[MD] The Trouble With Wilber

[david buchanan]

dmb said to David M:
...the collaspe of the myth of the given leaves us with a reality that is 
inherently interpretive rather than objective. We're basically talking about 
a rejection of realism. Pirsig and Rorty share this much...

DM replied:
...My point is, if reality/experience is interpreted, we have to add 
something (interpretation, i.e SQ) to our experience, hence we transcend the 
given (how else do we evolve?-DQ is by definition transcendent, otherwise 
there would be nothing new entering actuality to be called DQ).

dmb says:
Dave, that makes no sense. If reality is interpreted we have to add 
interpretation? Thus we transcend the given? No, that's exactly wrong. The 
idea is that there is no "given" reality and that reality already comes 
packaged in interpretations. And DQ is transcendent by definition? Wrong on 
both counts. DQ is known in experience and does not transcend it. DQ has no 
definition. I would also point out that your so-called explanation consists 
of a single, wildly convoluted sentence. Its kind of hard to believe that 
you're sincerely interested in explaining this idea.

C'mon Dave. Who is writing embarrassing knee-jerk posts here?

Despite my having read hundreds of posts from you over the years, I still 
have no idea what you think about anything. Every time I ask what you're 
saying you just insult me and give me things to read.

Are you here to have conversations or not? I wouldn't mind having one with 
you but apparently you just aren't interested. That's fine, but I wonder why 
you bother to post at all then?

Does anybody here understand what this guy is trying to say? Feel free to 
jump in and help me out.

dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t miss your chance to WIN $10,000 and other great prizes from Microsoft 
Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0540003042mrt/direct/01/