From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sun Jun 01 2003 - 10:49:01 BST
Hi David,
: dmb says:
: You underestimate the scope of his work. He doesn't just add comments to the
: work of others, he's trying to synthesize all the major hierarchical systems
: into a single picture, one that describes a universe that is evolutionary
: and developmental from head to toe....
<snip>
Which all sounds fine, but its something that various people have done (and are doing). The question
is what is Wilber bringing to the table, and is it any good? But I'll have to try him for myself.
: dmb says:
: Credentials carry SOME weight in my view of things, but me thinks thou doest
: protest too much. In 1905, when his theory of special relativity was
: published, Einstein was a clerk in a patent office. And he barely got out of
: school with it. Pirsig doesn't work in Academia either. I guess the only to
: do is read a book and see for yourself. It looks pretty scholarly to me.
I don't think I was protesting too much - it just seemed strange that you and others were trumpeting
his 'scholarship', but when I tried to examine his credentials, there didn't seem to be any. But I'm
in complete agreement that credentials, by themselves, don't add up to much. A fool can say the sun
will rise tomorrow, it doesn't make him wrong. Conversely, you can have qualifications up to your
eyeballs, and still completely miss the point.
: dmb says:
: Firstly, the narcissism charge. Sorry about that. I probably went too far
: there cause I was bugged. You'd said you didn't respond to "the main thrust"
: of my argument because you didn't recognize its relation to your own views.
: You've done the same sort of thing a number of times and I find it very
: frustrating. Its like I want to talk about ideas and the world and you want
: to talk about what Sam thinks. Narcissism struck me as a good word, but I
: wasn't thinking of it in terms of borderline psychosis, I just meant that it
: was rude to brush off a person's main point for such a reason. I mean, its
: hard to imagine how one could slam the breaks on a conversation any faster.
: To ignore or otherwise avoid the main thrust of what the other person is
: saying is a sure fire way to trash the debate, don't you think?
Actually, trying to put a brake on the debate is precisely what I was trying to do. You find that
frustrating, but I find it frustrating that you frequently attribute view X to me, when in fact my
view is Y (or 42 or whatever). I actually think our disagreements are much less than you think they
are - and one of us is misled! I think our principal disagreements (other than political/religious
ones) are about what level 4 consists in. I think we largely agree about the rest of the MoQ, so far
as I can see (ie levels 1 to 3, and the framework of SQ/DQ etc). So when you trundle off down the
well-hewn pathways of criticism of my views - which we have run around the block with on a number of
occasions - I'm now getting to the stage when I want to say "Stop! You're missing my point!".
Perhaps there is a little narcissism there, but there might be similar amounts on both sides of the
divide....
: Secondly, I'm not saying that we have to choose between the MOQ as it is in
: Lila on one hand and that single quote from Lila's Child. I'm saying you are
: incorrect to think they are in conflict. The quote from LC is a very
: specific answer to a very specific question. (One which is never included
: with the quote.) But one thing is for sure. That comment does NOT erase the
: MOQ as prestented in LILA. Its just a supplimental thought. The
: clarifications presented in LC, by the way, do not clear up problems in the
: orignal MOQ so much as they clear up the misconceptions of readers.
I don't think there is a conflict on this between Lila and LC - did I say there was? I think there
is a conflict between Lila and ZMM, which I'm trying to reconcile. Have you read LC? Pirsig repeats
his understanding of intellect in several places, so I think it's reasonable to say that it is his
view.
Anyhow, just for the avoidance of ambiguity - I'm not wanting to shout 'Stop!' on all our
conversations! :o)
Cheers
Sam
"Phaedrus is fascinated too by the description of the motive of 'duty toward self' which is an
almost exact translation of the Sanskrit word 'dharma', sometimes described as the 'one' of the
Hindus. Can the 'dharma' of the Hindus and the 'virtue' of the Ancient Greeks be identical?" - The
Eudaimonic MoQ says yes. "Lightning hits!"
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 Jun 01 2003 - 11:01:12 BST