Re: MD Religion of the future.

Date: Fri Apr 30 2004 - 01:32:45 BST

  • Next message: "(no subject)"

    Happy Wednesday evrbuddy,

    Mark 29-4-04: Hello David, This thread began as dmb's suggestion that
    religion has drifted away from the central point of mystical insight. I agree with

    dmb wrote:
    >. And if Wilber asserts a
    >metaphysical starting point in the same way Pirsig does, I'm not aware of

    In the Preface to his "bible" (sex, ecology, spirituality), Wilber addresses
    the issue of this label, "metaphysics", and interestingly, he says almost
    exactly the same thing as pirsig, but in different words. he says that he
    assumes it will be charged that what he is trying to do is "metaphysics", and

    that critics will debunk his whole system based on the unstability of
    metaphysical foundations in general.

    Mark 29-4-04: I cannot see this being correct. Pirsig HAS developed a
    metaphysics, the Metaphysics of Quality makes that about as clear as can be, and
    therefore no one need 'assume' Pirsig is, 'trying to do metaphysics.'
    So, "...interestingly, he says almost exactly the same thing as pirsig, but
    in different words" is wrong, full stop.
    I do not know if Wilbur is doing metaphysics or not? That is why i asked dmb
    if there was a metaphysical basis in Wilbur's work? This is not to attack
    Wilbur; for example, Sartre's metaphysical basis says 'being' is a given. Beyond
    this, Sartre does ontology and does not develop a metaphysics.

    Yet Wilber asserts quite boldly that if
    what he is doing is not based on direct, empircal experience, there is not a
    metaphysical sentence in the book.

    Mark 29-4-04: Assertions, bold or otherwise, may be scrutinised, as may
    Bibles? This statement of Wilbur's is misleading. One may write a novel or
    psychological treatise, indeed a whole cannon, without ever directly indicating
    metaphysical assumptions upon which the work is informed. However, the metaphysical
    assumptions are there?
    In fact, the term, 'empirical experience' is loaded with metaphysical
    assumptions. I simply asked what they were?

    in short, both he and pirsig are
    resurrecting metaphysics on the basis of science (understood as an
    epistemological pluralism, where the bounds of the laboratory extend beyond
    the chemistry lab.

    Mark 29-4-04: How can Wilbur be 'resurrecting metaphysics' on the one hand,
    and avoid being 'charged' with, 'doing' metaphysics' on the other?
    I asked dmb what metaphysical basis was at work in Wilbur?
    If your answer is, "Wilbur is using a metaphysics of epistemology" like Hegel
    did, i understand.
    There is no need to make a fuss about it?
    Wilbur has used a methodology; he has observed (empirical), correlated data
    (rational method), and synthesised (knowledge)? Hegel did this also, and
    produced an evolutionary idealism explaining history and extrapolated towards the
    ultimate idea. All the elements of a new synthesis including an old synthesis
    are here as well as in Wilbur.
    The problem is, while using this methodology, Wilbur, like Hegel, has
    introduced his own values into the interpretation of the data, as all good MoQists
    will tell you.
    Therefore, values are the metaphysical basis in Wilbur's work, as indeed they
    are in all work.
    (This is evident from Wilbur's Quadrants for example, where atoms are located
    in the spatial Quadrant, when in fact this description is a conceptual
    idealisation. The inclusion is therefore arbitrary at best.)

    All the best,

    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 30 2004 - 01:35:13 BST