Layman Pascal's Rules of Meta-Theory - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-28T16:45:32Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/layman-pascal-s-rules-of-meta-theory?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A54350&feed=yes&xn_auth=noIn response to some Balder-y…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-22:5301756:Comment:545862014-03-22T19:19:10.624ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>In response to some Balder-y remarks:</em></p>
<p>Okay, let's talk "generic metatheory" :</p>
<p>There are two different angles from which to approach it. One builds up from MOA-1 toward MOA-2. It uses <em>divergent alterity</em> as the basis of establishing convergent subsumption. That is to say: Yes, different practitioners of different approaches should indeed attempt to subsume other metatheories into their MOA-2 model. As they succeed their models will…</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>In response to some Balder-y remarks:</em></p>
<p>Okay, let's talk "generic metatheory" :</p>
<p>There are two different angles from which to approach it. One builds up from MOA-1 toward MOA-2. It uses <em>divergent alterity</em> as the basis of establishing convergent subsumption. That is to say: Yes, different practitioners of different approaches should indeed attempt to subsume other metatheories into their MOA-2 model. As they succeed their models will progressively come to resemble other models which are also succeeding from different starting points. A general convergent metatheory will then begin to haunt them.</p>
<p>The other angle uses a convergent presumption as the starting point. This will incline us to make a gamble about the metatheory that is most likely to operate with (a) trans-genre cultural vitality and (b) flexibly interpretable comprehensibility. From there it begins to work "backwards" to illuminate common elements in diverse methatheories and inscribe the as pre-included in the Generic Metatheory.</p>
<p>MOA-3 approaches are then called upon to oversee the MOA-1 and MOA-2 interactions no matter which direction they are proceeding in.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><cite> </cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/layman-pascal-s-rules-of-meta-theory?id=5301756%3ATopic%3A54238&page=3#5301756Comment54806"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p><br/><br/></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> In response to some Theurjy r…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-22:5301756:Comment:545852014-03-22T19:01:35.939ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p><em>In response to some Theurjy remarks:</em></p>
<p>It should be obvious but who doesn't love redundancy...</p>
<p>The Rules of Metatheory make it clear that I am not choosing IT as <em>the</em> One in some sort of objective assertion. Our conventional associations with examples of "one theory" and the advocates of such approaches should not too strongly color our understanding of the convergent pole of ontological pluralism.</p>
<p>Selecting a "the One theory" is necessarily a temporary…</p>
<p><em>In response to some Theurjy remarks:</em></p>
<p>It should be obvious but who doesn't love redundancy...</p>
<p>The Rules of Metatheory make it clear that I am not choosing IT as <em>the</em> One in some sort of objective assertion. Our conventional associations with examples of "one theory" and the advocates of such approaches should not too strongly color our understanding of the convergent pole of ontological pluralism.</p>
<p>Selecting a "the One theory" is necessarily a temporary and pragmatic wager based on, among other things, contingent cultural factors. The best theory is not the result of an unshakeable logical postulation but rather of a supportive relationship between (a) trans-genre cultural viability, and (b) flexible comprehensiveness. IT currently meets a lot of this criteria. If we take it as the current "mark to beat" (by challenging in various ways its capacity to configure its meaning to subsume the insights of metatheorists) we are not therefore stating a dogma of its completion.</p>
<p>That the supertheory of this historical moment <em>need not</em> be IT is as obvious as the fact that it currently "may as well be" IT. LIkewise, it would be as stupid to assume that one existing model already objectively subsumes all others... as it would be to refuse to attempt to subsume all others within one currently existing model.</p>
<p>MOA-3 approaches must deploy MOA-1 and MOA-2 in mutually beneficial ways. That means, in particular, that it must safeguard the harvesting new insights & possible alternative models from MOA-1 efforts. It must also secure and encourage the attempt to work these together into an existing MOA-2 supermodel which has populist, generic and trans-academic vitality.</p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/layman-pascal-s-rules-of-meta-theory?x=1&id=5301756%3ATopic%3A54238&page=3#5301756Comment54649"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>I understand that we can choose one within which to frame the others, and that is useful but far from complete. And that we can examine several metatheories with a yet further meta-meta-theory that tries to incorporate them. But does this process 'end' in the one true metatheory?</p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>The process does not "end" in the sense of a fixed and definitive objective conclusion. But that is impossible and therefore not the correct sense. What is possible is an "other end" -- a cathode or North Pole towards which the lines of insight and creative effort in metatheory can be presumed to converge.</p>
<blockquote><p>This process doesn't have to necessarily be 'just' pluralistic relativism but could be ontological pluralism which includes universals like the hyperobject endo-structure of differance.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Ontological pluralism is a view that operates by complementary convergence & divergence. If the divergent end is isolated it is "just" pluralistic relative. If the convergent end is isolated it is "just" a pre-meta-theoretical supermodel. But when both ends are operating functionally...</strong></p>
</div>
</div> Speaking of splices reminded…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-22:5301756:Comment:546552014-03-22T12:38:39.325ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Speaking of splices reminded me of the movie <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splice_%28film%29" target="_blank">Splice</a><a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1208173-splice/" target="_blank"></a></em>, a good one with interesting themes for this thread.</p>
<p>Speaking of splices reminded me of the movie <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splice_%28film%29" target="_blank">Splice</a><a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1208173-splice/" target="_blank"></a></em>, a good one with interesting themes for this thread.</p> I see it similarly, theurj. …tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-22:5301756:Comment:545832014-03-22T05:20:52.393ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>I see it similarly, theurj. The <em>splice</em>, in LP's Rules of Meta-Theory, is such a universal: la <span class="exampleGroup exGrBreak"><em class="example_nbr">même</em></span>-<i>différance</i>. And the benevolent hegemony or all-incorporative gesture LP describes can indeed be useful and fruitful ... that is part of the integral drive ... but if we take LP's rules as general rules for metatheorizing per se (and not as exclusive principles and properties of IT), then it seems we…</p>
<p>I see it similarly, theurj. The <em>splice</em>, in LP's Rules of Meta-Theory, is such a universal: la <span class="exampleGroup exGrBreak"><em class="example_nbr">même</em></span>-<i>différance</i>. And the benevolent hegemony or all-incorporative gesture LP describes can indeed be useful and fruitful ... that is part of the integral drive ... but if we take LP's rules as general rules for metatheorizing per se (and not as exclusive principles and properties of IT), then it seems we cannot escape the scenario that I described above, where such a (post)metaphysical sensibility can be expected to be plurally instantiated -- multiply realized and enacted (from different meta-theoretical centers, in similar-different integrative gestures): perichoresis by another name, or some descendent thereof. To me, perichoresis and plurisingularity are better images for an Integral endeavor than the old One of perennial philosophical (or traditional religious) inclusivism.<br/><br/></p> I was reminded of LP's respon…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-21:5301756:Comment:546492014-03-21T15:21:56.407ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>I was reminded of LP's response to <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/object-oriented-ontology?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A43799" target="_self">this post</a> a while back, wherein I posited that our universal hyperobject is multiplicity/differance itself. LP seems to have agreed, noting this requires 'mystical' experience, part of his rules in this doc. If the nature of reality is differance itself, which itself is not only the same but different with each…</p>
<p>I was reminded of LP's response to <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/object-oriented-ontology?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A43799" target="_self">this post</a> a while back, wherein I posited that our universal hyperobject is multiplicity/differance itself. LP seems to have agreed, noting this requires 'mystical' experience, part of his rules in this doc. If the nature of reality is differance itself, which itself is not only the same but different with each manifestation as well as with each virtuality, how then can we posit that there is one metatheoretical expression of it which is best?</p>
<p>I understand that we can choose one within which to frame the others, and that is useful but far from complete. And that we can examine several metatheories with a yet further meta-meta-theory that tries to incorporate them. But does this process 'end' in the one true metatheory? This process doesn't have to necessarily be 'just' pluralistic relativism but could be ontological pluralism which includes universals like the hyperobject endo-structure of differance.</p> My impression from the first…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-21:5301756:Comment:546462014-03-21T00:49:12.802ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>My impression from the first was that LP chose IT as <em>the</em> One. And the <em>only</em> One capable of such a task. If they all can do this then it's just more of the same pluralistic "irritable sensitivity." Of course one can posit that deconstruction and reconstruction (de/re) can be integrated in an MOA-3 type metatheory, <em>and</em> that there can be several of these, no one of them capable of subsuming all the others in toto, i.e., pluralsingularity or same/difference, etc.…</p>
<p>My impression from the first was that LP chose IT as <em>the</em> One. And the <em>only</em> One capable of such a task. If they all can do this then it's just more of the same pluralistic "irritable sensitivity." Of course one can posit that deconstruction and reconstruction (de/re) can be integrated in an MOA-3 type metatheory, <em>and</em> that there can be several of these, no one of them capable of subsuming all the others in toto, i.e., pluralsingularity or same/difference, etc. <em>And</em> that this so-called MOA-3 may have little to do with being a more vertically developed hierarchically complex thingamabob. Heresy, I know, generally reduced to pluralistic "irritable sensitivity," the MGM in another guise.</p> Layman, I've read your update…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-21:5301756:Comment:548062014-03-21T00:04:18.762ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Layman, I've read your updated "document" and appreciate your additions. I'm still mulling over the following section, in part I expect because I am comfortable with and tend to want to privilege both MOA-1 and MOA-2 sensibilities in different ways at different times...but in a way which blurs the distinctions you draw here. Which is reasable for a general MOA view, of course.…<br></br><br></br></p>
<p>Layman, I've read your updated "document" and appreciate your additions. I'm still mulling over the following section, in part I expect because I am comfortable with and tend to want to privilege both MOA-1 and MOA-2 sensibilities in different ways at different times...but in a way which blurs the distinctions you draw here. Which is reasable for a general MOA view, of course.<br/><br/><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2505381765?profile=original"><img class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2505381765?profile=original" width="678"/></a><br/><br/>When you talk about any "generally workable Metatheory" at level 2 necessarily engaging in the game of subsumption and benevolent enslavement of other metatheories, are you talking about specific metatheories here (IT, mR, CT, etc)? And is your suggestion that practitioners of IT, mR, CT, etc, should -- if they are MOA-2 approaches -- operate in this way, working to subsume and benevolently enslave other metatheories in their environment? That a Bhaskarian mR meta-theorist, in practicing an MOA-2 style of his art, should work to demonstrate the pre-inclusion of IT and CT within his own model, and to operate as though they were (or can be made to serve as) tributaries to the larger mR vision? And that MOA-2 practitioners of IT and CT should/would do the same with respect to their neighbors?</p> Sorry for the radio silence f…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-10:5301756:Comment:544832014-03-10T05:19:17.448ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Sorry for the radio silence from this end, LP -- not out of a lack of interest! I have had a couple things demanding all my time this past week but I hope for more time to participate here by the end of the week...</p>
<p>Sorry for the radio silence from this end, LP -- not out of a lack of interest! I have had a couple things demanding all my time this past week but I hope for more time to participate here by the end of the week...</p> Here's the new diagram I've j…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-08:5301756:Comment:544762014-03-08T17:15:32.634ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>Here's the new diagram I've just added into my draft:</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2505386631?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="721" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2505386631?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="721" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p>Here's the new diagram I've just added into my draft:</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2505386631?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="721" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2505386631?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="721" class="align-full"/></a></p> Ah, the brisk salt air! The s…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-03-06:5301756:Comment:544692014-03-06T18:34:44.477ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p style="text-align: center;">Ah, the brisk salt air! The sea! The sea! My god -- the sea!</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Or as Conan might say:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">"<em>Crom and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manann%C3%A1n_mac_Lir" target="_blank">Manannan mac Lir</a>!"</em></p>
<p></p>
<p>Having completed v2.0 (available in top of thread) of <strong>the Rules of MetaTheory</strong> I, of course, immediately began making notes for a future version. One of the…</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Ah, the brisk salt air! The sea! The sea! My god -- the sea!</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Or as Conan might say:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">"<em>Crom and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manann%C3%A1n_mac_Lir" target="_blank">Manannan mac Lir</a>!"</em></p>
<p></p>
<p>Having completed v2.0 (available in top of thread) of <strong>the Rules of MetaTheory</strong> I, of course, immediately began making notes for a future version. One of the modifications I have made in my private draft already is to include "nonviolence" among the synonyms characterizing the Dionysian approach.</p>
<p>This is delicate work. Why? I must extrude language which captures the halcyon empowerment of peace while not sundering it from the dynamism that a few of our great integrative predecessors have associated with wars and friction. My great ally in this work is my old dictum "the separator is the connector" -- as well as the fact that the previous sentence already counts minimally as a logically phrasing which enfolds both ends of that complex renaissance quality.<br/> <br/>I rejoice in your predilection to bring the scapegoating conundrum into the ethos of higher intellectual and spiritual conversations. <em>Justice</em> is a quality that often gets sidelined by scientists, mystics, philosophers and artists alike. Somewhere in all of this is an element of your presentation that I feel must be more strongly included in <strong>the Bible of MetaTheory</strong>.</p>
<p>As I mentioned in my previous missive, I am fascinated by how scapegoating functions as either</p>
<p>(a) a pathological deviation at any level of development OR</p>
<p>(b) a minimal structuring element which helps constitute each level.</p>
<p>Or both.</p>
<p>I trace my own thinking on the subject of ideology back to a hot sunny day outside a Starbucks. The green and brown poster screamed down: "WHO SAYS MOCHA CAN'T HAVE A SUMMER SIDEKICK?!"It blew my mind.Who says that? No one. No one ever says that.</p>
<p>They (sic) wanted me to purchase an iced coffee drink as if it were an act of defiance -- the individual rebellion against the anonymous system. A rebellion which, by sheer coincidence, happens to consist of fully conforming to the interests of the system. All the hints I had read in Zizek, Lacan, Marx, etc. came tumbling forward. All those jokes on the Daily Show where Jon Stewart reveals the non-existence of the hypothetical heretic-candidate that regressive conservatives think they are running against!</p>
<p>It is one thing to suspect the non-existence of the Big Other. It is quite another to realize that the Big Other is maintained by the sense that YOU (i.e. someone) are interpolated as the enslaved outsider.</p>
<p>Do YOU have a better idea? If not -- get on board.</p>
<p>Do YOU want to show that mysterious voice that says mocha cannot have a summer sidekick? Get on board!</p>
<p>Aren't YOU responsible for climate change?</p>
<p>Don't YOU need guns to protect your family from satanic UN muslim gay hordes?</p>
<p>This minimal form of scapegoating (minimal because it does not even require that we band together to ostracize some other group, it requires only that we act as if we are the site of a potentially extraneous entity who ought to voluntarily re-join the hegemonic implication) is usually accompanied by ugliness. Does that mean it is unnecessary and eradicable? Maybe, maybe not.</p>
<p>This seems to be the great unanswered question. Do cultural fields require at least a minimal non-member class in order to operate? Must we scapegoat someone even if it is only the scapegoaters? Or, on the contrary, is this merely the fingerprint of deviance in a cultural field. The structural initiation of a nihilistic tendency that feeds upon and germinates reactive emotional responses and unnecessarily limited cognitive habits?</p>
<p>Before I take up Layman's Burden (i.e. attempting to package these alternatives into a coherent singular concept) I must ask:</p>
<p>What do <span style="text-decoration: underline;">you</span> think?</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/layman-pascal-s-rules-of-meta-theory?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A54530&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment54530"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p><span style="font-size: 13px;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px;">Accordingly, my emphasis in general spaces or forums such as this lies typically with the value of non-scapegoating, whose <em>independent</em> importance as a matter of truth obtains alongside that of particular situations where scape-like behavior is warranted in order to cut back against the global capitalist flows. The two may well occur co-current-ly with one another. Put simply, this is my fundamental concern: that we are always so quick to scapegoating, so quick to go swimmingly with reserving violence without first thoroughly considering the potential power of nonviolence. As a matter of motifs, it is always curiously absent or else forcibly excluded from the sea of thought in a way that, I think, demands a special attention or focus.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13px;">Isn't that ... fishy?</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>