Hi Angus,
Thanks for bothering with my inquiry.
You say ""Levels" by the word alone brings along a "structure" that I
inherently disagree with. There is an implication of one higher or lower or
one level different from the other. But why can't they be a mess, an
intermingly interpenetration of those "levels?" I'm a deconstructionist, so
that is what I mean when I wanted to "cure" you. Western thought is plagued
with this tendency for "origins" for "ends" for "purpose" for "structure"
and I just think we need to get out of that, or at the least be 'aware' of
it. To "cure" you is to make you aware I think."
This certainly helps me appreciate where you are coming from. I have just
read Wilber's 'Integral Psychology', where he examines the strengths and
weaknesses of postmodern thought, including deconstructionism, (which he
summarises in a quote from Culler "One could therefore identify
deconstruction with the twin principles of the contextual determination of
meaning and the infinite extendability of context."). His main criticism of
the way this has developed is that "postmodernism would eventually go to
extraordinary lengths to deny depth in general" and that underlying this is
"the inability or refusal to make 'consequential distinctions between, or
meaningful rankings of, moral or aesthetic values' (Alter)" He calls this
'aperspectival madness' and suggests it explains "why postmodern pluralists
have always had difficulty explaining why we should reject the Nazis and the
KKK - if all stances are equal, why not embrace them?" (Integral Psychology
Ch 13)
How do you respond to this challenge?
Regards
John B
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 - 16:01:46 BST