* FYI, theurjism is the term for my unique neologisms.

You may have noticed that I use a few terms that are not in the dictionary, that I've made up to get across a meaning that is also not in the dictionary. So let me clarify at least two of them for the moment. Kennilingus* is one such term. It is a take on the word “cunnilingus” with which you are already familiar. The “kenni” part refers to Ken Wilber, so it's a sort of play on one who licks Wilber. This of course is metaphorical, not meaning one who actually gives head to him, although that most certainly could be included, especially since his “suck my dick” comment to critics, which comment it seems acolytes take literally. It's more like those who unflinchingly accept his work verbatim without much, if any, criticism. We all know the type, who when speaking of “integral” will use the exact same language as Wilber, not only in content but often in the same style with the same prejudices. I also use it to refer to the source from when the language comes, to Wilber's own dogma. To make it more akin to fellatio I have another variation for the object of worship in kennilingus, Ken Wilber as Kennilingam. (See this for a definition of lingam, which includes penis but goes into its religious meanings as well, a fit symbol of the AQAL religion.)

 

To distinguish the alternative integral movement from kennilingus I use the term “intergraal.” “Inter” comes more from the interrelations of the elements of AQAL instead of their rigid distinctions. Granted the elements should be separated out to gain invaluable analysis and clarity. Nor should they be reduced to each other in some form a overarching, dominant and relativistic mush of equality. But neither should they be so distinct as to not see how they relate, for it is in the relationships that any sense of a whole emerges from which the parts participate. And said whole is not THE whole, just a particular whole relative to a particular focus in a particular context. And this doesn't have to be reduced to another form of relativism, since it can also accommodate qualitative distinction and make value judgments so to which wholes are better in which circumstances. Also said parts do not have to be entirely subsumed in any given whole, since they retain their own agency and participate in other wholes in other contexts.

 

The “graal” of intergraal is the Old French spelling of the term “grail.” We often associate grails with the Holy Grail, the cup that caught the blood of Christ on the cross, and which nectar is purported to induce in one communion with the divine. Hence from such cups in religious masses where wine is transubstantiated into the blood of Christ we are washed of our sins by partaking in this ritualistic cannibalism. But again metaphorically it symbolizes more that communion with the big Other. We can demythologize that other from some metaphysical divinity to a more humane other, to focusing more on humanity in the here and now in this world and in this context, in our present embodiment and interactivity with our environment and other human beings. It is a transforming and perhaps even transubstantiating conversion from our isolated agency to a balance with our human communion through the emerging next wave of development in P2P networks. Hence intergraal is in distinction from the typically more agentic, individualistic, authoritarian, capitalistic and intellectualized kennilingus.

* Aka AQALingus for those more sensitive snowflakes offended by kennilingus. They'll probably be offended by this more innocuous version too though.

Views: 2718

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

See this post for quacademics.

Love your memenies here.

This is an actual word of the day: hemidemisemiquaver, which means a sixty-forth note. It reminds me of all the prefixes used in kennilingus, like meta and trans and post and para. Perhaps they should all be lumped together, as in transparapostmetaphysical whatever.

So, for the purposes of the ever-expanding, ever-refining Christmas Wiki which of the terms in this thread are the most useful, durable, etc?  If you only had to pick three or five in terms of their capacity to crystallize a communicable high-level insight-structure or recurrent phenomena... which would you pick?

Kennilingus, obviously. Kennilingam as the dominant gonad (instead of monad). Others I use often: assholon, de/re, rhetaphor.

Just added 'assholon' and 'saectum saectorum' just the Wiki.  Let me know how those definitions sit with you.  And if you had to define "rhetaphor" freshly today -- what would you say?

I have no quibble with how you define the terms, since it's your wiki and your interpretation of things. I would ask though that you consider a link to the particular posts in this thread that reference the terms as originally defined.

Rhetaphor is a combination of the words rhetoric and metaphor. It acknowledges the origins of language in embodiment via cognitive linguistics, while extending rhetoric beyond linguistic into pre-linguistic communication as well. It is communication per se, even for non-living suobjects, both intra- and intersuobjectively. Akin to Bryant's symbolic domain (and following post), or semiotics more generally.

I appreciate the "no quibble" but I also hope you will mention anything that seems left out -- since my hope is to provide a generally useful conception through creative interplay and not merely a private interpretation.  I've added rhetaphor and suobject -- and linked to IPS threads in which these phrases appear.



theurj said:

I have no quibble with how you define the terms, since it's your wiki and your interpretation of things. I would ask though that you consider a link to the particular posts in this thread that reference the terms as originally defined.

Rhetaphor is a combination of the words rhetoric and metaphor. It acknowledges the origins of language in embodiment via cognitive linguistics, while extending rhetoric beyond linguistic into pre-linguistic communication as well. It is communication per se, even for non-living suobjects, both intra- and intersuobjectively. Akin to Bryant's symbolic domain (and following post), or semiotics more generally.

Ok, I will take a closer look and provide some feedback in a bit.

For saectum saectorum your use of space as "as a primitive proto-material fluid" is antithetical to how I'd view it, since I've been influenced by Brant's notion that suobjects create their own space-time. It might though relate to how I've wondered about a hyperobject's overriding space-time, one such being our universe at large.

Also see this wiki on recombination, which might be more akin to your notion, wherein hot dense plasma predated hydrogen. And/or cosmic background radiation, but that latter is from photon decoupling and not recombination.

As an aside to previous discussions of light as source of matter and the universe, the above wiki makes clear that light was not 'free' of matter but intrinsic with it until photon decoupling. So it is not the 'source.'

I think the two ideas that are central to the saectum saectorum are (a) the commonest material (b) the intrinsic value of that material in contradistinction to the ascending value of immaterial superlatives. Would you agree with that? 

I have an entry on Space where I try to make clear the distinctions between its use as "locatability", "proto-material" and "spaciousness".  The second sense is used in a variety of astrophysical models both classical and alternative as the most reduced (pre-particulate) version of materiality. 

I'm not a strong proponent of the combined metric of space-time but (and I'm not well versed in Brant's notion on this) I view massless energy as the underlying source of both spacing & timing.  So the patterned energy which embodies suobjects produces, in a sense, some self-referenced timing & spacing which is only partly known through its expression as mass-bearing particles acting on other mass-bearing particles. 

Just after the initial threshold of the propagation of mass (the big bang) we find the "most primitive, most common material" becoming stably enfolding into quarks, electrons, etc.  These are semi-discrete, mass-equivalent events which enter our mathematics as virtually infinite because the whole of "space" folds in and back out from each nanotorus -- in the process updating it about the position of everything else in the material universe.  These open knots stabilize into atomic relationships and release pulses when they accelerate or decelerate.  One example of that "photon decoupling" which sends wave-packets of electric potential through the universe... appearing as free units of electromagnetism (photons) when they interact with certain material fields.

And this process need not be confined to the early universe (although it may be) if the historicity of our algebraic turns out to contain one or more distortions. 

So

1. Do you have a disagreement this sort of physics?

2. Is proto-material (like hydrogen) a legitimate facet of thinking about "the commonest mundane element"?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2019   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service