Kingdom Come: Postmetaphysical Inclusivism? (My Conference Paper)

Per Ed's request, I'm posting a copy of the paper I just submitted for the upcoming IT Conference.  I only had 3 days to work on it, so I ended up rushing on it and I'm not entirely satisfied with the end.  I went in the general direction I wanted, but in the presentation I'll definitely try to clarify my proposal more and provide more concrete suggestions.  If you've read some of my old blogs, you'll see (in the interest of time, since I had so little of it; and also in the spirit of Wilber!), I've used material from some of them to flesh it out ... but there is still a good bit of new material in it!

 

Technically, this paper is not supposed to be published anywhere.  I don't think a forum really counts as "publication," but just in case, I'll leave it up only for a short time.  You will find it attached below.

 

Best wishes,

 

B.

 

P.S.  I have removed the attachment and replaced it with a link (above) to the pdf of the paper which is posted on the ITC website.

 

 

Views: 733

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

FYI, it was this section of the paper that Wilber suggested I revise, since Integral involves more than promise; it also involves an evidential search for quasi-universals across cultural contexts.

I"m reminded on one of my comments from the Levin redux thread. Also see a few of my previous comments above that. Perhaps that Levin reference can be used to beef up this part?

Suddenly I just got an auditory image of someone pronouncing Caputo as an ecstatic ejaculation:  ca-PU-to!  And 'puto' may have some interesting etymological associations (across multiple languages)...  :-D

theurj said:
The connotation I took from "kingdom come" was precisely that, a kind of Caputoean call to or promise of a messianism yet to come, Derrida's French expression for this being "viens, oui oui" instead of "Royaume viens." It is also an expression used during sexual intercourse, what one might say to a lover when they are on the verge... Same différance, similar kingdom.
Puto has some interesting meanings according to the urban dictionary.


Hi, Xibalba,

 

Yes, I was pleasantly surprised by the way that Wilber spoke of universals -- here, talking about looking for "good-enough universals" that can be identified and confirmed across traditions, rather than regarding "universals" as timeless or Platonic absolutes.  In that regard, he seemed to like my appeal to Panikkar's notion of homeomorphic equivalents.  X, I believe you are suggesting a move away from language and thinking which is phobic of any mention of universals, and if that is the case, I agree with that.


xibalba said:

THX balder

that was an interesting clarification. Well by kingdom come I wasn´t at all thinking about any imperialistic connation, because I "Know" through your writings that you have already integrated thesse shadowy elements.

 

On the opposite, it is a very creative suggestion you are bringing forth.

I have read your paper, and I liked it  and amazing teh KW said it, but I was wondering about the universality issue, because as Ferrer also does there is this too obvious to me postmodern tendency to avoid the universality speech, Modernity´s bad child, ioW that overemphasis on the de-territorialized "rhizomic" growth of the particular so dear to a philosopher like Deleuze, or the embodied dissimination mode of signifiers in Derrida´s or Butler´s speeches.

 

what do you think?

 

PS: I will rephrase soon my question on Pannikar´s cosmotheoandric

 

Que la divine providence vous protège, cher Balder.

 


Oh, nice, Ed.  Good idea.  I will look at that.


theurj said:

FYI, it was this section of the paper that Wilber suggested I revise, since Integral involves more than promise; it also involves an evidential search for quasi-universals across cultural contexts.

I"m reminded on one of my comments from the Levin redux thread. Also see a few of my previous comments above that. Perhaps that Levin reference can be used to beef up this part?

I also thought of Wilber's use of Whitehead in his 20 tenets regarding the ideas of always already and not yet, phrased as creativity and holons. See Hargens on this, for example, in "Integrating Whitehead."

HI Balder

 

Actually the homomorphic methodology of Pannikar looks like a kind of abductive method which is a blend of deduction and induction, a seeking of homothetic patterns in different faiths systems (like in set theory for example in mathematics). This approach leads to a re-affirmation of universalism - postmetaphysically speaking as I see-,  as Habermas did it in different manners and goals with his reconstruction of an universal pragmatics in his project on a theory of communicative action, which aimed to save kantian universalism from the extreme postmodernistic versions of philosophy of the subject only leading to nihilistic cul-de-sac.

 

I found an interesting link on Pannikar´s Christophany you told me long ago

http://www.contemplative.org/christophany_overview.pdf

 

Amicalement

 

 

 

 

 



Balder said:


Hi, Xibalba,

 

Yes, I was pleasantly surprised by the way that Wilber spoke of universals -- here, talking about looking for "good-enough universals" that can be identified and confirmed across traditions, rather than regarding "universals" as timeless or Platonic absolutes.  In that regard, he seemed to like my appeal to Panikkar's notion of homeomorphic equivalents.  X, I believe you are suggesting a move away from language and thinking which is phobic of any mention of universals, and if that is the case, I agree with that.


xibalba said:

THX balder

that was an interesting clarification. Well by kingdom come I wasn´t at all thinking about any imperialistic connation, because I "Know" through your writings that you have already integrated thesse shadowy elements.

 

On the opposite, it is a very creative suggestion you are bringing forth.

I have read your paper, and I liked it  and amazing teh KW said it, but I was wondering about the universality issue, because as Ferrer also does there is this too obvious to me postmodern tendency to avoid the universality speech, Modernity´s bad child, ioW that overemphasis on the de-territorialized "rhizomic" growth of the particular so dear to a philosopher like Deleuze, or the embodied dissimination mode of signifiers in Derrida´s or Butler´s speeches.

 

what do you think?

 

PS: I will rephrase soon my question on Pannikar´s cosmotheoandric

 

Que la divine providence vous protège, cher Balder.

 

In my research I came upon this paper which might be of relevance, "Toward a constructive postmodern pluralism" by Zhihe Wang. I don't see it as one of your sources. A brief excerpt:

"The problem of pluralism is 'one of the burning issues of our time.' Recently more and more religious thinkers and theologians have participated in the discussion of religious pluralism.  Without a doubt, pluralism is worthy of our sympathy insofar as it is the rejection of the religious exclusivism and inclusivism propagated by a modern worldview...especially when many of us have not yet repented various imperialisms. John Hick can be viewed as the representative of religious universalism while Heim can be viewed as the representative of religious particularism. The solution to the dilemma calls for a new perspective. In this paper I intend to suggest a constructive postmodern pluralism coming from Whiteheadian-Cobbian-Griffinian perspectives.  I will begin by outlining both Hick and Heim’s point of views, including the strong points and weaknesses of their views, and then argue that constructive postmodern pluralism can overcome the impasse by avoiding the weaknesses of both."

Wow, thanks, Ed.  That does look relevant.  I've read the first couple paragraphs and find myself even feeling a little nervous to continue with it, fearing it will cover much of the same ground I did...  :-)  I'll read the full thing this weekend.  I promised JITP that I'd have my revised paper ready in a few days, so maybe this will help in putting on some finishing touches.

re: interfaith dialogue. It depends on how well each understands their own religion.

 

No Religion

 

 

I decided to make my modification in the form of a footnote.  What do you think?  Here's the original sentence, and then my footnote commentary.


Rather, it requires, I contend, that we simply switch from the language of presupposition to the language of promise.*


*More specifically, to the languages of promise and of evidence.  Post-metaphysically, our intra- and inter-religious tasks involve not only the enactment of new vision, but the evidential search for quasi- or "good-enough" universals, and the discovery of homeomorphic or homothetic equivalencies, across cultures and worldspaces.  In fact, these two tasks, I would suggest, are in some respects inseparable.  The 'always already' is also the 'not yet,' as David Michael Kleinberg-Levin (1988, 1989, 2008) might put it.  The primordial spiritual ground we discover, for instance, is at once a novel enactment, a recovery of a universal that, prior to our search, never simply 'was' what our recovering vision now discloses as always 'having been.'

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.

© 2020   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service