[Krimel, Sunday, May 27, 2007 14:45] >Welcome back, Keith! It is always good for us "new" timers when the old >timers return! My tirades against Wilber result from repeated reference to >him by others on the list. My casual reading of Brief History of Everything >and Kosmic Consciousness sparked a number of critical comments on what I >regard as utter nonsense. dmb insisted that I was not getting the "real" >Wilber so I read Sex, Ecology and Spirituality which I was assured was >Wilber at his best. All I can say about it was that is was somewhat better >than the other two.
Thanks, Krimel. I haven't read *Kosmic Consciousness* & don't think much of a *Brief History of Everything*, either. The former is dated and the latter is too superficial. I do find value in SES, though. Wilber has transcended even some of his thinking in SES, though, from what I'm reading of his works now. I think the progression in his thinking may be part of the problem here, as he's gone through at least 5 versions of his philosophy and some of his earlier work he no longer identifies as complete. See the "5 Phases" at <http://www.integralworld.net/index.html?kofman.html> [Krimel, Sunday, May 27, 2007 14:45] >The point I was trying to make is that, as Wilber states it, holons are a >way of viewing hierarchies. Higher levels include the lower levels and so >forth. And yet the direction the holoarchies he points to are toward >rational thought at the highest level. Spirit he claims is at the lowest >level with the inorganic arising as a manifestation of Spirit. As I said >this is poppycock. Rational thought which is rules based and language driven >includes and subsumes spiritual and touchy feely thought not the other way >around. Koffman's essay would not seem to be reversing Wilber in this >respect. Wilber identifies holarchies as one type of hierarchy--there are others. Regardless, I think Wilber sees *everything* as a manifestation of Spirit, not just the inorganic levels. The rational level does arise from lower levels, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't also aim toward Spirit. For Wilber, Spirit is the Ground of all Being, just as for Pirsig, Quality is the Ground of all Becoming. Everything arises from Quality, and evolves toward Quality. Everything arises from Spirit, and evolves toward Spirit. I see Wilber's evolutionary holarchy is, in many respects, similar to Pirsig's evolutionary hierarchy of moral levels. [Krimel, Sunday, May 27, 2007 14:45] >In addition I think it would be a lot clearer to just talk about set theory >rather than gussy it up in new terminology. But maybe you can tell me how >Wilber's use of holonography is different than plain old set theory. You may well be right, but I don't have the mathematical background to say. I do readily admit that Wilber's terminology is confusing, as he uses Spirit many different ways. I think this is an enormous mistake in making his system easily comprehensible. He talks about Spirit as the Ground of all Being, as I just described, then he describes alternate states of consciousness, some of which may be called "spiritual" I suppose because they put you in disintermediated contact with Spirit, then he has a "spiritual" line of development in his psychology, which I can't say makes much sense to me just now. [Krimel, Sunday, May 27, 2007 14:45] >I have heard Wilber go on about states of consciousness. Here again his is >talking trash. States of consciousness more than anything else point >explicitly toward a neurological explanation of "consciousness". Drugs, >fasting, meditation and other mind altering activities produced marked >changes in brain states. It is clearly not the case that consciousness >acting as some supernatural agencies causes people taking LSD to have >altered perceptions. It's the drug that does it. In a study of meditating >devotees of the Dali Lama it was found that meditation did indeed cause >changes in brain activity and even in the structure of the meditator's >brain. So does learning a new language, playing a musical instrument or >participating in sports. Wilber doesn't claim that any supernatural agencies result in altered states of consciousness. He readily admits that there are brain state changes associated with meditative practice and the other ways of achieving altered conscious states. These are the Right-Hand "exterior" correlates of the Left-Hand "interior" states (qualia?) of consciousness. For Wilber, though, consciousness is not an epiphenomenon of the brain. He's not a materialist. Instead, he believes that consciousness ("interiority") extends down the holarchic chain. It is, in some sense, a primal characteristic of Spirit. I don't know if he's right about any of that. I've never head an altered state of consciousness (other than sleep or alcoholic intoxication). No causal "causal" or "nondual" experience of reality for me. Pirsig appears to have had one of those, though, and came up with a wacky metaphysics that we're debating here. I'm not ready to dismiss all of the intriguing possibilities that Wilber presents, many of which are consilient with the MOQ. [Krimel, Sunday, May 27, 2007 14:45] >And yet the "the commonly recognized levels of pre-rational to rational >thought" you refer to originate in Piaget and did not extend to the >"transrational" until Wilber made Piaget a pawn in his game. Transrational >seems to be a word Wilber made up to include spirituality. Wilber indeed co-opts Piaget, but then that's his whole program. Like Pirsig, he's a grand synthesizer. >"Spirit is indeed nonrational; but it is trans, not pre. It transcends but >includes reason; it does not regress and exclude it. Reason, like any >particular stage of evolution, has its own (and often devastating) >limitations, repressions, and distortions." >- Wilber SES > >Who says that spirituality transcends reason. According to Wilber's >progression it should be just the opposite. Rational thought transcends and >includes spirituality. We understand through reason that we have an >emotional side that can not be ignored. Reason by all accounts is a >relatively new development in human affairs. People seem to have been >having >mystical experiences 30,000 years ago. Reason according Pirsig arrived on >the scene with the Greeks. So what is emerging from what here? Since Spirit is the Ground of All Being, it transcends everything. That's how I understand Wilber. Spirit is not a higher level of consciousness, it's the Ground from which all manifestation arises. That said, I have a tough time with Wilber's transrational bent. However, remember that Pirsig's project in *ZMM* was to "expand the nature of rationality". I think that Wilber is working on something of a similar project. Higher states of consciousness continue to include prior levels of rational thought, they just aren't locked into strict identification with it. I'm not entirely sure how to understand the Wilber quote you give above. Can you provide a page number reference? [Krimel, Sunday, May 27, 2007 14:45] >Furthermore the growth in human consciousness follows a clear path from >spoken language, to written language to printing, to photography and sound >recording to digital storage and access of information. These are expansions >of consciousness. We can look on the internet and see satellite photos of >our homes from space. We can talk in real time to people anywhere on the >planet. We can assess history and science and every form of human knowledge >in seconds. This strikes me as a vastly higher form of consciousness that >you are going to get staring at the wall. It's arguable those represent higher forms of consciousness. They certainly expand the realm of what one can be conscious of, but whether they lead to higher levels of consciousness ... [Krimel, Sunday, May 27, 2007 14:45] >Among Wilber's levels, (or is it states?) of consciousness are sleep and >deep sleep. These are higher states than wakefulness? Only in Wilber's wacky >world. Not levels, states, and definitely not higher, just different. Take a look at the picture you deride: Gross (waking), Subtle (dreaming), Causal (dreamless sleep), & Nondual ("union"). Those are different states of consciousness, not stages of development in his system. That's why they're shown horizontally arranged, not vertically. None of them are any higher than the other. [Krimel, Sunday, May 27, 2007 14:45] >http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=44612365&size=l > >OMG, that is hysterical. I recommend that chart to anyone. Color coded >consciousness, Supermind, Overmind, Meta-mind, Global Mind, here a self >there a self everywhere a self, self... How can you possibly take that >seriously? Oh please! We're here debating the merits of a system that denies widely accepted views of reality and replaces them with little dharmas everywhere all part of one mystic Quality. Pirsig denies objective reality, the ontological existence of space and time, etc. Wilber's system may be "out there" (and I certainly don't subscribe to all of it), but if one can take Pirsig seriously, one can take Wilber seriously. I happen to find value in the distinctions that Wilber makes. While Pirsig's evolutionary levels are great orienting generalizations, they aren't fine-grained enough to allow one to gain traction in evaluating many situations. Wilber's use of Piaget and Spiral Dynamics & other developmental theories give a very useful vocabulary for exploring both inter- and intra-level value conflicts within Pirsig's social and intellectual levels. Anyway, back to digging holes in the yard, 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/
