RE: MD The Individual in the MOQ

From: storeyd (
Date: Fri Apr 16 2004 - 19:12:17 BST

  • Next message: Steve Peterson: "Re: Re: MD The Individual Level"

    Greetings all, I am new to the discussion ring, so excuse my eruption. I am
    currently a senior philosophy major at BC, about to enter a PhD program at
    Fordham (i know, philosophology beware!); rest assured, i'm not an SOM acolyte
    nor a Catholic devotee--the system has treated me well and opened up doors
    that a secular insittution believes no longer exists. I read ZEN about a year
    ago, and Lila several weeks ago. I am confident that, barring some slight
    conflations and underdeveloped aspets, the MOQ is, well, a qualitative
    improvement on most traditional metaphysical frameworks; it is a step in the
    right direction, and that direction is nothing less than the revival of
    metaphysics, which overleaps all the "second-order" questions of 20th century
    philosophy (aside from montrous playtpi, i'm talking about linguistic theory,
    deconstruction, etc.), or, more correctly, it situates them in a larger
    framework; it reveals the pragmatic value of such disciplines, but shows their
    utter partiality. Pirsig picks up and adumbrates a lot of crucial
    philosophers who have been neglected in the western tradition, or rather, who
    have not been highlighted enough (the process theorists, bergson, whitehead,
    and most importantly, Schelling, whose unparalleled genius was unfortunately
    overshadowed by Hegel's crystal palace of reason); the point is that all of
    these theorists i just mentioned either presupposed, demanded, or elucidated a
    theory of emergent evolution, something Darwinian natural selection could
    never brook. Unfortunately, it took science around a century to realize this
    shortcoming; in other words, the sciences BELOW biology--namely and
    especially, physics--had to demonstrate emergent properties--and that is
    precisely what quantum mechanics, Heisenberg, and Bell's theorem delivered.
    As such, the stage was set to properly account for macro-evolution...or more
    specifically, to fully round out the obnoxious fact that Darwin's theory could
    never account for it. Then and only then was it possible to talk about an
    emergent humanity in a socially respected context (that is, once the biologial
    and physical sublevels were negotiated), and that brings us to where we are
    now. I must say I was struck, reading Pirsig's system, by it's undeniable
    similarity to another contemporary thinker whom i've studied in depth, and who
    is likewise scoffed at and ignored by mainstream academia...which brings me to
    my reason for writing:

    Have any of you ever heard of Ken Wilber?

    He's an indepdent thinker, written about 20 books, raised holy hell from
    berkeley to boulder, and detailed a pretty awesome theory of evolutionary
    metaphysics which bears amazingly close resemblance to the MOQ. They also
    recognize the cruciality of mysticism (Wilber's theory is, in my opinion,
    superior to Pirsig's, because it more clearly differentiates the levels of
    value, in an impressive framework called the four quadrants, which charts the
    evolution of consciousness from matter to life to mind to spirit) If you like
    Pirsiq, Wilber will blow your mind. I am very interested to try and discern
    whether either pirgiq or Wilber had knowledge of or influence on each other.
    Do any of you know or communicate with Pirsiq directly? I'd be interested.

    By the way, don't worry, I am not to be chewed up in the labyrinthe of i can't beat, i wont' join em. I'll just leave.

    I'd be delighted to hear from any of you, been looking for the like-minded for
    quite some time. Best,
    -Dave Storey

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 16 2004 - 19:29:09 BST