AN INDECENT PROPOSAL (for Wilber) - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-29T09:14:03Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/an-indecent-proposal?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A54206&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThis is a slight difference i…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-02-11:5301756:Comment:539922014-02-11T20:27:44.487ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>This is a slight difference in emphasis which feels essential for myself -- and perhaps a few others. It is akin to the question of whether "metaparadigm" is a paradigm. While is it not true to say Yes naively, it is no more accurate to say No.</p>
<p>Metaparadigm is as much a paradigm as it is not a paradigm. </p>
<p>This kind of statement is illustrative of the logical shape which is highlighted by all MOA-3 type approaches... and which thereby illuminates the implied architecture upon…</p>
<p>This is a slight difference in emphasis which feels essential for myself -- and perhaps a few others. It is akin to the question of whether "metaparadigm" is a paradigm. While is it not true to say Yes naively, it is no more accurate to say No.</p>
<p>Metaparadigm is as much a paradigm as it is not a paradigm. </p>
<p>This kind of statement is illustrative of the logical shape which is highlighted by all MOA-3 type approaches... and which thereby illuminates the implied architecture upon which all pluralistic and transpluralistic approaches, whether academic or colloquial, structural or tonal, are basically based.</p> My instinct is to disagree wi…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-02-11:5301756:Comment:543012014-02-11T20:22:28.507ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>My instinct is to disagree with Edwards that "metatheory building" is a subcomponent of "metatheorizing".</p>
<p>I would rather say that the work of meta-theory building involves a variety of other familial tasks which prepare, secure, critique, evaluate, test, communicate, explore, etc. </p>
<p>The construction of metatheory (which is pretty much the only decent definition of supertheory) is the convergent and progressive axis around which the swarm of variably divergent metatheorizing…</p>
<p>My instinct is to disagree with Edwards that "metatheory building" is a subcomponent of "metatheorizing".</p>
<p>I would rather say that the work of meta-theory building involves a variety of other familial tasks which prepare, secure, critique, evaluate, test, communicate, explore, etc. </p>
<p>The construction of metatheory (which is pretty much the only decent definition of supertheory) is the convergent and progressive axis around which the swarm of variably divergent metatheorizing activities occur as productive team mates. </p> I think my complaints about m…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-02-11:5301756:Comment:542162014-02-11T20:04:14.228ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>I think my complaints about mood, tone, etc. lie outside this particular project. </p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/an-indecent-proposal?page=1&commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A54100&x=1#5301756Comment54095"><div class="xg_user_generated"><ul>
<li>* IT / Wilber-V commits the epistemic fallacy (?)</li>
<li>* IT / W-V is committed to some form of actualism (?)</li>
<li>* IT discourse around the LR, especially, is undeveloped</li>
<li>* IT's…</li>
</ul>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I think my complaints about mood, tone, etc. lie outside this particular project. </p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/an-indecent-proposal?page=1&commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A54100&x=1#5301756Comment54095"><div class="xg_user_generated"><ul>
<li>* IT / Wilber-V commits the epistemic fallacy (?)</li>
<li>* IT / W-V is committed to some form of actualism (?)</li>
<li>* IT discourse around the LR, especially, is undeveloped</li>
<li>* IT's account of development is inadequate, and sometimes problematically conflated with 'evolution'</li>
<li>* IT is still metaphysical in ways primarily targeted by 'postmetaphysics' -- i.e., the 'metaphysics of presence'</li>
<li>For instance, he argues that, as integrative meta-theories, IT, CR, and CT all include the Big 3 (or 4), but they are stronger in some of these perspectives than other (IT is stronger in the "I", CR is stronger on the "We," etc). </li>
<li>He also names various forms of integrative approaches (see below) and advocates for Integrative Pluralism as the most desirable one.</li>
</ul>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="xg_user_generated"><p>These are a great place to start. I think what we want to do is turn these critiques into positive statements describing what should/could be incorporated within "IT". So:</p>
<ul>
<li>What is a concise statement of the opposite of the epistemic fallacy?</li>
<li>What is the principle which reveals the flaw of actualism?</li>
<li>Why/how should LR discourse be developed more fully?</li>
<li>What defines the general territory that seems to be missing from IT's account of development such that becomes problematically conflated with 'evolution'?</li>
<li>What statement of postmetaphysics would challenge IT to go beyond or remain within the 'metaphysics of presence'?</li>
<li>What factors in theories such as CR and CT make them stronger in, say, the "We" domain?</li>
<li>What is the principle of Integrative Pluralism that IT would either have to actively identify with or accept itself as a contributory/component thereof?</li>
</ul>
</div> I do not agree that any super…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-02-11:5301756:Comment:541512014-02-11T19:48:00.590ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>I do not agree that any <em>supertheory</em> is necessarily an integral monism.</p>
<p>My approach goes through the lens I developed of the 3 levels of any Metaphysics of Adjacency. It exists, in part, to classify and unify the cognitive space of metatheories. So using this approach:</p>
<p>(a) <strong>An "integrative monism" is no different than any other monism.</strong> It is essentially NOT integrative. Politically we want a Big Tent which includes even those who support the forms of…</p>
<p>I do not agree that any <em>supertheory</em> is necessarily an integral monism.</p>
<p>My approach goes through the lens I developed of the 3 levels of any Metaphysics of Adjacency. It exists, in part, to classify and unify the cognitive space of metatheories. So using this approach:</p>
<p>(a) <strong>An "integrative monism" is no different than any other monism.</strong> It is essentially NOT integrative. Politically we want a Big Tent which includes even those who support the forms of integrative intelligence from a "first tier" mentality. But levels are not characterized by primarily by content but rather by style. A monism with integral content is not fundamentally different from any other monism. It is not yet a Metaphysics of Adjacency even though it may assert itself as such.</p>
<p>(b) <strong>Non-integrative pluralism is an expression of MOA-1.</strong> It treats the <em>implicit generative differential</em> as an opportunity to transition between alternatives. This is the typical meaning of pluralism, per se.</p>
<p>(c) <strong>Interdisciplinary plurality is closer to an MOA-2</strong> whereby it treats that same <em>intra-ontological factor</em> as an opportunity to move forward simultaneously on multiple different but complementary pathways of investigation into Reality. </p>
<p>(d) <strong>Integrative pluralism approximates an MOA-3.</strong> By connecting and contextualizing multiple approaches it forms a <em>same-differential infrastructure</em> that reifies both the diversity and performative unity which are active in all MOAs. Although flexible and transparent to a large degree this contextual infrastructure can legitimately be called a supertheory. In fact, from our point of view, it might be the only thing worthy of such a name.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>theurj said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/an-indecent-proposal?page=1&commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A54100&x=1#5301756Comment54099"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Note in Sean's diagram that any super theory is integrative monism. I've yet to be convinced otherwise. I'd add that his integrative pluralism is exactly what Edwards has been doing, and hence Sean's increasing propensity to embrace that work in his own.</p>
<p>I'm also reminded that meta-theory is not the same as a super theory. See <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/mark-edwards?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A47674" target="_self">this post</a>. I'd also recommend <a href="http://integralworld.net/edwards27.html" target="_blank">this Edwards' piece</a> on meta-theory.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> A cool chart from the last re…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-02-11:5301756:Comment:541002014-02-11T17:31:20.964ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>A cool chart from the last reference. Also note that both Sean and Lingam offered critical feedback for this article. I.e., this paper is already doing to some extent what is suggested by this thread.</p>
<p><img src="http://integralworld.net/images/edwards27-5.gif" alt="" border="0" width="600" height="364"/></p>
<p>A cool chart from the last reference. Also note that both Sean and Lingam offered critical feedback for this article. I.e., this paper is already doing to some extent what is suggested by this thread.</p>
<p><img src="http://integralworld.net/images/edwards27-5.gif" alt="" border="0" width="600" height="364"/></p> Note in Sean's diagram that a…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-02-11:5301756:Comment:540992014-02-11T17:10:23.638ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Note in Sean's diagram that any super theory is integrative monism. I've yet to be convinced otherwise. I'd add that his integrative pluralism is exactly what Edwards has been doing, and hence Sean's increasing propensity to embrace that work in his own.</p>
<p>I'm also reminded that meta-theory is not the same as a super theory. See <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/mark-edwards?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A47674" target="_self">this post</a>. I'd also…</p>
<p>Note in Sean's diagram that any super theory is integrative monism. I've yet to be convinced otherwise. I'd add that his integrative pluralism is exactly what Edwards has been doing, and hence Sean's increasing propensity to embrace that work in his own.</p>
<p>I'm also reminded that meta-theory is not the same as a super theory. See <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/mark-edwards?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A47674" target="_self">this post</a>. I'd also recommend <a href="http://integralworld.net/edwards27.html" target="_blank">this Edwards' piece</a> on meta-theory.</p> Here's a first pass, tossing…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-02-11:5301756:Comment:540952014-02-11T16:12:10.914ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Here's a first pass, tossing out a number of the critiques I'm aware of (most of which have been discussed here at some point).</p>
<p>Expecting to language all this better, and more fully, later --</p>
<p>* IT / Wilber-V commits the epistemic fallacy (?)</p>
<p>* IT / W-V is committed to some form of actualism (?)</p>
<p>* IT discourse around the LR, especially, is undeveloped</p>
<p>* IT's account of development is inadequate, and sometimes problematically conflated with…</p>
<p>Here's a first pass, tossing out a number of the critiques I'm aware of (most of which have been discussed here at some point).</p>
<p>Expecting to language all this better, and more fully, later --</p>
<p>* IT / Wilber-V commits the epistemic fallacy (?)</p>
<p>* IT / W-V is committed to some form of actualism (?)</p>
<p>* IT discourse around the LR, especially, is undeveloped</p>
<p>* IT's account of development is inadequate, and sometimes problematically conflated with 'evolution'</p>
<p>* IT is still metaphysical in ways primarily targeted by 'postmetaphysics' -- i.e., the 'metaphysics of presence'</p>
<p>We might also bring in some of <a href="https://foundation.metaintegral.org/sites/default/files/Esbjorn-Hargens%27%20ITC%202013%20Keynote.pdf" target="_blank">Sean's points</a>. For instance, he argues that, as integrative meta-theories, IT, CR, and CT all include the Big 3 (or 4), but they are stronger in some of these perspectives than other (IT is stronger in the "I", CR is stronger on the "We," etc). He also names various forms of integrative approaches (see below) and advocates for Integrative Pluralism as the most desirable one.</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2505375715?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="721" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2505375715?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="721"/></a></p> Akido & accountability b…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-02-11:5301756:Comment:539882014-02-11T00:19:18.203ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p></p>
<div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Akido & accountability both have their roles to play. And calling for accountability is often seductively easy to perform and striking unproven in its effects. The critics who say "this advocate of inclusion is insufficiently inclusive" must also demonstrate a higher degree of inclusion by undermining their role in the interpretive production of an insufficiently-inclusive adversary. </p>
<p>And your example of your earlier comments on Ferrer is an…</p>
</div>
<p></p>
<div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Akido & accountability both have their roles to play. And calling for accountability is often seductively easy to perform and striking unproven in its effects. The critics who say "this advocate of inclusion is insufficiently inclusive" must also demonstrate a higher degree of inclusion by undermining their role in the interpretive production of an insufficiently-inclusive adversary. </p>
<p>And your example of your earlier comments on Ferrer is an apt one. It is all too easy to buy into the IT narrative that participatory thought is "mean green". It is equally too easy to buy into the meta-IT narrative that IT is "closed off". We need to mobilize complaints of all kinds relative to specific situations but also ensure that we are not complicit in a facile stance that limits the flexibility of the "conventional model" merely because it is attractive to conventionalists. </p>
<p>The most important part of any critique is always when we apply it to ourselves... in the sense that any ideology must rest upon a broad field of "obvious" assumptions which do not strike the participants as being supportive of the ideology. The general complaint about the common story is almost always part of the common story. </p>
</div>
<div class="xg_user_generated"><p>So... if we were to begin this kind of small project...</p>
<p>I think what we would need are succinct statements of whatever strikes you/us as being inadequately implied or addressed by Wilber, etc. I think because of my tendency to quickly re-enfold critiques into what they are critiquing that I am at a slight disadvantage in proposing points. But I may be more useful at editing, evaluating, etc.</p>
<ul>
<li>What are the basic points, whether associated with Bhaskar/CR or not, which seem to follow outside the scope of embrace of standard IT?</li>
<li>What points have already been made in your writings or on this site which have not been adequately accounted for -- or even apparently opposed -- by conventional IT/AQAL?</li>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p></p>
</div> LP: Sean's Meta-Integral pro…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-02-10:5301756:Comment:542132014-02-10T23:27:03.957ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<blockquote><p><strong>LP:</strong> Sean's Meta-Integral project seems very appropriate in this context.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Notably, while he calls his organization Meta-Integral, he simply calls the super-model he is interested in developing "Integral Theory." </p>
<blockquote><p><strong>LP:</strong> There is a kind of parallel to the notion of the "greatest depth for the greatest span". From the POV of generating culture the goal is not to have a model that is totally acceptable on…</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><strong>LP:</strong> Sean's Meta-Integral project seems very appropriate in this context.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Notably, while he calls his organization Meta-Integral, he simply calls the super-model he is interested in developing "Integral Theory." </p>
<blockquote><p><strong>LP:</strong> There is a kind of parallel to the notion of the "greatest depth for the greatest span". From the POV of generating culture the goal is not to have a model that is totally acceptable on Oprah's couch or most rigorously well-supported in scientific-academic contexts. The goal is to produce the deepest general model which combines relatively wide-spread attraction with relatively good academic support. The widest-deepest... not the widest or deepest.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, agreed. Greater popular appeal (more artful, stimulating, digestible language; more creative, inspiring and constructively challenging expressions; more capacity to "dock" with current memes and technologies; more practical applications, etc) and greater philosophical/academic rigor (theory-practice reflexivity; internal coherence; generative potential; formal excellence; etc) are both worthy goals. In striving for greatest depth and span, one will not likely win total acceptance either in the talk-show or university circles -- but leaning at once and as much as we can into the "edges" of each of these corners (and others) provides the model opportunity for further sharpening and refinement.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>LP:</strong> As you say, the "tactic" would be "more respectable and compelling" if carried out with more grace. But it is relatively useless to chastise the proponents of the "generic model" for being arrogant, gullible, closed, etc. They are always super-susceptible to such things. And once we see that the burden shifts slightly to the critics -- who are in a better position to be able to drop their assumption that there is an important division between themselves and "IT". It is often counter-resistance that holds resistance in place. The idiotic attempt to defend and assert "IT" is partly an effect of the idiotic willingness to take defenders at face value and agree with the tension that is suggested by the differential. And attitude of "Yes, exactly, and THIS is why you are correct..." must be among the major attitudes by which divergent investigators responded to conventional proponents.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Are you suggesting that, as a general principle, and in any case that there is a hegemonically inclined, "missionary" movement or culture which seeks to promote itself in clumsy, ungracious, dogmatic, self-aggrandizing ways, folks as a general principle should not bother to criticize such tendencies (or the leaders and functionaries who perpetuate them), and instead should expect anyone who is critical of such a movement or culture to adjust themselves to it, to drop any sense of difference between themselves and that movement, and then enter it after the manner of the Trojans?</p>
<p>If so, this Aikido-like move of getting 'inside' the energy and then working from within it to effect change or transformation, is certainly one we *should* keep in our toolbox -- I agree. But there is also something to be said for accountability, for calling people in the public sphere to step up and be accountable, for holding thought leaders to certain standards and requiring at least some degree of theory-practice reflexivity, etc. So, I wouldn't consider more direct forms of confrontation of certain behaviors always to be "next to useless." In confronting the system or its leaders -- rather than appearing to "enable" its/their dysfunction through practiced silence -- we also participate in/with it/them.</p>
<p>(As an aside, do you consider IT to be the kind of "generic model" that you describe above? It seems to me it might be regarded as such, or at least as an aspiring contender for such, within certain pretty small and specialized circles, but it's still mostly unknown in the culture at large).</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>LP:</strong> Anything which challenges and undermines the assumption that there is something to "get over" is potentially useful. I think we need to seriously minimize our contemporary notion that humility and inclusiveness are important demonstrations required before we go to work perverting the problematic hegemonic group by means of insisting that additional insights are already included. The Trojan Horse technique and the "tell the bureaucrats it was their idea" tactic are always important tools in our toolbox.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I understand. This was the approach I took in an earlier paper, showing the already-present affinity to Ferrer's participatory thought within Integral -- rather than buying the IT narrative that participatory thought is "mean green" and "to be shunned."</p>
<p>So....</p>
<p>Moving on from this: where to start on compiling our list? </p>
<p>Regarding the possible differences between IT and CR I mentioned that prompted this discussion, I think Wilber has already given a pretty clear, sustained statement on these issues ("epistemic fallacy," withdrawal, etc). He's offered opinions on areas of convergence and areas of sharp disagreement ("writers who say that Integral Theory lacks this type of 'ontological grounding' are absolutely right"). In an earlier paper, I had in fact argued that IT did already include the basic concepts, or at least the conceptual resources necessary to meet these challenges from critical and speculative realism. But after reading Bhaskar more, and then going back to read Wilber's statement about CR (and the contrast to IT) very carefully, I came to the conclusion that there was a significant disconnect that needed to be addressed. IT may have the resources to respond to CR (I think that can be done), but what is needed to adequately respond is not showing up (in my opinion) in Wilber's responses thus far... </p> Balder,
Yeah, we're not very…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-02-10:5301756:Comment:540902014-02-10T20:56:38.664ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>Balder,</p>
<p>Yeah, we're not very far apart on this. No one is proposing (nor is it actually possible to propose) that alternatives will disappear by being absorbed. However the progressive dynamic requires something like a 50/50 teamwork between the production of potential alternatives & the production of a plastic, colonizing, generic super-model. Each serves as stimulant, counterbalance and dynamic referent to the other. Post-pluralism implies ongoing…</p>
<p>Balder,</p>
<p>Yeah, we're not very far apart on this. No one is proposing (nor is it actually possible to propose) that alternatives will disappear by being absorbed. However the progressive dynamic requires something like a 50/50 teamwork between the production of potential alternatives & the production of a plastic, colonizing, generic super-model. Each serves as stimulant, counterbalance and dynamic referent to the other. Post-pluralism implies ongoing <em>divergence-convergence</em>. <cite><br/></cite></p>
<p>Sean's Meta-Integral project seems very appropriate in this context. </p>
<p>There is a kind of parallel to the notion of the "greatest depth for the greatest span". From the POV of generating culture the goal is not to have a model that is totally acceptable on Oprah's couch or most rigorously well-supported in scientific-academic contexts. The goal is to produce the deepest general model which combines relatively wide-spread attraction with relatively good academic support. The widest-deepest... not the widest or deepest.</p>
<p>And this could easily change over time -- but only if the builders of alternate models have the willingness, drive and capacity to skew their work in the direction of occupying the perceived center of trans-disciplinary, trans-intellectual territories. Until that happens, there is a strong pragmatic argument to drive a supra-AQAL configuration as far it can go... obviously alongside proliferation competitions and critiques. But those two do not simply sit happily next to each and exchange notes at a cocktail party. They former tries to assimilate the latter, and must be supported in this attempt. The latter tries to pick out problems and diverge from the former... and must be supported in this attempt.</p>
<p><em>>Your interest in advocating for both approaches at once wasn't clear to me in some of your recent posts (which seemed to be offering an either/or choice), so thanks for clarifying. </em></p>
<p>Happy to clarify. I have always presumed that working back to integration from slightly excessive faux-divergence is among the most productive possibles strategies. On the other hand, I also presume that (a) simultaneity, integration, balance, non-offense, etc, must be presumed as the case (b) that either/or is fundamentally indissociable from both/and. MOA treats separators as connectors. </p>
<p>As you say, the "tactic" would be "more respectable and compelling" if carried out with more grace. But it is relatively useless to chastise the proponents of the "generic model" for being arrogant, gullible, closed, etc. They are always super-susceptible to such things. And once we see that the burden shifts slightly to the critics -- who are in a better position to be able to drop their assumption that there is an important division between themselves and "IT". It is often counter-resistance that holds resistance in place. The idiotic attempt to defend and assert "IT" is partly an effect of the idiotic willingness to take defenders at face value and agree with the tension that is suggested by the differential. And attitude of "Yes, exactly, and THIS is why you are correct..." must be among the major attitudes by which divergent investigators responded to conventional proponents. </p>
<p>Anything which challenges and undermines the assumption that there is something to "get over" is potentially useful. I think we need to seriously minimize our contemporary notion that humility and inclusiveness are important demonstrations required before we go to work perverting the problematic hegemonic group by means of insisting that additional insights are already included. The Trojan Horse technique and the "tell the bureaucrats it was <em>their</em> idea" tactic are always important tools in our toolbox.</p>
<p>What is the tantric approach to clunky, impermeable agents and communities whose superficial inclusiveness is holding back the empowerment and expansion of the model they represent? Well, among other things it is "<em>Great! I love the qualities of clunkiness, dogma and impermeability. Those are just right. And here's how to deepen them by understanding that they include their apparent opposites...</em>"</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/an-indecent-proposal?page=1&commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A53984&x=1#5301756Comment53984"><div class="xg_user_generated"><p></p>
<p></p>
<blockquote><p></p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>