A First Swipe at Pseudo-Ferrer - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-29T13:38:06Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/being-fair-with-ferrer?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A57578&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noWhich reminds me of our horro…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-08-15:5301756:Comment:575782014-08-15T13:10:06.792ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Which reminds me of our <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/horror-spirituality-and-the" target="_self">horror and spirituality</a> thread. And <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/states-stages-the-wc-lattice-and-the-fold?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A53135" target="_self">this</a> on Zizek and the objet a.</p>
<p>Which reminds me of our <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/horror-spirituality-and-the" target="_self">horror and spirituality</a> thread. And <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/states-stages-the-wc-lattice-and-the-fold?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A53135" target="_self">this</a> on Zizek and the objet a.</p> Joseph: "There is no religion…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-08-15:5301756:Comment:575772014-08-15T12:58:40.246ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Joseph: <span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>"There is no religion higher than truth" In Ferrer's paper, "The Future of Religion Four Scenarios, On Dream," all these scenarios will be subsumed once it is recognized that religion, spirituality, psychology, mathematics, logic, science, art, cultur</span></span><span><span><span>e, economics, systems theory, ALL are being writ using the same script. Once that script can be explained and demonstrated, everything else becomes…</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>Joseph: <span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>"There is no religion higher than truth" In Ferrer's paper, "The Future of Religion Four Scenarios, On Dream," all these scenarios will be subsumed once it is recognized that religion, spirituality, psychology, mathematics, logic, science, art, cultur</span></span><span><span><span>e, economics, systems theory, ALL are being writ using the same script. Once that script can be explained and demonstrated, everything else becomes inheritance and polymorphism.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span>However, is the world ready for this impossible thing that could unite all religions; all domains of knowledge? The mere possibility of such a thing could be enough to drive men mad.</span><br/> <br/> <span>From Evans, D. (1996). "An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis," we have this as the definition of the THING:</span><br/> <br/> <span>"The Thing is characterised by the fact that it is impossible for us to imagine it' (S7, 125). Lacan's concept of the Thing as an unknowable x, beyond symbolisation, has clear affinities with the Kantian 'thing-in-itself'. [...] As well as the object of language, das Ding is the object of desire. It is the lost object which must be continually refound. […] The Thing is thus presented to the subject as his Sovereign Good, but if the subject transgresses the pleasure principle and attains this Good, it is experienced as suffering/evil (Lacan plays on the French term mal, which can mean both suffering and evil, see S7, 179), because the subject 'cannot stand the extreme good that das Ding may bring to him' (S7, 73). It is fortunate, then, that the Thing is usually inaccessible (S7, 159). […] After the seminar of 1959-60, the term das Ding disappears almost entirely from Lacan's work. However, the ideas associated with it provide the essential features of the new developments in the concept of the objet petit a as Lacan develops it from 1963 onwards." [end quote]</span><br/> <br/> <span>From: Zizek, S. (2008). "The Sublime Object of Ideology" describing underwater images of the wreck of the Titanic as an example of the impossible thing.</span><br/> <br/> <span>" ... looking at the photos of the wreck of the Titanic taken recently by undersea cameras -where lies the terrifying power of fascination exercised by these pictures? It is, so to speak, intuitively clear that this fascinating power cannot be explained by the symbolic over determination, by the metaphorical meaning of the Titanic: its last resort is not that of representation but that of a certain inert presence. The Titanic is a Thing in the Lacanian sense: the material leftover, the materialization of the terrifying, impossible jousssance. By looking at the wreck we gain an insight into the forbidden domain, into a space that should be left unseen: visible fragments are a kind of coagulated remnant of the liquid flux of jouissance, a kind of petrified forest of enjoyment.</span><br/> <span>This terrifying impact has nothing to do with meaning -or, more precisely, it is a meaning permeated with enjoyment, a Lacanian jouissance. The wreck of the Titanic therefore functions as a sublime object: a positive, material object elevated to the status of the impossible Thing. And perhaps all the effort to articulate the metaphorical meaning of the Titanic is nothing but an attempt to escape this terrifying impact of the Thing, an attempt to domesticate the Thing by reducing it to its symbolic status, by providing it with a meaning. We usually say that the fascinating presence of a Thing obscures its meaning; here, the opposite is true: the meaning obscures the terrifying impact of its presence." [end quote]</span><br/> <br/> <span>"The Thing: The Ultimate in Alien Terror:" An example of polymorphism gone amuck.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p></p> A few more posts from that th…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-08-15:5301756:Comment:577262014-08-15T12:55:40.432ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>A few more posts from that thread:</p>
<p>theurj: <span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>From another angle, it seems that our categories can be too rigid and hence one of them can become a dominant hegemony, e.g. scientific materialism. Or the one true Buddhism that transcends and includes the others. Hence the need for transcorporal hybridization, which allows some overlapping and serves to check and balance categories with each other. And yet each category maintains its autonomy amidst…</span></span></span></p>
<p>A few more posts from that thread:</p>
<p>theurj: <span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>From another angle, it seems that our categories can be too rigid and hence one of them can become a dominant hegemony, e.g. scientific materialism. Or the one true Buddhism that transcends and includes the others. Hence the need for transcorporal hybridization, which allows some overlapping and serves to check and balance categories with each other. And yet each category maintains its autonomy amidst all its relations. Indeed this can be analogous to image schema, the most basic of our embodied categories and from which the more abstract ones spring. Which of course, to put it in those terms, are about very basic distinctions/connections like in/out, one/many. Those basic categories, while a dual pairing, are still distinctly autonomous in a singularly decomposable differentiation.</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>I suggest the metaparadigm comes in per Faber's boundary line or slash (/) which he calls 'in/difference.' It's not by accident that enclosed in parentheses like that it looks like a vagina with a wry smile. My gal Khora gets around. And has been compared to a nurturing nursing station between the Intelligible and the Sensible. (As are image schema, by the way.) To put it in 'religious' terms, I worship her and the Ground she in/habits. Let us pray in her name, a(wo)men.</span></span></span></p>
<p>LP: <span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>Ed Weird, I agree completely. The "splice" is the permeable connector-separator between all types and enables both their identity and their hybridization. But then we have two further discussions (1) which are the main types divided by in/difference as opposed to minimal types which are merely popularly referred to, and (2) how do we go about retroactively presuming the conditions for hybridization such that our act is both creative and naturalized according to our current level of insight?</span></span></span></p>
<p>Balder: <span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>This conversation is quite interesting and encouraging for me; I'm enjoying the divergent/convergent play. In arguing for the value of recognizing 'real alternatives' offered by different traditions, I do not intend by that to encourage an essentializ</span></span><span><span><span>ing of religious traditions, nor to absolutize traditional or 'received' boundaries between them. I agree that interspirituality* -- which creatively transcends and transgresses these received religious boundaries -- is a telling sign of the religiosity of our time, and accords with your account of de-genre-fication (and the surplus coherence and meaningfulness that can generate), LP. (*And polydoxy and similar movements and trends.)</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span>In one of my papers (on translineage spirituality and interreligious relationships), you may recall that I appealed to (a modified version) of Latour's principle of irreduction. In it, I argued that religious traditions -- or, more properly, generative (en)closures, which need not be limited to any traditionally recognized religious institutions -- find their integrity (their irreducibility) in their indefinite ever-reducibility. The 'components' of the tradition or meaning-system can always be reduced to (correlated or identified with, explained by, etc) other things, both within and outside of the system. But this always requires 'work' -- the work of translation, correlation, reconfiguration, etc. Which means, a generative (en)closure's particularity and integrity is not something pre-given, but in a sense is always achieved or 'renewed' through such work.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span>Regarding some of the most recent comments on this thread (from LP and Edwyrd on the splice, the main types to consider, etc), I think Latour can bring something interesting to this. As you may know, one of Latour's most recent works is a meditation on 'the modes of existence.' He has identified 15 primary ones so far. Of the 15, two modes (while included among the other modes) are more properly meta-modes: network and preposition. Networks are series of association that allow things to exist by means of other things, and the prepositional modes mark the differences between types of networks (and thus also help to identify the different types). While not a mode-proper, but more as a theoretical foil or adversary, he often talks about Double-Click as another 'character' in relation to the two meta-modes. Double-Click is a metaphor for the common assumption that information can be easily transported (with just a double-click!) from one domain or network or context into another intact, without requiring the "work" of reinterpretation / translation / reconfiguration.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span>Latour's project is an example of de-genre-fication: he doesn't take the modern(ist) domains or value spheres -- science, religion, law, etc -- for granted, but instead, using his modes of existence, shows the multiple ways they are braided and imbricated.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>theurj: <span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>In other words... objet (fucken) a.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2505375021?profile=original"><img class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2505375021?profile=original" width="220"/></a></p> My response on FB:
Thanks for…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-08-13:5301756:Comment:574832014-08-13T22:20:34.373ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>My response on FB:</p>
<p><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>Thanks for your response, LP. I will come back to it in a moment. First, just a couple comments on the opening of your original post...</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><br></br> <span><strong>LP:</strong> <em>"What is this Somebody's positions? Basically that so-called integrative approaches to religious pluralism</em></span></span> <em><span><span><span>maintain a non-objective…</span></span></span></em></span></span></p>
<p>My response on FB:</p>
<p><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>Thanks for your response, LP. I will come back to it in a moment. First, just a couple comments on the opening of your original post...</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><br/> <span><strong>LP:</strong> <em>"What is this Somebody's positions? Basically that so-called integrative approaches to religious pluralism</em></span></span> <em><span><span><span>maintain a non-objective privileging of certain religions above others -- or else a reductive elimination of the transcendental-ontological element upon which religion depends. And that the future of religion may be approximated by envisioning one or more outcomes based on the interactions or cessations of 'religions'.</span></span></span></em></span></span></p>
<p><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><em>Nothing could be further from the truth..."</em></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span>Here, Ferrer-somebody's position, I think, is not that integrative approaches intrinsically or necessarily do such things -- he's not speaking in the abstract, and is not criticizing all 'integrative' approaches per se, since he also is interested in integration. Rather, he is arguing that Wilber specifically has tended to engage in such privileging (namely of Advaita, Zen, and Dzogchen) in his kosmological and psychospiritual model-building. Personally, I think there's merit to this criticism; I would argue that Wilber has attempted to rectify this in more recent writings (with his "3 Faces of God" and his tetra-enactive model, for instance), but that there nevertheless *has* been such theological privileging in some of his earlier, foundational books. And more clarifying postmetaphysical-integrative work could be done in this area (as I think some of us are indeed trying to do). Regarding the "reductive elimination of the transcendental-ontological element upon which religion depends," I believe you are referring to another targeted -- rather than general, abstract -- criticism of Ferrer's: namely, his criticism of a passage in *Integral Spirituality* where Wilber says that virtually all of the findings of the mystics -- the spiritual domains, levels, processes, entities, etc, really the whole great chain of being -- can be located in the Upper Left quadrant. Is this what you're referring to? If so, I think Ferrer is right to question and challenge such apparent reductionism. But I am doubtful that this is what Wilber intends. I discussed this in a footnote in a previous paper, directing Ferrer to Wilber's Excerpt G, for instance, where he makes clear that he does not (necessarily) intend a modernist/psychological reduction of all so-called spiritual phenomena to the subjective-interior of the individual.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p></p> Layman Pascal responded to me…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-08-13:5301756:Comment:574822014-08-13T22:18:35.681ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Layman Pascal responded to me over on the Facebook forum.</p>
<p><span><strong>LP:</strong> "</span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>Both Ferrer & Sloterdijk are quite close to my feelings -- and I do think "the Olympics" and many other phenomenon should be analysed in the same breath as "traditional religions". Is it intrinsically divisive to think in terms of "lives" rather than</span></span> <span><span><span>"Life"? No. We cannot separate the many and the one in any…</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>Layman Pascal responded to me over on the Facebook forum.</p>
<p><span><strong>LP:</strong> "</span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>Both Ferrer & Sloterdijk are quite close to my feelings -- and I do think "the Olympics" and many other phenomenon should be analysed in the same breath as "traditional religions". Is it intrinsically divisive to think in terms of "lives" rather than</span></span> <span><span><span>"Life"? No. We cannot separate the many and the one in any comprehensive concept. However we need to balance and lean in particular directions in particular zones of inquiry. What we want to do, I think, is ensure that the generic function of religion is both given full status relative to the standard habit of reasoning from historically-nominated "religious" AND also privilege the rational, pluralist and organic-planetary enactive models as the the basic reference frame. It seems to me that the "various religions" should be (a) creatively reduced in significance (b) defined theologically according to functional difference in perspectives and not by our inherited set of "names and ritual-teams" and (c) honored politically. It starts to become problematic, in my view, when our discussions take for granted the normativity of orthodox memberships, terminology and belief-groups as if these were uniquely significant in terms of analyzing the phenomenon of religion.</span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>What I add is that "infidelity" is understood relative to the essential wager of religion -- which is that the existing energies and forms within the given and emerging cultural fi</span></span><span><span><span>eld can and should be included together in a common definition. So the point is not that we pass judgement against the investigation of various religious but that "to be religious" is an act that is relative to the actual worldview of the person doing the investigation. If we are planetary, humanist, rational, trans-rational, etc. then to be "pious" means, in part, defining religion according to that frame -- and from that frame the presumption of us/them, of believers/non-believers appears irreligious. And this is not fundamentally different than what occurs within an ethnocentric and tribal religious context it is simply that we are not looking from that context."</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> I'd like to talk a little abo…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-08-11:5301756:Comment:576492014-08-11T21:26:28.015ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>I'd like to talk a little about the "infidelity" of the concept of religious pluralism. As I understand your contention that religion should only be conceived in the singular -- as the intersubjective form or expression of a universal human integrative activity, namely the "production of surplus meaningful coherence" -- I relate it to Sloterdijk's Nietzschean/Dionysian strategy of conceptualizing religion as a species of <em>anthropotechnics</em> or human transformative practice. For…</p>
<p>I'd like to talk a little about the "infidelity" of the concept of religious pluralism. As I understand your contention that religion should only be conceived in the singular -- as the intersubjective form or expression of a universal human integrative activity, namely the "production of surplus meaningful coherence" -- I relate it to Sloterdijk's Nietzschean/Dionysian strategy of conceptualizing religion as a species of <em>anthropotechnics</em> or human transformative practice. For Sloterdijk, human religious practice is, especially, <em>practice</em> or <em>acsesis</em>: the metaphysical or postmetaphysical (re)cognition or (re)production of vertical tensions, which inspire individuals and cultures towards greater conditions of well-being, flourishing, and accomplishment. But in accepting this definition, true religiosity soon slips out of the bounds of 'traditional religion' -- and something like the Olympics becomes a genuine instance of global human religiosity. <br/><br/>Your definition of religion primarily in terms of its <em>transformative</em> function -- in your words, as a universal process of cultivating "meaningful intersubjective surpluses of coherent flourishing through the more perfect blending of diverse genres of social activity" -- is also not far, in my view, from Ferrer's "more relaxed universalism." He locates the universality of religion primarily in the practical sphere, the shared 'ocean of emancipation,' which consists of our efforts towards, and realization of, states of greater integration, holistic individual and socio-ecological well-being, and reduced narcissism, among other things.<br/><br/>Conceiving of religion in these universal and pragmatic terms certainly can help us sidestep the (often ethnocentrically-sourced) limits inherent in our received definitions of this term, and encourage greater cross-faith-tradition understanding and solidarity.<br/><br/>But with all that said, I still want to ask: In your view, is it inherently divisive and fragmenting to speak of lives as opposed to Life? Or to speak of cultures instead of Culture? Or practices instead of Practice? Or sports instead of Sport?<br/><br/>Regarding the first question, of lives vs. Life, there is certainly philosophical value in speaking of Life in the abstract, but speaking (also) of 'lives' helps avoid the potential reduction of any individual life form to an expendable 'instance' of generic Life-process.<br/><br/>Regarding the other questions, for instance of practices vs. Practice or sports vs. Sport, it doesn't seem much is lost either way if we speak of sports or Sport (which accommodates multiple styles or forms of sporting activity). We could easily use both, without much issue. And the same goes for art: we can speak of 'the arts' or we can speak of Art (which accommodates various styles, genres, schools, etc). It doesn't seem to me that we show infidelity to the spirit of Art if we speak, also, of multiple 'arts.'<br/><br/>Is there any problem or shortcoming, in your view, then, in maintaining a practice of speaking <em>both</em> of religions and Religion?</p> I prefer to use a photo of "h…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-08-10:5301756:Comment:577112014-08-10T19:36:13.605ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>I prefer to use a photo of "him" pre-makeover. More authentic. More gravitas. As I'm re-editing the post above, clarifying and simplifying, I am reading 4 Scenarios as well as "Plurality of Religions and the Spirit of Pluralism".</p>
<p>I prefer to use a photo of "him" pre-makeover. More authentic. More gravitas. As I'm re-editing the post above, clarifying and simplifying, I am reading 4 Scenarios as well as "Plurality of Religions and the Spirit of Pluralism".</p> Which of Ferrer's texts did y…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-08-10:5301756:Comment:575632014-08-10T17:51:44.708ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Which of Ferrer's texts did you read, LP? I'm guessing <a href="http://www.kosmosjournal.org/wp-content/article-pdfs/the-future-of-religion-four-scenarios-one-dream.pdf" target="_blank">The Future of Religion: Four Scenarios</a> was one. Any others? (One that gives a good updated overview of his thinking is "Participatory Spirituality and Transpersonal Theory: A Ten-Year Retrospective." I can email a copy to you if you'd like).</p>
<p>As for his picture, do you think you have the right…</p>
<p>Which of Ferrer's texts did you read, LP? I'm guessing <a href="http://www.kosmosjournal.org/wp-content/article-pdfs/the-future-of-religion-four-scenarios-one-dream.pdf" target="_blank">The Future of Religion: Four Scenarios</a> was one. Any others? (One that gives a good updated overview of his thinking is "Participatory Spirituality and Transpersonal Theory: A Ten-Year Retrospective." I can email a copy to you if you'd like).</p>
<p>As for his picture, do you think you have the right one?</p>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://the-slice.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ferrer-1.jpg"><img class="align-center" src="http://the-slice.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ferrer-1.jpg"/></a></p>