andrew_russell/fs/ksg@ksg.harvard.edu
Sat, 25 Jul 1998 09:50:19 +0100
andrew
russell/fs/ksg
07/25/98 02:05
AM
To:
lilasqd@hkg.com
cc:
bcc:
Subject: Re: LS Re: Dynamic vs Static split; DQ drives
evolution
evenin' everybody.
Platt -
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I want to quickly address some of
your
points on Wilber and then begin to synthesize these two living greats,
Wilber and Pirsig.
I wrote:
> DQ = evolution transcending and including, undefinable physically or
> vebally since it is a manifestation of Spirit which is always already
> everywhere and canot be reduced to physical or verbal terms
> SQ = that which is, and which can be defined, and analyzed, and
> therefore subjected to moral/ethical/rational tests, and therefore be
> transcended.
Platt wrote:
I think you've accurately expressed Wilber's views, but not Pirsig's.
Your description suggests that morals belong to and should only be
considered in relation to SQ. Pirsig, however, says morality is
synonymous with quality and belongs to both the dynamic and static
aspects.
While Wilber's metaphysics has great explanatory power, much more in my
opinion than Pirsig's, it has two fundamental weaknesses. First, it's
entirely subject/object oriented. His four quadrants are pure SOM.
--------------------
I think you may have missed something in Wilber - I dont see the four
quadrants (being the permutations of Exterior/Interior and
Collective/Individual) as stuck in SOM. He uses SOM language, true. But
it is because he has to, just as we have to here in TLS. We must make
our ideas accessible to those who only speak SOM-ese. He uses it to
point to what cannot be described by restricting ourselves to subjects
and objects: to what cannot be seen through the eye of flesh, but only
through the eye of mind or eye of Spirit.
A good example of his conception of subjects and objects is in his
description of looking at a mountain. After you look at it for a while,
you don't really think of you and the mountain as two different things.
You are one. Just as a mirror and its reflection are not two seperate
things. He has this fascinating discussion of the "Witness." I am aware
of the clouds; therefore I am more than the clouds. I am aware of the
sky; therefore I am more than the sky. I am aware of my thoughts;
therefore I am more than my thoughts. This "more than" is the Witness,
consciousness as such, which permeates being. Since all is Spirit,
there is no subject and no object. All is Spirit's self-manifestation;
all is One.
Pirsig is using his MoQ to create a lens through which we can see our
world and somehow restore the meaning of Quality. ZMM is the story of
him fighting the SOM beast.
Wilber has identified what the beast is (the alienation of man; the
detachment of sense and soul; science and religion), how it was born
(via ratioanlity and science denying the validity of the spiritual
because the spiritual cannot be defined by scientific terms; hence the
world loses depth/meaning - this is the central problem of ZMM), and how
we can transcend it (healing the divide between science and religion by
framing them both as different interpretations, different lenses with
which we view the world, and therefore Spirit). This is the core of his
latest book "The Marraige of Sense and Soul."
---------
Platt continued:
Second, he believes that knowledge of the Spirit, Infinite Mind,
Suchness, Superconscious, Godhead or whatever you want to call it is
only accessible through meditation. Pirsig, on the other hand, brings
Spirit into everyday life, showing how it is implicit in choice and
action, the stuff of life itself. To see Spirit (Quality) we need not
become Buddhists. All we have to do is look and it's there. In fact, we
are it.
----------
I would say that both Wilber and Pirsig agree with the last 3 sentences.
I don't think you've represented Wilber correctly here. See the Eye of
Spirit, chapter 10, "The Effects of Meditation." Ken encourages
consciously engaging both mind and body equally, intensely, fully. This
is not "the only way"; meditation is an accelerant of different lines of
transpersonal development. Just as practice is necessary to be able to
play the piano, or to understand a foreign language, so is it necessary
to develop, to evolve, mind and body. The essential point is for this
practice to be cohesive, inclusive, and committed. Same as anything else
you need to work to develop.
-----------
Platt again:
Wilber doesn't have much to say specifically about morals, values,
quality. He does distinguish between intrinsic, extrinsic and ground
values which I find helpful, but values are not his major theme. For
Pirsig, values are the whole enchilada.
-----------
On morality - Wilber does not address morality extensively in the ways
we are used to seeing (Kant, etc.). I believe his standard of what is
moral can be answered by posing this question: does X transcend and
inclde? Does it improve upon what is existing? Does it honor the good
points and improve on the bad points? Example consistently used on
this list is Hitler. Did the Nazis include and honor, and yet supercede,
the cultures and nations of Europe? Clearly, no. Fascism is exclusive.
Democracies, on the other hand, value the input of citizens by requiring
them to vote. Citizens are free, and in fact are encouraged to voice
their opinions. Democracies do a better job of honoring and including
their constituent parts than did the Nazis. Therefore democracy is more
moral. I think the difference between P and KW is that where P sees
morality as a sort of absolute, just like Quality, KW sees morality as
moral stage 1 vs. moral stage 2, where stage 2 is more evolved and
advanced.
For Wilber, morality is not as important as development, or evolution.
Key term is "transcendence." To quote: "My point is that higher
development (like all development) includes and incorporates basic
structures but replaces and deconstructs transitional structures, and to
confuse these two is effectively to abort development." Or in other
words, to turn away from Quality.
----------
Platt concluded:
So to better reflect Pirsig, I'd modify your description of DQ and SQ
to:
SQ = that which can be defined and analyzed and therefore subjected to
rational tests.
DQ = evolution away from SQ, transcending SQ and thus not subject to
rational analysis.
---------
only thing i would add is that DQ transcends SQ but also includes and
incorporates it.
-----------
The problem here is the same as with some other descriptions that have
been proposed on the LS: there's no reference to morals or values.
Unless we can work that in somehow, I think we miss the boat.
-----------
I sort of agree. I maintain that Wilber is presenting his moral/value
standards in an untraditional matter, but still provides an excellent
set of criteria that are based on evolutionary development. I also
think that Wilber's model needs Pirsig as much as P needs KW. It would
take one hell of an argument to convince me that they are not talking
about the same thing, only using different words.
Wilber's criteria of transcend and include is almost exactly in line
with Pirsig's Quality. "Does it transcend and include?" is simply a
more specific way of asking the question "Does it have Quality?"
Asking if something has Quality is asking if it appeals to our aesthetic
sense, which is a sense that defies scientific definition. At the same
time it is appealing to our practical, or scientific sense. Is the
motorcycle fixed so that it is running well? Do the parts work well
together?
-----------
Suffice it to say that between Wilber, Pirsig and the
Lila Squad, metaphysics is enjoying a fine new day.
Platt
------------
Whole-hearytedly agreed! The trans-metaphysical [had to say it ;->]
makes much more sense to me, too. Because of these two men I understand
more fully why I enjoy so many things so much: the overwhelmed look of
shock and exuberance in the eyes of a child, the satisfied tranquility
of a sleeping cat, the vibrant glow of a summer sunset.
Sorry if I'm going on too much about Wilber. There is so much common
ground between these two - it baffles me! I think Wilber's concepts of
evolution and development are essential for understanding Dynamic and
Static Quality. Hopefully this is inspiring ideas in those who aren't
familiar with KW's work.
Platt, thank you. Does this make more sense now?
Andy
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST