Dear John B. (and Scott),
I am replying to your (John) post which you wrote (according to my computer)
19/8 0:28 +1000 (but which I received only 22/8 1:10 +0200) BEFORE I read
your 22/8 20:58 +1000 (which I received 22/8 19:39 +0200) as that was how
you intended it and it makes things less complicated to leave that (long)
post for later.
You write:
'I have raised Whitehead's views (as interpreted by Wilber) three times in
this forum, seemingly without interest'
Please note that I DID react with interest the first time (as I did the
second time).
In my 21/8 23:09 +0200 post (on Free Will, the one you reacted negatively
to) I suggest three ways of explaining 'something' in the MoQ:
1) explanation from the next lower level (explanation from an 'objective
point of view'?)
2) explanation from its own level (explanation from an 'subjective point of
view'?)
3) explanation from the next higher level
Would this last type of explanation be a way to 'include how we are "guided
towards" what is of more value' (à la Whitehead/Wilber's 'illuminat[ing] the
lower by the higher')?
Quoting my 21/8 23:09 +0200 post:
'The idea of Free Will finally has pragmatic value spiritually (in our
striving to break free from all, even intellectual, static patterns of
values to reach for the moon of DQ). Just 'find' something you want which is
not within your reach (preferably something put upon your path by a Higher
Being) and your life gets Meaning in striving for it.'
In this case I tried to illuminate the intellectual quality of the IDEA OF
free will by the DQ/nascent 5th level's quality of giving/getting Meaning.
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:21 BST