From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon May 26 2003 - 11:28:44 BST
Hi David,
Sam said to Steve:
just to throw in some more ingredients to the mix, I personally like
Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and also Erikson's 8-stage theory of
development (both of which end up describing something akin to an
'autonomous individual', as I understand it.)
dmb says:
Yes! And even though you're suspicious of Wilber, he too likes Maslow,
Erickson and others and includes their views in his own work. (I'd say that
personal autonomy is an important feature of the 4th level, but to say its
the essence we have to ignore the exterior and collective dimensions of that
level of values.) But given that you like these developmental hierarchies,
how is it you can reject Pirsig's?...
Seems like I'm going to have to get hold of at least one book by Wilber (how to choose amongst the
plethora?), just to give substance to why I don't 'get' him (although, of course, I could be bowled
over by his analysis). I'm just unclear as to what he adds to his 'colligation' of the various
thinkers, other than the new vocabulary of 'holons' and 'holarchies' etc. Why shouldn't people just
read Erikson and Maslow first - and then, if they see quality in Wilber, see what his comments on
them might add? And nobody ever came back to me on why he should be characterised as a 'scholar',
given his biography, which made me a bit suspicious. I wonder if there is anyone on this list who
has *become* a fan of Wilber following all the references to him that have been made, or whether
people arrive at the discussion having either read or not read him, and become confirmed in that
stance from all the extracts? Just curious.
Also - I don't reject Pirsig's hierarchy; I reject his conception of the highest static level, and
think it could benefit from being reformulated.
Sam said to Paul:
My worry is that this then ties into a Platonic perspective, ie quality
increases with abstraction, or, in different terms, you pursue the good/DQ
through intellectual ascent. I'm not sympathetic to that point of view, but
I'm happy to hear from people who are.
dmb says:
As I and others have repeatedly tried to point out, this notion of the 4th
level as mere abstraction doesn't look like the MOQ that I know.
Well - that might say more about selective perception. After all, it does seem to tie in with what
Pirsig says (and I'm not the only person to point that out).
dmb continues:
Pirsig says flat out that the 4th is more moral than the 3rd.
Yep - that's why it's a higher level, it has more value - and given how he defines it, this backs up
my point to Paul, no?
dmb continues:
I honestly don't know why
you REFUSE to admit that Pirsig ain't Spock. I mean, the MOQ is largely an
attack on amorality, especially at the intellectual level. The intellect
that you're objecting to is SOM, which is exactly what Pirsig objects to.
This is the whole point of Lila, no? Not just to attack SOM, but also
replace it with the MOQ, which paints morals as the center and substance of
everything.
I think that ZAMM was a much clearer "attack on amorality, especially at the intellectual level" -
and it's what I most like about his position. I think that there is a deep inconsistency in the MoQ
as presented in Lila, which I have tried to spell out in my essay, viz that Pirsig doesn't give an
account of how emotion functions at the fourth level; he doesn't include it in his account of
intellect; and consequently I don't think his understanding of the fourth level adds up. Would you
deny that Spock is an outstanding example of an intellectually dominated person, as defined in the
standard account?
dmb continues:
Your insistence that a footnote from LILA'S CHILD defines the
intellectual level as the ability to "manipulate symbols" also reduces the
4th level to mere abstraction.
Interesting. When I disagree with Pirsig, it's 'outrageous' and 'narcissism'. Yet when you disagree
with Pirsig, that's OK? Why shouldn't we use Pirsig's clarifications of the MoQ to better understand
his position?
dmb continues:
But given that Pirsig says all of life is an
ethical activity, it seems quite unfair and wrong-headed to accuse Pirsig of
such a thing.
That's why I think there is an inconsistency in his construction of level 4. What I am trying to do
is make it consistent around the most important insight of the MoQ - that "all of life is an ethical
activity" - or, perhaps better, everything is composed of Quality. I don't think his conception of
level 4 has Quality, that's all.
Cheers
Sam
You must fuse mind and wit with all the senses
before you can feel truth.
And if you can't feel truth you can't have any other
satisfactory sensual experience.
(DH Lawrence, 'Sense of Truth')
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 : Mon May 26 2003 - 12:24:24 BST