Roger, John, Andrea, all
Roger wrote:
> PS -- A MORE INCLUSIVE TRUTH could be the subtitle for
> both threads -- this one and the special glasses one.
I'm following this very interesting discussion in silence as, blame on me!, up
to now I have never read neither Wilber nor Whitehead. Yes, I have been invited
by Roger and others to read Wilber, and actually he is in my *hot list*.... by
the way, not all his books are available in Italian, and it's a problem.
This thing about the three aspects of knowledge intrigues me, as I have come to
a similar (?) conclusion recently. Roger, you know me, I'm a poor rational
western fellow, and rarely I allow the right degree to mysticism or
spiritualism. But also, you surely will remember the thread about intellect and
art, in which I stressed to convince you that rationality and art are of the
same level. In that effort, I found many difficulties; I remember I even quoted
John's essay "Quality and Intelligence", in which he talked about an
"artistic/intellectual level".
Recently, on QUI, the Italian mailing list, Andrea asked me about the
possibility of different levels, referring explicitly to emotions and
spiritualism. Again, the problem was if rationality is the whole intellectual
level. I've suggested that it's better to consider the moq intellect *a more
inclusive level* where rationality, emotions and, why not?, spiritualism can
find a common home.
In few words, I've offered three *forms* of intellect:
- Rational, the form used mainly by science and SOM. Rationality provides
explanations. It tells you what rules you have to follow in order to build a
solid bridge.
- Emotional, the form used mainly by artists. It provides emotions, of course;
and *good* outcomes. Love your work, don't take it as an object, and your love
will probably be communicated also to the *users* of the work. The artist will
build a good bridge. A bridge we will love to walk upon.
- Spiritual, the form used mainly by mystics. It's the spirit that tells us we
have to build the bridge.
I also have offered that, in order to be enlightened, one should have the right
mix of the three intellectual forms. The spirit to go ahead, the love for what
is doing, the rationality to consolidate the necessary static latches at its
time. I read John talking of a hierarchy of the three "modes of knowing". Even
if I talk of a *right mix*, you will note that IMO rationality is more focused
on the static side; spirituality on the dynamic side. And the artist is in the
middle (In medio stat viRTus !).
I really don't know to what extent my poor suggestion matches Wilber's
philosophy. I think I have not well understood the difference between the first
(empiric and scientific) and the second (rational and logic). Actually, I've
always considered rationality and science strictly relative.
Anyway, let me tell that I don't like the hypothesis of a fifth level. Yes,
Roger, I'm pursuing a *more inclusive level*. Actually viruses, plants and
animals are patterns of the same biological level.... So I wonder why the
insights of Aristotle, Michelangelo and Buddha can't be patterns of the same
intellectual level...
Sorry for my impertinence and thanks for reading
Marco
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
