[Keith] Pirsig likewise identifies everything as originating from primordial Quality. Is Quality then not relevant to the Metaphysics of Quality? Is Spirit not relevant to the Phenomenology of Spirit? Shall we criticize Pirsig for nominating Quality as the One in his monism?
[Krimel] I do not regard Quality as referring to anything especially "primordial" and I certainly do not equate it with Spirit. But that's just me. [Keith] I think your objections to Wilber stem from two misunderstandings of his system. One is the relationship of *states* of consciousness to developmental *stages* of consciousness. I'll address that below when the point arises. The second I'm not so sure about, but it may stem from a preconception you may have of the nature of Spirit. When I first read that term in Wilber, I immediately thought God, complete with mythic interpretations and the grey beard. I don't know if it conjures something similar for you or not. I don't think that's what he means by the term, though. I interpret Spirit as a metaphysical null similar to Pirsig's undefined Quality. It's just the central term of his metaphysics. I see Spirit as undifferentiated, unmanifest divinity that provides the ontological "value proposition" for AQAL in the same way that Quality provides it for MOQ. [Krimel] I understand the distinction between stages and states. A state is a current of previously experienced instance of consciousness. A stage is an ongoing condition of awareness. But what Wilber is doing in essence is trying to quantify those stages saying some are higher or lower. But what criterion would you use to say that the Pope is at a higher or lower stage of spirituality than the Dali Lama or that the Dali Lama is at a higher or lower stage than Ken Wilber? As for the spirit as god... Frankly I would have more respect for Wilber if we actually said something like that. [Keith] OK, I'm quite familiar with Venn diagrams and unions and intersections. If that's all the set theory you're talking about, I'm conversant. I've already admitted I find some of Wilber's terminology confusing. Since he's trying to integrate many traditions that use the same words in different ways, I think that's understandable. However, I don't think it helps his cause. In any event, what specifically would you express in set theoretic terms rather than in Wilber's parlance? [Krimel] Wilber is attempting integrate traditions that never asked for his help it seems to me. But I believe if you substitute the word set where ever Wilber uses the term holon it works out and where it doesn't Wilber has problems. [Keith] Wilber thinks that the "wisdom traditions" should be contextualized in an overarching scheme. He doesn't think they should be dismissed out of hand as useless myths, but also certainly doesn't accept every claim of every tradition in a literal fashion. He does think that whatever truth exists in any tradition should be honored--that's the essence of his integral approach--but that doesn't mean he accepts every claim, spiritual or otherwise, as correct. [Krimel] Wilber thinks that all truth should be honored to be included in his integral system. I am not convinced that this is much of an honor. [Keith] I'm not familiar enough with Wilber's view of the mind-matter problem to tell you, but I suppose he could maintain it in the same ways dualist philosophers have done so in the past. Perhaps psychophysical parallelism? [Krimel] I don't see Wilber wanting to do what dualists do. He is all about the non-dual. The problem I have is that as antireductionist as he claims to be; for Wilber it all reduces to Spirit. [Keith] More likely, though, he would say that Spirit=Consciousness in the same way that Pirsig says that Quality=Reality. [Krimel] For Wilber Spirit may equal consciousness but I do not see Quality = Reality in the same way. Pirsig, at least to me, is hazy on this. I think Pirsig is talking almost exclusively about each individual's experience of reality and not external things-in-themselves. He is claiming that experience results in the perception of subjects and objects but just exactly what constitutes and experience and who can have them is a bit vague. [Keith] If I'm right about Wilber in this, one could argue that each level of manifest reality has its own degree of consciousness inherent in its evolutionary stage. At our stage of evolution, we intellectualize the world into subjects and objects, so it seems that these interior states of consciousness we experience are somehow divorced from the exterior electrochemical fluctuations of the cerebral cortex. However, in reality, there is no division as they are different manifestations of the underlying unity of Spirit. Similarly, Pirsig would tell you that the whole subject-object division is a deduction from our primal experience of Quality. The same Quality event that generates our subjective consciousness creates the appearance of objective brain correlates. [Krimel] I think Arlo would more or less agree with this and as seldom and as reluctantly as I am to disagree with Arlo I find the whole idea of protons having experience to render the term experience as just about meaningless. To me at least an experience requires a fairly sophisticated nervous system. But there has been a huge discussion about this in the Animals and Dynamic Quality thread right next door. [Keith] Yes, that's Piaget. I'm afraid I missed your point in relaying his developmental system. [Krimel] My point was that Wilber co-opts the whole body of Piagetian research into his system ignoring the fact that Piaget's system point in a completely different direction than Wilber's own. [Keith] I don't think it adds anything to our understanding of particle physics. I don't happen to think that Pirsig's Quality adds anything to our understanding of particle physics, either. Whether we call this stuff evanescent stuff 'matter' or 'low-grade Quality' or 'manifest Spirit' matters not much to its behavior. [Krimel] But Pirsig's system actually does aid our understanding of particle physics. In the field as in any other we ultimate come down to studying things that change and things that remain constant; matter and energy. In other words Pirsig is consistent with particle physics and does not run off chasing after imaginary Spirits. [Keith] However, the metaphysical system that comes out of such speculation does have more substantial impact at other levels. I don't know if the phenomenal world is manifest Spirit or a Quality event, but I can play out some interesting possibilities if I consider them as one or the other. I sure as hell don't know what 'matter' is--some weird substance that seems perfectly stable throughout my daily experience but then probabilistically pops in and out of existence at the quantum level... [Krimel] Focus on probability. It is the revelation of physics in the past century. But I can and have gone on and on about that. [Keith] OK, thanks, I found it. That paragraph confuses me, too. From my larger reading of Wilber, Spirit should properly be considered non-, pre-, trans-, and unprefixed rational, so I don't completely understand why he's apparently identifying it exclusively as trans- and not pre-rational. The only way I can make it consilient with my understanding of Wilber's system is this: Since higher levels of development are more evolved--they transcend and include more of the Kosmos--they are in a sense "more" spiritual than lower levels. So "true" spirit is found at the highest stages of development, not the lowest. This progression of Spirit is similar to Pirsig's assertion that Intellect is higher Quality than Society, which is higher Quality than Biology, etc. Remember that Wilber's point in this section is to rail against New Agers and other mystics who confuse archaic mythic archetypes and instinctual biological urges with spiritual union. [Krimel] I don't even think he has made a good case that there is a fallacy. [Keith] Similarly, Pirsig, in his own version of the pre-/trans- fallacy, rails against hippies who worship biological Quality because it's not Social Quality, when they should be seeking Intellectual Quality instead. [Krimel] I avoid discussing this. I don't think Pirsig is as on target here as he is elsewhere. [Krimel] No, no, no--look again: Wilber does not claim sleep is a higher state of consciousness than waking. If he were claiming that then I would agree with you and not give Wilber any credence. However, Wilber's saying something different: *States* of consciousness are not higher than one another. In his system, they are just different ways of experiencing. That's why they are shown horizontally. Developmental *stages* are arranged vertically. *States* and *stages* are two very different things in Wilber's system. [Krimel] Look at your color coded consciousness chart. Wilber identifies those states with gross, subtle and non-dual consciousness. [Keith] Zen minus the mythos, yes, but not minus the mysticism. The MOQ is fundamentally mystic philosophy since it refuses to define its central term. [Krimel] The Tao te Ching does recommend quieting the mind. There are mystical Taoists but I do not find that to be the primary focus of Taoism. [Keith] Pirsig makes some great distinctions, yes. I think, though, that the distinctions Wilber makes in co-opting developmental systems like Spiral Dynamics only enhances the clarity of the ethico-evolutionary levels Pirsig offers. Breaking these broad levels down with finer-grained divisions such as those offered by Wilber or by Turchin can only help sort out the "matter-of-fact evolutionary relationship" between factors under examination to better reason out our moral judgments. [Krimel] Spiral dynamics is the color coding right? That is hinky at best. Like Piaget there is nothing to suggest the Greave's who work is the foundation of Spiral Dynamics would want to be associated with Wilber at all. One of his students seems to be on board but the other originator of the idea seems to be moving as far away as he can get. Keith, look sorry I have written this in haste. I have a day job and tonight I am supposed to go see Pirates. So I wanted to get out an answer but I may have rushed it. This was a long one... 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/
