Hi Gary:
PH
> > Incidentally, "holons"are just another way to divide
> > experience--wholes
> > and parts. It's typical of Wilber's theories: they
> > bring lots of disparate
> > ideas together, but (unlike the MOQ) add nothing new
> > to what has been
> > said before.
GJ:
> Sorry Platt, but you don't understand Holons or
> continuums. Lets start with the word continuum. In
> reality nothing is 100% black or 100% white, in case
> you didn't noticed :)
Your assertion that nothing is black or white reminds me of Wilber's
statement to those who believe in radical egalitarianism in "Sex,
Ecology, Spirituality," page 25, where he wrote: "What they don't seem
to realize is that valued embrace of heterarchy is itself a hierarchical
judgment." Similarly, your assertion is self-contradictory--a black and
white statement that nothing is black and white.
>The continuum is a non-Aristotelian [null-a]
> tool. It is one of those secrets of the universe, a
> sort of 'swiss army' knife idea. Multi-purpose!
> Pirsig's Quality works as either dynamic - static or
> the old romantic - classic , because they are actually
> a continuum of descriptions.
Well sure, the words you wrote above are a continuum from the first
word every spoken by Gog the caveman to the last word to be spoken
by the last person on earth as the sun fries the planet into a cinder. It's
all a continuum, so what? What profound understanding of reality does
that afford?
> You are the one with the problem if you think that a
> holon, a new word for a newly recognized concept
> [invented by Arthur Koestler is "The Ghost in the
> Machine".], is "parts and wholes". There is no "and"
> in a Holon! It is a seamless duality! You must know
> that a photon is both a particle and a wave prior to
> someone observing it.
Wait a minute. You say that is no "and" in a holon, and then
immediately say that the photon holon consists of "a particle AND a
wave." And I have a problem?
>At the moment of observation
> the photon takes on the attributes of the observe.
> The act of observing determines whether the photon
> will be "seen" as either a particle or a wave. When
> you analyze a holon the conceptual tool you use to
> consider it will make it seem like it is only a part
> or only a whole. It is neither.
Speaking of conceptual tools, do you reject logic entirely? Or just when
it's inconvenient?
PH
> >It's typical of Wilber's theories: they
> > bring lots of disparate
> > ideas together, but (unlike the MOQ) add nothing new
> > to what has been
> > said before.
GJ
> Hey, don't blame Wilber for your lack of
> understanding. If you read [Wilber] him and actually
> try to understood him, he has been very clear saying
> that this is a "new" idea.
Oh, so if one claims he has a new idea it must be a new idea? Where
did that idea come from?
> You just don't get it. Go
> back and read "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality". And check
> out Koestler's book. Pirsig is not the only human on
> the planet to have an original thought. Pirsig is a
> genius, but so was Einstein, Koestler, Korzybski, and
> I think, even Wilber.
One man's genius is another man's mediocrity. There are lots of
original thoughts around, like Marxism. Originality/quality is NOT a
holon. (-:
Platt
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