Platt, Glenn, DMB and All.
I was very pleased when someone (Platt) put Ken Wilber in his right
place - regarding the MOQ that is, and that is our concern here. After
John Beasley started to bring him in I was more than sure that Wilber
had nothing to do with the MOQ because John B has never understood
it. Even more pleased when Glenn declared himself in agreement with
Platt on Wilber because Glenn has acted a kind of MoQ critic ...with
critics like that :-)
But from before I had been disturbed by DMB joining the Wilber
bandwagon - this because I place David very high on my list, so my
emotions has been in great turmoil of late :-). Wilber may be the best of
the NewAger writers/thinkers but he is not saying what Pirsig says ...or
saying it better as I believe John B. wants us to think. He is
subject/object through and through.
On 5 May 2002 at 23:05, Glenn Bradford wrote:
(to David after DMB had said)
> >Glenn, Platt and y'all:
> >Platt said:
> >Thanks for confirming my claim. Wilber's "it-domain" is objective.
> >His "I and we domains" are subjective. Strictly old school divisions.
> >Glenn said:
> >I agree with Platt. This quote doesn't attempt to ground a
> >subject/object reality into a third category as Pirsig does. However,
> > since science is the hand-maiden of the SOM, perhaps David thinks
> >that rants against science, like the one below, are indicative of an
> >anti-S/O bias. In fact it is just an anti-O bias.
> >DMB says:
> >Hmmm. Very bizzare. You both seem oblivious to the obvious. Its hard
> >to take your objections seriously when it seems that you don't even
> >understand what you're reading, but I'll waste some time and provide
> >an answer anyway.
> No, it's not bizarre and it's not a product of our poor reading
> comprehension. Both Platt and I are pointing out that in the quote you
> offered yesterday, Wilber is arguing from a S/O viewpoint. There are
> subjectivist and objectivist positions from this viewpoint, and he
> took the subjectivists position, not some higher metaphysical ground.
> The quotes you offer today are different and actually support your
> contention. If you'd provided these quotes to begin with you'd not
> have wasted *our* time.
> >Glenn:
> >Note the over-the-top belief that science has "completely gutted" the
> >"entire interior dimensions" followed by the sad-sack resentment of
> >modern man. I suppose rhetoric like this is the only way he feels he
> >can attract attention. Reasoned, level-headed thinking just won't do.
> >DMB says:
> >If you think Wilber is over-the-top then so is Pirsig, because he
> >says essentially the same thing. "the metaphysics of
> >substance...regards both society and intellect (subjects) as
> >possessions of biology (objects). It says society AND intellect don't
> >have substance and therefore can't be real. It says biology is where
> >reality stops. Society and intellect are ephemeral POSSESSIONS of
> >reality." (Lila page 265.) And I suppose that Pirsig is equally a
> >sad-sack resenter too. "A scientific, intellectual culture had become
> >a culture of million of isolated people living and dying in little
> >cells of psychic solitary confinement, unable to talk to one another,
> >really, and unable to judge one another because scientifically
> >speaking it is impossible to do so." (page 283)
I don't know exactly what being over-the-top means but I guess it's
being "nutty". We all know that Pirsig is nutty about the MOQ and that
SOM is part of it and that is why a group of people finds it worth
discussing his ideas ...some even being a bit nutty about Pirsig. DMB
correctly quotes Pirsig pointing to the short-comings of the SOM which
he mysteriously calls a "metaphysics of substance" at this one instance.
Mysteriously because SOM is as much a metaphysics of "mind". It is a
metaphysics of a MIND/SUBSTANCE split for Chrissake!!!!!
Glenn:
> Yes, Pirsig is over-the-top about SOM just as Wilber is about
> scientism. And yes, both show a sad-sack resentment toward the modern
> scientific world. Thanks for the quotes supporting this opinion.
And this split does not bring Wilber over-the-top, he just wants the mind
part sanctified - like a million plus other well-meaning writers, but that
has nothing to do with the MOQ.
Bo
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 - 16:02:15 BST