Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-29T11:30:31ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAldermanhttp://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2535948155?profile=RESIZE_48X48&width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=0tpjz7g696d6o&xg_raw_resources=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noMoved to Facebook IPS forumtag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2022-11-18:5301756:Topic:1464042022-11-18T16:04:41.398ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>This forum is now an archive. If interested join the active Facebook IPS forum.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/470435939720069">https://www.facebook.com/groups/470435939720069</a></p>
<p>This forum is now an archive. If interested join the active Facebook IPS forum.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/470435939720069">https://www.facebook.com/groups/470435939720069</a></p> Jhana Meditator Guytag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2021-09-17:5301756:Topic:1448032021-09-17T14:05:02.770ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Hello everyone,</p>
<p>I have a question. Some time ago we were talking about... well I'm not sure what we were talking about... hey, gimme a break, I just turned 60 this year! haha... and, anyway, the discussion turned to meditators as judges of their own accomplishments, or some such thing... and anyway, I think it was Balder... hey dude, hope you're well... Balder mentioned someone who had more or less taken it upon himself to train himself in accomplishing the Buddhist jhanas.<br></br>Now,…</p>
<p>Hello everyone,</p>
<p>I have a question. Some time ago we were talking about... well I'm not sure what we were talking about... hey, gimme a break, I just turned 60 this year! haha... and, anyway, the discussion turned to meditators as judges of their own accomplishments, or some such thing... and anyway, I think it was Balder... hey dude, hope you're well... Balder mentioned someone who had more or less taken it upon himself to train himself in accomplishing the Buddhist jhanas.<br/>Now, does anyone remember the name of this guy? And has he written any books on his adventure?</p>
<p>I think this sort of thing is becoming of greater interest to mainstream scholars working on the history of Buddhist meditation as it relates to textual descriptions. Some of the impetus may be coming from the growing number of 'practitioner scholars' out there, but it is also coming from a genuine interest in what, if at all, some of these terms like jhana, samadhi, prajna, smriti, dhyana, śamatha, vipassana and so on refer to exactly or how what they refer to could have changed over time or between groups or movements.</p>
<p>Thanks!<br/>kela</p> Jean Knox - Archetype, Attachment, Analysistag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-10-20:5301756:Topic:773422019-10-20T00:06:11.582ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Free copy <a href="https://b-ok.cc/book/870355/71c3de" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>. Pay particular attention to chapter 3, "Archetypes and image schema, a developmental perspective."</p>
<p>Free copy <a href="https://b-ok.cc/book/870355/71c3de" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>. Pay particular attention to chapter 3, "Archetypes and image schema, a developmental perspective."</p> Jeremy Rifkin: The Green New Dealtag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-09-10:5301756:Topic:770082019-09-10T22:09:50.765ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Just came out today. The blurb <a href="https://integralpostmetaphysicalnonduality.blogspot.com/2019/09/jeremy-rifkins-new-book-green-new-deal.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>. Get a free copy <a href="https://b-ok.cc/book/5240303/fd9377" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.</p>
<p>Just came out today. The blurb <a href="https://integralpostmetaphysicalnonduality.blogspot.com/2019/09/jeremy-rifkins-new-book-green-new-deal.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>. Get a free copy <a href="https://b-ok.cc/book/5240303/fd9377" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.</p> Do our models get in the way?tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-08-22:5301756:Topic:772012019-08-22T00:29:00.147ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<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:767562019-08-02T14:10:35.557ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<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:768012019-05-09T20:24:17.464ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<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 Language Vs. Experience Debatetag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-02-11:5301756:Topic:752232019-02-11T20:38:15.375ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Here's a side discussion that took place on Infinite Conversations on the ever-sticky topic of whether language (and philosophy) is necessarily disembodied, non-experiential, etc.</p>
<p></p>
<p>EDWARD</p>
<p>As to Tom’s paper on uncertainty and emptiness, I appreciate what David Loy said of relevance in this 2 article:</p>
<p>"Today the thinker most often compared to Nagarjuna is the French philosopher Jacques Derrida… Derrida is not interested in defending any philosophical position of his…</p>
<p>Here's a side discussion that took place on Infinite Conversations on the ever-sticky topic of whether language (and philosophy) is necessarily disembodied, non-experiential, etc.</p>
<p></p>
<p>EDWARD</p>
<p>As to Tom’s paper on uncertainty and emptiness, I appreciate what David Loy said of relevance in this 2 article:</p>
<p>"Today the thinker most often compared to Nagarjuna is the French philosopher Jacques Derrida… Derrida is not interested in defending any philosophical position of his own but instead is concerned with showing the limits of language and the difficulties we fall into when we overstep them. Derrida’s work builds on structuralism, which argues that words do not have meaning in and of themselves. The meaning of any linguistic expression always depends upon some other expression, and that ‘other expression’ is also dependent on something else. Meaning is therefore relative and always in flux, part of a chain of reference that never comes to an end. Whatever we think we understand right here and now always presupposes something else that is not present.</p>
<p>“Derrida’s term to describe the relativity and ‘indeterminability’ of meaning is différance, and the way différance functions in his philosophy can be compared to how Nagarjuna uses shunyata, or emptiness. Derrida emphasizes that différance does not refer to some specific thing. It is merely a conceptual tool useful for describing how conceptual meaning is never quite settled, but always ‘deferred.’”</p>
<p>Given the last post, and since Derrida is considered the ultimate postmodern Boogie Man, some questions.</p>
<p>Tom: If Loy has a correct interpretation of Derrida, and from my reading he does for the most part, does this change any of your developmental assessment of postmodernism?</p>
<p>Marco: Given your post in the definitions thread claiming that modernism and postmodernism are the same mental stuff, does the Loy material above change your position?</p>
<p></p>
<p>MARCO</p>
<p>I read some Derrida in college, but have not studied his work in depth. He is on my list, along with Levinas—for their ethical thought especially. It’s just a matter of when.</p>
<p>However, as far as I can tell, Derrida’s concept of differánce is basically about meaning and language, part of the linguistic turn in philosophy coming out of Heiedegger’s ‘destruction’ of metaphyics and critique of presence. As a practical matter: he is philosophizing.</p>
<p>Foucault seemed to be more on the trail of the integral when he began studying the history of sexuality and the ‘care of the self’, coming out of the ancient Greek ascesis. Here we are moving out of the predominently mental orientation towards some integrated praxis of embodiment (which includes the mental, but with a sense of human proportion).</p>
<p>The other David Loy quote you posted, about the point of meditation not being to “get rid of thoughts” or conceptualization, does square with my understanding of practice.</p>
<p>So but I don’t think my position has changed wrt modern/postmodern. If we are caught in distortions of language, then use language to decontruct the language we are caught in, we are still operating on the mental plane of language. I would ask, what other dimensions, realities, or embodiments are in play, in addition to the linguistic?</p>
<p>What’s going on subliminally? What are the interpersonal dynamics? What is the living context of the utterance? Who is speaking and what do they want? How do our discourse events relate to the unfolding planetary drama? Where are we when we are in cosmic time?</p>
<p></p>
<p>JOHN</p>
<p>Can you draw a picture of all that? Can you bring all of that into your body and allow a gesture to come forth? Can you sing it? If you cant do any of the above you haven’t become Integral yet. And if you don’t know what to do that is a very good sign. Perhaps you can drop into the Liminal? But you have to let go of everything first. And you may not come back.</p>
<p>It dont mean a thing if it aint got that swing. We can dip into the subliminal by paying attention to all non-verbals in animal communiques and in humans. And we can pay attention to the tone of the voice and where that voice comes from. Head? Heart? Gut? And does any of that communique from the field of all possibility have a size or a shape? And is there a relationship between all of that and what you can say about all of that? And all of that is like what? Most philosophers are talking from the top of their heads. A few of them visit their bodies on rare occasions. Weary of splashing in the shallow end of the pool they venture beyond the life guard’s view. They slide, undetected, into secret waters…</p>
<p>There is no need to respond to this message with what you already know. Ye who are experts cannot enter here. The bottom of the sea is cruel.</p>
<p></p>
<p>EDWARD</p>
<p>Marco: No, Derrida’s work is not just about linguistics but about the very nature of being. I don’t have the time at present to go into the details but I suggest you read Caputo, Desilet, Bryant and Freeman on the topic if you’re interested, who address all of your questions. We’ve discussed all of them at length in the IPS forum.</p>
<p>PS: The de/reconstructive method is a practice that induces experience.</p>
<p></p>
<p>MARCO</p>
<p>Isn’t the “very nature of being” one of those deffered difference engines that precisely refuses to be simply signified in Derridean discourse?</p>
<p>What John’s talking about actually brings attention out of mental-conceptual language and into a mental-perceptual field of somatic experience, metaphor, poetry—the use of words, I mean, their performativity.</p>
<p>I am curious, what kind of experience, for you, does de/constructive praxis induce? What is it like to be you, when you perform this practice?</p>
<p>It will take me a long time to review all the reading you cite! But perhaps this would be a common entry point into a productive discussion of Tom’s paper? He does a really great job of bringing “postmetaphysics” down to earth, imo. It’s not quite, but I could see how it could be, a practical guide.</p>
<p>So what’s it like to do postmetaphysics, if one follows the various arguments about consciousness development, epistemological humility, ontological pluralism, and the like, to their concrete, worldly, embodied conclusions? How do you make integral postmetaphysical spirituality a reality in your daily life?</p>
<p></p>
<p>EDWARD</p>
<p>Why share my experience of de/reconstruction? I can see that too will only be interpreted from what I see as a fundamental religious dogmatism here. My time is too precious for this so I’ll move on.</p>
<p></p>
<p>BRUCE</p>
<p>I’m not a practitioner of deconstruction, in any formal Derridean sense, so I won’t try to answer that for Ed. But with my own integral grammatology, I’m aware there could be the same response: isn’t that all just in-the-head mental/language stuff? For one, I reject the dichotomy between language and embodiment or experience; language is embodied and experiential, not just mental. I learned this more than 25 years ago when I created my own language, and first had to discover how to radically reorder my perception before I could create a fundamentally new grammar. More recently, I’ve created a number of experiential exercises and have explored them in some workshops around the different elements of my grammatology. Each part of speech can be seen not only as a mental label, but as an element of the structure of experience. For instance, with prepositions, you can sit eye gazing with a partner or listening to them speak, or you can take a walk in a forest, etc, and explore the relations and time-space dynamics of the unfolding of any gestalt of experience that enfolds and connects you and other beings. You can notice what relations predominate, and you can practice shifting them and feeling into what happens, in sense perception, self-sense, body, heart, mind, etc. I’ve gotten good feedback on this, from students, artists, spiritual practitioners, and therapists. Therapists, for instance, noticed how they were able to get new insights into their clients, and new insights into how they were sitting with and ‘holding’ their clients in awareness.</p> Defintions of IPStag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-02-05:5301756:Topic:752212019-02-05T16:48:26.636ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>The issue link is <a href="http://integral-review.org/current_issue/vol-15-no-1-jan-2019/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>. There has been some discussion of this at IC <a href="https://www.infiniteconversations.com/t/02-definitions-of-integral-postmetaphysical-spirituality-various-contributors/2898" rel="noopener" target="_blank">here</a>, with a general attitude that postmetaphysics is deficient rationality per Gebser's definition. I posted the following to see if anyone there can…</p>
<p>The issue link is <a href="http://integral-review.org/current_issue/vol-15-no-1-jan-2019/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>. There has been some discussion of this at IC <a href="https://www.infiniteconversations.com/t/02-definitions-of-integral-postmetaphysical-spirituality-various-contributors/2898" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>, with a general attitude that postmetaphysics is deficient rationality per Gebser's definition. I posted the following to see if anyone there can even understand it.</p>
<p style="background-color: transparent; color: #222222; font-family: &quot; lato&quot;,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin-top: 0px; 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 style="font-size: 10pt;">It might be helpful to understand what <a style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-bottom-color: #9c27b0; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; color: #9c27b0; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_rationality?fbclid=IwAR2R2FWWBE2l1r3cJ5sJhn74UaZDJ4_Gk7C_5R5GI2xODWC62xdTtMALzjw#Post-metaphysical_philosophy" rel="nofollow noopener">Habermas meant </a> by the term ‘postmetaphysical.’ It:</span></p>
<ol style="background-color: transparent; clear: both; color: #222222; font-family: &quot; lato&quot;,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; 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;">
<li style="line-height: 22.4px; overflow: visible; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Called into question the substantive conceptions of rationality (e.g. “a rational person thinks this”) and put forward procedural or formal conceptions instead (e.g. “a rational person thinks like this”);</span></li>
<li style="line-height: 22.4px; overflow: visible; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">replaced foundationalism with fallibilism with regard to valid knowledge and how it may be achieved;</span></li>
<li style="line-height: 22.4px; overflow: visible; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">cast doubt on the idea that reason should be conceived abstractly beyond history and the complexities of social life, and have contextualized or situated reason in actual historical practices;</span></li>
<li style="line-height: 22.4px; overflow: visible; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">replaced a focus on individual structures of consciousness with a concern for pragmatic structures of language and action as part of the contextualization of reason; and</span></li>
<li style="line-height: 22.4px; overflow: visible; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">given up philosophy’s traditional fixation on theoretical truth and the representational functions of language, to the extent that they also recognize the moral and expressive functions of language as part of the contextualization of reason.</span></li>
</ol> The agency of objectstag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-02-01:5301756:Topic:753202019-02-01T17:24:33.193ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<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>