Hi Krim You are right they both contest our conceptual framework. They are both right that we should. Pirsig is better because he gives us an alternative that is neither authoritarian or new age 'wet'. Secularism is constructed due to the fear of what being able to contest concepts and metaphysics entails and makes possible. Secularism is a form of defence. The problem is like most security meassures it limits our freedom. I say: so be it, let's recognise that secularism is a set of values that are contestable. Let's be free, & not pretend we are not free to contest concepts, values and metaphysics and recognise that politics is politics.
DM ----- Original Message ----- From: "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:08 AM Subject: Re: [MD] The Trouble With Wilber > dmb says: > I'm with Keith here. Wilber's quasi-theological terms make me queasy > sometimes too, but Krimel's suggestion that he shares anything with the > religious right really isn't even plausible. One could quote Wilber's > criticism of that sort of religiosity all day long even if this forum's > archives were the only available source. > > [Krimel] > This is a small sample: > > "Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the > philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces > of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are > incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the > dignity of the person." > -- Pope John Paul II, > > "From the very fact the universe is on the whole orderly, in a manner > comprehensible to our intellect, is evidence that we and it were fashioned > by a common intelligence." > -- Philip Johnson, > > "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the > issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before > the academic world and into the schools." > -- Phillip Johnson, > > "If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot > accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to > Christian > truth." > -- Jerry Falwell, > > "Evolutionary biologists assume methodological naturalism. This is the > idea > that only natural causes and processes are allowed to account for the > complex, information-rich structures of living organisms. So even if God > exists we would have a God who has nothing to do with origins, the > development of life. Instead, undirected natural causes explain the origin > and development of life. So, for all practical purposes you assume the > position of a philosophical naturalist or a scientific atheist if you're > going to hang your hat on the notion of "undirected natural processes." > -- Hank Hanegraaff > > [Krimel] > The religious right bashes evolution and scientific materialism (they call > is scientific naturalism) in much the same way and for the same reasons > Wilber does. > > If you think I have quoted people out of context or we want more quotes or > more context just say so. These guys write whole books on the subject. Oh, > thats what Wilber does too. > > > > 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/ > 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/
