Dear Angus,
You can read about Ken Wilber's application of Spiral Dynamics in
the interview with Ken Wilber that has been advertised in this
list before:
wilber.shambhala.com/html/interviews/interview1220.cfm/xid,658742
4/yid,88470152 .
You can also look at www.spiraldynamics.org .
By the way: I am intrigued by your ideas about 'show' and 'say'
and about 'good and bad drama' of the self.
The 'definitions of DQ' from 'Lila' (28/1113:55 -0800 you quote
in
the 'Things and patterns, Pirsig's authority'-thread) are in my
experience 'pointing to the moon of DQ' rather than 'defining
DQ'. That would indeed be an example of 'show' rather than 'say'.
I think I agree with the rest of what you say in that post.
Your proposal to distinguish SOM- and MoQ-talk by inserting [sq],
[/sq], [DQ], [/DQ], [I], [/I], [II], [/II], [III], [/III], [IV],
[/IV], [V] and [/IV] ( 29/11 11:32 -0800 in the 'Might Makes
Right'-thread) doesn't appeal to me. It seems wrong to suggest
that something one writes only has meaning in one of those
contexts. Multiple and shifting meanings because of multiple and
shifting contexts somehow seem part and parcel of language and
communication to me. If you try to limit meaning to only one
context, you lose all 'show'. 'Say' alone may have some sterile
grammatical 'meaning' left, but it has become devoid of 'Meaning'
(as in 'the Meaning of life'). It has become useless for real
communication. You said 28/1113:55 -0800 that 'say' is only half
of the story. If 'say' refers to meaning in one context and
'show' is somehow related to meaning in all other existing or
possible contexts, 'say' may even be far less than half of the
story
For me 'seeking meaning' doesn't imply thinking, using pictures,
using (static) objects and using logic as it does for you (9/12
14:01 -0800 in your 'How to know what to do?'-post). It can be
simply knowing what to do because it feels Meaningful, knowing
intuitively the Meaning of one's life, seeing suddenly a story in
formerly 'random' experiences.
To what extent is a person free to 'feed a lie' (or 'feed a
truth'?!), to change the meaning of events and developments to
conform to a self-created 'drama', 'story' or 'ego'? The
possibility you mention of distinguishing between 'feeding a lie'
(creating a chosen ego) and 'being authenthic' implies the
existence of an authentic identity, a 'pattern of values' (!) in
the past events and developments of your life, that cannot be
tampered with (any more) and against which 'the truth about
yourself' can be tested.
Does 'being authentic' require 'hearing the dynamic voice in my
body' (as you describe it) or simply being consistent with the
(static) pattern (of values) in my life thus far?
Distinguishing between 'good' and 'bad drama' is only useful to
the extent that we are free to choose.
The criteria must be similar to the criteria 'we' found in the
'Overdoing the Dynamic'-thread: 'patterns of higher quality
achieve a Dynamic/static balance, and that the way to find this
balance is by attuning one's self to the broader universe'. Good
drama is both stable (consistent with past 'self patterns') and
versatile (open to the future, to Dynamic Quality, to a lot of
possible events and developments) AND part of a larger story,
that can itself be evaluated as relatively good or bad.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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