From: Joe (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Wed Apr 28 2004 - 22:45:56 BST
On 25 April 2004 7:39 PM DMB writes:
Mark and all MOQers:
dmb says:
Wilber approaches the issues primarily by way of evolutionary psychology and
so does not begin with a metaphysical slice like Pirsig. Wilber's project
synthesizes so much data from so many sources and he uses all that to paint
such a broad picture, that it effectively constitutes an evolutionary
metaphysical system. As is always the case with such comparisons, there are
differences. But what they have both done is attack scientific materialism
and not just with the usual postmodern tactics. They both restore the
interior domains that SOM had relegated to the JUST subjective. They both
expand the meaning of the phrase "empirical experience" by including more
than just sensory data. They attack the same problems, arrive at the same
conclusions and suggest similar solutions, but they are not so much alike
that Wilber has matched Pirsig move for move. And if Wilber asserts a
metaphysical starting point in the same way Pirsig does, I'm not aware of
it.
joe: I accept the MOQ of Pirsig. IMO MOQ metaphysics are the acceptance of
DQ in terms of DQ-SQ quality.
I have not read Wilber. My comments are directed to the mystical acceptance
in the MOQ. IMO Wilber and Pirsig are not approaching the mystical
acceptance of DQ on the same basis. "Wilber's project synthesizes so much
date from so many sources and he uses all that to paint such a broad
picture, that it effectively constitutes an evolutionary metaphysical
system." IMO a mystical acceptance of "so much data" and "from so many
sources" and "paints such a broad picture" is not equal to a mystical
acceptance of DQ.
As to whose is the better approach, I am unqualified to say. I accept
Pirsig's finger pointing to a mystical acceptance of DQ. His explanation of
hierarchical levels determining moral behavior is astounding.
Can a new perception use an old vocabulary? Sure! Do not expect old wine
skins to be as strong as new skins.
DMB 24-04-04: "It is only when religion emphasizes its heart and soul and
essence- namely, direct mystical experience and transcendental
consciousness, which is disclosed not by the eye of the flesh (give that to
science) nor by the eye of mind (give that to philosophy) but rather by the
eye of contemplation that religion can both stand up to modernity and offer
something for which modenity has desperate need; a genuine, verifiable,
repeatable injunction to bring forth the spiritual domain. Religion in the
modern and postmodern world will rest on its unique strength - namely,
contemplation- or it will serve merely to support a premodern,
predifferentiated level of development in its own adherents; not an engine
of growth and transfromation, but a regressive, antiliberal, reactionary
force of lesser engagements."
joe: IMO Heart, Soul, Essence, Direct Mystical Experience, Transcendental
Consciousness, eye of flesh, eye of Mind, eye of Contemplation, Sprirtual
Domain are the old words.
David M 25-04-04: I have been disappointed by the overall reaction to Sam's
ideas, seems to me that we should be promoting the MOQ for all not driving
out people who bring in heavy baggage like Christianity or pragmatism or
whatever. Although I equally think people should not take offense at a bit
of heated argument or even abuse, but we aren't all as non-sensitive as I
am.
joe: IMO MOQ is a new word.
Joe Maurer
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 : Wed Apr 28 2004 - 22:48:00 BST