Re: MD Evolution, Wilber and Whitehead

[Wim Nusselder]

Dear John,   You formulate precisely what I was searching for earlier (my first posting in the "Migration towards Dynamic Quality"-thread 4/6 11:27 +0200): "I have been wondering for years about the differences between statements of reality (to be or not to be, true/false), statements of value (good/bad, beautiful/ugly, just/unjust) and ... statements of Meaning (as in "the Meaning of life is..."; not as in "the meaning of words"). (I use "Meaning" when I don't just mean the "meaning" of words.) With the help of Pirsig I came to realise that statements of reality and statements of value are (almost) the same and jointly answer "how"-questions. In order to answer "why"-questions you need statements of Meaning. Are statements of Meaning just a subclass of statements of value? I think not and I am currently trying to work out why."   I am certainly interested in following your approach (top-down interpretation of Quality, applying Wilbur's 'analog law') in relation to the MoQ. Just like you write "Pirsig fails to take seriously the third, or contemplative, level of knowledge", I always felt that after ZAMM, being a kind of inquiry into empirical reality, and Lila, being an inquiry into values/morality (your  'rational knowledge'), Pirsig should have written a third book inquiring into Meaning. I offer to write about Quaker methods of testing 'divine inspiration'/experience of Dynamic Quality (if anyone is interested), for I think they are highly applicable and don't involve a lot of static social and intellectual patterns unlike a lot of other spiritual traditions.   With friendly greetings,   Wim Nusselder     P.S. I still don't find your "essay for the forum" which you announced 1/6 19:34 -0700 on www.moq.org/forum/forumindex.html . I'm becoming very curious.