First: Greetings to all! This is my first post to MOQ.org in about 5 years. I just recently rejoined the list & have been lurking for a few weeks. I know some of you, but many names are new to me. For those who've read it, I'm the Keith in *Lila's Child*. The pace of MD has always moved too fast for me, so I don't know how much I'll be able to contribute, but I have a few moments this holiday weekend and this thread seems an appropriate one to jump back in with, as my interests since leaving MoQ.org have expanded to include Wilber.
I think there's much to be gained by comparing & contrasting Pirsig & Wilber. I happen to think that Wilber's synthesized development stages/waves provide a more useful analytic framework than Pirsig's 4 levels. (I also think that Valentin Turchin's cybernetic hierarchy of evolutionary meta-system transitions as described in *The Phenomenon of Science* provides another interesting comparative framework) I don't have time to delve further now, but exploring these with respect to the MOQ levels think these would be fruitful areas of discourse. For now, I just want to respond to Krimel's concerns regarding Wilber's use of Koestler's concept of the "Janus-faced" holons. [Krimel, Thursday, May 24, 2007 23:47] >There is this: holons. This is a great metaphor and a potentially useful >tool for thinking. Wilber drives it into the dirt, claiming that, it's all >holons. Everything is a holon. Yeah, well kinda, maybe... Not really. >Everything is whole made of parts, every part is made of wholes. This is not >nearly as profound as Wilber makes it sound. It is really just set theory >simplified and certainly not a matter of metaphysics. I'm not sure from which text of Wilber's you have gleaned this understanding of holons, but I don't think that it accurately reflects his current usage. Wilber is more particular about what constitutes a holon. Fred Koffman, an Integral Institute colleague of Wilber's has written a useful essay called "Holons, Heaps & Artifacts" that summarizes the distinctions: <http://www.integralworld.net/index.html?kofman.html> [Krimel, Thursday, May 24, 2007 23:47] >And so he says. "Each successive level of evolution produces GREATER depth >and LESS span." He adds, "The greater the depth of a holon, the greater its >degree of consciousness. The spectrum of evolution is a spectrum of >consciousness. And one can perhaps begin to see that a spiritual dimension >is built into the very fabric, the very depth, of the Kosmos." >Not exactly. Having said this, he still insists that mystical consciousness >is "higher" despite the fact the spiritual consciousness has been active far >longer that rational consciousness. Rational consciousness has grown out of >and transcended spiritual consciousness relatively recently. Spiritual >consciousness does not grow out of rational thought. If I understand you (and Wilber), I think the confusion pointed to here may be cleared up by recent revisions in his thinking. He now makes a distinction between *states* of consciousness and developmental *stages*. So one may have a "spiritual" experience of, say, nondual union with the Kosmos at any developmental stage you're at, whether it's rational, pre-rational, or post-rational. When someone who has had a profound mystical experience starts thinking again, they'll typically interpret that experience at whatever developmental stage they're at: "God spoke to me / I had an experience of Christ." (concrete operational/mythic interpretation), or "I am one with nature." (formal operational/world-centric interpretation). Wilber claims those developmental stages evolve through the commonly recognized levels of pre-rational to rational thought to "trans-rational" states. At the top levels, I'm not entirely sure what he's talking about, but the progression, as I understand it, has to do with becoming consciously aware of the operation of the current level of thought, disidentifying with it to allow a new level of thinking that transcends but includes the previous in its operation. This process also includes identification with larger and larger domains of care, from ego-centrism, to ethno-centrism, to word-centrism, to an eventual identification with the entire Kosmos. As I understand it, these levels of development are all responses to manifest Spirit, which is the central term in Wilber's ontology, in the same way that Quality is central for Pirsig. A pretty picture of all of the components of Wilber's AQAL model may be found here: <http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=44612365&size=l> Well, it's time to mow the lawn. Best to all. Keith 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/
