ages. The rest of my respones
are shorter....
John said:
It seems to me likely that at each 'moral' stage that Wilber identifies,
there is a particular 'flavour' of quality that acts as the spur or stimulus
to move on to the next transition. Each stage, then, brings into awareness a
new kind of quality, which includes and transcends those before. However,
each stage also brings into awareness the issues, the incompleteness, that
only a new flavour of quality can transcend. So when Pirsig assumes that we
can all know quality without any debate, he is failing to take into account
that quality is experienced differently at each stage of development.
DMB says:
Not exactly. I think Pirsig recognizes these distinctions and expresses them
in his treatment of the various characters. Lila can't see much beyond
biological quality. Rigel can't see much beyond social quality. Many of the
real life intellectuals that Pirsig criticizes can't see spirituality very
well. Pirsig is less explicit and mostly shows these differences by example,
but its there.
John said:
If this is correct, one reason that debates on moral issues in this forum
are so frustrating is that each person sees the issue differently, depending
upon the level of their own moral development. Each person's quality is then
different, though two people at the same level are likely to find they are
in substantial agreement. The post modern mistake is to assume that because
each person is experiencing quality, there is no difference between Hitler's
quality and Chomsky's quality, for example. Wilber has explored this in
depth in a few of his books, and makes the point that it can be just as hard
to accept the moral rightness of those in levels higher than one's own, as
it can be to accept it in levels one has already passed through. (Hence his
problems with the Mean Greens, which seem to be totally misunderstood by
some in this forum.)
DMB says:
Yea, mostly that's true. But I'd say that the views of those at lower levels
are easier to understand simply because we've been there and done that, so
to speak. You know, we transcend and INCLUDE those lower levels. While any
kind of cross-level communication can be frustrating, I think there a
distinct difference. Books or people who try to explain things that are
beyond me might inspire me to think harder or work harder. It feels like a
challenge. Its exciting. Or if its way beyond me, I just put that book back
on the shelf and hope that someday I'll be worthy of it. But talking to a
fundamentalist or a right-winger fills me with contempt. I find such views
morally repugnant and even dangerous. For example, I recognize myself in
fundamentalist views. I used to think like that when I was about 13 years
old. When I was about 18 years old, I was a patriotic capitalist. I feel
like I totally understand these worldviews, but when I see these views in
full-grown adults I find them to be rather childish and despicable. (I can't
quite figure out where I am on Wilber's scale, but the best I could hope to
claim would be at the lowest level of spiritual development, just beyond the
mean greens. But I don't really know and I'm sure others would be a better
judge of that than I.)
John said:
I am interested in asking, what is it at each level of experience, that
engages us with the new flavour of quality that can emerge there? My
suspicion is that as we move up the levels, the emergence of a new variant
of quality has less to do with biology, social issues or intellect, and more
to do with learning a 'transformational praxis', a way of doing things that
allows the emergence of the new flavour of quality. Meditation would seem to
be a clear example of this. As I understand meditation, it is assentially a
way of maintaining awareness of the here and now, noting when one's thoughts
hijack this immediacy, and gently returning to the immediacy of presence.
The intellect has little real role here, and in fact is a distractor. But
over time one learns to focus on what is real, rather than on the content of
one's verbal productions, which are always, insofar as they refer to the
past or the future, technically fantasy. From this, as I understand it,
emerges the new moral stage which is part of the evolution beyond the
intellectual level into what is usually known as the spiritual or mystic
level.
DMB says:
Briefly, I'll refer back to the message you posted about the pain involved
in periods transition. (And this applies to collective cultural
transformations as well as personal ones.) We're sort of forced to move on
to the next stage when seemingly unsolvable problems emerge. This is where
the problem solving abilities of a particualr level are exhausted and so the
only way to solution is to move into the next phase. Meditation is such a
case, the benefits of which begins where intellect becomes exhausted. BUT,
don't forget the principle of inclusion. Intellect doesn't become obsolete
so much as inadequate. In a very real sense it is about learning not to
think and the dissolution of ego, but that shouldn't be construed to mean
the abandonment of rationality or identity. In fact, the higher levels of
intellectual development are about learning HOW to think. And meditation, I
think, is also a form of mental discipline. Among other things, meditation
is about "watching" your own mind work. Its about making distinctions on the
inside, if you will. So, moving into the spiritual levels does mean leaving
intellect behind in a certain sense, but saying that intellect is only
fantasy, I think, goes too far. The intellectual levels are every bit as
real as any other level and should never be entirely abandoned, only
temporarily suspended or put to sleep. Notice, for example, that Wilber
makes a strong case for transformational practices and the relative
inadequacy of our "verbal productions", yet he writes books and believes
such activities are quite worthy, even necessary. There is always a great
danger that low-grade anti-intellectual attitudes can get all dressed up in
Mystical clothing. Don't be fooled. Its often just a form of nihilism
disguised as Zen or whatever.
John said:
So, to be more specific, I want to explore how it is that the language of a
teacher can facilitate the emergence of a new flavour of quality in the
student. This is a long way from the usual post modern trivialization of
language, but not totally unrelated to it. It may be that in some quite
intelligible sense "In the beginning is the Word". Note that I am not saying
that we can learn the new flavour of quality via language. (I wonder if the
influx of 'mystic gurus' in this forum recently are actually coming from a
high moral level, or are simply intellectualizing about such a level. There
is a difference between speaking one's truth, and yapping, and I am inclined
to be cynical, especially when many of their words of wisdom seem to involve
a subtle put-down of their opponents. Wilber talks about the great divide in
moving into "Second-Tier Consciousness", in 'A Theory of Everything' p13ff,
and I think it makes all the difference in the world whether this sort of
critique is genuine second-tier.)
DMB says:
As to the question of mystical posers, I think its not too hard to tell. The
student/teacher relationship is one of vital importance. I think that having
a real guru requires a very intensive personal relationship so that the
teacher really understands exactly where the student is, what that student
needs next and knows how to get her there. Education in our culture is based
on something like a mass production model and almost never goes into the
spiritual levels. I think this is a HUGE problem. I wish education was the
central organizing principle of our civilization. Instead, its all about
lawyers, guns and money. Yuck.
John said:
It may be that language is actually a powerful aid in our individual
evolution of quality. If so, mysticism is not just an accident of grace, as
Wren Lewis suspects, nor something achieved through a few peak experiences,
or drug trips, but the higher levels of a spectrum of practice that focusses
attention on what is, rather than on the driven egoic fantasies that fill
our heads much of the time. It is both an undoing of previous conditioning,
and a coming to rest in what is, when this conditioning is removed; so is a
purified attention to immediate experience. This, at least, is my thesis. If
it is true then groups such as the Sufi "Sarmoun Darq", (the gatherers of
honey), are not just some exotic curiosity, but are the carriers of the
knowledge that allows transformation, knowledge that is passed on through
language.
DMB says:
I don't think there's really much of a contradiction between grace and
discipline. I mean, they're clearly different but they're both able to get
you there. The accidental mystic is more likely to misinterpret the
experience or to make less meaning out of it. But pure practice seems
inadequate in its own way too. I suppose both are needed to achieve the
fullest and most even kind of development.
I'm grateful to anyone who has actually read this far, and I won't push my
luck any further. Thanks for your time.
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 - 16:02:26 BST