Knowing and unknowing reality: A beginner's and expert's developmental guide to post-metaphysical thinking - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-28T11:51:27Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/knowing-and-unknowing-reality-a-beginner-s-and-expert-s?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A75309&feed=yes&xn_auth=noAnd see this recent post in t…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-03-14:5301756:Comment:756642019-03-14T16:41:39.017ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>And see <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/real-and-false-reason?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A75735" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this</a> recent post in the real/false reason thread.</p>
<p>And see <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/real-and-false-reason?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A75735" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this</a> recent post in the real/false reason thread.</p> Also see this and the followi…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-03-10:5301756:Comment:752832019-03-10T16:53:25.855ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Also see <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/real-and-false-reason?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A75566" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this</a> and the following comment, relevant to the above. </p>
<p>Also see <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/real-and-false-reason?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A75566" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this</a> and the following comment, relevant to the above. </p> As to Tom’s paper on uncertai…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-02-10:5301756:Comment:754202019-02-10T22:12:36.154ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p style="background-color: transparent; color: #222222; font-family: &quot; lato&quot;,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin-top: 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">As to Tom’s paper on uncertainty and emptiness, I appreciate what David Loy…</span></p>
<p style="background-color: transparent; color: #222222; font-family: &quot; lato&quot;,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin-top: 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">As to Tom’s paper on uncertainty and emptiness, I appreciate what David Loy said of relevance in <a style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-bottom-color: #9c27b0; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; color: #9c27b0; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;" href="http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2009/09/david-loy-dharma-of-deconstruction.html" rel="nofollow noopener">this</a> article:</span></p>
<p style="background-color: transparent; color: #222222; font-family: &quot; lato&quot;,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.4px; orphans: 2; overflow: visible; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">"Today the thinker most often compared to Nagarjuna is the French philosopher Jacques Derrida… Derrida is not interested in defending any philosophical position of his own but instead is concerned with showing the limits of language and the difficulties we fall into when we overstep them. Derrida’s work builds on structuralism, which argues that words do not have meaning in and of themselves. The meaning of any linguistic expression always depends upon some other expression, and that ‘other expression’ is also dependent on something else. Meaning is therefore relative and always in flux, part of a chain of reference that never comes to an end. Whatever we think we understand right here and now always presupposes something else that is not present.</span></p>
<p style="background-color: transparent; color: #222222; font-family: &quot; lato&quot;,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.4px; orphans: 2; overflow: visible; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">“Derrida’s term to describe the relativity and ‘indeterminability’ of meaning is <em style="line-height: 22.4px; overflow: visible; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;">différance,</em> and the way <em style="line-height: 22.4px; overflow: visible; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;">différance</em> functions in his philosophy can be compared to how Nagarjuna uses <em style="line-height: 22.4px; overflow: visible; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;">shunyata,</em> or emptiness. Derrida emphasizes that <em style="line-height: 22.4px; overflow: visible; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;">différance</em> does not refer to some specific thing. It is merely a conceptual tool useful for describing how conceptual meaning is never quite settled, but always ‘deferred.’”</span></p> Tom: Love this juxtaposition…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-02-08:5301756:Comment:754182019-02-08T23:40:42.746ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Tom: Love this juxtaposition of quotes Edward! Commons is good to make the point about the difference between the real and ideal (idea) [which many theorists don’t], but seems to tip his hat as a radical idealist here. I’m not sure this characterizes him generally, but anyone who thinks they can boil most of human behavior down to a mathematical equation must be missing something. So I think we have to try to notice what is missed there, while at the same time appreciating the power of the…</p>
<p>Tom: Love this juxtaposition of quotes Edward! Commons is good to make the point about the difference between the real and ideal (idea) [which many theorists don’t], but seems to tip his hat as a radical idealist here. I’m not sure this characterizes him generally, but anyone who thinks they can boil most of human behavior down to a mathematical equation must be missing something. So I think we have to try to notice what is missed there, while at the same time appreciating the power of the theory. Fisher’s treatment of the very similar developmental terrain has a much more palatable realism to it. Reality is so complex and resistant to being captured by categories that any model that captures, say 10% , of a situation will seem like the “true” theory, explaining things so much better than the rest of the theories that capture 4%.</p>
<p>Me: Yes, I’ve read, appreciate and commented on Fischer’s more dynamic systems approach to modeling development. I posted all the above to show how Commons’ premises of ideal forms and/or categories as foundation for modeling fly in the face of the graded categories and prototype theory of embodied cognition. As I said above, development yes of course, but it needs better modeling taking into account cognitive science.</p> My further reply to Tom:
To f…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-02-07:5301756:Comment:753312019-02-07T17:47:41.097ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>My further reply to Tom:</p>
<p style="background-color: transparent; color: #222222; font-family: &quot; lato&quot;,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin-top: 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">To further highlight the differences between Lakoff et al. and Commons et…</p>
<p>My further reply to Tom:</p>
<p style="background-color: transparent; color: #222222; font-family: &quot; lato&quot;,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin-top: 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">To further highlight the differences between Lakoff et al. and Commons et al. on real/false reasoning–or efficient versus deficient reasoning in Gebser’s terminology-- the following is from <a style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-bottom-color: #9c27b0; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; color: #9c27b0; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;" href="https://www.dareassociation.org/documents/GWOF_A_330277%20Introduction.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener">this</a> Commons source. The very premises of the MHC are literally metaphysical and directly challenged by embodied cognition.</p>
<p style="background-color: transparent; color: #222222; font-family: &quot; lato&quot;,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.4px; orphans: 2; overflow: visible; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;">“Here, the ideal truth is the mathematical forms of Platonic ideal. An essential element of science is direct observation and interaction with the world. But Plato set forth a very different doctrine, to the effect that ‘knowledge cannot be derived from the senses’ ; real knowledge only has to do with concepts. The senses can only deceive us; hence we should, in acquiring knowledge, 'ignore sense impressions and develop reason '. In codifying such logical reasoning, Aristotle (384–322 BC) set down rules of inference and recognized the importance of axioms for logic, postulates for the subject at hand, definitions of terms, and the importance of giving logical arguments that start with the postulates.</p>
<p style="background-color: transparent; color: #222222; font-family: &quot; lato&quot;,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.4px; orphans: 2; overflow: visible; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;">"The MHC is a mathematical theory of the ideal. It is a perfect form as Plato would have described it. It is like a circle. A circle is an ideal form that exists. Once one draws a circle, something additional and different has been created. The new creation is a representation of a circle, but it is not, itself, a perfect ideal circle. The lines have width whereas a circle does not, and thus cannot perfectly represent the perfect form itself. The representation is not perfect nor can a drawn circle be perfectly round. This distinction between the ideal form and representations of the ideal is important for understanding the MHC and its relationship to stage of performance” (113-15).</p> My additional comment:
Now I…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-01-30:5301756:Comment:753182019-01-30T21:23:34.854ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>My additional comment: </p>
<p style="background-color: transparent; color: #222222; font-family: &quot; lato&quot;,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin-top: 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Now I am…</span></p>
<p>My additional comment: </p>
<p style="background-color: transparent; color: #222222; font-family: &quot; lato&quot;,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin-top: 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Now I am <em style="line-height: 22.4px; overflow: visible; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;">not</em> saying that this negates development per se, just that it challenges how it is modeled based on set theory. It does answer though your question as to why Lakoff hasn’t written about development, and vice versa why developmentalists have tended to ignore or brush off Lakoff. Some exceptions to the later are you, Edwards et al. and me.</span></p>
<p style="background-color: transparent; color: #222222; font-family: &quot; lato&quot;,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.4px; orphans: 2; overflow: visible; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Edwards & company do though challenge via Lakoff some of the more metaphysical premises in their “inter-bridging” piece in <a style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-bottom-color: #9c27b0; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px; color: #9c27b0; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;" href="http://integral-review.org/backissue/vol-11-no-3-sep-2015-2/" rel="nofollow noopener">this</a> IR issue. E.g. their approach has a virtual center and is not centered around a “metaphysical harmony, nor an underlying unity-oriented ideal(ism). Rather, it embraces demands of diversity, complexities, intricacies and ambiguities of bounded organizational realities.” This is given their multi-lens approach, of which the holarchical is but one, and challenges the metaphysical premise of those philosophies or models that are centered on an objectivist or representational notion of reality, a characteristic postmetaphysical criticism.</span></p>
<p style="background-color: transparent; color: #222222; font-family: &quot; lato&quot;,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.4px; orphans: 2; overflow: visible; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">So yes, the holarchical lens is indeed valid within its own axiomatic premises, and Lakoff et al. do recognize the container schema as a valid image schema and from which the holararcical lens extends in metaphor. And Lakoff does admit that image schema are based on a whole-part gestalt. It’s just that such an embodied gestalt has a different inference structure that is not based on a particular set theory’s necessary and sufficient conditions but on the graded category structures of our embodiment.</span></p>
<p style="background-color: transparent; color: #222222; font-family: &quot; lato&quot;,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.4px; orphans: 2; overflow: visible; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Hence those structures are organized differently in what I’ve come to call hier(an)archical synplexity. I don’t have a full-blown theory of that yet but I’m working on it. My IR article gives a few hints in that the parts of any whole are not fully subsumed into that whole but retain their autonomy and ‘share spaces’ in those intersections. That is explored in a few of the Ning threads which I may go into more detail later. Development yes, as stated in set theory not so much.</span></p> Tom replied to my comment bel…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-01-30:5301756:Comment:753172019-01-30T17:39:18.587ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Tom replied to my comment below:</p>
<p><span style="text-align: left; color: #222222; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; font-family: 'Lato',sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; float: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent;">"I’m not sure I would take it quite that far Edward.…</span></p>
<p>Tom replied to my comment below:</p>
<p><span style="text-align: left; color: #222222; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; font-family: 'Lato',sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; float: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent;">"I’m not sure I would take it quite that far Edward. What prototype theory does is not so much invalidate hierarchies, as show that, assuming they do roughly approximately capture some aspect of reality (which I think they do), they are imperfect maps. In the same way that simple concepts (as categories) are partial truths but err in forcing clean boundaries (and clean hierarchical relationships). I do think that prototype theory and the theory of “natural kinds” in concept formation is incredibly important for all theory makers and users to know about."</span></p>
<p>Which I followed up with the last post above.<br/> <br/> <cite>Edward theurj Berge said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/knowing-and-unknowing-reality-a-beginner-s-and-expert-s?page=1&commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A75413&x=1#5301756Comment75413"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>I also commented at IC:</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="text-align: left; color: #222222; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; font-family: 'Lato',sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; float: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent;">As noted above, prototypes are not based on necessary and sufficient conditions, the latter being a requirement for hierarchical complexity. Commons admits as much in</span> <a style="background: none; text-align: left; color: #9c27b0; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; word-spacing: 0px; border-bottom-color: #9c27b0; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; white-space: normal; cursor: pointer; word-wrap: break-word; orphans: 2; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" href="http://www.integralworld.net/commons1.html" rel="nofollow noopener">this</a> <span style="text-align: left; color: #222222; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; font-family: 'Lato',sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; float: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent;">article. Note the axioms which satisfy the requisite necessary and sufficient conditions in terms of set theory. Prototype theory challenges the very edifice upon which developmental models depend. No wonder Lakoff et al. don’t go there. </span></span><span style="text-align: left; color: #222222; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; font-family: 'Lato',sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; float: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent;"><span style="text-align: left; color: #222222; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; font-family: 'Lato',sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; float: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent;">I’d even suggest that the sort of necessary and sufficient logic of set theory, not being embodied, is quite literally metaphysical and hence not what is considered postmetaphysical.</span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Lakoff also noted in Women, F…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-01-30:5301756:Comment:753162019-01-30T17:28:17.303ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Lakoff also noted in <em>Women, Fire and Dangerous Things</em>:…</p>
<p>Lakoff also noted in <em>Women, Fire and Dangerous Things</em>:</p>
<p style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; color: #4e4e54; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; min-height: 12px; orphans: 2; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; xg-p: static; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 6px 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;">"The classical theory of categories provides a link between objectivist metaphysics and and set-theoretical models.... Objectivist metaphysics goes beyond the metaphysics of basic realism...[which] merely assumes that there is a reality of some sort.... It additionally assumes that reality is <em style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; font-size: 12px; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; xg-p: static; vertical-align: baseline; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;">correctly</em> and <em style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; font-size: 12px; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; xg-p: static; vertical-align: baseline; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;">completely</em> structured in a way that can be modeled by set-theoretic models" (159).</p>
<p style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; color: #4e4e54; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; min-height: 12px; orphans: 2; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; xg-p: static; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;">He argues that this arises from the correspondence-representation model, a metaphysical system.</p>
<p style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; color: #4e4e54; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; min-height: 12px; orphans: 2; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; xg-p: static; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;"></p>
<p style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; color: #4e4e54; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; min-height: 12px; orphans: 2; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; xg-p: static; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 6px 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;">And this one is significant, which was made apparent in my discussions with Commons:</p>
<p style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; color: #4e4e54; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; min-height: 12px; orphans: 2; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; xg-p: static; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 6px 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;">"In objectivist cognition, concepts by definition exclude all nonobjective influences.... For example, the properties of basic level concepts [their embodiment]...cannot be true properties of concepts in an objectivist theory" (165).</p>
<p style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; color: #4e4e54; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; min-height: 12px; orphans: 2; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; xg-p: static; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 6px 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;">Hence the complete avoidance of Lakoff's (and company) work; it is not "objective" and <em style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; font-size: 12px; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; xg-p: static; vertical-align: baseline; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;">proven</em> (i.e., circle-jerked) with so-called objective, mathematical, set-theorectical axioms.</p>
<p style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; color: #4e4e54; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; min-height: 12px; orphans: 2; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; xg-p: static; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 6px 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;">And this one that nails the MHC's categorization structure:</p>
<div class="description" id="desc_5301756Comment40348" style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; font-size: 12px; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; vertical-align: baseline; padding: 0px; margin: 0px 35px 8.4px 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;"><div class="xg_user_generated" style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; font-size: 12px; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; xg-p: static; vertical-align: baseline; padding: 0px; margin: 5px 0px 5px 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;"><p style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; font-size: 12px; min-height: 12px; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; xg-p: static; vertical-align: baseline; padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 6px 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;">"The classical theory comes with two general principles of organization for categories: hierarchical categorization and cross-categorizaton. [In the former] a partition of a category into sub-categories such that all members are in one, and only one, subcategory.... [In the latter] a number of hierarchical categories at the same level.... [these] are the only organizations of categories that exist" (166-7).</p>
<p style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; color: #4e4e54; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; min-height: 12px; orphans: 2; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; xg-p: static; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 6px 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;">A key reason Lakoff is ignored by hierarchical complexifiers:</p>
<p style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; color: #4e4e54; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; min-height: 12px; orphans: 2; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; xg-p: static; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 6px 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;">"It is the <em style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; font-size: 12px; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; xg-p: static; vertical-align: baseline; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;">classical</em> concept of a category, the concept that contemporary research on prototype theory claims is untenable as a fully general approach. If that concept changes in an essential way, then most, if not all, of objectivist metaphysics and epistemology goes. What is at stake is a world view" (174).</p>
<p style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; color: #4e4e54; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; min-height: 12px; orphans: 2; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; xg-p: static; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 6px 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;"><span style="display: inline !important; float: none; background-color: transparent; color: #4e4e54; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">Yep, a formop worldview dressed up as postop and</span> <em style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; color: #4e4e54; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; xg-p: static; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;">integral</em><span style="display: inline !important; float: none; background-color: transparent; color: #4e4e54; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">, with the math to prove it. Never mind that the math is also formop based on classical category theory. Lakoff challenges the unconscious presuppositions and premises upon which such theory is based and taken as given.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p style="background-attachment: scroll; background-clip: border-box; background-color: transparent; background-image: none; background-origin: padding-box; background-position-x: 0%; background-position-y: 0%; background-repeat: repeat; background-size: auto; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; color: #4e4e54; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,Tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; min-height: 12px; orphans: 2; outline-color: invert; outline-style: none; outline-width: 0px; xg-p: static; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px none #4e4e54;"></p> I also commented at IC:
As no…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-01-30:5301756:Comment:754132019-01-30T17:00:59.296ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>I also commented at IC:</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="text-align: left; color: #222222; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; font-family: 'Lato',sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; float: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent;">As noted above, prototypes are not based on…</span></span></p>
<p>I also commented at IC:</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="text-align: left; color: #222222; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; font-family: 'Lato',sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; float: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent;">As noted above, prototypes are not based on necessary and sufficient conditions, the latter being a requirement for hierarchical complexity. Commons admits as much in</span> <a style="background: none; text-align: left; color: #9c27b0; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; word-spacing: 0px; border-bottom-color: #9c27b0; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; white-space: normal; cursor: pointer; word-wrap: break-word; orphans: 2; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" href="http://www.integralworld.net/commons1.html" rel="nofollow noopener">this</a> <span style="text-align: left; color: #222222; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; font-family: 'Lato',sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; float: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent;">article. Note the axioms which satisfy the requisite necessary and sufficient conditions in terms of set theory. Prototype theory challenges the very edifice upon which developmental models depend. No wonder Lakoff et al. don’t go there. </span></span><span style="text-align: left; color: #222222; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; font-family: 'Lato',sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; float: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent;"><span style="text-align: left; color: #222222; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; font-family: 'Lato',sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; float: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent;">I’d even suggest that the sort of necessary and sufficient logic of set theory, not being embodied, is quite literally metaphysical and hence not what is considered postmetaphysical.</span></span></p> Tom replied: These are great…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2019-01-29:5301756:Comment:752152019-01-29T16:15:03.173ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Tom replied:<span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span>These are great L&J quotes Edward, thanks. As is obvious I am also a big fan of Philosophy in the flesh. But it also strikes me that the developmental lens never made its way into their work. Lakoff’s later work on political themes (Don’t think of an elephant) was even more hobbled by this lack. I understand why it happens and is hard to change, but its such a shame how academia operates in such tight sub-disciplinary silos. I had the…</p>
<p>Tom replied:<span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span>These are great L&J quotes Edward, thanks. As is obvious I am also a big fan of Philosophy in the flesh. But it also strikes me that the developmental lens never made its way into their work. Lakoff’s later work on political themes (Don’t think of an elephant) was even more hobbled by this lack. I understand why it happens and is hard to change, but its such a shame how academia operates in such tight sub-disciplinary silos. I had the same concern about Haidt’s work, excellent but noticeably could benefit from the developmental lens. I hear that Haidt has recently been turned on to developmental theories though, so we will see. Not that adult development is the end-all of theories, but its unfortunate how little of academia is even familiar with it.</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="text-align: left; color: #222222; text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; font-family: 'Lato',sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline !important; white-space: normal; orphans: 2; float: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent;">I said: </span></span>There could be a number of reasons for that. One is that the developmental metaphor (lens) is just one of a multitude. And as they note, each primary metaphor has its own valid and coherent inference structure. However they are not valid and coherent with other base metaphors. And typically philosophies are a hybrid mix of basic metaphors, revealing those internal inconsistencies that either get glossed over or require some rather twisted logic to get them to cohere. There is no dominant lens to rule them all, so to speak.</p>
<p><br/> Another reason is as noted above that the hierarchical lens, key to developmental models, uses the container schema as one of its guiding metaphors. But that “hides conceptual prototypes, the graded structure of categories and the fuzziness of category boundaries.” Using the latter challenges the very structure of the developmental model. We can also conceptualize container schema differently, i.e., where a so-called smaller holon is not subsumed in a larger one but in which they share a space-between as Edwards calls it. It offers an entirely different approach to hierarchy because the interacting holons retain their autonomy. They structurally couple and create another holon altogether instead of one being subsumed or nested in the other.</p>
<p><br/> This is especially significant when you take into account basic categories, which are in the middle of typical taxonomic hierarchies. That is, a hierarchy does not start with the most particular type which is subsumed into the most general type. Those two abstract ends of the spectrum are literally tied together by the basic category in the middle, the most concrete and thus the most closely interactive with the world. Hence this hierarchy is in effect from the middle up and down so that the very nature of hierarchy is entirely different than the typical one. Hence hier(an)archical synplexity.</p>
<p><br/> I’m also thinking of the following from Chapter 7 of PITF, challenging the set theory aspect of developmental premises.</p>
<p><br/> “Spatial relations concepts (image schemas), which fit visual scenes, are not characterizable in terms of set-theoretical structures. Motor concepts (verbs of bodily movement), which fit the body’s motor schemas, cannot be characterized by set-theoretical models. Set-theoretical models simply do not have the kind of structure needed to fit visual scenes or motor schemas, since all they have in them are abstract entities, sets of those entities, and sets of those sets. These models have no structure appropriate to embodied meaning-no motor schemas, no visual or imagistic mechanisms, and no metaphor.”</p>
<p><br/> Hence that variety of set theory used to justify developmental hierarchy is not based on embodied premises. I explore this in great detail in the Ning IPS thread <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/real-and-false-reason" target="_blank" rel="noopener">real/false reason</a>.</p>