Re: MD Evolution, Wilber and Whitehead

[Wim Nusselder]

Dear Rog and John,   Rog wrote 16/6 11:41 -0400 in reply to John "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."   I agree, but I still think that Pirsig didn't tackle the unsufficiency of empirical and rational knowledge directly and clearly enough and that a MoQ can be clarified using Wilber's ideas. (On the other hand Pirsig's MoQ might be used to improve on Wilber's ideas. If I rightly understand Wilber's ideas on this subject -using members.ams.chello.nl/f.visser3/wilber/science.html in addition to John's summary- he is still quite stuck in subject/object-thinking.)   Rog also wrote: "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?"   I'd say: just to understand the Meaning of evolution (capitalizing to distinguish between Meaning as in "the Meaning of life" and meaning as in "the meaning of words") and I would add that meditation is not the only possible spiritual discipline producing Meaning. "Purpose" and "goal" are indeed to a large extent synonymous with "Meaning" but suggest more "subjectivity".   Rog wrote further: "Are you basically pointing out inherent futility in trying to communicate (over the internet) issues of illumination/meaning?"   I'd say: no, but (as I write in the "MoQ?"-thread) "we should learn to use metaphors, paradoxes and experience that isn't immediately translated into an opinion in this mailing list if we want to explore this realm and want to be instrumental in latching DQ on a 5th level."   With friendly greetings,   Wim Nusselder