[MD] I'm The Second Greatest!

[Andre Broersen]

Anthony asked:

One of my "second favourites" is Alan Gewirth.? His "Principle of Generic Consistency" is a beautiful piece of logic.


But who would be your second best?? And, more importantly, what, if anything, do they add to the MOQ?

Andre:
Hi Anthony, as you know I am a fan of Pirsig and the MOQ. I find this so very advanced from what I have been exposed to and conditioned into for at least 57 years (SOM) that I found that I needed some 'intermediary' steps to learn to comprehend what Pirsig is on about.

I have found this in Ken Wilber...yes, prolific writer, but he is somehow a good stepping stone into the MOQ and into oneself (if I may be so bold as to suggest a difference). Wilber is on a very similar path to Pirsig. Of course using different terms and understandings but when I read Wilber I always keep the MOQ in the background and this has lead me to getting these little flashes of insight into Pirsig (whilst reading Wilber).

Conversely it can be argued that Wilber is hopelessly lost in SOM but I think that does him a disservice and discredits him when there is no need to. He genuinly attempts to integrate Eastern and Western insights through philosophies and, okay, when reading him I say to myself that, what you are taking about has been resolved with the arrival of the MOQ but nevertheless I find him very usefull to 'fill in the gaps'.  His 'quadrants' are all representations of sq and he constantly refers to 'God' and 'Spirit'(DQ) but makes it very clear that he is talking about concepts that are subordinate to DQ. (call them what you like: Tao, Nothingness, the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum, the flux, sunyata, nirvikalpa you name it.

I have turned, some time ago, to a more contemplative approach for myself due to dissatisfactions experienced on a personal/social level and therefore find Wilber helpful with his 'levels' of consciousness (for example) integrating Eastern and Western contemplative traditions.

Information/gossip I have picked up via the internet is that there appears to be some sort of cult formation around him implying that he is not, perhaps, as genuine as we all hoped but I let this stuff slide from my shoulder. I believe he is genuine, honest and speaking from experience, allowing his assertions be scrutinized by anyone who wishes to do so.

To summarize: he is as concerned as Pirsig is about the 'state of the world today'. He is only using  a different language and different approach but, with the MOQ in the background lots of his insights and arguments make a lot of sense.

Thanks Anthony.