Here's a new piece of writing by Ken (though some of it looks like it is copied from an older text). 

Integral Semiotics

I have skimmed it, but I'm too swamped at the moment to give it careful attention.  I look forward to coming back to this in a few days.

Views: 3656

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I don't think so either. My sense is that differance pervades them so that they are distinct yet inseparable, mutually entailing as it were. That is in accord with kennilingus on the relative side of the street. As for the absolute side, there is ample evidence that the Lingam espouses an ultimate transcendental signified in the metaphysical and representational sense. One definition of metaphysics (there are several) is in fact the Cartesian divide between subject and object, absolute and immanent, i.e., formal operations. And there is no question kennilingus engages that sort of reasoning with transcendental signifieds. See earlier in this thread for but one example.

As for referents, I agree with the Lingam again in that it isn't a given in itself but for different reasons. Agree that what any suobject can know about it doesn't get at another in any totality, or even one suobject within itself. There is always this hidden or withdrawn reserve or excess. Hence any referent is open and fluid as well, up to and including this thing called causal or ultimate awareness. Since with integral semiotics one must also provide a kosmic address for the 'object' that a subject is apprehending, the object's address is indefinite as well given its own withdrawn c(h)ore(a). The withdrawn sort of functions like Wilber's Causal but in a more postmetaphysical way imo. It is transcendetal though, not transcendent (see here). With that distinction in mind I am all in for transcendental signifieds, signifiers and referents.

What do you think Derrida meant by "there's nothing outside the text," and is this a view he relinquished, or did he hold to this view?

By text he means means context, not just a written text or language more generally. Desilet has addressed this, as has Caputo. The latter is probably Derrida's most accurate and able interpreter, given his close personal relationship. See this article for one, paragraph 28 in particular.

I've also heard "there's nothing outside the text" -- literally, the French phrase reads, "there is no outside-text" -- as "there's nothing outside context," which is meant to apply as much to objects and entities as to language, and which seems to me to be consistent with a holonic view.  In a holonic view, every whole is also part of another whole (context), and there is no final superholon at the top (or base-holon at the bottom) where this stops.

In the hands of Latour (and Bryant, too, but I'm studying Latour at the moment), the dynamics of quasi-transcendence / withdrawal, of mutual translation or co-enaction, is common not only to all languages, but to all objects, actors, entities, processes, things.

Thanks, guys. That looks like an interesting Caputo article, Edward.

In your view, did Derrida ever engage in that lower-right-quadrant absolutism where everything is reduced or at least subordinated to linguistics? It's particularly the subordination of other paradigms to linguistics that I am concerned about at the moment, though I would be curious if Derrida had any nihilistic moments earlier in his career.

In addition to nothing outside context, wouldn't we also need nothing outside paradigm/injunction? Linguistics is just one injunction. There are many others, such as biology, physics, zazen, vipassana, self-inquiry.

Since nothing is outside injunction as well, wouldn't we need to include these other methodologies?

If so, why would we would suggest that the linguistics paradigm takes precedence over meditative methodologies? Why would we grant linguists the right to reinterpret the phenomena of other injunctions but not the other way around?

Since there is nothing outside of injunction/perspective as well as context, wouldn't it be a metaphysical move to grant the adepts of one injunction the right to reinterpret the phenomena of another but not the other way around?

Wouldn't someone have to be an adept in both postmodern philosophy and meditation to pass judgment on interpretations of nonduality, emptiness, and so forth?

From my side -- I don't want to speak for Derrida, since I don't base my own approach on him, nor do I think basing an approach on only one thinker is a good integral approach (even if that thinker is Wilber!) -- in any event, from my side, I'm not interested in privileging the linguistic paradigm above all others.  I agree that would not be appropriate for an integral approach.  (Though I do think grammatical categories can contribute to a broadly integrative orientation...)

However, regarding your last question about passing judgments on interpretations, I am wondering if it's really the case that you have to be an expert in a field before you can comment on how someone is interpreting phenomena in that field.  For instance, even though you might not be an expert in evolutionary biology, I expect you could differentiate between forms of interpretation of the story of life -- from magic to mythic to rational to vision logic, etc.  Someone who isn't an expert in that field, but has developed vision logic in another context, would likely be able to recognize rational-empiricist and vision-logic forms of interpretation or meaning-making in biology if one were exposed to them.  What do you think?

Yes, I think there is something to that, Bruce. I think we can often spot fundamentalists, quadrant absolutists, and so forth in various fields and probably get a rough idea of a hierarchy. I think it gets trickier with spiritual phenomena, though, because the kosmic address will not only change in terms of cognition but also state. So if it's true that someone can identify in some way as nonduality or emptiness, everything would get rehung around that. Any philosophy is a kind of hanging things around a particular kosmic address, including state, so if that kosmic address changes, the philosophy will change as well. So I think what Derrida says, for example, is true for his kosmic address, but there are other kosmic addresses, including those with deeper states. Things might look very different from some of those other kosmic addresses.

"Did Derrida ever engage in that lower-right-quadrant absolutism where everything is reduced or at least subordinated to linguistics?"

No.

A concern about privileging linguistics (or any other paradigm) above all others is, of course, a legitimate concern.  I agree with you that it is inappropriate for an integral orientation. But this is a thread about Integral semiotics, so it seems a discussion of linguistic paradigms is appropriate here.

Perhaps it would help if you gave some concrete examples to flesh out your specific concerns.

One place to start might be to ask if, and how, Integral semiotics is uniquely shaped or influenced by Wilber's state realization.

"Wouldn't someone have to be an adept in both postmodern philosophy and meditation to pass judgment on interpretations of nonduality, emptiness, and so forth?"

Yes, and I am, and in other methodologies as well in my personal ILP. And accurate and precise judgment is one of my highly honed aptitudes applicable to all methods.

Bruce: "One place to start might be to ask if, and how, Integral semiotics is uniquely shaped or influenced by Wilber's state realization."

That's what I just did, Bruce.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2022   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service