IPS Inquiry - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-19T12:56:27Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/categories/ips-inquiry/listForCategory?feed=yes&xn_auth=noDo our models get in the way?tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-08-22:5301756:Topic:772012019-08-22T00:29:00.147ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<div class="_5pbx userContent _3ds9 _3576" id="js_33"><p>Do our models get in the way? We've seen quite a few descriptions of an emerging paradigm known as the collaborative commons (CC). But a problem arises when we take another step by extrapolating from that data and then try to prescribe what we need to do in order to create a CC. I.e., we form a model of what the CC should be, and top down we try to implement it. Whereas the technology that enables the CC to grow organically has no…</p>
</div>
<div class="_5pbx userContent _3ds9 _3576" id="js_33"><p>Do our models get in the way? We've seen quite a few descriptions of an emerging paradigm known as the collaborative commons (CC). But a problem arises when we take another step by extrapolating from that data and then try to prescribe what we need to do in order to create a CC. I.e., we form a model of what the CC should be, and top down we try to implement it. Whereas the technology that enables the CC to grow organically has no apparent need of this top down imposition. To the contrary, it seems more of a capitalistic holdover instead of the middle out way the CC is naturally evolving.</p>
<p><a href="https://medium.com/perspectives-on-complexity/complex-potential-states-ab71951331ad" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bonnita Roy</a> has noted that "In a world as diverse in people and rich in meanings as ours, big change might come from small acts by everyone operating everywhere in the contexts that already present themselves in their ordinary lives." It is quite the contrast from the enlightened heroes figuring it all out from their complex ivory towers which supposedly and hopefully 'trickles down' to the rest of us. This seems much more how the CC works in practice. Political and social revolution arises from the external socioeconomic system, the mode of production. Development is accomplished not by having a 'higher' model to which one must conform, but by the actual practice of operating within the emerging socioeconomic system.</p>
<p><span dir="ltr"><span class="_3l3x _1n4g"><span><a href="http://integral-review.org/pdf-template-issue.php?pdfName=issue_5_gidley_the_evolution_of_consciousness_as_a_planetary_imperative.pdf&fbclid=IwAR28Q-CbOHuR2P1E2ZQAa8J3LhPph4_t9X-_B3tG8bm4Aze5NS_jbe9tNTY" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jennifer Gidley</a> noted a similar phenomenon in that there is a difference between research that identifies postformal operations from examples of those who enact those operations. And that much of the research identifying it has itself “been framed and presented from a formal, mental-rational mode.”</span> <span>Plus those enacting post formal operations don’t “necessarily conceptualize it as such.” So are those that identify postfomality via formal methodology really just a formal interpretation of what it might be? Especially since those enacting it disagree with some of the very premises of those identifying them?</span></span></span></p>
<p>The online discussions I engage with on meta-models is representative of this difference. It seems the abstract modeling of the development of the CC is what is operating to create it in a top-down manner. Not only that, what appears to be happening in all cases is that not only does each individual have their own thoughts and opinions on the topic, which is to be expected in diverse groups, we all end up justifying our own take over others. We all seem to be so attached to our own discoveries that we build an edifice and seek out and find supporting evidence to justify it. When confronted with different perspectives or evidence, our first inclination is to see how it fits into our own model or worldview, how we can twist and manipulate it to support our biases. What is there in common that holds us together if we are so closed to taking in new information from other perspectives, allowing them to sit in their own right, their own space, instead of trying to fit them into our own predispositions?</p>
<p>I’m reminded of what <a href="http://integralleadershipreview.com/14863-if-capitalsim-is-dead-then-what/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Said Dawlabani</a> said, that the distributed network of the collaborative commons follows no ideologies. That it is open source, highly networked and depends on the wisdom of the crowd. I’m guessing that equally applies to our models on trying to create the CC, as we tend to idealize and attach to them. Is our ownership of our ideas more indicative of capitalism that the CC? It also seems that those who are enacting this new paradigm are doing so without need of any explicit theory or model about it. So is arguing about the correct theory even a necessary part of its enactment, as if like capitalism it too needs a top down elite model to implement it? Are our models just getting in the way and actually counter-productive to its natural evolution?</p>
</div> The root of power law religiontag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-08-02:5301756:Topic:767562019-08-02T14:10:35.557ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>A ‘power law’ refers specifically to a statistical relationship between quantities, such that a change in one quantity has a proportional change in another. One property of this law is scale invariance, otherwise known as ‘scale-free,’ meaning the same proportion repeats at every scale in a self-similar pattern. Mathematical fractals are an example of such a power law. Power laws are taken as universal and have been applied to any and all phenomena to prove the universality of this…</p>
<p>A ‘power law’ refers specifically to a statistical relationship between quantities, such that a change in one quantity has a proportional change in another. One property of this law is scale invariance, otherwise known as ‘scale-free,’ meaning the same proportion repeats at every scale in a self-similar pattern. Mathematical fractals are an example of such a power law. Power laws are taken as universal and have been applied to any and all phenomena to prove the universality of this law.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, a recent study (<span><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08746-5"><u>Broido and Clauset, 2019</u></a></span>) claims that “scale free networks are rare.” They conducted an extensive review of one thousand social, biological, technological and information networks using state of the art statistical methods and concluded what the title of their article states. To the contrary, “log-normal distributions fit the data as well or better than power laws.” And that scale-free structure is “not an empirically universal pattern.” Hence it should not be used to model and analyze real world structures.<br/><br/>So why the fascination with trying to fit nearly all phenomena into the scale-free paradigm? Holme (<span><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09038-8"><u>2019</u></a></span>) reviews the above article and the overall power law issue and notes that “in the Platonic realm of simple mechanistic models, extrapolated to infinite system size, the concepts of emergence, universality and scale-freeness are well-defined and clear. However, in the real world, where systems are finite and many forces affect them, they become blurry.” Klarreich (<span><a href="https://www.quantamagazine.org/scant-evidence-of-power-laws-found-in-real-world-networks-20180215/"><u>2018</u></a></span>) reviewed an earlier version of Borodo’s paper and noted that per mathematician Steven Strogatz, in physics there is a “power law religion.”</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So what is the root of this religion? Holme nailed it when he said the power law universally applies “in the Platonic realm.” This is a long-held, guiding myth that has remained strong in math. Lakoff and Nunez (<span><a href="https://b-ok.cc/book/2693053/e80d21"><u>2001</u></a></span>) dispel this myth, noting that there is no proof of an a priori mathematics; it is purely a premised axiom with no empirical foundation. Just like the conception of God it is religious faith. We can only understand math with the mind and brain, so it requires us to understand how that brain and mind perceives and conceives. Hence there is no one correct or universal math. There are equally valid but mutually inconsistent maths depending on one's premised axioms (354-55). This is because math is also founded on embodied, basic categories and metaphors, from which particular axioms are unconsciously based (and biased), and can go in a multitude of valid inferential directions depending on which metaphor (or blend) is used in a particular contextual preference. They dispel this myth of a transcendent, Platonic math while validating a plurality of useful and accurate maths.<br/><br/>However Lakoff & Nunez do not see the above as relativistic postmodernism (pomo) because of empirically demonstrated, convergent scientific evidence of universal, embodied grounding of knowledge via image schema, basic categories and extended in metaphor. They see both transcendent math and pomo as a priori investments. And they also affirm universal validity, but through empirical methodology, not a priori speculation.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lakoff (<span><a href="https://lecturayescrituraunrn.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/unidad-5-lakoff-women-fire-and-danger.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2IQnRY1UMPfKwhz5iWoKk0NcszheTvrlRt0zLPKZMbPTDcFJ8FemxMbq4"><u>1987</u></a></span>) also points out the following:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"The classical theory of categories provides a link between objectivist metaphysics and and set-theoretical models.... Objectivist metaphysics goes beyond the metaphysics of basic realism...[which] merely assumes that there is a reality of some sort.... It additionally assumes that reality is correctly and completely structured in a way that can be modeled by set-theoretic models" (159).<br/><br/>He argues that this arises from the correspondence-representation model, a model that has been legitimately questioned by postmetaphysical thinking.<br/><br/>Also see the above on the idealistic assumptions of modeling that came from a type of complexity theory that also assumed the universality of scale-free networks, while most actual networks do not display this kind of mathematical distribution.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A prime example of the power law religion is found in the model of hierarchical complexity (MHC). Commons (<span><a href="https://www.dareassociation.org/documents/GWOF_A_330277%20Introduction.pdf"><u>2008</u></a></span>) admits the Platonic roots when he said: “The ideal truth is the mathematical forms of Platonic ideal.” Granted he qualified this statement noting the difference between the ideal and the real, that we cannot know the ideal as pure form, only as it manifests in the real. And yet he further notes that Aristotle elucidated the real with postulates of logic, yet these too come from a priori axioms without empirical grounding. Yes, the logical entailments of his logic follow mathematical rules, but the axioms are presupposed a priori and taken as given. The MHC then is a combination of the ideal “perfect form, as Plato would have described it,” with the representation of that form in the real domain. The duality of the ideal and the real is apparent.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lakoff and Johnson (<span><a href="https://b-ok.cc/book/1293077/1377bd"><u>1999</u></a></span>, Ch. 7) show that abstract set theory has no connection to embodiment:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>“Spatial relations concepts (image schemas), which fit visual scenes, are not characterizable in terms of set-theoretical structures. Motor concepts (verbs of bodily movement), which fit the body's motor schemas, cannot be characterized by set-theoretical models. Set-theoretical models simply do not have the kind of structure needed to fit visual scenes or motor schemas, since all they have in them are abstract entities, sets of those entities, and sets of those sets. These models have no structure appropriate to embodied meaning-no motor schemas, no visual or imagistic mechanisms, and no metaphor."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However Lakoff and Nunez note that math per se is not merely socially constructed:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"In recognizing all the ways that mathematics makes use of cognitive universals and universal aspects of experience, the theory of embodied mathematics explicitly rejects any possible claim that mathematics is arbitrarily shaped by history and culture alone. Indeed, the embodiment of mathematics accounts for real properties of mathematics that a radical cultural relativism would deny or ignore: conceptual stability, stability of inference, precision, consistency, generalizability, discoverability, calculability, and real utility in describing the world" (362).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Nonetheless, the MHC used a particular kind of set theory were sets cannot be members of themselves but in other set theories they can:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>“There are lots and lots of set theories, each defined by different axioms. You can construct a set theory in which the Continuum hypothesis is true and a set theory in which it is false. You can construct a set theory in which sets cannot be members of themselves and a set theory in which sets can be members of themselves. It is just a matter of which axioms you choose, and each collection of axioms defines a different subject matter. Yet each such subject matter is itself a viable and self-consistent form of mathematics. [...] There is no one true set theory" (WMCF, 355).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Commons, Ross, Miller (<span><a href="http://www.integralworld.net/commons1.html"><u>2010</u></a></span>) note that Axiom 1 of the MHC is based on set theory and the orders are scale-free.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>“Axiom 1 of the Model of Hierarchical Complexity (Commons, Goodheart, et al., 2008) posits that consistent with Piaget, that higher order actions are defined in terms of two or more lower-order actions. In terms of set theory, A = {a, b} where A is the higher order set, and a and b are lower order actions that are elements of that set A.. Note that the element a cannot equal the set A. An element cannot equal a set formed out of that element.”</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Sara Ross (<span><a href="https://dareassociation.org/bdev/bdb_archive/BDB%2019.3-A06.pdf"><u>2014</u></a></span>) goes further in that the MHC’s orders are scale-free and fractal.<br/><br/>"To possess 'universal, scale-free' properties means the MHC’s orders of hierarchical complexity are fractal. Fractal means the repetition of self-similar patterns at different scales. Behavioral scales from the micro-biological to large social systems evidence the orders of hierarchical complexity (see Commons & Ross, 2008). The fractal transition theory is proposed as a universal, scale-free general model as well.”</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here we are seeing the power law religion in action, given that the MHC’s orders are ideal and they develop from scale-free power laws. And yet as Broido and Clauset noted above, real networks rarely display scale-free power laws. They further noted that given the empirical data, different models would be required to explain these other networks, that the scale-free model, while perhaps applicable for a few real-world networks, was inadequate to the task.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>One example of a real world network is the human brain connectome. Gastner and Odor (<span><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/srep27249?fbclid=IwAR2K4t0rP6bce-s0VG1o-ERrfJ7tws3aShNi5Y8mze8Oj9WVVUMC1DsXECs"><u>2016</u></a></span>) note that the connectome is not scale-free, so why use scale-free models to measure it? And why then extend scale-free models to everything? As noted above, is it a power law religion of the ideal imposed on phenomena?<br/><br/>"The structural human connectome (i.e. the network of fiber connections in the brain) can be analyzed at ever finer spatial resolution thanks to advances in neuroimaging. Here we analyze several large data sets for the human brain network made available by the Open Connectome Project. We apply statistical model selection to characterize the degree distributions of graphs containing up to nodes and edges. A three-parameter generalized Weibull (also known as a stretched exponential) distribution is a good fit to most of the observed degree distributions. For almost all networks, simple power laws cannot fit the data, but in some cases there is statistical support for power laws with an exponential cutoff."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A recent neuroimaging study (<span><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811919301223?fbclid=IwAR02Q1ehbAa7PSKEWufKZ3Twi0yLUV-oGj33hNCcKArD1VR-J100xHv5tCQ"><u>Smith et al., 2019</u></a></span>) on brain connectome hierarchical complexity (HC) seems to support my notion that, like basic categories in cognitive science, HC arises from the middle out as 'bridges' rather than bottom-up or top-down. E.g.<br/><br/>"Dividing the connectomes into four tiers based on degree magnitudes indicates that the most complex nodes are neither those with the highest nor lowest degrees but are instead found in the middle tiers. […] The most complex tier (Tier 3) involves regions believed to bridge high-order cognitive (Tier 1) and low-order sensorimotor processing (Tier 2)."<br/><br/>"The results show that hub nodes (Tier 1(t)) and peripheral nodes (Tier 4(b)) are contributing less to the greater complexity exhibited in the human brain connectome than middle tiers. In fact, this is particularly true of hub nodes."<br/><br/>Also note that "this concerns wholly separate considerations of topology to the well-known paradigms of small-world and scale-free complex networks," being one of those new models that responds to the empirical date rather than trying to fit the latter into a one-size-fits-all scale-free model.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This appears to be a matter of the guiding metaphors used in defining worldviews, which over time transcend and replace their forbears given new information in a different time and context (<span><a href="https://www.academia.edu/38230210/From_capitalism_to_the_collaborative_commons"><u>Berge</u></a></span>, <span><a href="https://www.academia.edu/38230210/From_capitalism_to_the_collaborative_commons"><u>2019</u></a></span>). Sociological worldviews form a continuum in the broad categories of pre-modern, modern, postmodern and metamodern. The modern, scientific worldview is based on a mechanistic worldview, with later iterations extending that metaphor based on the computer. Both are premised on dualisms of various sorts, like the difference and separation of body and mind, ideal and real and with computers, on and off with one pole in the duality being source, the other it’s logical result. It’s an either/or logic of the Aristotelian type noted above, itself based on a priori axioms.</p>
<p>The postmodern metaphor turned this dualism around, claiming that the ideal was fantasy, that only the concrete, real world had validity, the ideal just being so much hierarchical power relations over the real without any basis. However, the metamodern worldview syntegrates this dualism by acknowledging duality, but also everywhere in between the poles. In fact, it quits thinking in terms of poles altogether, e.g. Abramson (<span><a href="https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/2d1afe_727c293b21514148898604d9dd49ed6f.pdf"><u>2014</u></a></span>):</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"But a still more intriguing question is whether antipodal analyses are any longer useful, or whether the time has come to speak of multiple dimensions of reality, actualities that are irresolvably contradictory and deliberately incalculable, and a state of affective response in which contemporary humans feel perpetually overwhelmed, but not critically degeneratively so. Whereas postmodern theories of hyperreality invariably metaphorized erasure of the line between fact and fiction as a gradual process of degeneration, collapse, and decomposition, metamodernism approaches contradiction, paradox, and ambiguity as reconstructive forces, and emphasizes not singularity qua collapse but multiplicity qua transcendence. […] The question to be asked of and into contemporary culture, then, is [...] indeed a transcendent metamodern condition in which the poles themselves have disappeared and we, collectively and individually, have found in the middle space between them an entirely new site of 'reconstructive deconstruction'" (7-8).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is consistent with Lakoff and Johnson’s cognitive science, a reconstruction of an empirical plurality of mathematics, allowing for their “contradiction and paradox,” yet grounded in our universal embodiment in the spaces between metaphysical paradigms.</p> Can you be at a level of development?tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-05-09:5301756:Topic:768012019-05-09T20:24:17.464ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>My <a href="http://integralworld.net/berge10.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">recent article</a> by the above name is at <em>Integral World</em>, which is an edited version of the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/470435939720069/permalink/1854350701328579/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">IPS FB thread</a> by the same name. The introduction: </p>
<p>"It seems common in integral circles to stereotype people by claiming an individual resides at a specific developmental level, as if…</p>
<p>My <a href="http://integralworld.net/berge10.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recent article</a> by the above name is at <em>Integral World</em>, which is an edited version of the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/470435939720069/permalink/1854350701328579/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IPS FB thread</a> by the same name. The introduction: </p>
<p>"It seems common in integral circles to stereotype people by claiming an individual resides at a specific developmental level, as if someone fits easily into one category. Granted the AQAL model allows for different domains or lines to be at different levels, but nonetheless in each domain the claim remains that said domain is at a specific, measurable level. In addition, there is the concept of a center of gravity (COG), generally associated with the self-related or ego line, as it is apparently the organizing structure for the other levels and lines. But there is ongoing debate about the COG in developmental literature, so some empirical research follows by other developmentalists not so enamored."</p> The agency of objectstag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-02-01:5301756:Topic:753202019-02-01T17:24:33.193ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>We've discussed this in various threads like object-oriented ontology and Edwards' work on social holons. In that light I came upon <font face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif">a…</font></p>
<p>We've discussed this in various threads like object-oriented ontology and Edwards' work on social holons. In that light I came upon <font face="Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif">a<span style="display: inline !important; float: none; background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18.48px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">n interesting take on the agency of artifacts in light of the discussion of memes and temes. From Sinha, S. (2015). "</span><a style="background-color: transparent; color: #2a669d; font-family: Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;" href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01601/full">Language and other artifacts</a><span style="display: inline !important; float: none; background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18.48px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">: Socio-cultural dynamics of niche construction."</span> <i style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18.48px; orphans: 2; xg-p: static; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; width: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">Frontiers in Psychology</i><span style="display: inline !important; float: none; background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18.48px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">.</span></font><br style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18.48px; orphans: 2; xg-p: static; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; width: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"/><br style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18.48px; orphans: 2; xg-p: static; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; width: auto; word-spacing: 0px;"/><span style="display: inline !important; float: none; background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18.48px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">"If (as I have argued) symbolic cognitive artifacts have the effect of changing both world and mind, is it enough to think of them as mere 'tools' for the realization of human deliberative intention, or are they</span> <i style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18.48px; orphans: 2; xg-p: static; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; width: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">themselves</i> <span style="display: inline !important; float: none; background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18.48px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">agents? This question would be effectively precluded by some definitions of agency […] In emphasizing the distinction, and contrasting agents with artifacts, it fails to engage with the complex network of mediation of distinctly human, social agency by artifactual means. It is precisely the importance of this network for both cognitive and social theory that Latour highlights by introducing the concept of 'interobjectivity.' […] Symbolic cognitive artifacts are not just repositories, the are also</span> <i style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18.48px; orphans: 2; xg-p: static; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; width: auto; word-spacing: 0px;">agents of change</i><span style="display: inline !important; float: none; background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial,Tahoma,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18.48px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">. […] We can argue that the agency is (at least until now) ultimately dependent on human agency, without which artifactual agency would neither exist nor have effect. But it would be wrong to think of artifactual agency as merely derivative."</span></p> Zak Stein's Lectical analysis of interpretations of AQALtag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2017-09-03:5301756:Topic:698122017-09-03T17:08:46.384ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span><span>Zak Stein did a <a href="https://dts.lectica.org/PDF/SteinUnderstandingITP.pdf" target="_blank">measurement study</a> of how JFK graduate students in integral theory and practice programs thought about AQAL. This from p. 8 is interesting: "Also examined was the relation between Integral Life Practice and Lectical Level. Le</span></span><span><span><span>vel scores were neither correlated with with any meditative, body, or…</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span><span>Zak Stein did a <a href="https://dts.lectica.org/PDF/SteinUnderstandingITP.pdf" target="_blank">measurement study</a> of how JFK graduate students in integral theory and practice programs thought about AQAL. This from p. 8 is interesting: "Also examined was the relation between Integral Life Practice and Lectical Level. Le</span></span><span><span><span>vel scores were neither correlated with with any meditative, body, or shadow practices, nor the number of Ken Wilber books read." The following indicates that knowing the model itself does not generate higher order understanding. E.g., from p. 15: "There are clear developmental differences in the ways in which individuals in this sample understand integral theory and practice." And akin to the <a href="https://www.academia.edu/27442379/Neo-Piagetian_Theories_of_Cognitive_Development_Mascolo_2015_International_Encyclopedia_of_Social_and_Behavioral_Sciences_2nd_Edition_Major_Reference_Works_Elsevier_?fref=gc&dti=470435939720069" target="_blank">Mascolo article</a>, one area of the study was significant: Those who stereotype individuals, or worse cultures, within a particular level or color is antithetical to higher cognitive complexity, and if fact inhibits it (18).</span><br/> <br/> <span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span><span>From p. 6 of Mascolo: "It follows that individuals never operate at any single level of development. Instead, they operate within a developmental range – a series of levels that vary with task, domain, context, emotional state, and so forth. Given such</span></span> <span><span><span>dynamic variation, there can be no broad-based stages of development. It is thus not helpful to think of a person or a person’s abilities as being 'in a stage' of development. Development does not move through a series of fixed steps; development operates more like a constructive Web."</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>This work questions the notion that one integrated worldview (or center of gravity) governs all our thoughts and actions, let alone that these worldviews evolve in a stage-like fashion. Therefore at any point in time one's worldview might indeed be a mixture from the so-called worldview stages, with any given one, or combination, manifesting depending on the context.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span><span><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>Recall Wilber used the cognitive line in the relative realm, and the idea of consciousness per se in the absolute realm, as the basis for a center of altitudinal gravity. There is no empirical research to support either notion. <span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span><span>Wilber uses the COG concept based on the cognitive line and the highly related self-sense line, in that it provides an organizing center from which to measure the other lines. Hence the 'relative' side of the COG. Wilber also u</span></span><span><span><span>ses the concept of consciounsess per se, thing absolute realm that provides the so-called spiritual or involutionary matrix from which the relative depends. And what developmental dynamic systems says is that both are chimeras.</span><br/> <br/> <span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span><span>Returning to Stein's study, he analyzed how JFKU grad students framed the AQAL model in that particular context at that particular time. Note the chart on p. 5 of the l</span></span><span><span><span>evels, then the chart on p. 10 on the range of interpretations of the AQAL model in stages 10 through 13 (aka formal, systematic, meta-systematic, paradigmatic; or orange, green, teal, turquoise). The notion of a 'center of gravity' for levels is, irony of all ironies, <em>green</em> relativism! And typical sophomoric interpretations of quadrants and levels are <em>orange</em>!</span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br/></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span><span><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span><span><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span><span>Note the descriptions of a post-metaphysical take on levels and quadrants in level 13. That sounds like a <em>few</em> of the contributors to this forum (and the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/470435939720069/" target="_blank">FB version</a>). At least at certain times and/or in certain contexts!</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span><span><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span><span><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span><span>"At this level, reasoning about the quadran</span></span><span><span><span>ts involves a radical and</span> <span>quasi-transcendental multi-perspectivalism, which is made explicit in terms of a widely applicable post-metaphysical mode of meta-theoretical argumentation. In light of this background, attention is brought to the provisional nature of all methods and models, especially meta-</span><span>theoretical ones. Integral Theory is broadly construed as a polycentric and evolving network of ideas catalyzed by certain highly normative principles and practices."</span><br/> <br/> <span>"At this level, reasoning about levels involves the adoption of a post-metaphysical stance toward the task of evaluating people. The provisional, bounded, and multi-perspectival nature of all models and methods is admitted and a set of meta-theoretical principles guides a recursive process of continually refining developmental models and methods in terms of both theory and practice. A broad and explicit philosophical discourse comes to supplement evaluate discussions concerning the notion of "growth to goodness," as the human potentials that characterize the highest levels</span> <span>and the future of civilization are seen as collective constructions for which we</span> <br/> <span>are responsible."</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> On the modes, amodality, supramodality and plurimodalitytag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2017-06-10:5301756:Topic:685032017-06-10T20:12:32.676ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>I posted this initially in <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/a-note-on-neologisms?page=15&commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A68403&x=1#5301756Comment68403" target="_blank">another thread</a> highlighting my use of the term <em>amodal</em> in the theurism 'amodal hier(an)archical synplexity.' In trying to justify the phrase I starting looking into the meaning of the word <em>amodal</em>. I meant it in the sense not of there being no embodied modes involved in…</p>
<p>I posted this initially in <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/a-note-on-neologisms?page=15&commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A68403&x=1#5301756Comment68403" target="_blank">another thread</a> highlighting my use of the term <em>amodal</em> in the theurism 'amodal hier(an)archical synplexity.' In trying to justify the phrase I starting looking into the meaning of the word <em>amodal</em>. I meant it in the sense not of there being no embodied modes involved in the process but rather, given the other words in the phrase, a synergy of bodily modes organized by none in particular. And not in the sort of hierarchy that subsumes the body in higher abstract functions but more of a dynamic struct<span class="text_exposed_show">ural coupling grounded in Derrida's non-concept of differance. <br/></span></p>
<p>It turns out to be a highly specific thing in neuroscientific literature. <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.kfki.hu/%7Ecsdori/Concepts.pdf" target="_blank">This</a> article discusses both modal and amodal representations with some recommendations. The embodied thesis claims that sensorimotor modes are fundamental in forming more abstract concepts and representations. It is critical of the amodal representation thesis, the pure expression of the latter claiming representational meaning is divorced from bodily experience.</p>
<p>Given the neuroscientific research to date, there is evidence for both systems, so the authors propose a hybrid. There is an amodal conceptual hub located in the anterior temporal cortex which integrates the information from the modal sensorimotor areas. Working together they create a supramodal representational space. This is much more akin to what I intuited by my using amodal in the phrase.</p>
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"><span><span>From what I gathered amodal just means that conceptual representation doesn't require sensorimotor 'modal' input. The amodal conceptual hub is what does the integration of the modal input, and according to the article, together they form a supramodel</span></span> <span><span><span>'space.' Hence its a hybrid theory between the two. By the way, <a href="https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/supramodal">this</a> definition <i>supramodal</i> was more in line with what I was trying to convey by <i>amodal</i> in the first place.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br/> <br/> <span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>There's also amodal perception, a related notion. It's when one sees just a part of an object but can fill in rest of it in their imagination. It seems it's the amodal hub that does this. E.g., from <a href="https://slehar.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/amodal-perception/">this</a> source:</span><br/> <br/> <span>"The spatial structure that is our amodal experience of the world is the common ground, or lingua franca, that unites all sensory experience in a modality-independent structural representation of the world, and that amodal structure represents our perceptual and cognitive understanding of the world."</span></span></span></span></span><br/> <br/> <span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>Btw, that last link has several chapters before and after that one with links to them. This looks to be an invaluable resource on this and related topics. E.g., Ch. 1 is on Lakoff & Nunez's work on image schema in math, Ch.2 on image schemas and so on. Which is exactly what I'm looking for, how all this relates.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>My first thought in using the term 'amodal' was previous discussion of Latour. This is where <span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>I got the tie of amodality with differance (aka Khora).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span> In the opening post of the <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/bruno-latour">Latour thread</a> he was using Soriau to discuss how the separate modes are enchained. What is required is a "second order" mode called the plurimodal,</span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>"which is defined this time by the movement and the variation or modulation of one mode into another."</span></span></span></span></span> He goes on:</span> <span>"But now it is variation itself that has to be considered equivalent to true beings. Alterity alters yet another degree. Difference differs even more differently."</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> The implications and explications of 'the fold'tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2017-05-19:5301756:Topic:681122017-05-19T20:11:18.480ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Related to <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/states-stages-the-wc-lattice-and-the-fold" target="_blank">my thread</a> on the fold, Balder (Bruce) and I had this conversation today.</p>
<p>Bruce: <span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Given Bryant's appeal to autopoiesis, a comparative look at Bryant and Thompson might be worthwhile.…</span></span><br></br> <br></br> <span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"></span></p>
<p>Related to <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/states-stages-the-wc-lattice-and-the-fold" target="_blank">my thread</a> on the fold, Balder (Bruce) and I had this conversation today.</p>
<p>Bruce: <span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Given Bryant's appeal to autopoiesis, a comparative look at Bryant and Thompson might be worthwhile.</span></span><br/> <br/> <span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Me:</span></span> <span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Bryant includes Brown's unmarked space as one example of the real excess beyond our access. In the beginning of Thompson's video he mentions Buddhist emptiness, but only in the context of relational dependent arising.</span></span></span></span><br/> <br/> <span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Bruce:</span></span></span></span> <span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Wilber uses Brown too, but in a more Idealist fashion, of course.</span></span></span></span></span></span><br/> <br/> <span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Me:</span></span></span></span></span></span> <span class="_3oh- _58nk">It doesn't appear he [Thompson] includes this excess beyond relations. <span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">And yet Bryant has lately turned into a correlationist.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br/> <br/> <span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Bruce: With his fold model?</span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br/> <br/> <span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Me: Even before that.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br/> <br/> <span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Bruce:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span> <span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Maybe a weak correlationist, reading it as co-relation?</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br/> <br/> <span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Me: Seems that way.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br/> <br/> <span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Bruce:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span> <span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">That's in line with Buddhist emptiness (in one of its iterations)</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br/> <br/> <span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Me: That's Thompson's pitch.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br/> <span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span> <span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span>Bruce: I think Bryant</span> may <span>not grok how much he skirts around a Buddhist view.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"></div>
<div class="_3058 _ui9 _hh7 _s1- _52mr _43by _3oh-" id="js_15a"><div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Me: That doesn't seem to be one of his studies. Morton though is an avid Buddhist of the Wilber variety. Meaning shentong.<br/></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Bruce:</span> <span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Yes, so there should be better rangtong representation in SR/OOO!</span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Me:</span></span></span> <span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">I do recall though one Bryant post criticizing Morton's Buddhist take as being one form of correlationism.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"></span></span></span></span><div class="_3058 _ui9 _hh7 _s1- _52mr _3oh-" id="js_1eu"><div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span>Bruce: I remember. And Bryant</span> may <span>not be aware of rangtong interpretations.</span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span> </span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span>Me:</span></span> <span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Starting on p. 9 of <a href="https://larvalsubjects.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/milwaukeetalk.pdf">his paper</a> on the fold he counters Harman's completely unrelational withdrawn with the fold. It is a dyadic relation between object and the filed, but not dualistic. In the fold there is no ultimate ground.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Bruce:</span></span></span></span> <span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Yes, more Nagarjunan dependent origination. I really wonder if he read our forum because I used to bring that up when first encountering his talk about completely unrelational withdrawn.</span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Me:</span></span></span></span></span></span> <span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">And yet it is not empty or undifferentiated (10).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><div class="_3058 _ui9 _hh7 _s1- _52mr _3oh-" id="js_2xn"><div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span>Bruce: Perhaps empty</span> in one <span>sense, but not another?</span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span> </span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><div class="_3058 _ui9 _hh7 _s1- _52mr _43by _3oh-" id="js_akr"><div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Me: Hard to tell what he means. It seems the 'field' is still Brown's 'unmarked space.' But maybe that too is not undifferentiated, itself a product of difference? E.g., on p. 18 he notes that not only do autonomous objects implicate from the field, but they also explicate those autonomous differences back into the field, thus also changing the field. The field is thus also co-arising.</span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Bruce: Yes, that's similar to what I touched on in my translineage paper, drawing on Gendlin's latest work on body-and-environment, body-as-environment.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Me: It <i>might</i> be similar to Thompson's being-in-the-world of contextual relations, but he uses far different language.</span></span> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Bruce:</span></span></span> <span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Yes. I think a Thompson-Bryant interface would be a worthwhile exploration. Maybe you and I should do it.</span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><div class="_3058 _ui9 _hh7 _s1- _52mr _43by _3oh-" id="js_chg"><div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Me: And of course Bryant no longer uses the word 'object' but 'machinic assemblage.' Yes, it would be a good project to bring in Thompson't work on the neurophysiology of meditative states to 'ground' the typical kennilingus idealism about those states.</span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Bruce: And to expand OOO work well beyond where it usually goes.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Me:</span> <span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">We could 'ply' them, ha!</span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Bruce: LOL! Yep. Which calls for folding in Faber or Keller too.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><div class="_3058 _ui9 _hh7 _s1- _52mr _43by _3oh-" id="js_3u2"><div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Me: "You got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them." That could be the opening quote of the paper!</span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Bruce: Love it. </span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></span></div>
<div class="_aok">Me: <span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">I also like Bryant suggesting on p. 22 that instead of using the term 'withdrawn' for machines perhaps 'radiant' is better. This of course relates to the 'radiance' of meditative states.</span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Bruce:</span></span> <span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Radiance also sparks thoughts of excess.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"><span class="_mh6 _wsc" id="cch_f2f43c638d55862"><span class="_3oh- _58nk"> </span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="_aok"><div class="_3058 _ui9 _hh7 _s1- _52mr _43by _3oh-" id="js_el9"><div class="_aok"><span class="_3oh- _58nk">Me: Thompson does imply that consciousness itself is a folded interaction between us and the environmental field. As do all the embodied realists, Lakoff included.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div> "Facts"tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2016-06-22:5301756:Topic:659472016-06-22T21:29:16.648ZAmbo Sunohttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/AmboSuno
This thread could be used for slicing through "truth" and "reality" from a level and angle of "fact." There probably are philosophical and scientific treatices around this topic, since "facts", "truth claims", "validity", and such designators are one favorite modern starting point for critique and for intentions to "know."<br />
<br />
Knowing, and particularly facts that purport to populate knowledge, are a very tricky business. They touch into two privileged root philosophical inquiries, epistemology,…
This thread could be used for slicing through "truth" and "reality" from a level and angle of "fact." There probably are philosophical and scientific treatices around this topic, since "facts", "truth claims", "validity", and such designators are one favorite modern starting point for critique and for intentions to "know."<br />
<br />
Knowing, and particularly facts that purport to populate knowledge, are a very tricky business. They touch into two privileged root philosophical inquiries, epistemology, and in the direction of ontology, both of which deconstruct much of what we think we know and what we hold dear, consciously and unconsciously.<br />
<br />
This post and link to the Politifact site could have been placed under Edwyrd's "True and false reason thread," as "facts" so pertain and undergird, overgird, and imbue much of the analyses that are done by others. Or probably on some other threads. However, this separate thread might be a good way to slice through our senses of truth and such at this level and angle of everyday knowing, thereby, highlighting "facts."<br />
<br />
At an everyday scale, we are inundated by "facts" in consumption and material utilization choices, in skillful work and general means & management, in life paths, wisdom searches, and in this particular season that I write, political discourse, claims, insults, and battle - e.g. the leadership elections.<br />
<br />
I can see that, as always, there are places and ways in which bias and error and inflation of even this honesty-search process can go awry. Fairly ordinary but rather educated people who seem to intend to have much objectivity, as we know, are actually and almost inevitably subject to sources of skew and error. Yet, probably until I become aware of some egregious corruption (always relative,) I am glad for what they do. Good effort - probably little impact [grimace.]<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/nov/01/principles-politifact-punditfact-and-truth-o-meter/">http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/nov/01/principles-politifact-punditfact-and-truth-o-meter/</a><br />
<br />
Here in the attached file is one part of the standards that aspires towards making valid discernments and judgements. These principles (and others that you may want to read) give me a good resonant and common-sense feel, as a starting point. Before *post*-metaphysical spirituality - enough realiably coherent mental healthtag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2016-03-14:5301756:Topic:641542016-03-14T18:06:40.643ZAmbo Sunohttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/AmboSuno
At Integral Life Community website there is a good and informative reminder about the ongoing challenges for most of us, maybe each of us, to be and become quite intimate with our own scintillating psychologies. As we scintilate in and out of multiple surrounding and imbuing life contexts and in and out of aspects of ourselves (especially as we endeavor to own more of our hidden-to-ourselves nature and potentials), must we not be open to questioning our own psychosocial and spiritual health, as…
At Integral Life Community website there is a good and informative reminder about the ongoing challenges for most of us, maybe each of us, to be and become quite intimate with our own scintillating psychologies. As we scintilate in and out of multiple surrounding and imbuing life contexts and in and out of aspects of ourselves (especially as we endeavor to own more of our hidden-to-ourselves nature and potentials), must we not be open to questioning our own psychosocial and spiritual health, as well as those of other situations and people.<br />
<br />
Mark Foreman and Keith Witt, lisecnced psychologists and integrally articulate community members look at "The Spectrum of Brokenness: What to Do When You're Dealing With a Personality Disorder, and they range further into other features of mental and AQALly comprehensive health. It is quite well done, and it is a free sound cloud offering.<br />
<a href="https://www.integrallife.com/audio/spectrum-brokenness-what-do-when-youre-dealing-personality-disorder">https://www.integrallife.com/audio/spectrum-brokenness-what-do-when-youre-dealing-personality-disorder</a><br />
<br />
Though this conversation is more to the professional side, it also becomes clear that within the landscapes of our own biasing minds and our own cultivated circles of exposure, we too can become tweaked and busted and limited, eh :) science providing necessary underpinning or corroboration or 'litmus testing' for spiritual metaphysics and post-metaphysicstag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-11-23:5301756:Topic:628642015-11-23T02:21:57.927ZAmbo Sunohttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/AmboSuno
<p>The issues suggested in the title to this thread have been sprinkled organically and supportively throughout various threads. Yet this can be a thread where explicit studies and research can be the starting point more than incidental to areas of mind, consciousness, and human functioning that can be crucial to careful thought and exploration about "spirituality".</p>
<p>Some of these scientific items may be very obviously pertinent for many readers to musings on "spirit", and others may seem…</p>
<p>The issues suggested in the title to this thread have been sprinkled organically and supportively throughout various threads. Yet this can be a thread where explicit studies and research can be the starting point more than incidental to areas of mind, consciousness, and human functioning that can be crucial to careful thought and exploration about "spirituality".</p>
<p>Some of these scientific items may be very obviously pertinent for many readers to musings on "spirit", and others may seem so minor as to bring wonder as to how they relate. My bias is that science, especially bio-neuro science, brings a lot to the inquiries of spirit, and this bias may be both a strength and a limitation of my understanding and "kosmic address(es)"</p>
<p>[I may bring some other items from other threads to this one.]</p>
<p>In this initial posting, the referred to research bit is speaking to sensation, perceptual processing, cognitive processing, interpretation at various levels of awareness, conclusions, and theory building. This one challenges some notions of what is 'hardwired' and what is more environmentally and learning dependent.</p>
<p>The hypotheses regard taste, and some olfaction, and are specific and small enough in scope to achieve some hard evidence in a laboratory, in this situation with mice.</p>
<p>How does this relate to spirituality? Almost needless to say, to understand anything integrally we need to consider all quadrants and zones, in this case, the right-sided quadrants. How does this relate to post-metaphysics? Post often, later, means having moved beyond - in this case, beyond the physical theories and metaphysical theories that find truth-support and logical coherence through science. Of course.</p>
<p>As I post this new thread, I think of Balder's recent entry regarding Michel Serres' and his book, The Five Senses.</p>
<p><a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/michel-serres?id=5301756%3ATopic%3A44508&page=2#comments">http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/michel-serres?id=5301756%3ATopic%3A44508&page=2#comments</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>Do you in reading this or these studies have any insights about the big concepts, realities, and experiences around which this forum has been created?</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151118155126.htm">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151118155126.htm</a></strong></p>
<p>"Most people probably think that we perceive the five basic tastes -- sweet, sour, salty, bitter and umami (savory)--with our tongue, which then sends signals to our brain 'telling' us what we've tasted. However, scientists have turned this idea on its head. . ."</p>
<p>"These experiments formally prove that the sense of taste is completely hardwired, independent of learning or experience, said Dr. Zuker, which is different from the olfactory system. Odors don't carry innate meaning until you associate them with experiences. One smell could be great for you and horrible to me." (As humans, of course, we can eventually learn to enjoy bitters and dislike sugar).</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>