Re: MD Send your money in.

From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Fri Aug 13 2004 - 15:47:41 BST

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "Re: MD Fox News and Logical Analysis"

    Hi Mark and David M, and all,

    msh says:
    Thanks for the link, Mark. And remember, a metaphysics is neither
    right nor wrong, no more than polar coordinates are wrong and
    Cartesian coordinates are right, or Riemann was right and Euclid was
    wrong. The question is, how useful is it in describing reality.

    Mark M 13-8-04: Hi Mark H, I agree. KW does not present a clear metaphysical
    stance in his writing. So, we have two points to consider: 1. What, if any, is
    KW's metaphysical basis? 2. Which one interpreted by commentators from KW's
    primary texts, if any, is best?

    I think we all prefer MOQ over SOM because MOQ allows us to make
    value judgements that are not just personal opinion. There's no room
    for objective value in a SOM because everything is either mind or
    matter.
    My problem is that, although I prefer MOQ, I'm constantly being held
    down by SOM. It's a struggle.

    Mark M 13-8-04: There is plenty of evidence in KW's writing that he does not
    endorse a SOM metaphysics. So, thumbs aloft to KW for that. But KW's
    'non-dual' approach borrows so much from so many disparate sources that a spirit is
    much in evidence, hence the angles and Jesus and Moses flying around KW's head
    and related paraphernalia.

    Mark-M:
    I've read many articles by KW which have made good reading and
    enjoyed them. However, these are far outweighed by material i found
    to be very depressing, especially when reflecting upon gullible
    nature from which, sound intellect may not guarantee protection.

    msh says:
    I've read some material by KW but was kind of put off by the quality
    of his writing, which I found to be a bit awkward. I'm also turned
    off my the pounding commercialism of his sites. (Sorry DMB, I know
    he's a friend of yours). But I know this doesn't mean he offers
    nothing of value. Mark, can you refer me to some of the material you
    enjoyed?

    Mark 13-8-04: I enjoyed this:
    http://www.shambhalasun.com/Archives/Features/1996/Sept96/KenWilber.htm

    I'd also be interested in what you call his depressing
    reflections "upon gullible nature from which, sound intellect may not
    guarantee protection."

    Mark 13-8-04: These reflections are mine regarding KW' biggest fans. I'm
    saying that many very intelligent people become excited and uncritical about all
    sorts of low Quality ideas.

    Thanks,
    Mark Steven Heyman (msh)

    Always welcome,
    All the best,
    Mark

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 13 2004 - 15:49:22 BST