Integral Semiotics - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-28T13:11:43Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-semiotics?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A51658&feed=yes&xn_auth=noRe-reading a part of the OOO…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-10-11:5301756:Comment:519782013-10-11T16:36:03.680ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Re-reading a part of the OOO thread I came upon <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/object-oriented-ontology?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A48717" target="_self">this post</a>, relevant here:</p>
<p>In Bryant's <a href="http://www.speculations-journal.org/storage/Bryant_Politics%20and%20SR_Speculations_IV.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Speculations IV</em> article</a> he's discussing the signifier, signified and the referent, wherein the first two are constructed and do…</p>
<p>Re-reading a part of the OOO thread I came upon <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/object-oriented-ontology?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A48717" target="_self">this post</a>, relevant here:</p>
<p>In Bryant's <a href="http://www.speculations-journal.org/storage/Bryant_Politics%20and%20SR_Speculations_IV.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Speculations IV</em> article</a> he's discussing the signifier, signified and the referent, wherein the first two are constructed and do not represent an inherent property or meaning to the referent. Those who argue to the contrary are coming from a metaphysical essentialism.</p>
<p>Recall my experience with the hermetic perennial tradition has it that words conjure the thing itself, and thus the magic and control of heavenly language over the world, thereby explicitly demonstrating this kind of metaphysics. It's that same form of magical thinking that permeates essentialist accounts where classes of people are the natural order of things. While we're off performing Egyptian rituals virtually unchanged from the master-slave society in which they inhered is ludicrous. And that the priest class was most guilty of this practice is not lost, since they controlled access to Reality and the afterlife. This form of power relation is inherent to the rituals themselves and often mask the power hungry control of those that seek these 'modern' expressions of magical practice. Thank God (tongue in cheek metaphor for human evolution) constructivism came along to advance human rights and denounce this atrocity.</p>
<p>And of course this is not limited to magic-mythic cultures like the Egyptians of that time. This form of essentialism is alive and well in contemporary models of hierarchical complexity, both in having Platonic ideals and in reifying Aristotelian categories as inherent to the things themselves. (See <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/real-and-false-reason" target="_self">this thread</a> for more.) Which of course carry over into kennlingus developmental models, complete with the same kind of power relations of hero-king at the top of the hierachy with subservient classes following. It's the same kind of metaphysics involved, including an unabashed promotion of capitalism, the epitome of such a metaphysics as Marx so aptly pointed out.</p>
<p>Back to Bryant. He argues that speculative realism, in attacking correlationism, risks underming all of the important political advances of contructivism and thereby inadvertently reinforcing the kind of realism that sees such essentialist inherent categories. You even seen this form of attack from the kennlinguists in calling out constructivism as a mean green relativism. And yet he continues that there needs to be something added to typical constructivism, a form of realism that accounts for the non-constructed aspects of the real. Hence the speculation about the Real in its own domain apart from the Symbolic and the Imaginary in Bryant's terms. But his Real maintains a non-essentialist flair while kennlingus embraces it whole-heartedly.</p>
<p>Bryant's real has to do with science and its grasp of the material. Granted science itself can veer into scientism, or reducing everything to its domain. Nonetheless it must be considered and its scientism reduced via the kind of science we see in pomo complexity, which takes account of the other domains as well as the virtual side of the real. I'm thinking here of DeLanda more on the science side, and Latour more on the study of science in broader contexts. And it is here that Bryant brings in his Borromean knot to 'tie' these domains together while allowing them their own paradigmatic methodologies. He'd also add four sub-domains into the mix for understanding our political structures: geopolitics, infrapolitics, thermopolitics and chronopolitics. See the article for more on that.</p>
<p>I can say that <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/jeremy-rifkin" target="_self">Rifkin</a> is addressing all of these concerns with his next wave socio-economics in real time with real governments. That he is not at all addressed by Bryant is therefore all the more curious, since it would add practical support to his own theses, and avoid critiques such as mine that he himself is guilty of the kind of academic posturing he so vehemently opposes.</p>
<dl class="discussion clear i0 xg_lightborder">
</dl>
<p></p> More from CG's paper:
"In ego…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-10-02:5301756:Comment:518392013-10-02T04:59:15.962ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>More from CG's paper:</p>
<p>"In ego development terms, the spiritual evolutionary message thus looks more like a representation of the shift from early conventional meaning making to a conventional, more adult mindset with many 'self-authoring' undertones --a far cry from a second-tier realization" (14).</p>
<p></p>
<p>More from CG's paper:</p>
<p>"In ego development terms, the spiritual evolutionary message thus looks more like a representation of the shift from early conventional meaning making to a conventional, more adult mindset with many 'self-authoring' undertones --a far cry from a second-tier realization" (14).</p>
<p></p> I'm also reminded of this fro…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-10-02:5301756:Comment:517982013-10-02T04:34:47.654ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>I'm also reminded of this from Cook-Greuter's <a href="https://foundation.metaintegral.org/itc-2013-academic-papers" target="_blank">recent ITC paper</a>:</p>
<p>"I suggest that a more complex view must include notions of fundamental 'uncertainty', existential paradox, and the nature of interdependent polar opposites as a basis for making its claims. In terms of its understanding of humans, integral evolutionary assertions sound more as coming from a formal operational, self-authoring,…</p>
<p>I'm also reminded of this from Cook-Greuter's <a href="https://foundation.metaintegral.org/itc-2013-academic-papers" target="_blank">recent ITC paper</a>:</p>
<p>"I suggest that a more complex view must include notions of fundamental 'uncertainty', existential paradox, and the nature of interdependent polar opposites as a basis for making its claims. In terms of its understanding of humans, integral evolutionary assertions sound more as coming from a formal operational, self-authoring, analytical, and future-focused mindset than a truly second-tier one despite 'postconventional' content and worldcentric values" (17-18).</p> Also see this thread where we…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-09-30:5301756:Comment:517962013-09-30T15:08:35.301ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Also see <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/involutionary-givens" target="_self">this thread</a> where we explored the notion of involutionary givens.</p>
<p>Also see <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/involutionary-givens" target="_self">this thread</a> where we explored the notion of involutionary givens.</p> Not really. The morphogenetic…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-09-30:5301756:Comment:517952013-09-30T14:43:48.691ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Not really. The morphogenetic gradient as involutionary given is of the same type of metaphysics and not necessary at all in postmetaphysics.</p>
<p>And 'integral theory,' like Madhyamaka, is not all of the same kind. When you reference kennilingus please be specific, as it alone does not encompass all of integral theory. I think the last couple of ITCs make it clear that the field is far more expansive than kennilingus. And that the latter is no longer the leading edge of the field.</p>
<p>Not really. The morphogenetic gradient as involutionary given is of the same type of metaphysics and not necessary at all in postmetaphysics.</p>
<p>And 'integral theory,' like Madhyamaka, is not all of the same kind. When you reference kennilingus please be specific, as it alone does not encompass all of integral theory. I think the last couple of ITCs make it clear that the field is far more expansive than kennilingus. And that the latter is no longer the leading edge of the field.</p> Intelligent Design posits a p…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-09-30:5301756:Comment:519112013-09-30T07:53:14.238ZDavidhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/David264
<p>Intelligent Design posits a personal God who rules over the universe. Integral Theory posits a non-personal evolutionary gradient. There is a big difference.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Intelligent Design posits a personal God who rules over the universe. Integral Theory posits a non-personal evolutionary gradient. There is a big difference.</p>
<p></p> From Integral Options on the…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-09-30:5301756:Comment:519102013-09-30T07:32:42.732ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>From <a href="http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2013/07/ken-wilber-integral-semiotics-part-2.html" target="_blank">Integral Options</a> on the Lingam's semiotics paper:</p>
<p>"What I am claiming is that the metaphysics upon which much of the spiritual element in integral theory is little more than intelligent design dressed in New Age clothing. And in that respect, Wilber's 'integral semiotics' is simply another defense of that paradigm."</p>
<p>In that post he references …</p>
<p>From <a href="http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2013/07/ken-wilber-integral-semiotics-part-2.html" target="_blank">Integral Options</a> on the Lingam's semiotics paper:</p>
<p>"What I am claiming is that the metaphysics upon which much of the spiritual element in integral theory is little more than intelligent design dressed in New Age clothing. And in that respect, Wilber's 'integral semiotics' is simply another defense of that paradigm."</p>
<p>In that post he references <a href="http://for-the-turnstiles.blogspot.com/2013/07/back-to-integral-semiotics.html" target="_blank">D.G. Anderson's response</a> to the paper. From that response:</p>
<p>"I find such categories as the possible, the emergent, and the novel to be of particular use; these are not yet accounted for here, insofar as the 'Kosmic Address' described above concerns posited phenomena, the already realized, and not those presently articulating processes that are only now becoming."</p> There are many different scho…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-09-30:5301756:Comment:517942013-09-30T03:50:37.209ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>There are many different schools within Madhyamaka. Generally it is divided into shentong and rangtong. Wilber is much more on the shentong side and I prefer the rangtong.* See the <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/stephen-batchelor" target="_self">Batchelor thread</a> and its references for that exploration. Therein I explore what I think of as the more metaphysicial view of the shentongs and how that applies to the 'absolute' side of Wilber's work.</p>
<p>*…</p>
<p>There are many different schools within Madhyamaka. Generally it is divided into shentong and rangtong. Wilber is much more on the shentong side and I prefer the rangtong.* See the <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/stephen-batchelor" target="_self">Batchelor thread</a> and its references for that exploration. Therein I explore what I think of as the more metaphysicial view of the shentongs and how that applies to the 'absolute' side of Wilber's work.</p>
<p>* Actually I'm a <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/a-note-on-neologisms?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A40901" target="_self">pOOOntong</a>pa, my own version.</p> Okay, I'll buy that. Then we'…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-09-30:5301756:Comment:517932013-09-30T00:05:26.173ZDavidhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/David264
<p>Okay, I'll buy that. Then we're in good-enough agreement here as well. :) But Wilber tends to rely on the Madhyamaka view himself (aside from teaching meditation, which is a different subject), so there shouldn't be much conflict with his interpretation either.</p>
<p>Okay, I'll buy that. Then we're in good-enough agreement here as well. :) But Wilber tends to rely on the Madhyamaka view himself (aside from teaching meditation, which is a different subject), so there shouldn't be much conflict with his interpretation either.</p> Okay, that's fine; we've been…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-09-29:5301756:Comment:518352013-09-29T23:56:34.250ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Okay, that's fine; we've been down this road before. But I must add, before you go, that I am not antagonistic to the Madhyamaka view. That's not a fair representation of my position at all.</p>
<p>Okay, that's fine; we've been down this road before. But I must add, before you go, that I am not antagonistic to the Madhyamaka view. That's not a fair representation of my position at all.</p>