Defintions of IPS

[Edward theurj Berge]

The issue link is here. There has been some discussion of this at IC here, with a general attitude that postmetaphysics is deficient rationality per Gebser's definition. I posted the following to see if anyone there can even understand it.

It might be helpful to understand what Habermas meant  by the term ‘postmetaphysical.’ It:

1. Called into question the substantive conceptions of rationality (e.g. “a rational person thinks this”) and put forward procedural or formal conceptions instead (e.g. “a rational person thinks like this”);
2. replaced foundationalism with fallibilism with regard to valid knowledge and how it may be achieved;
3. cast doubt on the idea that reason should be conceived abstractly beyond history and the complexities of social life, and have contextualized or situated reason in actual historical practices;
4. replaced a focus on individual structures of consciousness with a concern for pragmatic structures of language and action as part of the contextualization of reason; and
5. given up philosophy’s traditional fixation on theoretical truth and the representational functions of language, to the extent that they also recognize the moral and expressive functions of language as part of the contextualization of reason.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Commenting on #4 above, Habermas (1994) using Mead determined that it was the cultural system that creates and inculcates the individual ego in the first place. Without it, despite the hardware, one remains an egoless wolf boy. Vygotsky's (Edwards, 2004) work supports this notion as well. They directly contradict the Piagetian notion of inherent inner structures that shape external stimuli to fit that structure. It's a very metaphysical system that I examined in depth in the IPS “real/false reason” thread. And again, it's not that the inner/outer, individual/social all tetra-arise simultaneously. That certainly provides for a nice apparent 'balance,' but that is an imposed systematic assumption that presupposes such a balance that does not match the empirical facts on the ground, instead trying to match the facts to the created metaphysical system. It is a hallmark of the capitalist system to do exactly that.

[Edward theurj Berge]

For some reason the edit function is not working. The above was copied and pasted from my paper.

[Edward theurj Berge]

In the IC discussion there seems an aversion to postmetaphysical thinking, as it is just another perspective. And perspectives themselves are anathema to the experience of integral-aperspectivalism. So I posted this:

I’m curious about the criticism of “just mental stuff.” As I noted elsewhere, from what I get of Gebser from Gidley (efficient) mental stuff is integrated with the other (efficient) stuff (including experience, magic and mythic) and that is what is integral-aperspectival (IA). IA isn’t just so-called direct experience of some mystical, ever present origin. And the aperspectival isn’t a mere lack of perspective, just a note on how there is no one dominating perspective, a very postmetaphysical tenet.

[Edward theurj Berge]

I also posted this at IC:

My last post also reminds me of one of my favorite David Loy quotes. It specifically references meditative states, but also relevant here.

“Well, this relates to the way we understand spirituality and meditation. For example, we often tend to understand meditation—in Zen especially—as getting rid of thoughts. We think that if we can just get rid of thought, then we can see the world as it is, clearly, without any interference from conceptuality. We view thinking as something negative that has to be eliminated in order to realize the emptiness of the mind. But this reflects the delusion of duality, rather than the solution to duality. As Dogen put it, the point isn’t to get rid of thought, but to liberate thought. Form is emptiness, yet emptiness is also form, and our emptiness always takes form. We don’t realize our emptiness apart from form, we realize it in form, as non-attached form. One of the very powerful and creative ways that our emptiness takes form is as thought. The point isn’t to have some pure mind, untainted by thought, like a blue, completely empty sky with no clouds. After a while that gets a little boring! Rather, one should be able to engage or play with the thought processes that arise in a creative, non-attached, nondualistic way. To put it in another way, the idea isn’t to get rid of all language, it’s to be free within language, so that one is non-attached to any particular kind of conceptual system, realizing that there are many possible ways of thinking and expressing oneself. The freedom from conceptualizing that we seek does not happen when we wipe away all thoughts; instead, it happens when we’re not clinging to, or stuck in, any particular thought system. The kind of transformation we seek in our spiritual practices is a mind that’s flexible, supple. Not a mind that clings to the empty blue sky. It’s a mind that’s able to dance with thoughts, to adapt itself according to the situation, the needs of the situation. It’s not an empty mind which can’t think. It’s an ability to talk with the kind of vocabulary or engage in the way that’s going to be most helpful in that situation.”