Hi John,
You've misinterpreted my Jungian analysis of Lila: it
was merely a "performance" for you to witness. I
wanted to "show" you what "showing" is. My analysis
was an EXAMPLE of "showing." I "showed" my thoughts; I
"showed" how a story can hermeneutically affect
someone. I showed my DQ in reading a story.
The point is, a story is OPEN to interpretation by
anybody and in anyway. That is HOW myths work. That is
how stories work. They reach the DQ on each person in
its own sort of way. That is my point.
BUT there is an sq side too I guess so I'll jump into
your sandbox since you are hesitant to jump in mine.
> In short, a myth serves
> Campbell's main function only when it ceases to be a
> myth and is released
> into the space of reason, into the space of
> alternatives and possibilities
> and as-ifs. What structure does he think Kant is
> operating from?" (pp 238 -
> 239)
Wilber is wrong here. Campbell uses reason with myth
BECAUSE it is HIS CALLING, HIS DQ. For Wilber to
criticize Campbell for being Campbell is suspicious.
Does Campbell want everyone to rationalize about myth?
For God sakes, NO. NO. NO, as much as Mr. Wilber wants
you to believe. Campbell wants our society to get back
to true myth and he uses his calling of rationalizing
mythology to get there. To confuse Campbell's calling
with Campbell's message shows Wilber's poor
understanding of Campbell. Wilber reminds me of those
savants who memorize the encyclopedia and just spit
out "facts" without actually "getting it." To
reiterate, Campbell uses Rational thought to
communicate the NEED to get back to true myth, he does
not want everybody to sit there rationalizing about
myth.
> All excellence is elitist. And that
> includes spiritual
> excellence as well. But spiritual excellence is an
> elitism to which all are
> invited." ('One Taste', p 34) Here Wilber makes
> clear that the appeal to
> quality is elitist, inevitably.
I consider it "spiritual racism" or rather "spiritual
colorism". The way he labels people as "orange" and
"red" is sickening in my opinion. And he sets it up so
he can promote his fascist political agenda which
involves "second tier" people running society.
> Those who claim Wilber never says anything original
> should pay more
> attention to his pre/trans argument, since it is
> fundamental to clarifying
> much discussion in the postmodern era.
Can you explain it? It makes no sense to me. I'm open
to it.
> But it assumes a
> developmental hierarchy, and if
> that is disallowed then all is indeed 'equal',
Ok, so, Wilber's discovery is labelling people by
colors according to the level of spirituality in his
estimation. Does that not make him judge, and thus
your god? It's a great question though that he
addresses: upon what basis do we take from the
individual and give to society? For him, it depends on
your spiritual development because only those on the
2nd tier are the best to judge. How is that not
fascism?
> While Pirsig falls into this trap a number of times
> in Lila, the very fact
> of his writing a novel and a metaphysics and having
> it published is the best
> argument against his views.
I believe in the exact opposite. The fact he wrote
both a metaphysics (sq) and a story (DQ) means he
"gets it" at some level. Here's more Wilber
questionable thoughts:
>>starting with Heidegger--and shall we note his now
>>infamous, unrepentant complicity with the
Nazis?-->>and his philosophical comrades, early
Foucault, most >>of Derrida, late Wittgenstein, the
spin-offs and >>wannabes
Heidegger is "wrong" because he is a Nazi???? What????
Hellooo??? Wagner's music is TERRIBLE SOUNDING because
Wagner was an anti-semite. That's how Wilber reasons.
Oh, and let's lump in Wittgenstein, who is half
Jewish, in the same Nazi paragraph.
> 220) He acknowledges
> "there is a rush of energy in reading Jung or
> Campbell or Eliade or even
> Bly - we are watering our roots, and they help send
> forth new branches.
I believe this is called "damning with faint praise."
> He concludes "I
> agree entirely with Jung
> on the necessity of differentiating and integrating
> this archaic heritage; I
> do not for one minute believe that this has anything
> to do with genuine
> mystical spirituality." (p 248)
Again, Wilber is wrong in the same way that he is
wrong with Campbell. 'Archetypes' are Jung's DQ,
Jung's calling. He rationalizes about archetypes
BECAUSE he wants to give a MESSAGE to people to WAKE
up to their spiritual nature. Archetypes are RATIONAL
tools to communicate with yourself on spiritual
matters, they are not spirituality. Archetypes are a
rational tool that can "link" to your spiritual side.
But people don't mistake the tools for the spirit? Is
that Wilber's insight? The tools are not spirit?
Wilber regularly mistakes the trees for the forest.
> This seems to me spot on.
And you get to inherit his errors too.
Regards,
Angus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
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 - 16:02:10 BST