From: storeyd (storeyd@bc.edu)
Date: Sun Apr 25 2004 - 03:58:25 BST
Mark,
I wanted to add a supplement to dmb's cogent explanation of transpersonality
and the spiritual domain. Your reaction--namely, nervousness--is the way that
both modernity and postmodernity typically react to "eastern stuff." The
problem breaks down somewhat like this: with the differentiation of the three
primary modes of being-in-the-world, namely, I, we, and it, or subjective,
intersubjective, and objective, or the three domains of knowledge, art,
morals, and science, each branch of knowledge is freed up from the claims of
all the others (what the MOQ calls teh social level), and they are free to
explore and develop as they please. however, the latter, science, has
developed so much faster than the others, not only because its effects and
verification are visible , efficient, and "practical, but because it usurped
the proper place of the first two branches, even denied their existence. as
wilber typically puts it, the enlightenment was all about making maps of
reality, joyfully enacting the representational paradigm...but the vast
majority of these maps leave out the mapmaker. as kierkegaard said in
reference to hegel, the system is a great and grand and wonderful castle, but
it has not room for the philosopher who built it. or as habermas puts it,
the third branch of knowledge "colonized" the lifeworld of the individual and
the collective, materializing and economizing aesthetic and moral experience.
however, while habermas and critical theory in general has all but exhausted
the critique of modernity and reached the limits of postmodernity (which is
another way of saying the limits of REASON), they have nothing positive to put
in its place, because they have not yet lifted that have been upheld for
centuries agaisnt the concrete, practical reality of individual levels of
consciousness that transcend reason, which brings me to mark's reaction. as
wilber shows to a much fuller degree than pirsiq, that nervousness, that
angst, that fear, uncertainty, etc., which the thought, even the mention, of
the transpersonal/transrational inspiries, is in fact not only the death
throws of reason, but the death throes of the ego. what you have to see if
that the ego, the self-concept, personhood, etc., is really just one form of
awareness, a derivative one that comes after the fact, as pirsig demonstrates
with the hot stove experiement. furthermore, this notion of personhood is
perfectly linked with the emergence of perspectival reason, which is where our
good old friend SOM first becomes possible. again, this is what we call
modern cognition; remember, before modernity, the individual is not the
primary source of identity; you are a member of the tribe before you are a
person, properly speaking. so what am i saying? that reason and personhood
are the parents of SOM, and, even though they are the latest development in
the evolution of consciousness, the most recent static pattern of human
cognition, they believe that they are the ceiling of development, the end;
this is why habermas, critical theory, postmodernism, and contemporary
philosophy in general can go absolutely nowhere, can generate nothing positive
until they realize that their nervousness about transpersonal cognition,
mystical experience, AND EASTERN THOUGHT IN GENERAL, is merely a product of
forms of cognition whose partiality they have critiqued they hell out of.
Kant saw this, but he had the bias as well. so, to derrida's famous charge,
that western thought in general has sufferred from a "phallologophonocentric
bias" needs to supplemented by another: the rational bias, which does not
admit, and severely frowns upon, higher, transpersonal levels of awareness.
the problem , of course, is that the only people who think about these things
that have any attempt to change the course of collective thought are
philosophy professors, who work in a highly politically charged industry where
any adherence to transpersonality, spirituality, etc, is not only laughed at,
but is a quick and sure root to professional ruin. therefore, only rogues
like wilber and pirsig are free from the slings and arrows of philosophology,
and their patient and passionate wisdom will hopefully permeate the palace of
postmodern philosophy, and maybe even politics too, though both, especially
the latter, are extremely unlikely. but to wrap this up, when we talk about
the spiritual domain, what we're really saying is that real religious
experience is not about the exteriors, the customs, rites, historical truth
claims, etc. of any particular religion (the social level aspects), it's about
the individual experience, awareness, etc., and the religious forms are merely
a springboard towards individual development, to transcend the static
patterns. another way of saying this is that real spirituality is about the
internal, rather than the external, and the reason you feel nervous about this
stuff is that we live in a social world that for the most part refused to
believe in internality in any form, which is precisely why we all feel so
self-alienated, depoliticized, dehumanized, etc., why we are, to put it
bluntly, a prozac nation. hope that clears some things up.
-Dave
>Hello dmb,
>Great post. I agree with Wilbur's overview.
>But when transpersonal consciousness and the spiritual domain are mentioned
>i become nervous. I don't understand what these terms mean? They may not
>mean what i assume they mean in Wilbur's quote?
>
>For Wilbur, is transpersonal consciousness theoretical? Is the spiritual
>domain a theory?
>
>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 : Sun Apr 25 2004 - 04:03:41 BST