------Keith, Tue 2007-05-29 23:24------
I'm not necessarily saying that Quality=Spirit, I'm just saying that they
play similar roles in Pirsig's and Wilber's respective philosophies. You
claimed that Spirit was not especially relevant to Wilber's system and then
criticized him for working out a "system that reveals Spirit" when he's
already postulated it as the ground of being.
------Krimel Wednesday, May 30, 2007 00:57------
No no no. I said according to Wilber's tenets of holons the lower a holon is
the more fundamental it is but the less relevant. So if Spirit is the most
fundamental thing it is the least relevant. I doubt that Wilber would agree
with this.
------
I'm sure Wilber would not agree with that characterization. Yes, the lower a
holon, the more fundamental but less significant. However, in Wilber's
system, Spirit is not a holon, it's the ground of all being. It pervades
everything in the same way that Quality pervades everything in Pirsig's MOQ.
------Keith, Tue 2007-05-29 23:24------
I responded that Quality plays
the same role in the MOQ. Pirsig postulates it as reality itself (forget the
word "primordial" if you don't like it, but Pirsig uses it in Chapter 30 of
*Lila*: "...if Quality were the primordial source of all our understanding
..."), and then proceeds to reason about quality, value, the Good,
betterness. If that's on OK metaphysical chess move for Pirsig, then I don't
see how Wilber should be criticized for substituting "Spirit" in the same
spot.
------Krimel Wednesday, May 30, 2007 00:57------
I do not think that is a good move on Pirsig's part either.
------
OK, fine. However, Quality=Reality is sort of the center piece of the MOQ.
------Keith, Tue 2007-05-29 23:24------
>From your previous posts, it seemed like you were consistently confusing the
two, since you keep insisting that Wilber thinks that conscious states of
dreaming are somehow higher than waking, which I believe to be a wholly
inaccurate characterization.
...
------Krimel Wednesday, May 30, 2007 00:57------
Well there is this from the lengthy footnote in SES
". The five skandhas are generally listed as (1) physical form, (2)
sensation, (3) perception/impulse, (4) emotion/image ("dispositions"), and
(5) symbolic/conceptual consciousness. (Note that these are also exactly the
first five basic structures of consciousness in the Upper-Left quadrant as I
presented them in the text; see, for example, figs. 4-1, 5-1, and 9-1.)For
the higher Tantras, the last skandha-or mental consciousness in general-is
then further divided into three general domains: the gross, the subtle, and
the very subtle. The gross realm is the sensorimotor realm, and the gross
mind is the mind tied to, or reflective of, the sensorimotor world (and
supported by the gross or vital wind). The subtle domain is the mind freed
from all gross-conceptions (as revealed in higher meditative states, certain
dream states, and so on), supported by the subtle wind (and channels and
drops-all part of the "subtle anatomy" of consciousness). The very subtle
domain is the mind of Clear Light Emptiness, supported by the "eternal
indestructible drop" and very subtle wind in the center of the Heart.These
three domains (gross, subtle, and very subtle or causal) are also said to
correspond to the Nirmanakaya, the Sambhogakaya, and the Dharmakaya; and to
waking, dream, and deep sleep states (at which point the similarities with
the Vedanta become quite striking;
------
Could you provide a page or at least chapter citation for this? Without
context, I'm not sure how to interpret this--whether Wilber is supporting
this view or whether he's just citing it. In any event, I can see how you
would take from this quote that Wilber thinks that the gross, subtle, &
other states are somehow hierarchical.
However, this excerpt may be related to his recent concept of state-stages
(see *Integral Spirituality* pages 98-105), which is the notion that these
general states of consciousness associated most often with waking, dreaming,
dreamless sleep, & nondual awareness, can be "trained" through meditative
means such that there is a development or unfolding in the experience of
said conscious states. These states are still separate from the
developmental hierarchy of stages taken from the developmental theorists
like Piaget, Graves, etc.
------Krimel Wednesday, May 30, 2007 00:57------
But this is the point I have been attempting to make. Piaget's work does not
support what Wilber is saying. Wilber brings Piaget in through the backdoor
then props him up in the front room. This is little more than name dropping.
------
I guess I still don't see the conflict. Piaget argues from his research that
there's a natural progression of cognitive faculties in humans. Piaget
doesn't go beyond formal operational thinking as his highest level. Wilber
accepts Piaget's levels as one strand of human development, correlates them
with other developmental theorists, and posits stages beyond formal
operational, the first of which he calls "vision-logic", which he takes from
Gebser's integral-aperspectival level. We can certainly debate the existence
of these additional levels, as I'm not convinced they're well-founded, but I
find the concept of levels of conscious development, whether they transcend
formal operational or not, highly useful insights in making sense of people.
------Krimel Wednesday, May 30, 2007 00:57------
Anyway I gotta quit for now. Holy mackerel these have gotten long... We need
to find a way to chop this up a bit. What would you guys say is the central
issue here.
Keith?
Dave?
------
I need to quit for now, too. I probably won't be able to write again until
next week, as I have other priorities that will consume my free time.
In the meantime, I would identify these as central issues:
*Wilber's developmental model and use of evolutionary theory bears
similarity to Pirsig's levels. I'm not saying they're the same, I'm not
saying I agree with everything Wilber says, I'm just saying there's material
of value there and I believe it to be worth investigating.
*In general, I believe it's useful to compare/contrast the MOQ with other
philosophies to gain greater perspective and insight and expand the
applicability of the MOQ.
*In general, I think we should integrate into our understanding of the MOQ
as many intellectual tools and perspectives consistent with the MOQ's
radical empiricism. We should use logic, mathematics, scientific method, and
any relevant, consilient, and grounded concepts from all sciences (including
social sciences) and philosophies to elaborate the insights of the MOQ (or,
as warranted, amend it).
*I believe many of Wilber's distinctions are useful aids to understanding
the world and helpful adjuncts to analyzing and extending the MOQ. In
MOQ-speak: There are some high-value intellectual patterns there.
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/
