Re: MD The Eudaimonic MoQ

From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Fri May 30 2003 - 16:43:23 BST

  • Next message: Elizaphanian: "Re: MD The Eudaimonic MoQ"

    Hi Steve,

    I'll try and get hold of that Wilber. At least then I'll have some legitimacy in my criticisms!

    :
    : I guess if you only consider those who have advanced degrees and work in
    : academia as scholars, then Wilber is not one.
    :

    I consider those who are validated by academia to be scholars; advanced degrees are helpful in
    becoming a scholar, but not absolutely essential. The criterion is acceptability by the academic
    community, who apply particular standards. So I would accept that Wilber is a scholar if there is
    evidence that he is taken seriously by the academic community (and there may well be such; I don't
    know).

    By the way, if it wasn't clear as an implication of my 'eudaimonic' argument, I'll spell it out: I
    don't see academic acceptability as the same as Quality, somewhat the reverse these days. I don't
    think Pirsig is a 'scholar', but he is a profound thinker all the same.

    Cheers
    Sam

    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 May 30 2003 - 16:45:57 BST