Kingdom Come: Postmetaphysical Inclusivism? (My Conference Paper)

[Balder]

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.

 

 

[kelamuni]

Hi Balder,

OK, I guess I don't need to labor the point. :-)

For me the more important question would be that of using a secondary source that gets it wrong. :-) But yes, I don't think it would be such a great thing to quote him and then reverse his reading of the text. I think I know what you want though: you like Banerji's quote because it is clear and succinct. Maybe you could creatively edit Halbfass' account using elipses and try get what you need that way. (?) It seems to me that making the amendments you will need to will become a source of distraction for your reader. But it's up to you. If you want to refer to me that's ok too. Send me a message if you want to use my name.

cheers.

[Balder]

Hi, Kela, please see my post immediately above (we posted at the same time).  I posted an edit of Halbfass (still not concise, but perhaps -- I agree -- less distracting)...

[kelamuni]

I'm not sure how much the first passage is a quote anymore when the language is reversed (like the caterpillar and Alice). If text is altered, one needs to use square brackets and that could get a bit tricky. :-)

No, I see no need to omit "Advaita" from "Advaita Vedanta" since Halbfass is more or less talking about Advaita Vedanta when he refers to hierarchic inclusivism. And when he is referring to the "retention" idea involved in the river image, he is actually suggesting that the older Vedanta be typed with Jainism.

Yes, I see how the second passage is a bit wordy. You may be able to pare it down a bit more.

 

[kelamuni]

Hi Balder,

Yes, I think it makes for a stronger essay if you just quote Halbfass directly, rather than quote a review of his work. You refer to him later within the context of Indian inclusivism anyway, and your paper is a metatheoretical reflection on inclusivism, so you may as well quote one of the more important voices to discuss the issue.

[Balder]

Okay, thank you for your feedback.  I really appreciate your engagement with me on this.  I've been working on further edits to his passage, while also weighing the possibility of scrapping any direct quotations and just summarizing his position elsewhere in the paper.  But that would call for some substantial edits of my text.  At this point in the editorial process with JITP, I think if I can pare Halbfass' passage down sufficiently, that will be best. 

[kelamuni]

mettah

[Balder]

I'm not sure if you all will be able to view this, but if you can, check this out.

[Balder]

Well, it's finally out.  My copy arrived last night.  Sean wrote a very kind introduction.

[Edward theurj Berge]

So now you're a confirmed scholar! Congrats. So do we get to read the final version or are you restricted from sharing it freely by that defunct notion of proprietary intellectual property?

[Balder]

Thanks!  I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post it directly here online -- I'll have to read the fine print -- but I could send you a copy by email, if you'd like it.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Yes, please.

[Balder]

Sure, will do.  It's funny -- now that it's in print, I find my thinking is changing.  Almost time for Alderman-2.  :-)