Hullo Wim and Platt,
Wim. Just getting back to the question of Pirsig's four levels somehow being
equivalent to Wilber's four quadrants.
I think it's a non-starter. Wilber's quadrants apply across all levels. Thus
there is no hierarchy between them. Quite the opposite. Wilber is constantly
asking for an inclusive stance, where the four quadrants are integrated, at
whatever level. His fundamental argument is that all 'objects' or 'events'
can only be fully described if all four quadrants are involved.
Pirsig claims that his four levels are 'discrete'. They do not overlap. He
is quite specific about this, and in my view terribly wrong. Most anything
interesting falls into more than one of Pirsig's categories, and the lurid
debates we have had on such matters as terrorism simply show how inadequate
his model is.
In my view there is not much point trying to make Pirsig's four levels fit
with anything, as they are a fundamentally flawed model. Pirsig's value is
in his earlier ZMM inquiry into quality and value, and not in his
metaphysics (with the possible exception of static latching). I am currently
writing furiously about quality and mysticism and morals, and hope to have
something readable in a few weeks.
Re your just posted email to Platt quoting Wilber and myself on a top down
model (a la Whitehead), the more I think about it the more sure I am that
this is indeed the secret to moving forward. Platt seems intuitively to have
picked up on this when he says
PLATT:
"So I'm thinking that the levels may not have evolved in the sense of a
series of static latches left behind by DQ, but that DQ created the levels
all at once. At birth we are the embodiment of DQ, but as we grow we
slip down the hierarchy to lower levels of quality and spend the rest of
our lives trying to regain the purity and beauty from whence we came.
Art, religion and books like LILA draw us toward that goal ... the levels
didn't evolve over time"
I have been following your posts with great interest, Platt. We often
disagree quite strongly, and I certainly don't go all the way with your
'level of art', but we do seem to have much in common. If you read the post
I sent to David a day or so ago, you may like to pick up on some of the
hard-to-express stuff in that. I get the feeling that you and Pirsig are
both "mystics manque", would-be mystics, but since you have chosen to remain
largely within the intellectual level, rather than spend the considerable
time and effort needed to explore a transformational praxis, you always are
on the outside, looking in, as it were. Is this unfair?
Also I would recommend 'The Point of Existence' by Hameed Ali as a 'must
read' for the issues you raise above on our state of quality at birth, and
so on. I suspect you will find some of what he has to say hard to swallow,
but the book is probably the best introduction to this area I have come
across. It goes beyond the usual psychological literature, while
incorporating the best insights of it. The other interesting section to read
is Wilber's critique of Ali in note 11 of Ch 11 of The Eye of Spirit, pp
359 - 373. Ali has responded in detail to Wilber's critique, though I do not
think this reply is generally available. However, on my reading, Wilber has
a valid point, but applies it somewhat inappropriately to Ali. In other
words, they are arguing past each other.
One of the really great things about your words above is that they remove an
ambiguity in Pirsig's writing that always irritates me. Pirsig, in my view
quite correctly, asserts that quality is fundamental, and every 'thing'
arises out of experiences of quality. However, when he comes to construct a
metaphysics, he gets hooked on the concept of evolution, and allows it to
take on a value that rivals quality. Correctly seen, evolution is a high
quality idea that explains a lot of things a lot better than previous ideas.
It is, however, an idea in considerable flux, and is constantly changing. To
reify it, to treat it as the 'truth', as Pirsig tends to do, is a mistake.
So you are right, when you suggest the levels don't evolve over time. What
we can see, when we take an historic vantage point, is the fuller
incarnation of higher forms of dynamic quality, (that we encounter in our
immediate experience), over time. But the Big Bang didn't start a chain
reaction that leads to quality. Quality is. And quality exists, in the
infant, before it develops a self. The quality in art requires a very
developed brain before it is contactable, but again it is a mistake to think
that big brains create quality. Quality is. Developed brains access more of
it, in more flavours, the big three being arts, ethics and science. They are
all good.
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 - 16:01:50 BST