Reading or hearing Layman can slide me into a sense and predisposition that he is my "shaman-in-chief", with "transhumanist" tendencies and occasional random-seeming coyote moves.

Here, on his website and introduced on integrallife.com, he again mentions and he describes, "Shaman-in-Chief" (partly in distinction to "Manager-in-Chief") and a "transhumanist" category-attempt.

I often feel a range of smiles sand-worming around upon my face and within visceral humours.

Ostensibly, this piece is about politics, and naturally it ranges further.

"The Ambidextrous Eagle"

Views: 138

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I thought a little about what visionary means before I comfortably labeled Layman one, for the sort of listener/participant like myself.

Obviously, in the below definition, only some applies, though we each might agree and disagree which points they are.

One definition not included here well is the current marketing label for conferences, events, workshops and such. It is a very attractive label - sort of - and more and more, not so much.

I don't mean visionary in that way.

Many of those people labeled "visionary" probably wouldn't feel like visionaries for me. Though bright, articulate, engaged sociopolitically, and such. I suppose some scientific and techie guys drive me to that word in a limited sense. Sci-fi writers like Neal Stephenson and the likes.

I could probably riff a bit more on the the manners of thinking, expressing, and extending himself, Layman, within himself and into the world of individuals and culture and society and the 'facts of life', but I think I won't now. There is a lot that I like in the unexpected stretchings that he provides.

Yada yada :)

vi·sion·ar·y

 (vĭzh′ə-nĕr′ē)

adj.
1. Characterized by vision or foresight.
2.
a. Having the nature of fantasies or dreams; illusory.
b. Existing in imagination only; imaginary.
3.
a. Characterized by or given to apparitions, prophecies, or revelations.
b. Given to daydreams or reverie; dreamy.
4.
a. Not practicable or realizable; utopian: visionary schemes for getting rich.
b. Tending to envision things in perfect but unrealistic form; idealistic.
n. pl. vi·sion·ar·ies
1. One who is given to impractical or speculative ideas; a dreamer.
2. One who has visions; a seer.

vi′sion·ar′i·ness n.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

visionary

(ˈvɪʒənərɪ)

adj
1. marked by vision or foresight: a visionary leader.
2. incapable of being realized or effected; unrealistic
3. (of people) characterized by idealistic or radical ideas, esp impractical ones
4. given to having visions
5. of, of the nature of, or seen in visions
n, pl -aries
6. a visionary person

Hi - I carried this larger question of visions and visionaries to another thread.

Ambo Suno said:

I thought a little about what visionary means before I comfortably labeled Layman one, for the sort of listener/participant like myself.

Obviously, in the below definition, only some applies, though we each might agree and disagree which points they are.

One definition not included here well is the current marketing label for conferences, events, workshops and such. It is a very attractive label - sort of - and more and more, not so much.

I don't mean visionary in that way.

Many of those people labeled "visionary" probably wouldn't feel like visionaries for me. Though bright, articulate, engaged sociopolitically, and such. I suppose some scientific and techie guys drive me to that word in a limited sense. Sci-fi writers like Neal Stephenson and the likes.

I could probably riff a bit more on the the manners of thinking, expressing, and extending himself, Layman, within himself and into the world of individuals and culture and society and the 'facts of life', but I think I won't now. There is a lot that I like in the unexpected stretchings that he provides.

Yada yada :)

vi·sion·ar·y

 (vĭzh′ə-nĕr′ē)

adj.
1. Characterized by vision or foresight.
2.
a. Having the nature of fantasies or dreams; illusory.
b. Existing in imagination only; imaginary.
3.
a. Characterized by or given to apparitions, prophecies, or revelations.
b. Given to daydreams or reverie; dreamy.
4.
a. Not practicable or realizable; utopian: visionary schemes for getting rich.
b. Tending to envision things in perfect but unrealistic form; idealistic.
n. pl. vi·sion·ar·ies
1. One who is given to impractical or speculative ideas; a dreamer.
2. One who has visions; a seer.

vi′sion·ar′i·ness n.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

visionary

(ˈvɪʒənərɪ)

adj
1. marked by vision or foresight: a visionary leader.
2. incapable of being realized or effected; unrealistic
3. (of people) characterized by idealistic or radical ideas, esp impractical ones
4. given to having visions
5. of, of the nature of, or seen in visions
n, pl -aries
6. a visionary person

I just reread a pdf by layman that I don't see here and that I don't see on his midriffs site. He probably posted it at Integral Life some time ago.

"The Pillars of Heaven: Options For A Third Dimensional Axis In Integral Models" was an evocative and comprehensive trip through possibilities for that dimensional axis. (He mentions Neale's good efforts towards such modeling.)

I don't have a link for it nor do I know how to embed a pdf. It is 10 or 11 pages long so I won't paste it all here. If/when layman sees this maybe he'll know how to insert it or give it a reachable link.

I suppose the particular and full content isn't so important because I mostly want to point again to his solid thinking and writing that is one more example of why I hold him in the "visionary category."

Nonetheless, I'll paste a few bits here:

The Pillars of Heaven

Options for a Third Dimensional Axis in Integral Models by Layman Pascal

In Vedic mythology there is a ancient story about a PILLAR OF FIRE. Two immortal deities, Vishnu & Brahma, were travelling together through fantastic cosmic realms. Each each was infinite. Together they populated all worlds with their echoes and shadows. Every God is Brahma. Every pebble is Vishnu. They were the only two Ultimate Beings.

Once their divine boldness led them wandering out beyond all forms into the dark cosmic space of neverwhere. Farther and further. Suddenly they were surprised to discover a laser-like beam of burning energy streaming endlessly in both directions. Astonishing! They divided and followed the beam toward its source in either direction. But they could find no source. Aeons passed. Eventually they simply gave up and returned to their original starting point. Each confessed he could find no end.

It perplexed them to realize that some other Ultimate “thing” existed. Whey this thought arose in their minds a powerful blast of light radiated in all directions. Instantly, the pillar of fire folded through itself and passed back out the other side -- into Shiva. Shiva! That great yogic Divinity laughed at their bewilderment. He took delight in their new understanding. “I am the beginning and the end”, he told them with a smile, and a wink. “From my point of view you are only echoes of Myself!”

Thereafter it was known to All that Three Ultimate Beings reigned together in Heaven. And even the infidels of Europe and America know that!

WHAT IS THIS PILLAR? It is a 3rd dimension. An extra axis that extends “flat integral maps” into a Greater Space. How have we (metatheorists and integralites) conceived of this world-axle? This tree planted at the center of our village? What options exist to help understand this extra resonant dimension? And how can we -- personally and collectively -- clarify this strange (but strangely familiar) ​double-direction​?

ANCIENT COSMOLOGIES had very narrow and practical maps. A totem pole ran straight up the middle of the World. It reached to Heaven at the top. Its roots descended into the Hells. Down there is a terrible place! Just like the worst things that ever happen on the surface. Deep volcanic geology trying to steal our world back from plants, animals and people. A regression into the choking

realm of lifeless suffocation. Awful. But necessary. The basement of the Earth was ordained by the Immortal Powers to hold all the “bad subtle realms” -- all the regressive, life-hating and toxic forms of natural virtual reality.

Up the axis, up on Earth’s Surface, sapient human animals make choices which lower them or raise them. Raise them where? Toward the celestial harmonies and fragrantly vibrant vistas! Out the top of the skull into the limitless sky.

In the olden day we were rising and falling in a very simple way. Everyone was supposed to intuit and agree about which “badthings” and “goodthings” led to your salvation or damnation. In a flat world it is easy to know which direction is UP/DOWN. And, usually, it means doing what helps the tribe even if it hurts you.

God was descending into our imagination while our hearts struggled to climb out of this cesspool of mortal ugliness and animals instincts. We start in the Gross, open to the Subtle, discover the Causal and melt into Divinity.

So they had a “​primitive 3rd dimension​” something like this: BAD ---------- GOOD

WORLDLY ---------- GODLY

You could go North-South or East-West.
OR you could go in the Heaven-Hell directions.

But we cannot use their primitive old system. Climbing up toward the Value-Sphere is no longer so simple. A flat Earth has only one direction toward the sky. But a round Earth? On the far side of the globe you can go “up” in exactly the opposite of the normal direction! Up is outward in all directions.

So how will we handle (sensitively but sanely) this meaningful 3rd axis?

CLASSICAL EUROPEAN PHILOSOPHY blossomed into Supersystems. They explored Subjectivity & Objectivity. It turns out that dropping either one is unreasonable, unfair, unjustified. We need this Duality. Or the unity which underlies it. For what can be experienced without Experiencers? And don’t experiencers need things to experience? Other things? Both are needed. Together they form our ​1st dimension ​in Integral Metatheory.

1st Dimension:

SUBJECTIVE --------- OBJECTIVE

PLANETARY-LEVEL PHILOSOPHY is concerned with multiplicity. There are MANY people. Many peoples. Many different principles across this globe. Myriads of perspectives. Countless worlds to discover! Smaller and smaller pieces of everything!

Our great recent concern for diversity, difference & context is an expansion of complexity. We have more data. We know more about groups, swarms, teams, networks, social conflicts and marvelous multitudes. Do you know how many people are on this planet now? It’s shocking. Many, many, many.

Everyone is now facing him or herself against the backdrop of billions of lives. One-many. Many-one. We need both.

What is “one” except a set of its many parts? What is a “many” if not many “ones”?

So we secured a​2nd dimension ​axis:

2nd Dimension:
ONE --------- MANY SINGULAR --------- PLURAL

KEN WILBER helped. He crosslinked these 2 dimensions into a grid. Very straightforward. On a square piece of paper it looks like 4 “quadrants”. This is the basis of AQAL. Four “entangled” epistemological ​fields.

My apparently singular personal subjectivity? Yes. The objective material universe around Me? Shared spirit and resonant feelings in relationship? Behavioral systems and protocols? Yes, yes & yes. Dropping any of these four “types of perspectives” results in a crippled view of Reality. Their balance is our sanity and wholeness.

You and I exist With Things. And as things. But not only things.

WILBER DROPS JUICY HINTS about a 3rd dimension. Perversely, I say that he drops three kinds of hints -- Hardcore 3 on 3 action! Juicy stuff.

PHYSICAL CONVERGENCE TO CAUSAL --------- SUBTLE CONVERGENCE TO CAUSAL

Slide down the 3rd axis. You are getting more and more local, embodied, concrete, identified. Eventually you pass into the impossible suffocating situation of merest being. Virtual absence from manifestation. But slide up that 3rd axis and you will rise through the Supreme Deity’s central jewel in to the limitless, bodiless sky of Being Itself.

Both those possibilities concern me. I am tempted to suggest

INDIFFERENCE --------- RELEVANCE

Forget near/far and solid/luminous dualism. Any situation is either impervious to your sensibility or permeable. Any realm is either untailored or more tailored to your needs. Hell is indifferent to you. Heaven is customized to your nature.

HADIT --------- NUIT

The Thelemites (Crowleyians) hold a perspectival religion. But all perspectives, for them, run from the dimensionless Witness (Hadit) into the Endless Expanse (Nuit). Nice. But much closer the altitude vector of Wilber’s AQAL model.

ACCURACY --------- FLOW

TAKE YOUR PICK. Which of these pairs is the “best” description of the extra dimension required by 3D integral models? I know the easy thing to do is say that they are all valid. After all reality is hard to express. Can we do any more than throw a bunch of halfway decent terms around hoping that between them might appear the vague outlines of what we mean? Yes, we probably can do a bit better than that. We can at least try.

The point is not to build the perfect model. That is a good project. A helpful project. And everyone who tries deserves our thanks. But it is more important for each of us to ponder the ladder that leads into higher, deeper and stranger levels of our own structure. It is more important for our community to debate, poke, chew, turn over, mix up and digest this material. What is an Integral Community or a Metatheory Community if it is not coming together at the leading edge of its own understanding?

And part of that leading edge is -- the extra dimension.

What do YOU think? How do you FEEL?

Which of these pairs is best? Or is the right pair not even on this list? Is it something no one has thought of yet?

Is it right on the tip of your tongue?

His ​first hint​concerns “altitude”. It means depth, height or both. To Mr. Wilber this is virtually synonymous with Consciousness. Could this journey, into deeper and more complex reality, be the very 3rd dimension? Probably not. It is already on the map. Lines radiate outward through layers or waves on the AQAL diagram. As we grow through levels of enfolded richness (or fail to do so!) our ALTITUDE is increasing. It can increase in our vision, our mathskills, our kung fu, our attitude, our spirituality-of-heart, our cultural systems, etc. Lines and Quadrants build outward through encircling layers. This is not the 3rd axis.

An orthogonal axis pokes through the center of the paper on which AQAL is drawn. Adding a 3rd dimension does not change the progression of structures passing into higher altitudes. In fact the persistence of this feature (outward layering) is probably the most agreed upon aspect of different 3D models of metatheory.

Wilber’s ​second hint​comes as an extra “inside/outside” option for each of his basic quadrants. Each type of epistemological field can be treated as if it had an inside and outside. Our private mind seems very inner, interior. It is. But we can explore it paying attention to our immediate moment of perception OR through a Science of Mind. We can treat our own psychology as obvious self-identity or as something to ponder. Some-thing. A kind of outside treatment of my own subjectivity! So this additional set of dualities might comprise the Pillar of Heaven.

Thirdly​, he waxes eloquently on the subject of EROS and AGAPE. Sometimes these sound like the Ascending & Descending currents of exotic energy described in spiritual yoga. Sometimes they sound like an archetypal version of Masculine and Feminine. Otherwise it seems that the powers of the world includes a “pull” to overcome all things by surrendering into the service and embrace of an already-existing WHOLE (called Agape) and “another pull” towards overcoming all things by reorganization and effort to produce excess coherence and the creative force to embody NEW WHOLES (called Eros).

Three hints. Where does that leave us? And what should we be cautious about?

THE ELECTROPHILOSOPHER M. MCLUHAN warned about mistaking horizontal evolution for vertical progress. He saw a great shift in consciousness which was linked to our changing technologies. But he did not consider this to be an improvement! It was just... different.

Our Present Age is saturated with electric machines. They are built and operated in ways that trigger the sound-processing (acoustic) systems in our brains. We become more sonic in our psychology. Less visual. This is key in McLuhan’s teaching.

Our dead ancestors used printed books, newspapers, paper bills, tomes & certificates. They had to pay a lot of attention to dense masses of nuanced visual information. It stimulated their eye-brain. It made them mostly into “eye people”.

But contemporary “ear people” are different. Our intuitions emerge from the use of electronic devices. They trace themselves invisibly upon our communications. It is a world within headphones. Signals come and go in all directions. Stimulating and isolating. The world isn’t just sitting around anymore. Everything is jumping and waving and pulsating. Resonating at great distances. Wave-like instead of particles. Impressionist, Expressionist & Surrealist rather than Realist. But this is just different. Not better.

The next step is not necessarily a step up.

McLuhan consider Quantum Physics to be sonic. Classical physics was visual, continuous, sensible. Quantum particles appear and vanish in ripples like the notes and quotes played in strange songs within our new electric headphones.

VISUAL (CLASSICAL) PHYSICS --------- QUANTUM (SONIC) PHYSICS PARTICLE-LIKE --------- WAVE-LIKE

I am writing all this because I feel we should be careful about how we characterize the 3rd dimension. Do we sometimes think that our new shared cultural intuition (waves, quantum, resonance) is the actual nature of the Subtle world? Do we mistake the NEW for the HIGHER? Do we mistake our NEW IMBALANCE for a BETTER BALANCE?

Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.

If “particles” and “waves” are the ends of the 3rd axis then is not an improvement. And that’s okay. It does not have to be better. This is NOT the axis of evolutionary altitude.

But maybe we feel that this should be a more attractive, better, more spiritual axis? Then what?

Perhaps instead of

We try

OBJECTS --------- FLOWING TONES

TONES --------- OVERTONES

PHYSICAL CONVERGENCE TO CAUSAL --------- SUBTLE CONVERGENCE TO CAUSAL

Slide down the 3rd axis. You are getting more and more local, embodied, concrete, identified. Eventually you pass into the impossible suffocating situation of merest being. Virtual absence from manifestation. But slide up that 3rd axis and you will rise through the Supreme Deity’s central jewel in to the limitless, bodiless sky of Being Itself.

Both those possibilities concern me. I am tempted to suggest

INDIFFERENCE --------- RELEVANCE

Forget near/far and solid/luminous dualism. Any situation is either impervious to your sensibility or permeable. Any realm is either untailored or more tailored to your needs. Hell is indifferent to you. Heaven is customized to your nature.

HADIT --------- NUIT

The Thelemites (Crowleyians) hold a perspectival religion. But all perspectives, for them, run from the dimensionless Witness (Hadit) into the Endless Expanse (Nuit). Nice. But much closer the altitude vector of Wilber’s AQAL model.

ACCURACY --------- FLOW

TAKE YOUR PICK. Which of these pairs is the “best” description of the extra dimension required by 3D integral models? I know the easy thing to do is say that they are all valid. After all reality is hard to express. Can we do any more than throw a bunch of halfway decent terms around hoping that between them might appear the vague outlines of what we mean? Yes, we probably can do a bit better than that. We can at least try.

The point is not to build the perfect model. That is a good project. A helpful project. And everyone who tries deserves our thanks. But it is more important for each of us to ponder the ladder that leads into higher, deeper and stranger levels of our own structure. It is more important for our community to debate, poke, chew, turn over, mix up and digest this material. What is an Integral Community or a Metatheory Community if it is not coming together at the leading edge of its own understanding?

And part of that leading edge is -- the extra dimension.

What do YOU think? How do you FEEL?

Which of these pairs is best? Or is the right pair not even on this list? Is it something no one has thought of yet?

Is it right on the tip of your tongue?

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.

© 2024   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service