Dear Erin, Rod, Roger/Rog/Risky/Risque/Mirror Boy, David B., John B. and
Sam,
I wrote 16/3 17:28 +0100:
'Openness to new core ideas ... may require an intellectual pattern of
values that is ... near but not highest in quality. The highest level
intellectual pattern of values, the one that has migrated farthest toward
DQ, balances maximum stability and versatility and harmonizes with DQ. ...
Maximum stability implies maximum immunity to change of its core ideas.
Maximum versatility implies maximum openness to new fringe ideas, deflecting
initiatives to challenge core ideas. And relative harmony with DQ means
relatively less need to take a next step toward DQ compared to an
intellectual pattern of values that is just lagging behind in the migration
toward DQ.
... [The Dutch equivalent of] "dialectics of progress" ... could be more
directly translated as "the law of the inhibiting lead". It is a
(descriptive) law ... to explain the phenomenon that a next step in social
progress is usually set not by the leading society, but by a society that is
just lagging behind. ... Maybe this "law of the inhibiting lead" is also
valid for intellectual patterns of values?
If so, propagating openness to real radical new ideas requires taking as
starting point an intellectual pattern of values that is just lagging behind
the "top dog", that consequently has taken battering from the dominant
intellectual pattern of values on its core ideas and that is therefore more
open to change of its core ideas. I'd bet on religion (rather than science)
as a good starting point. ... Traditional religious ways of ascribing
Meaning to everything have been eroded by the scientific world view (in some
religious movements more than for others..., among Quakers especially so),
but the notion that striving for Meaning goes beyond striving for truth has
stayed.'
Erin wrote 16/3 16:08 -0500:
'what is different about a religion/Meaning based view of progress then a
science/knowledge based view of progress? ... the only crystal clear aspect
is that indicative of health. ... knowledge/meaning are the means to health.
You and Roger seem to differ on the means but agree on the goal. So if you
could expand on why is religion necessary for health I would be interested.'
Rod wrote 16/3 22:15 +0000:
'Progress is not necessarily always a "forward" movement, ... As in
evolution there are many dead ends ... the option is to ... carry on
regardless, or backtrack to a point where an alternative path is offered.
But backtracking requires us to admit we went wrong somewhere along the
line, I think Wim's idea is along these lines, but unlike Wim I don't see
religion as an alternative path. In fact I see some religions as the
beginning of the wrong path.
So an investigation into what has been the "best" our history has to offer
is in order.
The move toward DQ is a move toward "mystic reality", the pre-intellectual
experience of reality.'
Roger/Risky/... wrote 16/3 19:10 -0500:
'I too need to understand the religious accent to Wim's view of progress.
... my views of progress do correlate with knowledge in its broadest sense,
science is just a particular example.'
David B. wrote 16/3 17:58 -0700:
'I think religion will be an important element in any genuine progress. It
needs to be re-integrated into our intellectual descriptions and
comprehension of reality. SOM's dismissal of this human heritage has only
resulted in an amoral scientific objectivity and is also at the root of
reactionary fundamentalist movements. On page 309 the author says...
"What the MOQ concludes is that the old Puritan and Victorian social codes
should not be followed blindly, but should not be attacked blindly either.
They should be dusted off and re-examined, fairly and impartially, to see
what they were trying to accomplish and what they actually DID accomplish
toward building a stronger society.'
John B. wrote 17/3 14:03 +1000:
'Lapsley uses Loevinger's schematization of ego development (Impulse
ridden -
conformist - conscientious - autonomous - integrated) as a way of mapping
how health might be described at each level. His view of salvation is
"primarily as the enhancement and preservation of personhood". He then looks
at how pastoral care in Christian ministry might be built around these
different levels of ego development and the development of good health at
each level.
Like Ken Wilber, he takes for granted that what is 'good' for any level is
defined in the context of that level. Each level brings a new world, an
access to a new reality. The 'facts' are different at each level, since each
level views the world differently. The implication is that religion must
tailor its message to the level of the recipient, so that there is no one
religious response appropriate to all. If health is the highest 'good', then
religion must fit with that understanding. I doubt that Wim will completely
agree.'
Sam wrote 24/11 12:03 -0000:
'I don't agree that "anything static is immoral from a Dynamic point of
view" ... I don't think it is possible to speak of morality "from a Dynamic
point of view", or even from a static point of view at all. The
dynamic/static split is *within* quality, and any dynamic or static aspect
has to be assessed from the overall quality point of view in order to
establish whether it is moral or immoral (or neutral). To say "anything
static is immoral from a Dynamic point of view" seems to suggest that DQ is
the sole source of morality/goodness/quality and I don't think that is true.
... [And reacting to my 'Valuing "mainstream" and "conventional thinking"
versus being prejudiced in favor of any reasonable alternative, priest
versus prophet, church versus religion':] I think there are both static and
dynamic aspects in all of them.'
Both science and religion have static and dynamic aspects. Both science and
religion have -apart from dynamic aspects- intellectual, social and
maybe even biological aspects.
The dynamic aspect of religion can be described as I did 9/6 20:54 +0100:
'Religion (with its Latin root re-ligare, to reconnect) can be defined as
the essentially human pursuit of re-experiencing DQ. Some of it crystallizes
in social and intellectual patterns of course, and those with a vested
interest in the output of former prophets will deny the possibility of new
DQ. Religion as a whole however has a good claim to being the field of human
activity that is most open to incorporating DQ when it turns up. As such it
has a longer standing than science, and -after Kuhn showed the
interdependence of science and social patterns- it is in my opinion in no
way inferior.'
The intellectual aspect of religion, religion as an intellectual pattern of
values trying to capture some 'truth' explaining experience, is definitely
inferior to science. Those in power (the 30% 'orange people' with 50% of
power, see John B. 25/3 5:20 +1000 or Wilber himself) experience scientific
truth as the highest achievable quality. They are not open to DQ and to
change of their intellectual patterns of values. These intellectual patterns
of values are the best ones available, which implies that they combine high
stability (resistance to change) with high versatility (adaptability to
change in lower level patterns of values; a lot of room for disagreement
about non-core values and openness for non-essential ideas, deflecting
dispute of core values/ideas). Science has 'beaten' religion (and its
alternative sources of truth) into submission. Religion has two options. The
first (chosen by most religions) is to retreat into catering for the 70%
'purple, red and blue people' (with 36% of power). The second option is to
focus less on 'truth' and more on 'Meaning'/DQ, which helps intellectual
patterns of values to migrate towards DQ. This second type of religion
caters only for the 11,1% 'green, yellow and turquoise people' and is
therefore relatively invisible compared with the majority religions.
I'm not even sure whether 'green people' are open to real change in their
pet intellectual patterns of values; they may only be more abstract and
recognizing more diversity (maybe the MoQ/alternative science caters mainly
to green people?!). That would mean that religions that are really helpful
to make intellectual patterns of values transcend the border between
Wilber's 'first and second tier consciousness' cater only for 1,1% of the
population and are even more difficult to find.
The social aspect of religion, the habitual, status-oriented and
social-order re-inforcing aspect, is of course mainly relevant for the
religions that cater for those in power (to the extent that they haven't
exchanged religion for science and agnosticism or atheism). Even if those
are the majority or religions, it is not right to associate the whole of
religion with 'old Puritan and Victorian social codes' as David B. does.
I don't think I have 'a religion/Meaning based view of progress', Erin. I
hope it is an 'overall assessment of progress' in which religion that has
chosen the second option may be an essential element.
I don't think, Rod, that the 'dead ends of progress' mean that we have taken
a wrong path. It may mean that we have taken the path to the highest
achievable quality ... for the moment. Even if reaching towards higher
levels of quality requires backtracking (to lower quality patterns of values
and from there upwards, because higher quality patterns of values are too
stable), it may be essential for preventing all-out degeneration to even
lower levels that a majority of people sticks to these 'dead end patterns of
values' until the minority (after having backtracked and reached upward
again) has found a static latch at a higher level. I'm not sure if we should
equate 'mystic' and 'pre-intellectual' experience and ... before intellect
'experience' was not 'experience of reality', because 'reality' was
postulated by intellect.
My view of progress, Roger/Risky/..., is that existing types of
knowledge/truth have to be transcended and included. The only way to prevent
people from digging in and resisting transcending of their type of truth is
opening them up to Meaning/DQ.
Most religions will not be an important element in genuine progress, David
B., but still have to be integrated/included in order not to leave the
people they cater for behind.
If you define health as broadly as you do, John. B., including biological,
mental and spiritual health, I completely agree with (contrary to your
expectation).
And for Sam I reserve a special thread ;-) (Static and Dynamic aspects of
religion and mysticism) in which I will reply to your 26/3 12:51 -0000
posting in due course.
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 - 16:02:03 BST