[MD] Intellectual activity

[Ham Priday]

Platt --

> Since philosophy is based on verbal intelligence, you're
> probably right to disqualify Spirit as a metaphysical  term.
> Still, a philosophy can point to that which is beyond
> philosophy don't you think?

No, I don't think anything should be beyond philosophy.  Isn't metaphysics
an inquiry into reality beyond the physical world, concerning itself with an
absolute source and the creation of finitude?  If there is such an entity or
realm as Spirit, it would certainly fall within the province of
philosophical speculation.  I brought up this question because I think what
you and Pirsig and the mystics loosely call "Spirit" has already been
covered in the dialectics of philosophy, not as a mystical or "magical"
appendum beyond philosophy's reach but incorporated within it.

I can't speak for Pirsig, of course, but Teilhard de Chardin, Henri Bergson,
and the Vitalists talk about 'elan vitale' as a life force in the universe,
and to some extent so do the philosophies of Spinoza, Hegel, Pascal,
Schelling, and even Merrill-Wolff.  I find it curious that so many believe
we have to go to the Far East to contemplate "mysteries" beyond the grasp of
philosophy.  Why should a philosopher be metaphysically disadvantaged just
because he's influenced by Western thought?  Why should the theistic concept
of a "supernatural" source be forbidden in, or incompatible with, Western
Philosophy?

> "Great art dissolves ego in nondual consciousness, and is to that
> extent experienced as an epiphany, a revelation, a release or
> liberation -- great art as a release from the tyranny of the separate
> self sense." (Eye to Eye, p, 213.)

I haven't read "Eye to Eye", and wasn't able to download any excerpts from
the net, but I did read a reviewer's article on Wilber's book which said in
part:

"Wilber's argument is simple.  He believes that man is not merely a physical
creature, limited to a decaying moral existence ("the eye of flesh"), or
just a mental self, defined by his thoughts and ideas ("the eye of reason"),
but a spiritual being capable of absolute freedom ("the eye of the soul").
But since man is in a state of gradual evolution, he cannot fully envision
his vast potential.  Thus, since he is guided by the myopic eye of the
flesh, man drags everything that transcends him (including saints and their
mystical insights) down to his own mundane level."

Notice the reference to man as a "spiritual being".  Wilber was apparently a
prodigious writer with a background in science and some practice in
psychology.  Like Alan Watts, whose writings he copied copiously, Wilber was
profoundly influenced by Taoism, which probably accounts for the
spiritualistic emphasis of his reality theory.

Thanks for your insights, Platt.  I'll see what Arlo has to say about Spirit
before resigning it to my file of religious-based metaphors.

--Ham