Hullo Platt,
When a debate gets to the stage of one person shouting "It is" and the other
shouting "It ain't", there seems to me to be two sensible options. One is to
just walk away. The other is to try to find some larger context where just
possibly there could be some mutual understanding, and even the potential of
some shift in otherwise entrenched positions. Joining in and shouting more
loudly seems to me pretty futile.
The debate between David and Roger has flared several times in this forum. I
get either bemused or angry about some of the statements made defending the
US, but my shouting about that is not helpful.
In my view David is absolutely correct in his assessment that defending a
particular society is of lower value than debating intelligently the ideas
which might improve all societies. If you can't concede this, then I wonder
how much you have grasped of the MOQ. I have no problem debating the
validity of the MOQ (I do it all the time), but to say the MOQ is wrong
because it is un-american would be to totally lose the plot. Do you agree?
The issue David raised is whether intellectual values are of higher quality
than social values. But that is not what my post was about, hence why I
introduced a new title. I was looking at what causes people to change, and
what implications that has for seemingly entrenched debates that seem to go
nowhere when argued in terms of proof and evidence. I have used Wilber's
analysis because I find it helpful.
With reference to your points
"1) on a Wilber-certified lower developmental level than David, Gavin
and yourself,"
Pirsig introduces the four levels as a fundamental component of the MOQ. He
makes clear that the intellectual level is to be valued above the social
level. If you choose to support the social level against the intellectual
level, then you place yourself at a lower level in Pirsig's hierarchy than
those who choose the opposite. I happen to find Wilber's levels more
helpful, but the same holds true. If humans develop through stages then some
will be at higher levels than others. Sorry if that offends you.
" 2) that we are suffering great pain because of this deformity,"
I have no idea if you are suffering 'great' pain or any pain at all. I never
said you were. I said that pain is often the accompaniment to any change of
level, and I'll stick with that. I explicitly said that I suffer such pain,
and that it is the common experience to find the difficulties that arise at
any level are painful, and that this is one of the main reasons why anyone
moves on. I mentioned no 'deformity', whatever that is.
"and 3) that as a result of our lowly station we can't possible "care" as
much as you and the others who "want the world to be a better place.""
Did I say that? My assumption, again drawing on Wilber, is that people at
all levels want the world to be a better place, but how that is interpreted
is a consequence of the level the person is at. What I was saying at the end
of my post was that the reason discussion and debate such as occurs in this
forum is to be valued is because it can help each of us work on ourselves,
and this occurs when we get in touch with what we really care about. Pirsig
said it. I just happen to like what he says, and quite frankly, I can't
think of any other reason why I would continue in debates such as these if
it was not the case.
"long and thinly disguised ad hominem attack."
Really!
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 - 16:01:59 BST