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.
I have some new ones. For example this from the OOO thread:
I had a few options: sobject, interject(ive), interjact(ive). But Morton doesn't like the interactive ([co]relationism) models, so he would probably from upon the latter two.
Now I'm thinking "suobject." It has the "su" of subject and would be pronounced "swobject." Swob is a derivation of swab, being both a noun and a verb. As a verb it is transitive, requiring an object so a suobject requires itself as its own object, thus making it good for OOO. Amazing what rationalization can do.
I think it’s fine to introduce neologisms that at first confuse, thinking perhaps it’s a misspelling. One of my innumerable mentors coined differance which many might have mistook as a typo at first.* Such ‘mistakes’ cause one to remember the word. So while I like suobject (the fricken auto-speller corrected it!) I’m now starting to like intersobject even better. For me it exemplifies the interrelationships between all 4 quadrants rather than being confined to any one quadrant. It’s a word that represents what Edwards has been trying to get across, that every holon has 4 quadrants, and that holons aren’t in quadrants. An intersobject is such a holon, whether a person, place or thing. Plus I like the ‘sob’ part, indicative of crying, since melancholia is a door through which to perceive this realm, at least per Morton above.
* Some still make the mistake that differance = difference.
And from the essence thread:
Given my wont I say we need new words to reiterate new meaning to our concepts of essence, absolute etc. Hence Derrida created the new word differance. Since I like the prefix quasi I suggest quasiessence. It has an effervescence and mellifluity harmonious with the quantumium, the latter a new word for the continuum. Yes, I am the quasiessence of the quantumium via intersobjectivity. Yee-fucking-haw! (As we say here in Texas.)
More from the essence thread:
Balder: Hahaha, I like that, Ed. Here's a monstrosity: AQuasiessence, a bastard product of AQAL, quasi, and essence.
Me: Given my visceral response to Kennilingam's writings on essence perhaps for me the more appropriate word might be AQueasiessence?
This post from another thread explains the new one, de/re:
I think though, as we're seeing time and again, where postmetaphysicality comes in is to not destroy spirituality but to de/reconstruct it.* This process of de-essentializing** it leads to democratic social progress through equal opportunity, etc. Granted, the rational atheists might throw out the baby with the bathwater but even the likes of Harris see the necessary value of of spiritual experience, sans the essentialist talk. Hence his vigilent, and appropos, critique of traditional religion and spirituality.
* I think the diminutive for this should be de/re instead of pomo; it has a better ring.
** Which is of course a main feature of the Buddhist tradition. Never mind that it too has fallen away from this in many ways and needs some de/re. Harris has something to say about this too.
PS: In a strange phonetic association de/re reminded me of the milk commercials where da-iry is worshiped as a religion. This too can happen when we re/deify de/re, something Derrida was most careful not to do. Are you ready for some re/de? (Sung to this tune.)
Here are some more from recent posts:
pOOOntong: From this post and following, showing the difference between my view and the rangtong/shentong. Derivation of poontang. You see the influence of my perverse preoccupation with bodily processes in this and following.
Objectile Madhyamakhorakaka: In reference to this post about using onticology, differance and Madhyamaka to elucidate the ground. Sort of like projectile vomit, but with kaka as in explosive diarrhea. Very purging and liberating, but really messy and stinky rather than sweetness and light.
Khorajismism: In reference to this post, trying to describe a new "ism" or field or meta-context for the new materialism. A very creative and again messy substance that literally provides the seed for an emergent process within the generative matrix of khora.
Smore neologistics from this thread:
You mentioned some other adjectives, through and across. I like both, since the idea seems to be about permeable membranes/boundaries. Crosscorporeal though has a nice alliterative ring but is not quite right. However if we maintain the a in across it seems more apropos, as in a/crosscorporeal or (a)crosscorporeal.* The a also hints at the 'void' spaces in any spongey object, or its hidden, reserved and empty (in the Buddhist sense) virtual aspect. It also specifies an objects singularity, as well as its relations in context with the entire word. We also have the words cross, corpo and real therein, with their many connotations. Cross for example has religious implications as well as Harman's four-fold nature. Corp of course of the body, and I just love the term real as in realism, etc.
Also the word is itself a meta-paradigmatic enaction, kind of like differance is an enaction of its meaning. Thus once explained it serves as a shorthand enaction for the complex 'universal' principle, a principle of the embodied kind I discussed in the OOO thread.
Granted you know I like the prefix inter, having used it in my neologism intergraal. But inter doesn't have the other aspects mentioned above.
* Reminiscent of one of my fav neologisms, hier(an)archy (and an-archy). But Caputo beat me to that one.
Another word popped up for me, transact, since it denotes interrelated actions between objects. Combine the prefix en and we get trans(en)act, another word that enacts its meaning. I also like the meaning of en, from dictionary.com, one being akin to your use of enclosure:
Combine them in a phrase: A 'trans(en)acted a/crosscorporeality' instead of an 'enacted meta-paradigmatic approach?' Granted the latter sounds more AQALey but heh, mine is more neologismey. (Ew, that sounds too jismey...)
I decided that 'a/crosscorporeal trans(en)action' has a better rhythm so choose that option. Here's another neologism from this post and following, mhetaoric, pronounced ma-het-ow-ric.
Let's review what I've said so far. Language more broadly construed is communication; it doesn't have to be words or involve human analytical conception. It is merely the way a suobject affects another, reaches across its porous boundary, enters into it. We might say that it is the 'space between' suobjects, itself an suobject, Edwards' media holons. All of which, as Bryant says, depends on each suobjects capacity to affect and be affected, which has to do with its endo-structure. The latter of which can and does change, often if not always due to those linguistic (construed as communicative) exchanges.
Rhetoric is a linguistic (given the broader definition above) tool to affect par excellence. Its persuasive usage opens another suobject, broadens its endo-structure, expands it exo-relations. We usually associate it with words which require an analytical conceptual apparatus. So I'm saying let's expand that definition to include the above, as well as words and conceptual apparatus.
I'm also saying that words and conceptual apparatus are themselves based in these earlier, less emergent, forms of communication. Embodied suobject-environment communication (Slot's pre-conceptual spatial cognition, for example) per Lakoff is the very basis of later analytical-conceptual communication. And metaphor is the means of translating the latter into the former within any given suobject's endo-structure. Metaphor isn't the final human result of analytical concept but is itself the mediating structure between the basic categorical structures and later concepts.
So we might say that this kind of metaphorical rhetoric is involved as a communicative medium within suobjects and between suobjects. And rhetoric itself as a metaphorical medium places it in a broader category than just human concept per above. We might say it accomplishes a/crosscorporeal trans(en)action (as so defined above), i.e., it is a means of contacting the strange stranger both within and without. I'd agree a neologism is needed for the broader construal, hence some of the suggestions.
So, even a meditative state, which might unwind back down to a pre-conceptual (in part) awareness, is still engaged in an embodied, metaphorical translation to do so. That is, it must involve rhetoric (more broadly construed) as medium to experience these earlier basic structures which more directly contact us with the world as it is, almost but never fully, providing space (-time) for our withdrawn mystery.
Given the above, maybe mhetaoric? It indicates the meta in metaphor, but includes the h which cross-connects it to the rh in rhetoric. Plus it has tao in it, this connecting it to a previous word indicative of a connection to the world. And it has the diphthong ao, itself a connective between vowel sounds. The word is itself an a/crossporeal trans(en)action. Perhaps pronounced ma-het-ow-ric?
From this post: I also like rhetaphor. Rhetaorphoric? (Ret'-owr-for-ik?) Rhetaphor is easier on the ear and as transition to an alternative concept. Rhetaorphoric is too complex and perhaps confusing. As is mhetaoric.
From this post I came up with a neologism for my own neologisms, theurjianism.
At one time antidisestablishmentarianism was the longest word in the English language. It means "opposition to the withdrawal of state support or recognition from an established church, especially the Anglican Church in 19th-century England." I offer this as the new longest word: antidisestablishmentheurjianism. It means withdrawal of support or recognition of theurjianisms from the established and official church of kennilingus.
From this post, smore theurjianisms: I cannot speak for Derrida but only interpret (translate) him in my idiosyncratic terms. Hence through my filters his work becomes Derrurjia (adjective Derrurjian), and my own more general work as a whole is theurjia (singular work theurjium).
Not to be confused with Iamblichus' Theurgia, another tradition in which I was initiated and whereby I experienced various states of consciousness and ultimate reality!