INTEGRAL POSTMETAPHYSICAL SPIRITUALITY - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-29T04:46:37Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-postmetaphysical-spirituality?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A56917&feed=yes&xn_auth=noBack in this post on p.2 the…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-11-20:5301756:Comment:589842014-11-20T03:34:20.383ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Back in <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-postmetaphysical-spirituality?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A56533" target="_self">this</a> post on p.2 the IPS forum was compared with a particle collider. See <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/19/cern-physicists-two-new-subatomic-particles_n_6184878.html" target="_blank">this</a> recent story on CERN physicists discovering 2 sub-atomic particles that lay the ground for "revealing what lies beyond…</p>
<p>Back in <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-postmetaphysical-spirituality?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A56533" target="_self">this</a> post on p.2 the IPS forum was compared with a particle collider. See <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/19/cern-physicists-two-new-subatomic-particles_n_6184878.html" target="_blank">this</a> recent story on CERN physicists discovering 2 sub-atomic particles that lay the ground for "revealing what lies beyond the existing 'Standard Model' of particles and their interactions." And that is how the IPS collider works too, laying the ground for what lies beyond the 'standard' AQAL model by colliding it with many other models in precise and exacting experiments. If that's not invaluable in its own right than I don't know what is.</p> In the last post the first pa…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-16:5301756:Comment:570952014-07-16T17:33:46.468ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>In the last post the first part was from Levin's "<a href="http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/61669.pdf" target="_blank">Before the voice of reason</a>." Re-reading it I'm struck by how he wants to reestablish a link with that pre-linguistic and embodied connection with the world which sets the stage for language. As is my wont I immediately see image schema as fulfilling this role, though Levin is not thinking in those terms. He does get close to this in the following passage, noting that our…</p>
<p>In the last post the first part was from Levin's "<a href="http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/61669.pdf" target="_blank">Before the voice of reason</a>." Re-reading it I'm struck by how he wants to reestablish a link with that pre-linguistic and embodied connection with the world which sets the stage for language. As is my wont I immediately see image schema as fulfilling this role, though Levin is not thinking in those terms. He does get close to this in the following passage, noting that our pre-liguistic connection to nature requires that “there can be no memory without entanglement in the fabulations and alembications of the imaginary” (61).</p>
<p>And it is not by chance that these image schema ground and develop into linguistic metaphor, metonymy, etc. Hence we get our mytho-poetic language as gateway into both the always already and the not yet, inspiring us to open to mystery and wonder and communicate it via such embodied language. Hence a good poem can actually lead us to the experience, as does a good work of any other form of art. I know dance, both as performer and spectator, does this for me with emotional and aesthetic intensity. And I'd add so does rhetoric, as it too is an art form that reconnects us to our body and nature, yet also takes flight into and elicits the not yet of the unprecedented.</p>
<p>Also of interest is this passage on Heidegger's deconstruction of metaphysics, indicative of my earlier ruminations about how our language presupposes ontological premises:</p>
<p>“In particular, of course, it is their scandalous reversal, their radical overturning of anthropocentrism, of Cartesian egoity, their radical displacement of the speaking subject, hence of the subject-object structure and its ontology, reflected in rules of grammar, and seeming to introduce an unjustifiable metaphysics” (54).</p>
<p>Such languages developed from the ego-logical perspective, which imposes its strict dualistic rules and categories not only on language but on nature. It's a metaphysics not only of presence but of such abstract disconnection to its roots in image schema and metaphor. It even creates such distinct categories of the latter type into 'art,' which is unrelated to everyday language. Lakoff and Johnson, among many others in the cognitive linguistics movement, show that even everyday language is dependent on these embodied schema that connect us to our world.</p>
<p>So it seems a matter of rearranging our grammars to fit that embodied paradigm, to change how we speak and write in a manner more conducive of ecological awareness. Instead of saying “I must protect the rainforest” we might acknowledge “I am part of the rainforest” (69), and we both need stewardship. Language is an outgrowth of the world, as is thought, and when put in ecological perspective is just an effective means of connecting to and transforming that world and its mystery as any other mode, from meditation to ritual performance.</p> In the FB IPS forum Mark asks…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-15:5301756:Comment:570942014-07-15T18:00:54.270ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In the FB IPS forum Mark asks if language can be used to get at an unpredecented transformational experience. We discussed Levin's work in this regard in <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/david-michael-levin-redux?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A9508">this</a> IPS post<p>and following. A few excerpts of that discussion follow:</p>
<p>I enjoyed the sample chapter, raising many of the themes I explored in the above referenced thread,…</p>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In the FB IPS forum Mark asks if language can be used to get at an unpredecented transformational experience. We discussed Levin's work in this regard in <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/david-michael-levin-redux?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A9508">this</a> IPS post<p>and following. A few excerpts of that discussion follow:</p>
<p>I enjoyed the sample chapter, raising many of the themes I explored in the above referenced thread, particularly the means of using language to establish relations with what was pre-language, i.e., nature. And how such attunement is achieved via a bastard reasoning or hyper-dialectic in MP's turn of phrase, which is not merely a return to what was but an an intertwing with the yet to come:</p>
<p>“The attunement...having originally preceded the ego-logical consciousness, is not realized, and does not actually take place, until the belated moment of its reflected recuperation. The 'always already' that memory strives to retrieve is inseparable from a 'not yet,' a future conjectured in hope” (61).</p>
<p>Here's an excerpt from my referenced thread that demonstrates “using a mytho-poetic language...to evoke in us...this reconnection with both the always already and not yet."</p>
<p>Levina's language is intended to evoke a “deep, bodily felt sense” that is a “return effected by phenomenology.” It is pre-conceptual in a sense, this return to body. As we've discussed before, only in one sense, since the return is also an integrative move that is more than what was before concepts.... Hence Levinas language uses such mythological motifs and tropes that move us deeper than conventional experience based only on concept, back down into those roots of morality in the body where we are more directly connected to the other. In a way his language is magical in that it takes us to a place both before and after language by the use of language. But language is part of the equation, right in the middle of it, hence Hermes is indeed a messenger that uses language to convey meaning.</p>
<p>Levin makes clear that meaning, like being, builds on the "always already" but is extended into novelty by the "not yet." And these two are in continual relation, at least after the "fall" or "rise," depending on your interpretation, of the ego. But since its advent there is no simple return to the always already of the pre-egoic, no pristine or original awareness. The belief in the latter is in fact one of the symptoms of metaphysics, since it is now the "not yet" that transforms the "always already," but without which the not yet would not exist.</p>
</div> Good for him and good for the…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-15:5301756:Comment:572692014-07-15T15:08:59.301Zandrewhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/andrew
<p><em><span>Good for him and good for the rest of us non-religious types.</span></em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em><strong>AMEN!</strong><br/></em></p>
<p><em><span>Good for him and good for the rest of us non-religious types.</span></em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em><strong>AMEN!</strong><br/></em></p> Also recall the thread on Fer…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-15:5301756:Comment:570932014-07-15T06:19:34.805ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Also recall <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/ferrers-the-plurality-of" target="_self">the thread</a> on Ferrer's spiritual pluralism, from <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/ferrers-the-plurality-of?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A4407" target="_self">this</a> post:</p>
<p>"It will no longer be a contested issue whether practitioners endorse a theistic, nondual, or naturalistic account of the mystery, or whether their chosen path of…</p>
<p>Also recall <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/ferrers-the-plurality-of" target="_self">the thread</a> on Ferrer's spiritual pluralism, from <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/ferrers-the-plurality-of?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A4407" target="_self">this</a> post:</p>
<p>"It will no longer be a contested issue whether practitioners endorse a theistic, nondual, or naturalistic account of the mystery, or whether their chosen path of spiritual cultivation is meditation, social engagement, conscious parenting, entheogenic shamanism, or communion with nature. The new<br/> spiritual bottom line, in contrast, will be the degree into which each spiritual path fosters both an overcoming of self-centeredness and a fully embodied integration that make us not only more sensitive to the needs of others, nature, and the world, but also more effective cultural and planetary transformative agents in whatever contexts and measure life or spirit calls us to be" (146).</p>
<p>Ferrer allows that one form of this might express as a postformal, postmetaphysical, naturalistic and nondual secular humanism whose 'spiritual' practice might be, for example, social engagement with no meditation or contemplative practice whatsoever. Ferrer allows for this kind of 'atheistic' expression as long as it overcomes self-centeredness and lends itself to being a 'more effective cultural or planetary transformative agent.' At least he doesn’t trash this as some form of materialist reductionism or lower-level meme. Good for him and good for the rest of us non-religious types.</p> Also recall this post on Pani…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-15:5301756:Comment:570922014-07-15T05:47:17.466ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Also recall <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/religion-and-politics?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A11708" target="_self">this</a> post on Panikkar regarding religion and politics. (The <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/religion-and-politics" target="_self">whole thread</a> is also relevant.) An excerpt:</p>
<p>"As he notes, various developments in our time warrant the conclusion that 'we are approaching the close of the modern Western…</p>
<p>Also recall <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/religion-and-politics?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A11708" target="_self">this</a> post on Panikkar regarding religion and politics. (The <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/religion-and-politics" target="_self">whole thread</a> is also relevant.) An excerpt:</p>
<p>"As he notes, various developments in our time warrant the conclusion that 'we are approaching the close of the modern Western dichotomy between religion and politics, and we are coming nearer to a nondualistic relation between the two.' [...] Politics is concerned with the 'realization of a human order,' while religion aims at 'the realization of the ultimate order'—with the two concerns highlighting the tensional polarity (though not segregation) between politics and religion. [...] The task today is to move beyond these dualisms without lapsing into monistic coincidence: 'God and the world are not two realities, nor are they one and the same. Moreover, to return to our subject, politics and religion are not two independent activities, nor are they one indiscriminate thing. There is no politics separate from religion. There is no religious factor that is not at the same time a political factor…The divine tabernacle is to be found among men; the earthly city is a divine happening.' [...] For today, people speak of a 'politics of engagement' and a 'religion of incarnation;' in doing so, people are discovering 'the sacred character of secular engagement and the political aspect of religious life.'"</p>
<p></p> I was re-reading the IPS thre…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-15:5301756:Comment:573282014-07-15T03:38:07.146ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>I was re-reading the IPS thread on Otto Scharmer and <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/otto-scharmer?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A56478" target="_self">this</a> post refers to one of his blog posts.</span> I noted that in figure 1 he correlates the spiritual divide with our current governance systems not giving voice to the people (aka fascist oligarchy) and private property rights. That's right, these are his…</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>I was re-reading the IPS thread on Otto Scharmer and <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/otto-scharmer?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A56478" target="_self">this</a> post refers to one of his blog posts.</span> I noted that in figure 1 he correlates the spiritual divide with our current governance systems not giving voice to the people (aka fascist oligarchy) and private property rights. That's right, these are his <em>spiritual</em> issues. Figure 3 shows to what we are moving in the spiritual areas noted above, toward awareness based collective action and commons based ownership. Which supports my thesis in the dialogue with Mark that these are <em>spiritual</em> issues. And that Warren moves in this direction while Clinton does not. Hence my focus in this forum on political-economic enaction as spiritual practice.<br/></span></span></span></p> From the FB "mirror" of this…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-11:5301756:Comment:572632014-07-11T20:25:45.834ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>From the FB "mirror" of this discussion:</p>
<ul>
<li class="UFIRow UFIFirstComment UFIFirstCommentComponent UFIComment display UFIComponent"><div class="clearfix"><div><div class="clearfix UFIImageBlockContent _42ef"><div><div class="UFICommentContentBlock"><div class="UFICommentContent"><span><a class="UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/joseph.camosy?fref=ufi" id="js_1207" name="js_1207">Joseph Camosy…</a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
<p>From the FB "mirror" of this discussion:</p>
<ul>
<li class="UFIRow UFIFirstComment UFIFirstCommentComponent UFIComment display UFIComponent"><div class="clearfix"><div><div class="clearfix UFIImageBlockContent _42ef"><div><div class="UFICommentContentBlock"><div class="UFICommentContent"><span><a dir="ltr" id="js_1207" class="UFICommentActorName" href="https://www.facebook.com/joseph.camosy?fref=ufi" name="js_1207">Joseph Camosy</a></span> <span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>Regarding transformative practice, I have a modest proposal. This is something that I came up with today actually while in conversation with two other people. </span> <br/> <span>Here is the proposal: In a dialogue or on-line thread, establish only one hard and fast</span></span> <span><span><span>rule (with 3 parts). </span><br/> <br/> <span>Anyone who posts must:</span><br/> <span>1. Not agree with the previous posting.</span><br/> <span>2. Not disagree with the previous posting.</span><br/> <span>3. Stay on the topic of the thread.</span><br/> <br/> <span>Here is a further explanation of this one rule.</span><br/> <br/> <span>1. Not agree with the previous posting. This thwarts the usual method of consensus building which can quickly privilege certain perspectives at the expense of others. If you can't quickly take sides, you are compelled to think for your self. To prevent gaming the rules, you could expand the rule to read: Not agree [or disagree] with any of the previous [N] postings.</span><br/> <br/> <span>2. Not disagree with the previous posting. Similar to rule #1. The effect of these two rules is that it makes it hard to establish binary oppositions. When binary oppositions form, people take sides, and the dialectic stops moving (traversing the perspectives). It then becomes a slug-fest between only a few perspectives or at best a very limited dialogue between two privileged perspectives.</span><br/> <br/> <span>3. Stay on the topic of the thread. Necessary in preventing the sliding chain of signifiers from going completely divergent. The topic acts as an attractor so that the initial metonymy begins to circulate and become metaphor.</span><br/> <br/> <span>Note that asking for clarification or further explanation meets the rule.</span><br/> <br/> <span>The effect of the one rule is that it causes a circulation to begin to take place. The dialectic begins to orbit and thus begins to constellate the presence of something. This creates what I call a "circumambulation via orthogonal perspectives" which can lead to the ignition of what Bruce calls a "generative enclosure." At one level this is the creating of a group metaphor or social holon. Something new and vital comes into existence that is not a mere melange or amalgam of old ideas. </span><br/> <br/> <span>Orthogonal circumambulation is what "squares the circle."</span><br/> <br/> <span>ONE RULE TO RING THEM ALL</span><br/> <span>...and through their orbits, free them. (an equanimity of perspectives).</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="UFICommentContent"></div>
<div class="UFICommentContent"><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span>~*~</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="UFICommentContent"></div>
<div class="UFICommentContent"><span><a dir="ltr" class="UFICommentActorName" href="https://www.facebook.com/bruce.alderman.14?fref=ufi">Bruce Alderman</a></span> <span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>Joseph, I like that a lot. (In this context, I must insist that liking entails neither agreement nor disagreement. ). It is similar to Bohm's notion of 'suspension' in his dialogical experiments. In suspension, we suspend dialogical contributions (our own or others') in the intersubjective field, as well as our thoughts about or reactions to such contributions intrasubjectively, neither defending nor rejecting them, but allowing them to become occasions for learning or generative encounter. Through this process, we can arrive possibly at shared meaning (which, again, does not necessarily entail mutual agreement). I'm not sure I would want to require this approach for all discussions on this forum, but I think it's a practice worth exploring. We might experiment with it to see if it can help push our online discussions over into the dimension of transformative or generative practice -- the formation of a generative (en)closure (or transitory generative (en)closures, like tabernacles raised momentarily for moments of hierophany or the presencing of the unprecedented.)</span></span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul> So it seems that for Mark som…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-11:5301756:Comment:571822014-07-11T14:37:15.125ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>So it seems that for Mark some type of socially engaged transformative practice of the unprecedented is needed for spirituality. This might include, besides meditative communities, things like</p>
<p>"<span>collective and ritual dynamics [...] that incorporate a dose of spiritual aspiration or idealism into the mix. There are also many different kinds of potent esoteric ritual spaces in the broad sense of that term, which can have reality-generating impact. In short, the very fabric of…</span></p>
<p>So it seems that for Mark some type of socially engaged transformative practice of the unprecedented is needed for spirituality. This might include, besides meditative communities, things like</p>
<p>"<span>collective and ritual dynamics [...] that incorporate a dose of spiritual aspiration or idealism into the mix. There are also many different kinds of potent esoteric ritual spaces in the broad sense of that term, which can have reality-generating impact. In short, the very fabric of reality is experienced as transformed or reconfigured in such spaces, so that a lot of this is about investigating, in my mentor Jeff Kripal's words, altered states of history, and altered states of consciousness and culture...."</span></p>
<p><span>Can we even have such shared enactions in a 'discussion forum?' Or would that require real-time meat-space local practice communities? If the latter, we'd still be engaging with said local practice groups, often and usually of different varieties (cultural, religious etc.), so would there be enough commonality to share and relate such spiritual 'experiences' here? Per Balder's work, they would not be enacting the 'same' spiritual experiences, though there might be some homeomorphic equivalencies.</span></p>
<p><span>Given that, how then do we engage in a forum like this to move an IPS agenda forward? It seems the translative is the only avenue open. Or are there some innovative ways we can indeed engage transformative 'practice' together? Also Mark affirmed that some kinds of translation can indeed support and engender transformation, so how so? Can that be achieved in this forum?</span></p> Mark Schmanko Yes, I agree wi…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-11:5301756:Comment:572612014-07-11T04:35:48.292ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p><span><a class="UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/mark.schmanko?fref=ufi">Mark Schmanko</a></span> <span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>Yes, I agree with your points from the lat post. I was actually making a similar point in my response to your penultimate post. And I agree, from what I've read, Bhaskar goes in a kind of neoperenialist direction.…</span></span></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span><a class="UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/mark.schmanko?fref=ufi">Mark Schmanko</a></span> <span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>Yes, I agree with your points from the lat post. I was actually making a similar point in my response to your penultimate post. And I agree, from what I've read, Bhaskar goes in a kind of neoperenialist direction.</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>Response to your prior post: I'll check out your link and Kela’s work. The distinction between experience and practice is tricky and important; so is the distinction between reflection and action. While reflection (which, when expressed in speech, alre</span></span><span><span><span>ady makes it a "both-and," a kind of reflective action) tends to become translation, reflective speech can also bring forth and affirm transformation via interior or alien discernments that somehow become externalized in real time in a given worldspace; that is, the way language weaves into the body, perception and agency may be integral to both manifesting or revealing the unprecedented.</span>
<br />
<span>Yes, "the concept of transformation ... can only be associated with concrete forms of spirituality” sounds right on for the most part, but this makes sense within the limits of temporality, and may relate more to the accumulated present conditions of the way things are, that is, to the center of gravity of what constitutes legitimate secular and religious discourse, than to alternative worldspaces or experiences that could already exist in ways that may or may not bleed into immanence/time-space, but no less exist in either regard. As for the timeless, changeless realm, that's a good point - ineffability is a conclusion or often the best we can do. And I'm really looking to find ways of giving life and affirmation to what unfolds or is uncovered in the space between the ineffable (the ground, the ocean) and the particulars in time space (the waves). We tend to swing between universalist absolutist views and rational-translative views; more is needed of the More.</span><br />
<br />
<span>As for the meaning of metaphysics, I have a question. In a basic sense, I do sense and understand that there are things/agencies/beings beyond what we currently fathom that exist, beyond the universalist transcendental ground talk, the rational-translative talk, and the Aurobindian descent talk (though I believe Wilber reads him wrong and Aurobindu, I sense, would also affirm what I'm saying). Would that in itself make me a metaphysicalist?</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span><span><span><a class="UFICommentActorName" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002642203712&fref=ufi">Edwyrd Burj</a></span> <span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span><span>Not in itself. I guess it depends on how it's translated! As an aside, I used to be a member of a hermetic/qabalistic order and as part of our practice we'd wear costumes, insignia and symbols representative of various 'entities' (angels or whatnot)</span></span><span><span><span>, while performing specific initiation and other rituals. A key issue was whether we were just enacting psychological archetypes or if we were really communicating with 'them,' and letting them manifest through us via such invocation. I admit I tended toward the former interpretation, while many tended toward the latter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>