Krimel said to dmb:
...Wilber's concept of flatland is nothing more than new age gibberish. I 
have pointed out that nothing in science suggests the need or desire to 
reduce anything in the way Wilber claims. Biology does not try to explain 
itself in terms of quarks and leptons anymore that history and psychology 
seek explanations from genetics.

dmb says:
Of course biologists don't reduce things to quarks and nobody said they did. 
We're talking about flatland, not tiny town. Think of Pirsig's discussions 
about objectivity in anthropology or the way behaviorism is considered 
scientific while psychoanalysis is merely an art. That is flatland 
reductionism. I've never heard of anybody wanting to break biology down into 
quarks or anything like that. I really can't imagine where you got this 
impression.

Krimel:
I have pointed out many times that Wilber's talk of expanded consciousness 
is nothing more than pandering to empty headed rich new agers.

dmb says:
You've dished up a lot of empty insults like this one. You say he panders to 
empty headed new agers but his work is fairly well established in the 
academic world. I'm not denying that there might be an empty headed new ager 
who read and enjoyed one of his books, but the idea that his ideas have no 
credibility among serioius people is factually incorrect. Its just plain 
wrong. By the way, I have no money.

Krimel said:
All this while virtually ignoring the emergence of real expanded awareness 
and consciousness that is booming around us in the form of cell phones, 
instant messaging, e-mail, Google Earth, GPS, webcams, Alternative 
Intelligences, the expansion of identical shared memory in the form of film
and voice recording and the sum total of human knowledge instantly available 
at the touch of a button. All of this higher level consciousness emerges 
specifically from the direction of rational thinking suggested by Piaget 
whom Wilber butchers while you applaud.

dmb says:
These forms of technology reflect a higher form of consciousness and their 
use might very well lead to even higher forms in turn, but technology itself 
is not conscious. At least, not cell phones. Not yet. You're not really 
saying anything that hair-brained. The post-Piagetian structures added by 
Wilber are also based on "the emergence of real expanded awareness and 
consciousness" too, but its not the sort that is "booming all around us" for 
the simple reason that it is not that common. Unlike the early stages, which 
are more or less universal, these higher structures are not something you 
can find in just anybody but they can be detected in the same way. Like I 
said, I don't think this is butchery. Its only addition and in the world of 
idea is it perfectly normal practice. In fact, I think your objections to 
this are quite meaningless.

Krimel said:
And then there is William James. I have shown on each and every occasion 
that you have dropped his name, specifically why you haven't a clue what he 
is talking about. I have presented quote after quote from young James, old 
James, Billy the Kid James disputing your shallow reading. At one point you
had young and old James arguing with himself in the same paragraph.

dmb says:
If memory serves, here you are refering to the James quote used by 
Hoftstadter to open the final chapter of his book on Social Darwinism. It 
was your claim that James was not talking about darwinism in that quote. The 
quote all by itself is enought to contradict the claim. Considering the 
context, your claim was not even plausible. It would have to mean that 
Hofstadter, his thesis advisor and his publisher were all a bunch of idiots. 
So you'll forgive me if I don't take you seriously on this point either.

_________________________________________________________________
Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps. 
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?ss=Restaurants~Hotels~Amusement%20Park&cp=33.832922~-117.915659&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=1118863&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01

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/

Reply via email to