John, Roger, Platt and all interested persons:
John said...
I have been shamed into writing on what is to me a most uncomfortable
topic by David and Gavin in their epic debate with Roger and others. To
put this in context, I wrote to support David a week or so back, but
with more than a little anger and aggression in my comments I put the
reply on hold , only to discover to my chagrin that it had, I thought,
been sent accidentally. I was greatly relieved, later, to find it had
not. Much that I said was later picked up by Gavin, writing as a
(reluctant) Australian, and by David in his post that I have admired so
greatly, and my respect for both of them has been for their ability to
argue an issue that spans a change of levels largely without the
personal rancour that I found difficult to avoid.
DMB says...
I encourage you to go ahead and send the withheld message. This intelligent
and compassionate post was taken as a personal attack, so why worry about
offending? Go ahead, speak openly and frankly. You've got nothing to lose. I
said what I felt needed saying and the result was something you found to be
worthy. (Thanks for the kind words.)
John said...
David asserts (in his 'progressing beyond mirrors' post of 17.3.02) that
the issue is really about the transition from social to intellectual
values when he asserts "To take criticism of your nation as a personal
attack only shows that you indentify yourself with the giant. It
demonstrates an attachment to social values and an enslavement to the
giant. And clinging to this third level value system is immoral to the
extent that it contradicts intellectual values. The highest ideals of
the USA are intellectual values".
DMB says...
Right. And this is the idea behind previous comments I've made about where
the various political ideologies are located within the MOQ, why some
positions are clearly more moral than others, what the social/intellectual
conflict looks like in the real world and how some people allow their views
to distort and corrupt the most basic MOQ concepts. Its no small thing.
That's why bruised egos are less important than getting at the real issues.
John wrote...
Obviously I agree with David's assessment. But I do not want at the
moment to add to the arguments on this topic, but to consider the
meta-issue of how painful any transition between levels can be. I know
because I have experienced this pain in the past, and in my grappling
with my present issues around mysticism I experience this pain now. I am
very aware of the pain implicit in Roger's words in a response to
something I wrote where he speaks of his "enlightenment that my views
here don't matter because I am both a lackey to the giant and abnormally
tainted of defensive self delusion". And like Gavin, I have a great deal
of respect for Roger who has contributed some of the best and clearest
debate on this forum for years, and whose recommendations make up half
my list of 'must read' books. (Just reading 'The Collapse of Chaos' now,
Roger.)
DMB writes...
Its very kind of you to reach out to Roger and pay him compliment. I should
rise to your level and work up the compassion to do the same, but at present
I fear it would only seem insincere and forced. In any case, I think you're
quite right about the pain involved in any transition. I guess that's what
was happening to me with the powerful and intensely emotional experiences I
mentioned upon my return to this forum. Like I'd said then, it was entirely
worth it. The details would likely bore anyone who is not a close friend or
family member, even if I could find the words to express those mysterious
events, but let me just say that it was about discovering my truest
vocation. I'm still struggling to work it out. Such is the difficulty of
beginning a new phase, I suppose.
John said...
While David has painted this as an issue between the social and the
intellectual levels, using Pirsig's terminology, and I have no problem
with that, I prefer to use Wilber's understanding of levels because he
has focussed on human development as the basis of his scheme, and he
discriminates a greater number of levels, and hence painful transitions
between them, than Pirsig considers. Wilber in his recent books has used
the colour symbolism of spiral dynamics to attempt to defuse the
judgements that can so easily poison any discussion of levels, since it
is hard not to bring in feelings of superiority/inferiority in any such
debate. Any one interested in following up on Wilber's ideas in this
area can read his 'Integral Psychology', which covers the ground most
thoroughly.
DMB says...
Right. Wilber is far more useful when it comes to personal development. The
scope of Pirsig's MOQ literally includes everything and so it has to paint
in very broad strokes. But I think there is no fundamental contradiction
between the two thinkers. Wilber's strength seems to be in his greater level
of detail in describing our psychological development. And I'd add that he
and Pirsig essentially agree that it all comes down to individuals. That's
where the rubber meets the road even in discussions of the evolution of the
universe. You're either moving things forward or you're a drag. That's how
our own personal development becomes an important moral issue.
John wrote...
One of the interesting hints in that book is that what Wilber calls the
'basic waves' ("the basic structures of consciousness up to the formal
mind" p17) are often presented in tradition as the seven ages of man,
each of which is supposed to take seven years to complete. "Thus, the
first seven years of life involve adaptation to the physical realm
(especially food, survival, safety). The second seven years involve
adaptation to the emotional-sexual-feeling dimension (which culminates
in sexual maturation or puberty). The third seven years of life,
(typically adolescence) involves the emergence of the logical mind and
adaptation to its new perspectives. This brings us to around age
twenty-one, where many individuals' overall development tends to become
arrested." (p18)
DMB says...
I was arrested at the age of 22, but no charges were filed and the cops let
me go after several hours. Oh, wait. You're not talking about that kind of
arrest. But seriously, there is really something to the idea that
development can be stunted by psychological trauma. Sometime you can even
hear it in a person's voice. Ever met a grown man or woman who has a certain
child-like vocal quality? Often this is a result of some tragedy that
occured in childhood. And I've noticed - Platt's gonna love this one - that
right-wingers often have troubled relationships with their mothers and that
this is acompanied by a misogyny that goes way beyond anti-feminism. The
idea that one's emotional health can effect cognitive development in all
kinds of ways also fits well with Pirsig's idea that all intellectual
concepts are culturally derived, although I'd be hard pressed to spell that
out with any precision.
John said...
If we were to subsume the second period under the social heading, the
progression seems to fit rather comfortably with Pirsig's biological -
social - intellectual scheme. But of course these are generalizations
of the broadest sort, and remain merely suggestive. The point is that
"if development continues, each seven year period brings the possibility
of a new and higher level of consciousness evolution". How many such
levels are there? While Wilber identifies about two dozen basic
structures, he argues for around "seven to ten functional groupings
which reflect easily recognizable stages".(p 18)
DMB...
Wow. Two dozen levels! I imagine the highest levels are considered to be
spiritual rather than just cognitive? The average person would have to live
168 years to get there - or move along at twice the normal speed - to
achieve the highest levels in a standard lifetime. I'd very much like to
hear about the higher levels. What sorts of skills and outlooks characterize
them? I'd even like to know more about those "seven to ten functional
groupings", which I suspect are more commonly known. Please dish it up or
I'll be forced to buy more books. (The horror.)
John said...
Now while it is possible to argue for ever about the nuances of such
stages, I am inclined to agree with Wilber that people do in fact
experience such stages in their personal development. What I want to add
to this is that such stage transitions, while natural and normal enough,
are often experienced as acutely painful and problematic for the
individual who is involved in such a transition. And while it might seem
that having passed through a number of such transitions would better
equip us to handle the later ones, my experience is otherwise; it seems
to become more difficult and painful to make these later adjustments
than it was the earlier ones. Partly this is because the later
transitions have to contend with an established egoic self structure, a
structure that has developed in response to our inherent vulnerability
as infants, and which is concerned to defend us against the almost
intolerable terrors that accompanied our powerlessness as infants. The
undoing of this structure brings into awareness a lot of very painful
material from childhood, and raises issues of our fundamental capacity
as individuals; that is, issues relating to shame. I doubt that anyone
enjoys such delving, or would take this path if there was a better
option, but both in therapy, and in 'spiritual' development, these
issues seem almost inevitably to arise. (John Wren-Lewis is an
interesting exception, whom I have discussed in recent posts.)
DMB says...
Yea. I suppose the first stages are "automatic", for lack of a better word.
They're sort of built into the biological structure, while the middle levels
are reactions to life's big moments like marriage, parenthood, the death of
one's parents. And the higher ones are more a matter of self directed
growth, no? They are more difficult because of the ego structure that forms
around these powerful and nearly inevitable events, and also because of
their relatively uncommon occurance. In these advanced levels there comes a
point where it has to become self-directed. You're on your own in a very
real sense. This is where the hero's journey begins. This is where you leave
behind the ordinary world and enter a transendent realm beyond the clashing
rocks, if you will. This is the beginning of genuine enlightenment.
John said...
Wilber's holarchic view of development, in which each stage transcends
and includes the previous stages, is finely nuanced. Each new stage
brings together in a new gestalt the issues that caused difficulties in
the preceding stage. A new whole has been created. This new stage brings
a new level of awareness. The data which our senses can access has
changed. We actually see and experience the world differently to what we
did previously. (This has tremendous implications for Prisig's
understanding of dynamic quality, which is different at each level, or,
more accurately, is experienced differently at each level.) But even as
the new level brings together our experience into a new whole, it
simultaneously opens up new issues, new discontinuities, that could not
be experienced at the lower level. In this we become aware of the
partial nature of the new reality. It too is part of an even higher
level, and must eventually be transcended if the pain of these new
issues is to be dealt with.
DMB says...
Yes! Transcend AND include. That's the key. That's why a more developed
person can understand less developed persons, but not the other way around.
You can understand a person who is on a road you've already traveled.
John said...
This in broad outline is Wilber's view of human development. In this
view, each of us has already experienced and dealt with a number of
transitions, and each of us has yet more transitions to face. Any
arrogance in having progressed further or faster than others is usually
short lived, as the uncomfortable aspects of our present level begin to
bite. Despite our success in having progressed thus far, the new issues
are always painful and problematic. Being human, the shortcomings of our
present level are often most evident in our interactions with others,
and especially difficult when we interact with those who are one stage
beyond our present one. The reason for this is clear enough. These are
the people who have experienced the same issues which now concern us,
and have achieved a new integration of those issues. They draw our
attention in a way that more 'advanced' persons do not, for they
represent a potential solution to our present problems, and not to those
problems which are as yet either unseen or only dimly percieved, which
will emerge in the future. It can be very galling for us if these
persons are younger than us, or of a different sex, or sexual
orientation, or race, or whatever, because they are both a challenge and
a threat to our current beliefs and prejudices. Even if they share most
of these attributes with us, we are inclined to categorize them as
'outsiders', in some sense or other, and if nothing else serves than we
can always use politics or religion to define them as the enemy. And we
do. It matters not if we belong to the same religious denomination.
There is always a sub-category ('modernist' was in common use in
religious circles for years) which can be used to fend off the
uncomfortable recognition that these people may actually have something
valid to say. The pain and confusion are even more intense if I am aware
that what these people have is what I want. Then issues of shame, of
personal adequacy, become powerfully evident.
DMB says...
No comment, except to say that one of the basic archetypes is the mentor. In
our time this important figure has been reduced to a kind of gentle drill
sargent like Obi Wan or that guy who trained the karate kid.
John said...
Somewhere in Lila Pirsig talks about suffering being the flip side of
quality. I don't hear this quoted very often in this forum, and I
actually responded with considerable dislike to his argument when I
first read it. All too often, such arguments are used to justify what is
unjustifiable. Besides which, none of us likes to hear that suffering is
a necessary part of our world, which proceeds on the assumption, at
least in the west, that suffering is to be avoided, or defeated by the
wonders of technology, or if absolutely necessary, endured.
DMB says...
Yup. being born hurts. Being born again hurts even more. But oh, that first
breath...
John said...
If, though, we take seriously the view of human development I have
outlined above, suffering is indeed inevitable in the process of growth.
Pain is what generally gives us the impetus to move on. The lure of
quality can also stimulate development, and it appears that many
creative people are more driven by this attraction to quality than by
seeking to diminish pain. Yet all of us experience both, the carrot of
quality and the stick of suffering. Seen in this light, I would agree
with Pirsig that suffering is necessary. (But all too often the powerful
tell us that suffering is good for us, when what they really mean is
that our suffering is good for them.)
DMB says...
Uh huh. That old Buddhist saying; that fear and desire is the cause of all
suffering becomes much more comprehensable to the Western mind in light of
the work of Pirsig and Wilber.
John said...
One reason I continue in this forum is because I actually want to
explore and work on the cycle called myself (ZMM Ch 26), and I trust
that others are doing the same. But also I want the world to be a better
place. Pirsig says " I think that if we are going to reform the world
and make it a better place to live in, the way to do it is not with talk
about relationships of a political nature, which are inevitably
dualistic, full of subjects and objects and their relationships to one
another; or with programs full of things for other people to do ... The
place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and
hands, and then work outward from there." (ZMM Ch 25) And Pirsig tells
us that "care and Quality are internal and external aspects of the same
thing ... the difference between a good mechanic and bad one ... is
precisely this ability to select the good facts from the bad ones on the
basis of quality. He has to care!" (ZMM Ch 24)
DMB says...
Right. It all starts at home. But its also got to move outdoors. John Brown
did just sit on his couch thinking about how nice it would be if slavery
ended. Ghandi and the Brujo were outdoorsmen in this sense too. In the act
of working out their own personal problems they improved the lives of
others. They cared deeply, even if some folks thought they weren't
particularly nice. In this sense being nice and polite ain't worth much.
But in spite of that fact, again, thanks for the kind words,
DMB
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 - 16:02:00 BST