DMB and All.
(trying to edit my messages in your style)
On 12 Jul. DMB said:
At the risk of making you even sadder, I have to insist that it goes
even further than you suggest. Not only is it possible to align
Pirsig's levels with Wilber's, they both can be aligned with the
hierarchies of being found in all the world's Great religions and with
the research of dozens of developmental psychologists. In other words,
its reasonable to compare Wilber and Pirsig simply because they both
reflect something like a universal truth. Apparently, this truth
transcends historical context, cultural bias and can be empirically
verified. That's tough to beat. I think it only adds to the validity
of the MOQ, and I would have thought that would only make you happy.
Perhaps you're saddened because it means the MOQ is very far from
unique on this matter?
Bo says:
There are many reasons for participating in discussions about the Quality Idea
but what hit me through "Zen and the Art..." was that I spotted a farewell to the
subject/object model of reality which is still what moves me and makes me so
zealous when (I spot) subjectivity or mind entering the MOQ - usually as/at the
intellectual level.
Even to the extent of crititcising Pirsig for saying that he sees intellectual
patterns as equivalent to "mind". First a great show of taking leave of mind and
matter as primary qualities and then reintroducing mind ('matter' follows suit) as
intellect - or vice versa? It doesn't even rhyme with his own Social + Intellectual
values as "subjective". NB! If he means that social patterns too are subjective
should have emphasized that.
About the "world's great religions...etc." This an important point and our old
bone of contention. If "religions" and "myths" are social patterns they can't very
well be equal to the MOQ .... not after Intellect which is the look-out point from
where they are seen as myths. You know Pirsig shows in (the RT chapter) LILA
that Hinduism has found a dynamic/static balance and as such a proto-moq,
yet hasn't worked out any static levels. The very same point I have tried to make
to 3WD: Phaedrus of ZAMM is sympathetic towards the Sophists and anti
Socrates for the reason that the former represents social value (what is made
true by persuation is true) while the latter represents the emerging intellectual
value (there is an objective truth indifferent to what we believe). Now - and here
is the clue - Phaedrus represents a value that transcends INTELLECT and
according to another tenet of the MOQ he is sympathetic to the level below its
"enemy" (like intellect joins biology).
DMB continued:
Poison? How so? I see this as just one more parallel between them. As
I understand it, Wilber's "spirit" is very much like Pirsig's DQ. Both
terms refer to the ulimate ground of being AND the goal of existence.
So, saying Wilber's spirituality is "poison" is alot like saying that
DQ is poison.
Bo says:
Because none of the above is part of Wilber's system. A bit "poisonous" of me
saying so, I have only read Wilber's "Up from Eden" but when he started about
"causal" and "spiritual" levels I saw the chasm between this and what the MOQ
means and haven't been able to muster any interest since (if his Spirit and DQ
is identical where does he state any dynamic spirit/static spirit reality?) and
when John Beasley recommended Wilber I was sure of it being a dead end.
Maybe a bit "poisonous" saying this too because JB is the finest of writes, a
great debater and a nice person, but he doesn't understand the MOQ that's for
sure ...not the only one by the way.
IMO as always.
Bo
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