From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun May 18 2003 - 23:55:15 BST
Sam, Matt, Phyllis and all:
Steve said:
"The issue you are discussing reminds me of Wilber's pre/trans fallacy. It
is easy to confuse what is
pre-rational and what is trans-rational, since both are non-rational.
Sam's not sure: I agree with Matt on the pre-trans question, that "the only
way to call somebody on
this fallacy is to already have in mind the "correct" way to differentiate
pre- from trans-. This
begs the question over the other person because the entire issue is over how
to differentiate pre-
from trans-. Its not a fallacy, just a difference in descriptions and a
difference in opinion over
which is the better description." So I think it can be a useful and
informative distinction to draw
(it provides clarity when describing a perspective); I just don't think it's
possible to apply with
conviction in the majority of cases, and is certainly not, on its own, a
convincing argument.
dmb says:
Its just a difference in opinion, an unconvincing argument and yet useful
and informative? It appears
you like to cover your bets, to have your cake and eat it too. I'd agree
that there is room for discussion
about what is pre and what is trans, but these things need not be carved in
stone for there to be such a
thing as a "pre/trans fallacy". Of course its useful and informative. Of
course such a distinction should
appear. We are talking about levels of value and consciousness, among other
things. Some things come first.
To invoke the pre/trans fallacy as a valid criticism does not require that
we all agree about what comes
before what, it only requires an assertion and an argument that the one so
charged is confused about it.
The fallacious one may counter that he is not confused, but he may not
defend himself by simply insisting
that it is quite all right to run before you walk, that its ok to go to
college before kindergarten or that
fruit comes before the apple blossom. Of course people can be confused about
such things, and they often do.
Making distinctions among non-rational things like mythology and mysticism
can be tricky business and I think
Wilber's distinction is quite valuable precisely because there has been so
much confusion about it. As Pirsig
points out, conventional wisdom can hardly tell the difference between a
madman and a mystic. Its even worse
in the popular culture. Men beating drums and reciting poetry together in
the woods? Maybe there's something
to that scene, but its far too retro for me. Dressing up like royalty from
the middle ages and reading tarot
cards? New Age neo-pagans dressed up like druids at Stonehenge? I could go
on all day, but you get the idea.
The point is, many of today's spiritual seekers are far too fond of
yesteryear. There are lots of people who
think they are quite hip and on the edge of things, but are actually quite
reactionary. The most widely known
image that captures this mistake is the hippie dressed as an American
Indian, but you're just as likely to find
this retro-romanticism at right-wing gun shows. Go figure. Its everywhere.
Sam said:
Phyllis referred to the distinction between prahna and vijnana knowledge. I
was just remembering the
passage in ZMM where Pirsig is talking about Mark Twain and the Mississippi
(ie the Huckleberry Finn
story), where the crossing of the river begins as an art, then becomes a
'technology' - so something
is lost, but something else is also gained.
Likewise, Sam said:
In my view it is possible to reconcile prahna and vijnana knowledge, and I
think this is what Pirsig
articulates in ZMM. In other words, just as with the pre/trans discussion,
it is possible to go
'through' the discursive, intellectual, analytical processes and retain the
potential for direct
awareness. I would say that this latter awareness is richer than the
original;...
dmb says:
I'm with you here, except I see it in the MOQ too. It seems like the
distinction between the pre-intellectual
cutting edge of experience on one hand and the conclusion drawn by all our
perceptual filters on the other. Its
the difference between dynamic and static. I'd say the two should be
"balanced" rather than "reconciled", but we're
basically on the same page there too. What does Pirsig say about it? The
mystic trys to hold on to the dynamic edge
of reality, even the ongoing dynamic edge of thought itself? Something very
much like that. In any case, we can see
that the dynamic and static work together. As you say, something may be
lost, but something is also gained and the
latter is richer than the original. A certain level of mastery of static
forms is not supposed to lock out the dynamic,
rather it is supposed to allow a greater level of creativity and freedom
than could otherwise be achieved.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sun May 18 2003 - 23:56:15 BST