TO: John
From: Rog
JOHN B.:
I am probably coming in late with an approach that has already been done to
death, but never mind. I've been reading Ken Wilber, specifically Eye to
Eye, and what he says does make sense to me. If he is right, then the debate
on evolution has been fatally flawed by a pervasive category error. My
skimming of the posts on this topic suggests this is the case.
ROG:
I have read 4 or 5 books by Wilber and two by Whitehead. I have not read
anything you reference here though. Eye for Eye looks rewarding.
JB:
Wilber proposes, in continuity with the mystic tradition, that there is a
spectrum of human consciousness, Each of us, if he is right, has access to
three modes of knowing. There is empiric, or scientifiic, knowledge, in
which we use our senses to ascertain what is, and if these observations are
quantified through measurement, we have the basis for science. We also
participate in a mental or rational world, which allows us to communicate
using language, to develop logic and mathematics, and to discuss topics such
as the meaning of 'Hamlet', that cannot be measured, have no location in
space or time, and hence cannot be dealt with at the empirical or scientific
level. Thirdly, there is, he asserts, a contemplative or spiritual
knowledge, that provides illumination or meaning, which is not measurable or
able to be described in terms of our senses, hence is inaccessible to
science, nor is it describable in rational language, except through paradox,
so is similarly beyond the capacity of language to express with any
adequacy.
ROG:
OK. I see value in the points you and Wilber make in validation,
illumination and communality of these three types of knowledge.
JB:
So the first important point is that knowledge is not all of a piece, and
Pirsig in rejecting the dominant Scientism of his day saw this was so.
Scientism asserts that only the knowledge acquired through the senses , and
hence measurable, is valid. It is an utter nonsense, but still widely
believed. Pirsig correctly grasped that what the senses perceive is itself
shaped by the values underlying the scientific endeavour. Description and
measurement arise out of our more fundamental perception of quality or
value. However, Pirsig fails to take seriously the third, or contemplative,
level of knowledge, and so remains trapped within the limitations of the
rational level, and hence fails to offer any substantial improvement on the
subject - object polarity that bedevils that level. His dynamic - static
division is a different way of slicing the cake, but ultimately ends up
offering us no more meaning than the other.
ROG:
Actually, I think the underlying current of Lila and ZMM is in the
contemplative level. I think people get so into the categorization and
logic of these books that they miss the third level. And I do see Pisig using
Paradox to make much of the point.
JB:
The second important point is that all three levels of knowing require
similar inputs. Each requires we do certain things, find what is to be seen,
and check that finding against the accumulated wisdom in the field, the
appropriate community of knowledge.
The third important point is that these three realms of understanding are
not of equal consequence. They are hierarchical. Scientific knowledge is
almost useless in resolving issues of value. It has almost nothing to say
about quality. But equally intellectual knowledge, rational debate, offers
no satisfactory resolution to questions of meaning. No amount of talk will
lead to illumination. (Much of the recent debate in this forum on socialism,
for example, seems mired at this level.)
ROG:
Much but not all.
JB:
The fourth important point that follows, is that arguments between the
levels are futile. This is what Wilber describes as a category error. For
example, no amount of facts can ultimately decide a moral issue. (The "How
do I get from an 'is' to an 'ought' ?"dilemma.) I suggest that the
intractability of the evolution debate arises from this sot of argument.
ROG:
I am not following you here. Were we discussing the evolution issue from the
wrong level? Please clarify. Also, what part of the evolution discussion
was intractable?
JB:
The ongoing debate on evolution on this forum has been an intellectual
debate. That is fine, but it limits the potential outcomes. In particular,
it has seen the debate mired in competing perceptions of meaning, and all
too often we have not done our homework in terms of really mastering the
discipline we are debating. So we keep coming back to what Pirsig meant by
.... , what Steven Jay Gould means by .... , and so on. This is all good
educational stuff, and often good fun, but it does not lead to illumination
or meaning. For that we must enter the third level of knowing, and that
demands extensive training and discipline, and usually can't provide a neat
verbal summary of what is real.
ROG:
So does this mean that to understand evolution that I must meditate? Or just
to understand the meaning of evolution? Or am I lost (as usual)? What do
you think we were trying to get out of the evolution discussion? Was it to
understand its meaning? Is the purpose or goal of evolution synonymous with
meaning? Clarification here would be helpful.
I do think several of us have done homework. I can't wait to read Matt's
article.
Also, are you basically pointing out inherent futility in trying to
communicate (over the internet) issues of illumination/meaning? If this is
so, does it mean that we shouldn't communicate over the internet, or that we
should limit our discussion to the first two realms? If it is the latter,
what do you suggest on evolution?
JB:
Now, while an intellectual input such as this is limited in its potential
for illumination, there is one further aspect of what Wilber offers that is,
I think, quite valuable . This occurs on p167 of Eye to Eye, and I will
quote it at some length. Wilber is discussing what he calls an 'analog law'
, "the idea that every event and principle on a lower level is merely a
reduced version or a reflection downward or a lesser degree of those events
and principles found on higher levels". He suggests that Whitehead took just
this position. "He [Whitehead] took the notion of junior dimensions being
essentially reduced versions of senior ones, and completely turned the
typical approach to reality on its head. He said that if you want to know
the general principles of existence, you must start at the top and use the
highest occasions to illumine the lowest, not the other way around, which of
course is the common reductionist reflex. So he said you could learn more
about the world from biology than you could from physics; and so he
introduced the organismic viewpoint which has revolutionized philosophy. And
he said you could learn more from social psychology than from biology, and
then introduced the notion of things being a society of occasions - the
notion of compound individuality. Naturally, he held that the apex of
exemplary pattern was God, and it was in God, the ultimate compound
individual, that you would ground any laws or patterns found reflected in
reduced versions in the lower dimensions of psychology, then biology, then
physics. The idea, which was brilliant in its statement, was that you first
look to the higher levels for the general principles of existence, and then,
by subtraction, you see how far down the hierarchy they extend. You don't
start at the bottom and try to move up by addition of the lower parts,
because some of the higher parts simply don't show up very well, or at all,
on the lower rungs. Perhaps his favourite examples were creativity and
love - God, for Whitehead, was especially love and creativity. But in the
lower dimensions, the creativity gets reduced, appearing in humans as a
modicum of free will but being almost entirely lost by the time you get to
atomic particles... So Whitehead, by looking to illuminate the lower by the
higher, and not vice versa, could make creativity the general principle, and
then understand determinism as a partial restriction or reduction of primary
creativity. If, on the other hand, you start at the bottom, then you have to
figure out a way to get free will and creativity out of rocks, and it just
won't work."
There is much I would like to say about this, but this post is already long.
Suffice to say, then, that if we were to adopt this approach, then the
meaning of quality is to be found at the highest level, where language is an
inadequate vehicle of communication, and intellect an inappropriate medium
for the search. This ties in with a number of recent strands of discussion
in this forum, including where God fits in, and if there is an emerging
level beyond intellect. And the experts would not be those most skilled in
intellectual debate, but those who have put in the hard yards in a
meditative practice, and tested their insights against other mystic
authorities. The resulting outcomes would appear paradoxical to the merely
intellectual mind, but would reconcile the deep divisions of that level, of
which the static / dynamic is just the latest in a long line. If anyone is
interested in following this idea further in relation to Pirsig, I would
suspect it could be fruitful.
ROG:
I think Platt would find much to agree with this. I find some value too,
though I could put my cynical hat on and point out the irony of a mystic
proving logically that only mystics can achieve expert designation. You have
whetted my appetite to read the book, but something doesn't seem correct from
my limited understanding. I think I should go to the Wilber web site and
explore before I respond further though. Consider me as open minded to the
topic.
By the way, Wilber (later in his life from the era of this book) also ranks
worldviews. He ranks conservative middle class business people or special
interest liberals as a fairly high status of ORANGE,
postmodernist/ecofeminists as a higher level of GREEN, and integrative types
as a higher level called YELLOW. Wilber is a mystic TURQUOISE -- the highest
defined level. (I score as a yellow on my good days) Btw, the majority of
humans don't even make it to ORANGE in Wilber's view.
He also explains though that development of cosciousness involves a
transition up through the levels, and that all the levels are important like
rungs in a ladder or something. The lower levels aren't so much wrong as they
are NECESSARY. I wonder if this lends any credence to the type of necessary
value for this type of forum?
By the way, I know Dan and some others in this forum meditate or pursue the
third spectrum of cosciousness. My last communication with David B had him
discussing going off to join the Wilberites. As for me, I have never taken
to practiced meditation, but do actively explore the spiritual realm.
Cool post man! It seems that you can either respond to me in the direction of
spirituality, evolution, the value of this forum, or (best yet) some type of
integration of all 3. Your choice, though I will gladly follow you in any of
these directions.
ROG
PS -- I am off to read more Wilber now!!!
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
