Tuesday, September 19, 2006

From: goethean
Sent: September 19, 2006 12:48 PM
To: 'M Alan Kazlev'
Subject: RE: wilber

Alan, I never completely bought your reading of KW as a crypto-materialist. I never communicated my issues with your reading because I wanted to back my case up with citations. But I have never been able to invest the time in that project. Although the passages that you have cited do support your case, I haven’t read enough of KW-V to evaluate whether your reading or my reading is more accurate. And, to be fair, the official work on the subject hasn’t been released yet!

The following is my understanding of KW-V:

Experiences arise. Similar experiences arising in multiple instances over time create a field. Fields that become well-defined or permanent are referred to as structures or stages of consciousness. The world of appearances arises in different ways depending on the type of field that a subject is interacting with.

Thus, on this reading, post-metaphysical doesn’t mean “beyond religious mumbo-jumbo”, but rather a quasi-Zen position beyond physicalism, beyond idealism, beyond all metaphysical positions”, and signals a return from theory to the primacy of the individual’s religious experience itself. (This position could half-jokingly be called “Vishishta-Zen”.) And you have described KW as influenced heavily by Zen. And it doesn’t require any more intellectual heavy lifting on KW’s part, since its simply Sheldrakeanism applied to the metaphysical domain. But it yields a much richer text than your reading.

I haven’t looked for citations to support this reading yet, and don’t know if I will. I’ve spent too much time as an amateur Wilber scholar. But nonetheless, this remains my reading of KW-V. If you find extended passages that contradict this reading, I would be eager to read them.


From: M Alan Kazlev [mailto:alankazlev@ihug.com.au]
Sent: September 18, 2006 05:45 PM
To: goethean
Subject: Re: wilber


I wonder if Wilber will eventually become disillusioned with crypto-physicalism ("post-metaphysics") and return to a more traditionally metaphysical perspective?


Thursday, September 14, 2006

John Biemer of the Chicago Tribune undercuts a good story with a sophomoric idiotism in the last line.

Update: Biemer says it was a Tribune editor.

Subject: RE: good story
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:35:05 -0500
From: "Biemer, John K."
To: "goethean"


I had put in that line to set up a Duckworth quote which I thought was
poignant given her own sacrifice ....

"We just got lucky, thank God," she said.

Some editor along the chain apparently clipped that final quote off to
fit the story on the page, which I agree, makes it lose its intention.

Yeah...funny how deleting that line completely changes the point into its opposite.