Participatory Spirituality for the 21st Century
* 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.
Wilber's version of it includes the aperspective of the metaphysics of presence, aka direct perception of the ultimate.
I was thrown, I suppose, because you made this remark in your conversation with Bryan, who did not appear (from what I read) to be invoking aperspectivism in this context.
Sure he is when he invokes "the ends must justify themsevles" from his version of what integral-aperspetivalism means.
Did you ask him what he means by " the means must justify themselves"? It sounds like he might be arguing for a deontological ethics as opposed to a utilitarian one. An integral ethics arguably would be a situational one which involves both deontological and utilitarian moments or considerations.
I did not, as I've said I'm tired of debating integral theory/philosophy, particularly kennilingus but also in general. I have hundreds (by now thousands?) of pages of that in the forum if anyone wants to do the homework. But another admitted kennilinguist comes to town without such background homework and expects us to go over ground we've covered countless times. I know some kind and generous souls don't mind that but that's not my particular blessing.
And yes, when someone speaks kennilingus I do have an aversion now and make assumptions on that sort of theoretical framing. For example, Wilber's integral-aperspectival (IA) descriptions are a distinct evolutionary level and perspective, a perspective that takes into account other perspectives and provides a nice nested place for them in his scheme of things. But as we've explored over hundreds of hours in the forum, Gebser's IA is not another perspective among others, is not the next higher level of perspective. At least according to those not within the kennilingus bubble, this as but one example.
So yes, I made assumptions like the above given Bryan's kennilingus framing, which may or not, or partially be or not, the case. In any event, as I've told you both in forums and personally, I'm just not that much into philosophical debate or even dialog these days. And yes, I find it emotionally draining as well.
Syntegral. Wish I'd thought of this one. It comes from the Edwards et al. article in this thread. Kind of like my intergraal in the first post of this thread.
Syn City is another name for Multipli City.
We've discussed the theology of polydoxy, akin to Multipli City and Syn City. Then there's polyamory, the love of more than one person. So how about the love of more than the One which also challenges its unitarian metaphysics, polyamorodoxy? Doxy Lady?
At FB I linked to an article on Brian Eno's comments on what he calls scenius. It's a neologism he uses to describe how those considered geniuses is built on the 'great man' theory of history. Instead he shows how they grew out of an entire cultural milieu where these ideas and techniques were brewing on a collective level. It is not to denigrate or deny the individual's contribution but only to contextualize it. Plus it's not so much the collective over individualism but recognizes that both together create this thing called genius. It's more a balance and intermixing of the 4 quadrants of individual/social, inner/outer.
Along those lines I noted above that I favor the term syntegral over integral. With this new term above I'm now inclined to take out the gral and now call it synius as the noun and adjective for the emerging, alternative, integrative work happening here and around the globe.
I'm now leaning toward synteus as more mellifluous. It also emphasizes the 'with us.'
In a FB IPS post LP talks about how Wilber's use of neo-perennialism might blur distinctions somewhat. So I asked if that would be Wilblur?