Comments on: The Philosophy of Oops… http://pathstoknowledge.com/228/the-philosophy-of-oops/ Your map to happiness and personal growth Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:13:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: metamorph http://pathstoknowledge.com/228/the-philosophy-of-oops/comment-page-/#comment-2 metamorph Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://pathstoknowledge.com/228/the-philosophy-of-oops/#comment-2 <address><strong>As much as I like reading a lot of Wilber's stuff, he's made a logical misstep here. First he questions the idea that something 'just is', for no reason whatsoever; the 'oops' of being. He seems to feel that this is a copout to the question of 'why oops?'. To answer that question, he posits a 'deeper, or wider patter, or order, or intelligence', a greater reality behind and sustaining this reality. But, if I were to ask him why this deeper reality exists, what would be his answer? Oops? </strong></address><address></address><address><strong>I think this problem has less to do with 'oops', and more with 'why'. In our cause and effect experiential existence, 'why' is really asking the question, "from what cause do these effects proceed?" But existence itself is NOT a cause; rather, (put rather crudely, I admit) causation is what existence is doing, like the waves on the ocean. Positing a cause for existence itself is simply a category error. Believers in the 'why' problem simply create a fallback position, and then grant this position special status vis-a-vis causality; but that special status is nothing more than a contrived liguistic device that falls apart when looked at too closely. Mine is not an argument against a 'higher order', but it'll take more than Wilber's fallacious reasoning to convince me that there is one...mm</strong></address> As much as I like reading a lot of Wilber's stuff, he's made a logical misstep here. First he questions the idea that something 'just is', for no reason whatsoever; the 'oops' of being. He seems to feel that this is a copout to the question of 'why oops?'. To answer that question, he posits a 'deeper, or wider patter, or order, or intelligence', a greater reality behind and sustaining this reality. But, if I were to ask him why this deeper reality exists, what would be his answer? Oops?
I think this problem has less to do with 'oops', and more with 'why'. In our cause and effect experiential existence, 'why' is really asking the question, "from what cause do these effects proceed?" But existence itself is NOT a cause; rather, (put rather crudely, I admit) causation is what existence is doing, like the waves on the ocean. Positing a cause for existence itself is simply a category error. Believers in the 'why' problem simply create a fallback position, and then grant this position special status vis-a-vis causality; but that special status is nothing more than a contrived liguistic device that falls apart when looked at too closely. Mine is not an argument against a 'higher order', but it'll take more than Wilber's fallacious reasoning to convince me that there is one…mm
]]> By: Reverend Keith http://pathstoknowledge.com/228/the-philosophy-of-oops/comment-page-/#comment-3 Reverend Keith Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://pathstoknowledge.com/228/the-philosophy-of-oops/#comment-3 <p class="MsoNormal">I think he’s formulating the wrong question to express a profound mystery we all intrinsically feel. The question is not really “WHY is there something rather than nothing?” </p> <p class="MsoNormal"> The “Why” here isn’t simply a matter of causation. It’s a signpost for the entire interior dimension of subjective life in which purpose, intention and meaning live. And the question is – is this interior dimension intrinsic to the Kosmos itself, or is it just some strange alienated aberration taking place in my own head? Is this, in other words, a Kosmos in which “why” is a valid part of reality?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> Is this, in fact, a pan-psychic Kosmos?</p> I think he’s formulating the wrong question to express a profound mystery we all intrinsically feel. The question is not really “WHY is there something rather than nothing?”

The “Why” here isn’t simply a matter of causation. It’s a signpost for the entire interior dimension of subjective life in which purpose, intention and meaning live. And the question is – is this interior dimension intrinsic to the Kosmos itself, or is it just some strange alienated aberration taking place in my own head? Is this, in other words, a Kosmos in which “why” is a valid part of reality?

Is this, in fact, a pan-psychic Kosmos?

]]>