Dear Wim,John and squad
A synthesis of Wilber and Pirsig their works seems like a real
challenge,since I like them both I hope you will continue this attempt.
Personally I am not able to comprehend both their works(especially Wilber)
fully(yet),I'm climbing the last meters of this mountain but it's steep and
dangerous!
Wim,you wrote Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:28:23 +0100
If consciousness in the sense in which he uses
it is a necessary and sufficient condition for experiencing
value/quality (I am not sure of that), he would support Pirsig
who sees everything (even inorganic "things") as patterns of
value and disagree with your "Quality has no meaning except as it
refers to an individual organism" (quoted from your "Quality with
a human face", I forgot where).
The development of the consiousness as Wilber expresses is not fully
satisfying to me, the way he defines/describes consiousness neither,
actually all that I have read about the consiousness(though the list of
books I read isn't that impressive)has been unsatisfying this far. So I'm
thinking of reading a book from Norretrander(''the consious as
deceiver'')since he has a different view on this. Maybe somebody can tell me
if the book is worth spending some more of my studentloan?
John,you wrote Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:25:37 +1000
Wilber's fundamental slice of the razor is to note that nothing can be well
described without incorporating elements of both interiority and
exteriority. His holarchical model then asserts that at any level of the
holarchy, whatever we attend to can be seen as complete insofar as it
represents the outworking of the level below it in the holarchy. Seen from
this level, it is as it is, drawing together the incomplete aspects of lower
levels into a new emergent unity. But from the aspect of the next level up
in the holarchy, it too is incomplete, and it is the experience of this
incompleteness that provides the lure towards the next level, at which the
incompleteness of the lower level is transformed, and "a whole new world of
available stimuli becomes accessible to the new and emergent holon". Each
developmental stage creates a new reality. (This is necessarily a cursory
and incomplete picture of Wilber's model.)
As I understood,and please correct me if i'm wrong creativity is the lure
towards the next level. Do you think this is the same thing,I don't because
I don't think that experience of incompleteness is equal to creativity. The
inspiration for creativity can be a motivational factor in pioneering,as
expressed very well by Joseph Juran, quality Guru; The act of pioneering
is primarly the response to a challenge, the recognition that the situation
confronting us is different and requires something different from the
conventional. The greatest feat in this response is breaking the bond of
conventional thinking and embarking on a voyage into the unknown. This in my
opinion is the real contribution of Edwards, Shewhart and the others.
Despite this quote in favour of ''incompleteness hypothesis'',in my view
this fails to reveal the full potential of creativity! What do you think as
a creative person? I'm going to try to think about how this works and come
up with some good arguments!
Greetings Davor
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:34 BST