see comments > dmb said: > In Wilber's conception "Spirit" is detectable and natural. > > DM asked: > I genuinely enquire, now does he demonstrate this? > > dmb answers: > Like Pirsig, he rejects sensory empiricism in favor of a much broader > empiricism. Then mystical experiences can count as empirical evidence. Its > a > different kind of science and maybe it is still in the process of being > born, but its still based on experience and peer review. >
DM: I'll buy that. But how do we tell if someone has had these experiences or if they are a nut? > DM asked: How do interiors fit into the MOQ scheme described by Pirsig? > > dmb answers: > Values. Morality. Mysticism. Radical Empricism. > DM: I'd add imagination, and full pass access to the sphere of the possible. > DM: How are complex cognitive structures described in MOQ terms? How are > advanced forms of consciousness created? > > dmb answers: > These structures would be within the 4th level of the MOQ, but they aren't > named in the MOQ per se. In the same way, the MOQ's social level would > have > several layers within it. And these advanced structures of consciousness > are > created through a process of evolution, just like everything else. > > DM said: > But to transcend dualism do we not need to be able to embrace an > understanding of language that only divides a reality that is ultimately > one. And what is so difficult about that? > > dmb says: > I think there is a difference between grasping a philsophical idea and the > experience of Nirvana, if that's what you're saying. I mean, linguists > aren't necessarily mystics. > DM: True. 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/
