From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jul 31 2004 - 21:56:32 BST
Hi DMB
Just so you know, I find your arguments here
perfectly fair. I do not know Wilber but will
try to take a look some time. There are clearly
many links and commonalities with Pirsig. In the
anti-SOM brother/sisterhood we should concentrate on
getting SOM put in its place rather than arguing about
who is most consistently non-SOM. Pirsig is not perfect
despite the greatness of his achievement. It is not easy
to get the SOM out of your language when it is so embedded
in our langauge, concepts, thoughts, daily lives. I find there
is stuff to add to Pirsig from many sources, Barfield, Jung, Heidegger,
Bergson, Whitehead, Bohm, Rupert Sheldrake, Hegel, Schelling, Coleridge,
Arthur Gibson, Bohm, Arthur M Young, Prigogine, Roy Bhaskar and others.
Some of us need to spread our reading out sometimes.
As far as religion is concerned I think that we need a new understanding to
emerge
that will put religion and science in a new context and that will contain
the best
of both. MOQ is a start. It is strongly committed to the sort of knowledge
of SQ
that we can obtain and better obtain beyond an SOM framework and at the same
time recognising the reality of DQ in all its transcendent, creative,
pouring out of the
possible into the actual. I have no doubt that underneath the sectarian and
social
evils of religion there has also been a recognition of certain aspects of DQ
at its heart.
regards
David M
And thanks again for your posts that are always well written and clearly
state what your position is, something I certainly do not always manage,
but I do have a life, job, wife, etc to attend to as well.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 9:08 PM
Subject: RE: MD Anti-theism in the MOQ
> Paul, Horse, MM and all:
>
> DMB quoted Wilber:
> "the core of the perennial philosophy is the view that reality is
> composed of various LEVELS OF EXISTENCE - levels of being and knowing -
> ranging from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit. Each senior
> dimension transcends but includes its juniors, so that this is a
> conception of wholes within wholes within wholes indefinitely, reaching
> from dirt to divinity."
>
> Paul replied:
> ....I've seen the phrase "transcend and include" used many times when
> Wilber's levels are mentioned on this forum. I'm not sure but I don't
think
> this particular idea maps across to Pirsig. ...So, although each level of
> patterns can be said to "transcend" the level below, it is difficult to
see
> how it can be said to "include" the whole of it. If it did, all inorganic
> patterns would also be biological; all biological patterns would also be
> social and so on.
>
> Paul quoted Pirsig for support:
> "Just as every biological pattern is also inorganic, but not all
> inorganic patterns are biological; and just as every social [pattern] is
> also biological, although not all biological patterns are social; so
> every intellectual pattern is social although not all social patterns
> are intellectual."
>
> dmb says:
> I think Pirsig is saying that bio (the senior level) is also (includes)
the
> inorganic (the junior level), but not the other way around. Its a
> directional thing. The lower levels can't include the higher ones for the
> same reason the an adult can have childhood memories but a child can't
have
> adult memories. They just aren't there yet. Neither Pirsig nor Wilber are
> saying that it can go that way. They're both saying the senior includes
(is
> also) the junior. One of the reasons he goes after SOM is for its view
that
> intellect (senior level) was born without parents (the junior level) and
> instead insists that such a thing is impossible. Pirsig's use of this
parent
> and child metaphor is very, very close to the junior/senior analogy, which
> could easily refer to a father and son. And Wilber's description of the
> levels as wholes within wholes only refers to the discrete nature of the
> levels. Wilber is only using different terms to express the same idea,
that
> each level is distinctly seperate level of reality with its own purposes
and
> modes of being.
>
> I had hoped that Wilber's description of the perennial philosophy would be
> clear to those who had never even read Wilber. In fact, its not really
about
> KW, its about the perennial philosophy that Pirsig says is within the MOQ.
> There are lots of people who could be used to describe it, but Wilber was
> handy and I love to be sassy. I had hoped the similarity between he and
> Pirsig would just pop out at the reader. If its not apparent to you, then
I
> wonder if anyone got the point. Woe is me.
>
> Paul asked dmb:
> Do you remember saying this? ...I think you now have the context in which
to
> understand my statement that the MOQ is an atheistic system.
>
> "I think Paul's assertion that "the MOQ is an atheistic system" goes too
> far. (According to our dear friend, Mr. Webster, "atheism" denies the
> existence of any kind of God or deity, not just "the usual,
> anthropomorphic" kind.) Since, in the MOQ, DQ is associated so closely
> with religious mysticism, it can't rightly be called an atheistic
> system." Date: Sun Feb 15 2004 - 18:49:18 GMT
>
> dmb replies:
> I do. Its one of the reasons I thought the "anti-theism" quote was so
> interesting. You may recall that I asserted that "non-theistic" would be
> better than "atheistic". Who knew Pirsig would go beyond both of those and
> declare the MOQ to be anti-theistic? Not me. And when I saw that Pirsig
had
> been so explicit, I was thrilled. As most of the religious posters must
have
> noticed by now, I vigorously object whenever the MOQ is claimed as support
> for sectarian religious views. The quote makes it clear that the MOQ
doesn't
> just fail to endorse the theistic religions, it explicitly rules them out.
> Its actively opposed rather than indifferent. When Pirsig says, "The
selling
> out of intellectual truth to the social icons of organized relgion is seen
> by the MOQ as an evil act", I feel my anger has been validated.
>
> Paul said:
> I think when Mark says, "Thanks for a great post rejecting Ken Wilber's
> half baked approach to philosophy," he is picking up on the contrasting
> views of Pirsig and Wilber regarding the philosophical use of the term
> "spirit."
>
> dmb replies:
> I think MM's rejection of Wilber is half-baked. In fact, Wilber is
critical
> of religious non-sense is very much the same way Pirsig is. I can
certainly
> understand why Pirsig might want to avoid the word "spirit", but let's not
> pretend he's also rejecting everyone and anyone who doesn't avoid the
word.
> The following quote not only re-inforces the similarity between the PP, KW
> and the MOQ in terms of the levels, but also shows that Wilber is equally
> critical of theistic clap trap.
>
> "Mythology is true enough in its own world-spcae; its just that
perspectival
> reason is 'more true'; more developed, more
diffferentiated-and-integrated,
> and more sophisticated in its capactiy to disclose verifiable knowledge.
> Thuus the higher truths of rationality pass judgement on the lower truths
of
> mythology, and for the most part mythology simply does not survive those
> more sophisticated tests. Moses did not part the Red Sea, and Jesus was
not
> born by a biological virgin. Those calims, in the light of higher reason,
> are indeed bogus. ...And if religion is to survive in a vialbe form in
the
> modern world, it must be willing to jettison its bogus claims, just as
> narrow science must be willing to jettison its reductionistic
imperialism."
>
> Pirsig:
> "The MOQ does not rest on faith. In the MOQ faith is very low quality
> stuff, a willingness to believe falsehoods."
>
> dmb says:
> I think its important to hear what Pirsig is saying here. Look at the
reason
> for dropping terms like 'faith' and 'spirit'. I mean, if Ken Wilber were
> trying to sneak traditional religion through the back door, there would be
a
> good reason to reject Wilber. But he's trying to prevent such sneaky moves
> every bit as much as Pirsig. I very much agree with Pirsig's criticisms of
> spirituality and religion, but I don't think they apply to Wilber. They
> share too much in common.
>
> Pirsig:
> "When you hear the words 'spirit' and 'faith' always look for a
> traditional religionist trying to sneak his goods in the back door.
> ...like the positivists, the MOQ drops spirit and faith, cold."
>
> Wilber:
> "Its no accident that wars fought in hole or part in the name of a
> particular mythic Deity have historically kelled more human beings that
any
> other intentional force on the planet. The enlightenment pointed out -
quite
> rightly- that religious claims hiding from evidence are not the voice of
God
> or Goddess, but merely the voice of men or women, who usually come with
big
> guns and bigger egos. Power, not truth, drives claims that hide from
> evidence."
>
>
> 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
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Sat Jul 31 2004 - 22:04:25 BST