From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun May 04 2003 - 20:10:14 BST
Howdy Sam and y'all:
Sam said:
I asked those questions because it seemed to me that you were bringing in
Wilber as an 'authority',
and I don't recognise Wilber as an authority, so it didn't add anything to
your argument. So for
example, when Wilber says: "with the irreversible differentiantions of
modernity, most of those
premodern beliefs and functions of religion are no longer legitimate and can
no longer be sustained
in modern consciousness (except among those who remain at a premodern level
oin their own
development)" or "Mythology is true enough in its own world-space; its just
that perspectival reason
is "more true": more developed, more differentiated-and-integrated, and more
sophisticated in its
capacity to disclose verifiable knowledge" I think that his understanding of
modernity (and
religion) is deeply flawed. This is something on which you and I have
already locked horns in some
depth, so I don't see what bringing in Wilber adds to the discussion.
dmb says:
Authority has nothing to do with it. Just erase his name and look at the
ideas. (I should add, however, that Ken Wilber is currently America's most
widely translated scholar and is considered by many people to be a genius.
This is no reason to suspend judgement or criticism or otherwise make him an
unassailable authority, but to dismiss him outright strikes me as a bit
foolish.) Just forget who said it and examine the thoughts expressed. That's
the important part. Anything less is merely an ad hominom attack. I tend to
import his work into this forum and into our discussions becasue he not only
discusses the same issues that we are dealing with, he also shares much in
common with Pirsig. Often he says what Pirsig says, but in different terms.
This, it seems to me, is a good way to look at the very same things from a
slightly different angle. It lets us see Pirsig's concepts in 3-D, with
depth perception, so to speak. For example, in the extract above Wilber says
that premodern belief systems "can no longer be sustained in modern
consciousness except for those who remain at a pre-modern level in their own
development." Compare that to one of the key passages from Lila that we
looked at the start of this debate. It is a quote you had trouble with and
so I hoped that hearing it from me, from Wilber and from Pirsig would all
work to together to make it clear. Remember this? "Phaedrus saw nothing
wrong with this ritualistic religion as long as the rituals are seen as
merely a static portrayal Dynamic Quality, a sign-post which allows socially
pattern-dominated people to see Dynamic Quality." Wilber is calling it
"premodern religion" and Pirsig calls it ritualistic religion for "socially
pattern-dominated people", but surely you can see that they are talking
about the same thing, no?
Sam said:
It seems to me that any valid points which Wilber makes can be introduced by
you in the course of
the discussion, it doesn't need an 'imprimatur' from Mr Wilber to give it
any greater force. In the
two years that I have been participating in this forum, I have read a lot of
Wilber extracts (from
you and John B)and he has never struck me as someone with anything
interesting to say (in contrast
to, for example, Kingsley, who I immediately thought sounded interesting -
or Barfield, although I
haven't got around to reading him yet). He seems to be primarily a
synthesist (nothing wrong with
that) but one who has a narrow perspective on mythology and religion in
general, and Christianity in
particular, so the resources that he is synthesising are impoverished. I'd
be interested to hear
what you have to say about the conflict between Wilber and Campbell that
Steve has brought up.
(Campbell is someone else who I think has something to say, and I am
definitely going to renew my
acquaintance with his 'myths to live by' that you quoted recently).
dmb says:
I had a discussion here with John Beasley about exactly this topic. (I miss
that guy alot) I'll try to find it and re-post it. Basically, I think Wilber
criticism is extemely subtle and is more properly aimed at some of
Campbell's fans rather than Campbell himself. Remember all that business
about the distinction between myth and fact as two modes of expression? That
is Campbell. I think JC is not so guilty of the pre/trans fallacy, except
perhaps in some very subtle ways, simply because he spends so much time and
effort making distinctions between myth and science, etc. And, again, my
infusion of Wilberism is not intended to add force so much as clarity.
Sam said:
As I said to Platt, I find Wilber to be a vacuous windbag. I much prefer
having a dialogue with you.
dmb says:
Wow, what a co-incidence! As I said to Wilber, I find Platt to be a vacuous
windbag. Just kidding. I spoke with Ken Wilber once, but I swear Platt's
name never came up. :-) But seriously, so far all you've done is simply say
you disagree, but without saying why, without actually engaging any of his
thoughts or ideas. All you've done so far is dismiss him and call him names.
This just doesn't cut it. Its nothing.
Thanks for your time,
DMB
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 : Sun May 04 2003 - 20:13:26 BST