Re: MD Religion of the future.

From: Matthew Poot (
Date: Sun Apr 25 2004 - 19:25:54 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD The Individual Level"

    Hi everyone,

    Mark: You've partly answered my question regarding metaphysics. Wilbur's
    metaphysics is evolutionary, but what is evolving? I imagine it is
    consciousness that is evolving?
    Consciousness is the stuff of reality? I expect Wilbur comes in for the same
    criticism of his metaphysics as Pirsig does, the old metaphysics deals with
    definitions chestnut

    Poot: I suppose that conciousness would be the 'stuff' of reality,
    including the sub and un. I mean, what else is there if you think about it?
    What we sense, and what we think? is there anything else? for all
    intensive purposes no.

    I mean, there is an environment existing outside of us (unless I am insane,
    and you are all/everything is a figment of my imagination), which
    operates/exists on its own, but for us........reality is comprised of what
    we think of (conciousness in its various forms) and what we sense.

    One thing that I think , personally, would make this whole thread (and many
    others here) more easily communicable, would be the lack of quoting others.
    I mean, really, all of us here seem to be so close together, and many times
    trying to say the same thing, or actually saying the same thing, but then
    because we cannot communicate it very well (at nobodys fault, its just
    really hard) fall into dissaray.

    The reason I think we shouldn't use quotes so much, is because if we all
    used our own language (giving due explanation to help interpretation) then
    the direction of our conversations would be more clear. Quotes seems can
    seem to sometimes be very divisive, somehow.

    Time is short,

    What do you think?


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: storeyd <>
    To: moq_discuss <>; David Buchanan
    Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 10:58 PM
    Subject: RE: MD Religion of the future.

    > Mark,
    > I wanted to add a supplement to dmb's cogent explanation of
    > and the spiritual domain. Your reaction--namely, nervousness--is the way
    > both modernity and postmodernity typically react to "eastern stuff." The
    > problem breaks down somewhat like this: with the differentiation of the
    > primary modes of being-in-the-world, namely, I, we, and it, or subjective,
    > intersubjective, and objective, or the three domains of knowledge, art,
    > morals, and science, each branch of knowledge is freed up from the claims
    > all the others (what the MOQ calls teh social level), and they are free to
    > explore and develop as they please. however, the latter, science, has
    > developed so much faster than the others, not only because its effects and
    > verification are visible , efficient, and "practical, but because it
    > the proper place of the first two branches, even denied their existence.
    > wilber typically puts it, the enlightenment was all about making maps of
    > reality, joyfully enacting the representational paradigm...but the vast
    > majority of these maps leave out the mapmaker. as kierkegaard said in
    > reference to hegel, the system is a great and grand and wonderful castle,
    > it has not room for the philosopher who built it. or as habermas puts
    > the third branch of knowledge "colonized" the lifeworld of the individual
    > the collective, materializing and economizing aesthetic and moral
    > however, while habermas and critical theory in general has all but
    > the critique of modernity and reached the limits of postmodernity (which
    > another way of saying the limits of REASON), they have nothing positive to
    > in its place, because they have not yet lifted that have been upheld for
    > centuries agaisnt the concrete, practical reality of individual levels of
    > consciousness that transcend reason, which brings me to mark's reaction.
    > wilber shows to a much fuller degree than pirsiq, that nervousness, that
    > angst, that fear, uncertainty, etc., which the thought, even the mention,
    > the transpersonal/transrational inspiries, is in fact not only the death
    > throws of reason, but the death throes of the ego. what you have to see
    > that the ego, the self-concept, personhood, etc., is really just one form
    > awareness, a derivative one that comes after the fact, as pirsig
    > with the hot stove experiement. furthermore, this notion of personhood is
    > perfectly linked with the emergence of perspectival reason, which is where
    > good old friend SOM first becomes possible. again, this is what we call
    > modern cognition; remember, before modernity, the individual is not the
    > primary source of identity; you are a member of the tribe before you are a
    > person, properly speaking. so what am i saying? that reason and
    > are the parents of SOM, and, even though they are the latest development
    > the evolution of consciousness, the most recent static pattern of human
    > cognition, they believe that they are the ceiling of development, the end;
    > this is why habermas, critical theory, postmodernism, and contemporary
    > philosophy in general can go absolutely nowhere, can generate nothing
    > until they realize that their nervousness about transpersonal cognition,
    > mystical experience, AND EASTERN THOUGHT IN GENERAL, is merely a product
    > forms of cognition whose partiality they have critiqued they hell out of.
    > Kant saw this, but he had the bias as well. so, to derrida's famous
    > that western thought in general has sufferred from a
    > bias" needs to supplemented by another: the rational bias, which does not
    > admit, and severely frowns upon, higher, transpersonal levels of
    > the problem , of course, is that the only people who think about these
    > that have any attempt to change the course of collective thought are
    > philosophy professors, who work in a highly politically charged industry
    > any adherence to transpersonality, spirituality, etc, is not only laughed
    > but is a quick and sure root to professional ruin. therefore, only rogues
    > like wilber and pirsig are free from the slings and arrows of
    > and their patient and passionate wisdom will hopefully permeate the palace
    > postmodern philosophy, and maybe even politics too, though both,
    > the latter, are extremely unlikely. but to wrap this up, when we talk
    > the spiritual domain, what we're really saying is that real religious
    > experience is not about the exteriors, the customs, rites, historical
    > claims, etc. of any particular religion (the social level aspects), it's
    > the individual experience, awareness, etc., and the religious forms are
    > a springboard towards individual development, to transcend the static
    > patterns. another way of saying this is that real spirituality is about
    > internal, rather than the external, and the reason you feel nervous about
    > stuff is that we live in a social world that for the most part refused to
    > believe in internality in any form, which is precisely why we all feel so
    > self-alienated, depoliticized, dehumanized, etc., why we are, to put it
    > bluntly, a prozac nation. hope that clears some things up.
    > -Dave
    > >Hello dmb,
    > >Great post. I agree with Wilbur's overview.
    > >But when transpersonal consciousness and the spiritual domain are
    > >i become nervous. I don't understand what these terms mean? They may not
    > >mean what i assume they mean in Wilbur's quote?
    > >
    > >For Wilbur, is transpersonal consciousness theoretical? Is the spiritual
    > >domain a theory?
    > >
    > >All the best,
    > >Mark
    > MOQ.ORG -
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > MD Queries -
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    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 : Sun Apr 25 2004 - 19:36:04 BST