Case said: As I said I have read a bit of Wilber. He touches some interesting bases but from my point of view he is more interesting because of his errors in judgment and misrepresentations than for anything positive he says. A simple but fundamental example is his drawing of a distinction along the lines of G. Spencer Browne. Wilber characterizes this as inside and outside and if memory serves this is his first 'level' (could be a line or a color code tho.) My problem is that such a distinction implies one side or the other not inside and outside. This would be a minor point usually but in this case not so much.
dmb says: I'm not sure what the objection is here, but I can tell you that Wilber does not associate "inside and outside" with any holon or level of holons. According to Wilber there has been a great deal of unnecessary debate and confusion because so many thinkers have taken up one aspect or the other. Same thing with individuality and collectivity. He sorts this out by showing how every holon at every level has both an inside and an outside and everything also has both a collective and individual dimension. I think its interesting to notice the implications of this on the inorganic level. Both he and Pirsig ascribe something like an interior even to subatomic particles, attribute some small range of freedom even for so-called inert matter. At this level the known data upon which the laws of physics are based is not denied or dismissed but it is re-interpreted as exhibiting an "extremely persistent patterns of preference" rather than law-like behaviour. That is to say, even the unfolding of the physical universe is conceived as an evolutionary process rather than a mechanical operation. Case said: Beyond that the method itself of taking all this stuff and assuming it to be true. Where is that considered a good idea? It is one thing to compare and contrast ideas throughout history but to assume they are true... dmb says: That assumption is held temporarily. Like I said, some ideas are rejected, don't make the cut. On top of that, since we are talking about comparing the biggest and best ideas from all times and cultures, it seems rather foolish to assume they have nothing to offer. Also, this fits pretty well with the Pirsigian notion that there can't be any single exclusive truth. That's a positivist myth. Instead, he says, we should treat the various truths as we would paintings in a gallery. We might like some more than others or even have a favorite, but its silly to try to find out which one is the true one. Of course, as a kind of perennialist, my favorite aspect of this method of comparative philosophy is that we can detect patterns on this meta-level too. This level of abstraction allows us to notice the mystical core in the world's great religions, for example. This method let's us get past the cultural particularities and see that there are many ways to express or depict the same basic truths. Case said: Then to piece then together; picking this and throwing out that. This lack of skepticism does little more than turn history into a Rorschach test. dmb says: It seems to me that he employs a very sophisticated form of skepticism, one that's capable of holding many truths simultaneously. He doesn't sort them out on the basis of personal preference, of course. You must have him confused with Dr. Strawmann of Fantasia University. But even old, outmoded thought systems will fit into Wilber's model AS outmoded cognitive stages in our evolution. And he's perfectly capable of explaining how and why these previous worldviews are less developed so that their placement in the hierarchy fits and makes sense in that respect. He then serves up a picture of evolutionary relationships, just like the MOQ except with more detail. They both maintain that the older forms of being still serve their original function and so cannot be removed or ignored without causing a disaster. They both insist that all these previous forms remain with us, we depend on them and need to honor that fact in our contemporary systems of thought. This big picture approach is also what allows us to re-examine figures like Parmenides. When we are allowed to read him next to Lao Tzu and Nagarjuna instead of, say, Aristotle or Aquinas he seems to be singing an entirely different tune. I don't know about you, must I think that sort of thing is super interesting. As Wilber points out, if Parmenides assertions are taken literally then he would appear to be a very confused dude. I suspect there has been way too much of that kind of misinterpretation; spiritual statements, when taken literally, are quite ridiculous. And its not just an academic problem insofar as this confusion is translated into militant fundamentalism, etc.. This is why we do not just ask IF this or that is true, but rather focus on discovering HOW its true, in what sense is it true. And for this sort of problem, Wilber brings in the levels and shows how post-rational, aperspectival logic is different from the mythic/rational level and how things can be badly mistranslated when we don't notice that these represent two totally different ways of thinking. I can't really do justice in a few paragraphs and the whole point is really just to show that Pirsig isn't the only one presenting an evolutionary hierarchy, that there is a reasonable basis for drawing such lines. But I also gotta say that this approach addresses the sorts of problems I find most interesting and which do seem to call for a solution insofar as they're at the root of real bloodshed and the less conspicuous forms of conflict too. I think this approach helps us sort out the wisdom from the nonsense, the mystical from the magical, the creative from the degenerate. It exposes the shallow, preposterous and regressive. And it helps us find little gems where we thought we'd already looked, like Parmenides' assertions. dmb _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
