On open letter to Ken Wilber and integral teachers

[Oleg Linetsky]

Dear friends,

recently I wrote my letter to Ken Wilber where I state several ideas important to postmetaphysics discussion as I guess.

When I first read "Integral spirituality" several years ago I was surprised to see pure metaphysical "postmetaphysical" approach. I feel I have something to contribute in this conversation from mystical point of view as pure mystical vision is really free from metaphysics, from any beliefs and universal views. Since my first article about AQAL 2.0 several years ago I suggest a certain method for postmetaphysical philosophy how to treat our experience without universal beliefs and axioms. Truth is out of conceptual mind,  thus we should look there to find a basis for good philosophy. It's not difficult.

Applying it to current AQAL gives us some new great insights and I want to share it with you and to ask about your feedback. Here is a link for an article

http://integralportal.ru/Open_letter_to_KW.pdf

If you consider it too long, have a look on p.17 at least, where I describe 10 primordial  inclinations in wordviews on any levels of development. Even though before I consider boundaries that are extremely important for conversation about postmetaphysical spirituality. Boundaries between sectors and states are also objects that can be percieved! Moreover they are 5 classic elements traditions all over the world talk about.

I'm really interested in oppinion this respectable community. Thanks to all.

[Balder]

Hi, Oleg,

I've been thinking about your paper in relation to some recent reflections I've been engaged in over the past few months.  The topic is kind of huge, though, so I'm not sure where even to begin.  

Perhaps I'll start with your notion of boundaries, which appear to be a kind of ontic category in that they are not tetra-enacted or products of conceptuality but rather serve as conditions for conceptuality and other human activities ("determining the space for the evolutionary game").  If this is a fair representation, I can relate this to an ontic principle at the heart of the reflections we've been engaged in here on this forum for the past few months: the speculative metaphysical idea that "to be" is to make a difference, and the corrolary insight that there is no difference that does not make a difference.  To be is to differ, in other words.  Relating this to your notion of boundaries, the question of the relation of exterior to interior, singular to collective, gross to subtle, etc, presupposes or rests on "difference."  Difference in this understanding is the ontic (non-conceptual, pre-epistemological) basis for epistemological distinctions (Wilber's 4Q map is primarily an epistemological one).  I hear you saying something similar when you say that boundaries are not tetra-enacted (though difference appears to be more basic or general than your "five boundaries," as I'll discuss below).

Regarding your discussion of A and -A, we might distinguish (following Levi Bryant) between epistemological and ontological understandings (which are frequently conflated and confused).  Epistemologically, it is common to say that all determination or distinction is negation -- that the understanding of what an object "is" (A) in its "difference" is necessarily an appeal to what it "is not" (-A).  Ontologically, Bryant argues, difference is affirmative without being negating: a thing in its being is not a negation of other things (i.e., oxygen is not a negation of tree, a voiced word is a negation of the speaker).  There is difference (which makes a difference, i.e. affecting other beings) without necessarily involving negation.

Why do I mention this?  Because, while I appreciate your notion of boundaries (and their phenomenological apprehension as "tension"), and can relate them also generally to this ontic notion of difference, I am suspicious of the claim that there are only five basic boundaries or differences, or that all differences can be reduced to these five.  The speculation on the ontic status of "difference" is metaphysical, but it is speculative and grows out of rigorous inquiry, and thus avoids (in my view) the metaphysical error of "the myth of the given" (which is targeted for critique by post-metaphysics).  But the idea that there are exactly five irreducible differences (4Qs, 3 states), common to all beings and independent of evolution, verges for me into "myth of the given" territory.  What is the basis for making such a claim?  In the view I discussed above, difference indeed differs (meaning there are multiple forms or types of difference, although being is also univocal in that all being is difference), but Bryant avoids positing a fixed, final number of (irreducible) types of difference.  (A related philosopher, Graham Harman, does posit a fourfold field of differences, those between real objects, real qualities, sensual objects, and sensual qualities, with the tensions between these four poles being identified as time, space, essence, and eidos).  

Leaving aside these other ideas for the moment, what about Wilber's suggestion (in Excerpt G) that the causal actually is a product of evolution -- that causal energy/awareness emerges only with sufficient complexification of the brain?  Admittedly, Wilber leaves the door open whether the causal state actually emerges at this stage of evolution, or only enters into (possible) awareness at this stage of evolution (he says both, in different places), but in the case of the former -- if that state identified as "causal" by (some) meditative traditions is a product of advanced brain evolution -- then we are on shaky ground claiming that this particular boundary (between causal and subtle, for instance) is pre-evolutionary and non-tetra-enacted.  It is certainly a state that is available to us, perhaps universally available to all humans, and this can be demonstrated without necessary appeals to metaphysics, but an additional metaphysical step is needed to identify this particular state (and its boundary conditions) with the pre- or extra-evolutionary condition of reality itself (which you appear to do in your paper, and which is also sometimes part of Wilber's own metaphysics).   Would you agree?

I'll stop here, as I think there's a lot yet to explore and it is better to go a bit slowly.

All the best,

Bruce

[Oleg Linetsky]

Dear Bruce,

thank you for your reply and deep reflections.

Perhaps I'll start with your notion of boundaries, which appear to be a kind of ontic category in that they are not tetra-enacted or products of conceptuality but rather serve as conditions for conceptuality and other human activities ("determining the space for the evolutionary game").  If this is a fair representation, I can relate this to an ontic principle at the heart of the reflections we've been engaged in here on this forum for the past few months: the speculative metaphysical idea that "to be" is to make a difference, and the corrolary insight that there is no difference that does not make a difference.  To be is to differ, in other words. 

I got your point but it seems to be partial. Egg can't be before chicken. They evolve both. So in our case immanence and transcendence can't be splitted. Before you differentiate you must feel something. And it's not just idea but phenomenological experience. You feel tension before differentiation in some sence. And then you differentiate it into probability cloud and then concretize more and more up untill you see some object. From the very abyss to certain object you perceive, you feel and choose or absorb and spilt reality.

If "to be = to differ" then "life = living in a head" that is not true. And (no need to believe in it but mystics know) there are powerful karmic forces that prove that it's not correct causing intense soul pain. And Wilber is not excepion. Looks like he made this mistake already...

Life is more about feeling + choosing, to feel and to differ, immanent and transcendent. We can't loose that great essential part of life! And in my paper I don't do that.

Relating this to your notion of boundaries, the question of the relation of exterior to interior, singular to collective, gross to subtle, etc, presupposes or rests on "difference."  Difference in this understanding is the ontic (non-conceptual, pre-epistemological) basis for epistemological distinctions (Wilber's 4Q map is primarily an epistemological one).  I hear you saying something similar when you say that boundaries are not tetra-enacted (though difference appears to be more basic or general than your "five boundaries," as I'll discuss below).

My point is that difference as any other dual mind categories rests on non-conceptual feeling (that is yet not a feeling as a mind grasped category).

Regarding your discussion of A and -A, we might distinguish (following Levi Bryant) between epistemological and ontological understandings (which are frequently conflated and confused).  Epistemologically, it is common to say that all determination or distinction is negation -- that the understanding of what an object "is" (A) in its "difference" is necessarily an appeal to what it "is not" (-A). Ontologically, Bryant argues, difference is affirmative without being negating: a thing in its being is not a negation of other things (i.e., oxygen is not a negation of tree, a voiced word is a negation of the speaker).  There is difference (which makes a difference, i.e. affecting other beings) without necessarily involving negation.

Bryan, I'm not that much academic philosopher, but more mystic. That's why I don't want to plunge much in pure logical discussions of people that don't have deep experiences. Statement that "oxygen is not a negation of tree" is quite profane. And yes, I guess any difference "affirm without negation" and in the same time "affirm with negation" because it's dual mind. Saying "tree" you can not negate oxygen but you negate root system, buds, leafs, birds and nests, sky, atmoshere, mood and the whole world becuase tree is not separate. Tree as any other word is just a mental construction. It's not real. It negates the rest of the world! 

If there is a category like "difference" that doesn't have its opposite like "negation" in some sense, then this category is absolute. And there is only one that - All creatation as a whole. "There is no God except of God", like sufies say.

Why do I mention this?  Because, while I appreciate your notion of boundaries (and their phenomenological apprehension as "tension"), and can relate them also generally to this ontic notion of difference,

Sorry but I can't agree on that. It has nothing to do with "difference". Boundaries are beyond dual mind and any labels. They are percieved NOT by mind structures. 

I'll finish in couple of hours...

[Oleg Linetsky]

Why do I mention this?  Because, while I appreciate your notion of boundaries (and their phenomenological apprehension as "tension"), and can relate them also generally to this ontic notion of difference

We can also say that in a sence boundaries are that kind of something where feeling (in common sence) and differentiation meet each other in one act. You can't split them. They are felt somehow and in the same time someone knows that, aware of that, but not personality, not ego, not self-system. 

Leaving aside these other ideas for the moment, what about Wilber's suggestion (in Excerpt G) that the causal actually is a product of evolution -- that causal energy/awareness emerges only with sufficient complexification of the brain?

I can agree that causal plays its part in evolution. As for ideas about when causal energy emerges, it's speculative (because involves time category) and is not connected much to subject of our discussion.

Admittedly, Wilber leaves the door open whether the causal state actually emerges at this stage of evolution, or only enters into (possible) awareness at this stage of evolution (he says both, in different places), but in the case of the former -- if that state identified as "causal" by (some) meditative traditions is a product of advanced brain evolution -- then we are on shaky ground claiming that this particular boundary (between causal and subtle, for instance) is pre-evolutionary and non-tetra-enacted.  It is certainly a state that is available to us, perhaps universally available to all humans, and this can be demonstrated without necessary appeals to metaphysics, but an additional metaphysical step is needed to identify this particular state (and its boundary conditions) with the pre- or extra-evolutionary condition of reality itself (which you appear to do in your paper, and which is also sometimes part of Wilber's own metaphysics). Would you agree?

Bruce, for my offer it doesn't actually important whether causal pre- or extra-evolutionary. BTW, the same way we can discuss if subtle state pre- or evolutionary. I don't think that we have to talk about time and related dualistic categories. I focus on "space" between subtle and causal, on "space" between causal and nondual. And I feel that it's more important now. I don't know if stone thinks or if animal has access to causal. I can talk about my experience and experience of beings that we can have communication with. (My personal oppinion is that causal has not that much to do with evolution. Conscious access to causal is actually can't be explained persuasively now. It was a great intermittent shift. Like from matter to biological life. And causal as a state couldn't appear in a process of evolution as causal includes subtle in a sence and not vice versa. They are also splitted reliably by boundary that disappears only in oneness.)

I am suspicious of the claim that there are only five basic boundaries or differences, or that all differences can be reduced to these five... the idea that there are exactly five irreducible differences (4Qs, 3 states), common to all beings and independent of evolution, verges for me into "myth of the given" territory.  What is the basis for making such a claim?

Right. It seems to be one of the most interesting questions. As a mystic I discovered that many times in my personal experience. I found out that samsaric view differs from pure vision of sahaja by those 5. Everything seems to be the same, but there are no those 5 delusions. The same with rainbow experience in a very first moment of creation. So for me it's quite clear and it's a matter of correct formulation and interpretaion of this knowlege. This is not something I want others to believe but I just wanted to share with you this background.

Actually yet nobody found a tension that could not be decomposed on 5 basic ones. And if we assume it's possible, and there is one more tension with fundamentally different nature (that can't be reduced to any other), then there is one more duality pair that makes a line we can cross quadrants or add to realms. We can cross them because any differentiation splits the world on 2 categories. Now if it crosses quadrants then we have 6 irreducible kinds of objects that is not correct and contradics to experience. We also don't have 6 states of consciousness, but only 5 (gr/su/ca/nd and all togather). What do you think about it?

[Layman Pascal]

Hey Tilopa,

That's right, I think.  I doesn't matter what kind of skillful means are used.  

>"Would you mind to give me couple examples of what "ideas, beliefs & statements" people are supposed to learn and remember in order to use this ability to discriminate in own life AFTER THAT?"

Something like, "Learn from and remember to use these non-verbal experiences to discriminate in life."

[Balder]

Hi, Oleg,

I got your point but it seems to be partial. Egg can't be before chicken. They evolve both. So in our case immanence and transcendence can't be splitted. Before you differentiate you must feel something. And it's not just idea but phenomenological experience. You feel tension before differentiation in some sence. And then you differentiate it into probability cloud and then concretize more and more up untill you see some object. From the very abyss to certain object you perceive, you feel and choose or absorb and spilt reality.

 

I hear you; I am not attempting to divorce immanence and transcendence.  At least with regards to the reality of human beings and the likely reality of similar sentient beings, I think your statement in your next post (where you say feeling and differentiation meet in one act) is closer to my own view.  You can track this phenomenologically, too: as differentiation ceases, so does "experience" or feeling.  Feeling is, or is inseparable from, difference.

If "to be = to differ" then "life = living in a head" that is not true.

 

This is the opposite of what is intended or meant by the ontic principle I was discussing above.  The claim that "to be = to differ" is intended as a metaphysical statement about the ontic condition of beings or objects, regardless of whether or not human beings know them or conceive them or differentiate them.

My point is that difference as any other dual mind categories rests on non-conceptual feeling (that is yet not a feeling as a mind grasped category).

 

Do "dual mind categories" also rest (ontically) in/on having a body, or just on subtle feeling states?

Bryan [Bruce?], I'm not that much academic philosopher, but more mystic. That's why I don't want to plunge much in pure logical discussions of people that don't have deep experiences.

 

I understand.  I think your recommendations in your paper are good, skillful means in a spiritual teaching context.  I like your approach and think it could be quite effective in the context of an integral spiritual or nondual meditation practice.  We can restrict our conversation to that, if you like.  I'm bringing in some of these other questions because you have also discussed philosophy, postmetaphysics, etc.  I think your paper also may "work" as philosophy, if you mean philosophy in the ancient sense ("love of wisdom"), but I expect it would meet certain challenges in modern philosophical contexts, and that's partly what I was trying to take up with my questions here.

Statement that "oxygen is not a negation of tree" is quite profane.

 

I believe I understand what you mean here (i.e., that such a distinction or concern is not relevant, immediately, to the reduction of suffering or to spiritual realization), but I think the "profane" world (with all its distinctions) is actually quite sacred and precious.

 

And yes, I guess any difference "affirm without negation" and in the same time "affirm with negation" because it's dual mind. Saying "tree" you can not negate oxygen but you negate root system, buds, leafs, birds and nests, sky, atmoshere, mood and the whole world becuase tree is not separate. Tree as any other word is just a mental construction. It's not real. It negates the rest of the world!

 

Your latter statements (about the concept of tree negating the rest of the world) is an example of what Bryant means when he says epistemological differentiation is negating, but that is a separate matter from what he means by difference as ontic (which is not negating). 

When you make strong statements, as you do above, about the lack of reality of words (which are "just mental constructions"), are you intending to endorse an anti- or non-realist metaphysic?  In any event, the word, "boundary," is -- like any other word -- also "just a mental construction."  But you are also saying that there is something non-conceptual that the word boundary refers to.  Do you believe the same is the case with a word like tree or oxygen: do either point to anything non- or trans-conceptual?

Sorry but I can't agree on that. It has nothing to do with "difference". Boundaries are beyond dual mind and any labels. They are percieved NOT by mind structures.

 

By what, then, are boundaries perceived?  Also, what is a boundary a boundary of, if boundary has nothing to do with difference?

Regarding a point that came up earlier in this thread -- whether meditation gives ontology -- I'd like to bring up what may seem like something of a silly example, but I believe it may be relevant to some of what we're discussing here.  I have done a lot of training in Tibetan dream and sleep yogas and have learned how to enter sleep mindfully.  During an extended sleep yoga retreat some years ago, after I had practiced (without sleeping) for several days straight with a number of preliminary practices, I finally was asked to go to sleep (with the intention of a partner waking me after I was had entered deep, dreamless sleep, to ask me a series of questions).  As you probably know, when you go to sleep with this practice, you do so in a controlled way (with visualizations, etc), which allow you to be mindful of the various phases of the loss of consciousness.  I did this practice, and was able to follow the gradual shutting down of my senses, stage by stage, until I had entered a formless space without any sensory or subtle perceptual or conceptual experience at all.  At this point, body and mind had "dropped"; there was no "content" or sense of differentiation at all. 

In my exhaustion, however, I had unwittingly set my inflatable mattress too close to the door to my room, so when my partner came to wake me to ask the sacred questions, he banged the door against my bed (and my knee) and kept banging it, trying to get in.  I was in a (causal) space of no body, no mind, but then I suddenly became aware of this annoying noise and this disturing shaking and banging of my body and bed and I emerged abruptly back into consciousness: the "world" came back online in a rude rush.  (I think I also shouted, "What the hell???" before I realized where I was and what was going on).  The point of this story is that, while, phenomenally, I had entered a formless space of "no difference," there nevertheless persisted the ontic difference between my body (and bed) and the banging door, which impinged on and disrupted my formless state.

How would you understand such an incident, both in terms of the "ontology" meditative experience delivers or suggests, and/or also in terms of your understanding of boundaries?

There's more yet to discuss -- and I may not be touching issues you consider relevant or important yet -- but I'll stop here for now.

All the best,

Bruce

[Oleg Linetsky]

Hi Bruce,

thanks for detailed response.

If "to be = to differ" then "life = living in a head" that is not true.

This is the opposite of what is intended or meant by the ontic principle I was discussing above.  The claim that "to be = to differ" is intended as a metaphysical statement about the ontic condition of beings or objects, regardless of whether or not human beings know them or conceive them or differentiate them.

Sorry, sometimes I don't understand subtleties in english language. Lack of practice. Got you now.

My point is that difference as any other dual mind categories rests on non-conceptual feeling (that is yet not a feeling as a mind grasped category).

Do "dual mind categories" also rest (ontically) in/on having a body, or just on subtle feeling states?

I see that we havn't agreed on meaning of word "feeling". ((( I don't mean subtle feeling. 

Bruce, I'm not that much academic philosopher, but more mystic. That's why I don't want to plunge much in pure logical discussions of people that don't have deep experiences.

I understand.  I think your recommendations in your paper are good, skillful means in a spiritual teaching context.  I like your approach and think it could be quite effective in the context of an integral spiritual or nondual meditation practice.  We can restrict our conversation to that, if you like. I'm bringing in some of these other questions because you have also discussed philosophy, postmetaphysics, etc. I think your paper also may "work" as philosophy, if you mean philosophy in the ancient sense ("love of wisdom"), but I expect it would meet certain challenges in modern philosophical contexts, and that's partly what I was trying to take up with my questions here.

Well, frankly to say these conversations helped me to understand that I had not a very accurate representation of what is the modern western philosophy, correct. Thank you and Pascal for these lessons. I spent many years in big search in Asia and didn't realize that difference between western and eastern philosophy. Neither in goals nor in means. It has not too much common with spirituality. I didn't mean to injure you but I understand this context now better.

Statement that "oxygen is not a negation of tree" is quite profane.

I believe I understand what you mean here (i.e., that such a distinction or concern is not relevant, immediately, to the reduction of suffering or to spiritual realization), but I think the "profane" world (with all its distinctions) is actually quite sacred and precious.

I meant "wordly". Yes, I can agree with you.

Your latter statements (about the concept of tree negating the rest of the world) is an example of what Bryant means when he says epistemological differentiation is negating, but that is a separate matter from what he means by difference as ontic (which is not negating).

In order to continue our discussion on this regard it requires me to plunge deeper in different theories, terminology and so on. You are perfect in them. And I don't see how it may help my goals.

Still you havn't stated what you mean by "post-metaphysics"...

In any event, the word, "boundary," is -- like any other word -- also "just a mental construction."  But you are also saying that there is something non-conceptual that the word boundary refers to.  Do you believe the same is the case with a word like tree or oxygen: do either point to anything non- or trans-conceptual?

I don't think so. "Boundary" (in my context) refers to something non-conceptual and "tree" is not. That's a difference. 

Sorry but I can't agree on that. It has nothing to do with "difference". Boundaries are beyond dual mind and any labels. They are percieved NOT by mind structures.

By what, then, are boundaries perceived?

Finally. ))) By YOU! That kind of you that is free from this human being.

Regarding a point that came up earlier in this thread -- whether meditation gives ontology -- I'd like to bring up what may seem like something of a silly example, but I believe it may be relevant to some of what we're discussing here. I have done a lot of training in Tibetan dream and sleep yogas and have learned how to enter sleep mindfully. During an extended sleep yoga retreat some years ago, after I had practiced (without sleeping) for several days straight with a number of preliminary practices, I finally was asked to go to sleep (with the intention of a partner waking me after I was had entered deep, dreamless sleep, to ask me a series of questions). As you probably know, when you go to sleep with this practice, you do so in a controlled way (with visualizations, etc), which allow you to be mindful of the various phases of the loss of consciousness. I did this practice, and was able to follow the gradual shutting down of my senses, stage by stage, until I had entered a formless space without any sensory or subtle perceptual or conceptual experience at all. At this point, body and mind had "dropped"; there was no "content" or sense of differentiation at all. 

In my exhaustion, however, I had unwittingly set my inflatable mattress too close to the door to my room, so when my partner came to wake me to ask the sacred questions, he banged the door against my bed (and my knee) and kept banging it, trying to get in.  I was in a (causal) space of no body, no mind, but then I suddenly became aware of this annoying noise and this disturing shaking and banging of my body and bed and I emerged abruptly back into consciousness: the "world" came back online in a rude rush.  (I think I also shouted, "What the hell???" before I realized where I was and what was going on).  The point of this story is that, while, phenomenally, I had entered a formless space of "no difference," there nevertheless persisted the ontic difference between my body (and bed) and the banging door, which impinged on and disrupted my formless state.

Nice story. Thank you for telling and my deep respect to your practice.

How would you understand such an incident, both in terms of the "ontology" meditative experience delivers or suggests, and/or also in terms of your understanding of boundaries?

As you may understand I'm not that much interested how the world of forms works. There are a lot of things to be understood and discovered. I used to be a mathematician, programmer and businessman and by now is not that much interested in all that. I was really interested in how karma works and want to share it with people in order to simply make the world better. So lets say my point here is about what is pure vision to it, one that is clean from karma. It starts with causal/nondual boundary.

Lets say you see a mountain and feel greatness. Is it you are who is great and just feel it when mountain is near or it's mountain that is great and you just percieve it? Who is great? As you understand both interpretations are possible. You are the one that chooses one of them. Either you experience this state as someone small that is near great mountain, or you experience that as a great being that can feel it bit better near mountain or near the ocean. OR you can feel yourself empty of these 2 and realize yourself as the one that can choose one of these 2 interpretaions. So you are free from them! But if you badly need to give an answer and tell your oppinion, or make some action then more correct interpretaion in a sence will be something like "I'm great" and "Mountain is great" as you don't feel small and don't exaggerate your greatness.

Now, with causal/nondual. Presence is felt. Who is everpresent? ME or THAT? Right, I can be free from these questions. But when I have to act in the world then I choose doubled interpretation "World unfolds in me" and in same time "I live in this world". Both are equally possible as just different ways of experience of presence. I don't choose to be small "me" that feels God's eye on it. I don't choose to be narcissistic "ME" that creates the world. I choose to be free from big THAT and from small ME and still understand that both of them are mine as I can feel this presence now. That is my boundary self-position. Not monological, not dialogical, but in love and care. I'm not a doer and I'm a doer. "There is a world there" and at same time "everything arises in my awareness". When I act, I take into account both contexts, as I don't want to reject anything, I want to include it. (Here is both your ontic and epistemological or ontological contexts. From one point you are playing with causal and from the other you sleep in a room. No need to take preference to or reject any.)

The same with other boundaries. We keep ourselves free from any side and take into consideration both of them. We are free from all objects and all states as we can differentiate them. And we are not free, as we must participate in agency choosing by heart what is our business and what is not. So in your example you identify yourself with something. You think that you entered causal realm, that you woke up. You asked me "By what are boundaries perceived?" Do you think you are a human? What evidences you have on this? If something is felt you can take any side of it and have karma from castaway shadow part of you. Or you can keep free from identification and take both sides when you need to act. That is my point. And I guess it can help to people and it's great view of NETI/NETI identification and ITI/ITI care. Absolutely free from identification and full in manifistation. Free from being individual being and free from being collective being. Free from being doer and from being dreamer. Free from being seer and free from being creative. Free from being separate someone and free from being God. Even free from being free. I call this state "to be a player". Alive silence as an answer on question about identification. And 10 simultaneous perspectives (Wilber considered 4) as an answer on postmetaphysical call. (BTW, they engender enneagram types as well.) And even when you sleep part of your awareness is in gross body (one of perspectives), otherwise you couldn't be woke up by your friend.

BTW, causal is not just a space of "no difference". And you didn't "enter" causal. We are in causal all the time (except of turiya). You just get rid of gross and subtle, that's why your causal get empty. In my experience causal is a realm of interest, seeds of karma. When you are in waking state causal works like your interest to different gross and subtle objects, formless extent of interest, in every moment. Every body should allow us to act somehow, causal is not exception. Even in nondual ground body we can be present. 

There's more yet to discuss -- and I may not be touching issues you consider relevant or important yet -- but I'll stop here for now.

Thanks Bruce for a chance to discuss it with you. Maybe it's really a wrong address for that and you are busy with your own way of thinking. 

It was helpful to me. 

[Layman Pascal]

1. ON TREATING TENSIONS AS DIFFERENCES WHILE TALKING ABOUT THEM

So here I am -- feeling, experiencing phenomenologically.  Sometimes I feel tensions.  Then I tend to think of these tensions as "differences" between "types of things".  Then I want to talk about this with people (for fun & to help).  

I direct them toward this shift where tensions are interpreted as differences.  They kind of get what I'm saying.  It works well enough.  But some people find this troubling.  They say that difference is phenomenological.  Maybe what they really mean is that when we talking/thinking we have to use the talking/thinking terms (such as "difference").  We can't think before we are thinking... so in a sense we cannot get before differences when communicating with words.  And right now we ARE communicating with words.  

So for us, all of us, right now, we have to say that "to be = to differ".  

BUT... here's another monkey in our pile of wrenches:

2. ON THE PRECEDENCE OF THE HYBRID EXPERIENCE

Let us say that experience (an experiencer) is always a triune structure.  There is always something like a sensing/perceiving soul, something like a feeling/evaluating soul & something like a thinking soul.  (And for those ingrates who feel the need to reference ideas to "thinkers" this is a Gurdieffian ontology...) These three are a way of approximating the unity of reality... but we need all three in order to make a good approximation.  

So in this view it is not the case that sensing and feeling come first, perceive reality more directly, and then are interpreted as thought.  Rather all of these ways are flawed on their own.  The phenomenology of reality is experience most directly when we simultaneously perceive, feel & think.  So the simultaneously feeling of tension and thinking of difference is more true, more basic, than either tension or differences.

3. ON WILBER'S AMBIGUITY RELATIVE TO THE EMERGENCE OF THE CAUSAL

The ability of organisms to access causal energy may have emerged in evolutionary history but, by my definition of the causal as the transparent structural limitations of experience (the language of differences?) it cannot be thought to have emerged since it is priorly necessary in order for events to occur.

[Balder]

Oleg, here are a few more thoughts and questions, if you are still interested in discussing these things...

 

I see that we havn't agreed on meaning of word "feeling". ((( I don't mean subtle feeling.

What do you mean by "feeling"?

In order to continue our discussion on this regard it requires me to plunge deeper in different theories, terminology and so on. You are perfect in them. And I don't see how it may help my goals.

I am actually not at all "perfect" in Western philosophy.  Like you, my focus for many years has been on Asian traditions -- with some emphasis on Asian philosophy, but a heavier emphasis on spiritual teaching and practice.  (Many years before this, my focus had been on Christian contemplative literature and theology).  My exploration of Western philosophy is relatively new -- and was prompted, in part, by Wilber's postmetaphysical turn, which led me to begin to explore certain philsophers (such as Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Levin, and others) whom I had largely ignored till then.

Still you haven't stated what you mean by "post-metaphysics"...

By postmetaphysics, I mean an orientation which does not banish metaphysics altogether, but which attempts to address various problems that have been identified with traditional metaphysical approaches: the myth of the given, the philosophy of consciousness, the metaphysics of presence, ontotheology, etc.  It is a meta-metaphysical perspective, one could say, which embraces the acategorical imperative: an aperspectival stance which holds metaphysical truth claims lightly, provisionally, subject always to further inquiry and justification or analysis.

Bruce:  In any event, the word, "boundary," is -- like any other word -- also "just a mental construction."  But you are also saying that there is something non-conceptual that the word boundary refers to.  Do you believe the same is the case with a word like tree or oxygen: do either point to anything non- or trans-conceptual?

Oleg:  I don't think so. "Boundary" (in my context) refers to something non-conceptual and "tree" is not. That's a difference.

This is an interesting question to me, since this sounds like a form of "idealism."  "Boundary" refers to something non-conceptual, you are saying, whereas "tree" is wholly conceptual?  If you go outside in the late afternoon and sit in the shade under a canopy of branches, leaning your back against the rough-barked trunk, running your hands over the gnarled roots poking through the soil:  is this leafy, sussurating, firm-trunked companion of yours purely conceptual?

Bruce:  By what, then, are boundaries perceived?

Oleg:  Finally. ))) By YOU! That kind of you that is free from this human being.

I understand precisely what you mean here -- this having been quite a powerful and liberating insight that dawned for me (in a burst of joy and laughter) while I was living in India. 

But in studying and reflecting on postmetaphysics and related topics, this orientation now seems to me to be an expression of the metaphysics of presence (which Wilber mentions in Integral Spirituality).  If you can show me how it is not, I would be interested in that.

Lets say you see a mountain and feel greatness. Is it you are who is great and just feel it when mountain is near or it's mountain that is great and you just percieve it? Who is great? As you understand both interpretations are possible. You are the one that chooses one of them. Either you experience this state as someone small that is near great mountain, or you experience that as a great being that can feel it bit better near mountain or near the ocean. OR you can feel yourself empty of these 2 and realize yourself as the one that can choose one of these 2 interpretaions. So you are free from them!

I agree that in differentiating and objectifying these interpretations, we disidentify with them and become relatively free of them.  How do we further understand what is happening here?  If we say, my ability to disidentify with pairs of interpretive possibilities is an indication that I am utterly free from being human -- that I am a pure, timeless awareness-willingness beyond body, culture, history, and before whom the manifest world simply and transparently parades itself -- then it seems I have 1) taken a particular metaphysical/ontological stand (idealism) and embraced a variant of the philosophy of consciousness (or the metaphysics of presence). 

[Oleg Linetsky]

Hi Bruce,

Still you haven't stated what you mean by "post-metaphysics"...

By postmetaphysics, I mean an orientation which does not banish metaphysics altogether, but which attempts to address various problems that have been identified with traditional metaphysical approaches: the myth of the given, the philosophy of consciousness, the metaphysics of presence, ontotheology, etc.  It is a meta-metaphysical perspective, one could say, which embraces the acategorical imperative: an aperspectival stance which holds metaphysical truth claims lightly, provisionally, subject always to further inquiry and justification or analysis.

Ok. I understand. Let me try to show you something.

Oleg:  I don't think so. "Boundary" (in my context) refers to something non-conceptual and "tree" is not. That's a difference.

This is an interesting question to me, since this sounds like a form of "idealism."  "Boundary" refers to something non-conceptual, you are saying, whereas "tree" is wholly conceptual?  If you go outside in the late afternoon and sit in the shade under a canopy of branches, leaning your back against the rough-barked trunk, running your hands over the gnarled roots poking through the soil:  is this leafy, sussurating, firm-trunked companion of yours purely conceptual?

I don't understand why but you often ascribe me things I don't assert. If I say that "tree" is not non-conceptual you think that it's the same that I assert that "tree" is completely conceptual. Why so?

I believe you can see the difference. Tree looks more like "con-perception" in Wilber terms, conceptual perception. But boundary doesn't seem to be con-perceptual as there is no concept for it. OR we can say that it's very first concept (depend on definition of it) that being can have in experience when concept and feeling yet not separated. So if we for example define concepts as something inside quadrants only, then elements are not conceptual. 

Bruce:  By what, then, are boundaries perceived?

Oleg:  Finally. ))) By YOU! That kind of you that is free from this human being.

I understand precisely what you mean here -- this having been quite a powerful and liberating insight that dawned for me (in a burst of joy and laughter) while I was living in India. 

But in studying and reflecting on postmetaphysics and related topics, this orientation now seems to me to be an expression of the metaphysics of presence (which Wilber mentions in Integral Spirituality).  If you can show me how it is not, I would be interested in that.

It's not what I assert. Again, I don't mean you are completely free from something, but you can be free from identifying with something. It's also not the same, you know.

That is why in particular I suggest a new language for philosophy. Madhyamika Prasangika indicates clearly that you won't be able to assert something as absolute truth (even that statement). So everything that we can assert more or less truly are negations. That gives us philosophy pure from preferences, but not too good for life. So when you start to assert something, you give preference to something that means you also deny something. You single out figure and at the same time you make background. Right? So we can't philosophize without attention to both parts at same time. Like in previous letter I indicated that initial tension of presence gives us 2 interpretions in same time: "I'm Universe" and "I live in Universe". It's illusory problem about philosophy on consciousness and metaphysicss of presence if you don't forget to take BOTH possible interpretations of initial tension at same time as both contexts have its place in some sence. Wilber as a rule represses monological view in favor of dialogical that equals to denying of left quadrants in favour to right quadrants. So we have to do simultracking here the same way we do with quadrants. Other words, we have to consider the "Universe that arises in me" along with the "Universe where we all live" and also explore how them correlate. And it's not a matter of quadrants, another boundary. So it's not a difficult question now. 

And what I meant by new language is "scripting language". It's like Popper's falsification but for philosophy. When you do some statement you have to indicate explicitly background or context of your statement or its shadow, like figure/background. Like "world is cruel"/"while you are too kind", "you are free"/"while you don't care", "you are a human"/"while you feel separated from the world", and so on. Correct statement will be "world is sometimes cruel and sometimes kind", but it gives no direction to act. Prasangika doesn't help in life. So when one claims something like "to live = to differ" I know that he lives in the world of "while you don't love, don't dissolve in feelings, afraid of relaxed dreaming and so on" and he meets challenges of all that. And of course there are 10 main contexts or archetype scenarious of that.

Lets say you see a mountain and feel greatness. Is it you are who is great and just feel it when mountain is near or it's mountain that is great and you just percieve it? Who is great? As you understand both interpretations are possible. You are the one that chooses one of them. Either you experience this state as someone small that is near great mountain, or you experience that as a great being that can feel it bit better near mountain or near the ocean. OR you can feel yourself empty of these 2 and realize yourself as the one that can choose one of these 2 interpretaions. So you are free from them!

I agree that in differentiating and objectifying these interpretations, we disidentify with them and become relatively free of them. 

Right, we are free from identifying with interpretations.

How do we further understand what is happening here?  If we say, my ability to disidentify with pairs of interpretive possibilities is an indication that I am utterly free from being human -- that I am a pure, timeless awareness-willingness beyond body, culture, history, and before whom the manifest world simply and transparently parades itself -- then it seems I have 1) taken a particular metaphysical/ontological stand (idealism) and embraced a variant of the philosophy of consciousness (or the metaphysics of presence).

The same way of thinking... You just found yourself FREE from interpretations. And you seem to confuse what to do with that then and put yourself again in a dual frame of "I am utterly free from being human" and start to argue with yourself again. WHY? It seems to me you can't keep beyond one of ideas about self. You jump out into duality immediately. But try not to take any first. It's good enough. You are not identified with anything for a while. And when you need to take an action use both contexts of your being condition at once. KEEP AWAY FROM DUALITY BY TAKING 2 PERSPECTIVES FOR ANY TENSION, NOT 1! 

I feel & choose. I feel free & I feel full. I rule the world & world rules me. Brain impacts on mind and mind impacts on brain. If you use ONLY ONE context you become vulnerable. So correct statement addresses some tension and thus should use 2 contexts. Then you keep free from preferences! Isn't it elegant?!

For some reason when it's matter of 4 quadrants many people is agree that it's good idea. And when I point on huge tension between I and THAT and also suggest to consider 2 contexts at same time, then you can't hear me for some reason. But this is one of the most great things in the Universe as it explains how you impact on the all world! I don't have to believe that even thoughts change the world. I know it, becuase I feel tension between I and THAT. Wilber didn't overcome this issue with philosophy of consciousness because he thought that its place in UL, but it's not correct. The whole world, all quadrants arise in me, in MY awareness. And in same time I arise in our mutual world. We must consider 2 contexts at once, as they are 2 interpretations of 1 great tension and it's different tension (to int/ext or ind/coll).

You can also place it in negation mahayana style. Like

1. I'm NOT a "pure, timeless awareness-willingness beyond body, culture, history...", rigpa, dzogchen,...

2. But I'm also NOT any object/structure, any process/pattern, anything imagible with form or without.

SO on ANY boundary "I'm NOT this NOT that", NETI/NETI. And it works when self-identification.

And when I act I have to consider 2 contexts at same time (my proposition)

1. MINE are "pure, timeless awareness-willingness beyond body, culture, history...", rigpa, dzogchen,...

2. MINE are objects/structures, processes/patterns, everything imagible with form or without.

MINE are "AND this AND that", ITI/ITI.

We find our real selves in the gap between all pairs and when we act we should take into account ALWAYS (in ideal) TWO contexts at once. You can't describe ANY tension in ONE context! 2 contexts to point out to true "I", and 2 contexts to treat it. As simple as that! EVERY TIME 2 CONTEXTS! BEYWEEN THEM and INCLUDING BOTH. Then you keep staying non-dual in a sence, non-vulnerable, all-inclusive, blessed and blessing.

And tell me please if above doesn't resolve your goals? )))

> attempts to address various problems that have been identified with traditional metaphysical approaches: the myth of the given, the philosophy of consciousness, the metaphysics of presence, ontotheology, etc.

 

[Layman Pascal]

Forgive me for intruding on your line of discussion but it holds so many fascinating elements -- such a mixture of spiritual truths, good ideas & "noise".  

It seems that you, Oleg, are very sensitive -- perhaps too sensitive -- to the word "assert".  I suspect that Balder uses it as I do simply to indicate that you are here, talking, trying to communicate experience and understanding which you feel is true and valuable.  That is all "assert" means.  To give out a communication about what is real and important.  In a practical sense, there is no non-asserting.  We could use some other word...

Now, I personally, do not agree that Madhyamika Prasangika indicates that you won't be able to assert something as absolute truth.  Actually I think we can make a few absolute truth assertions AND my reading of saintly folks like Lord White Snake (Nagarjuna) makes me feel that they are not making any indications for or against absolute truths.  They are the grandfathers of Zen-speak.  What they are trying to do is show how to get from any kind of reasoning into a direct contemplation of the non-dual (the boundary which ceases to be a boundary).

However, I do think that your negative "scripting language" is a very useful tool for getting a person in a good, post-metaphysical-ish relationship to their own thoughts and statements.

I would note that Wilber does not confine Consciousness to the UL but states on many occasions that it encompasses all the quadrants, etc.  

But I would especially disagree that  "to live = to differ" is "while you don't love, don't dissolve in feelings, afraid of relaxed dreaming and so on".  This seems ludicrous.  

Ah... must dash!  The rest of my praise-complain will have to wait...

[Balder]

Hi, Oleg, thanks for your response.  It appears there has been some misunderstanding -- on both sides of this discussion.  I hope this post will help clear some of that up (as your last post was clarifying for me).

I don't understand why but you often ascribe me things I don't assert. If I say that "tree" is not non-conceptual you think that it's the same that I assert that "tree" is completely conceptual. Why so?

Have I often done that with you?  I haven't intended to.  (Layman is correct that my use of assert is only intended in the sense of "say" or "communicate," not something like "take a rigid, dualistic stand" or "dogmatically insist upon.")

I believe you can see the difference. Tree looks more like "con-perception" in Wilber terms, conceptual perception. But boundary doesn't seem to be con-perceptual as there is no concept for it. OR we can say that it's very first concept (depend on definition of it) that being can have in experience when concept and feeling yet not separated. So if we for example define concepts as something inside quadrants only, then elements are not conceptual.

This conversation is interesting for me because, just a few months ago, I would have described tree simply as a con-perception, too.  But some of our more recent inquiries on this forum (in relation to speculative realist and OOO philosophy) have led to my questioning the adequacy of that description, and so in my questions to you, I am also exploring the edges of my own shifting views.  For now, I will not further discuss why I think con-perception may no longer be adequate, since it may not be directly relevant to you or your own interests, but I may come back to it later.

Regarding "boundary," I believe I prefer your second way of looking at it -- as a primitive or proto-concept, or a proto-con-percept.  However, regarding the claim that boundary is a perception (as "tension"), I am wondering if boundary, as sub-AQAL condition for experience, is being conflated with a type of experience (tension).  I can see using the felt tension as a metaphorical doorway, and perhaps also a practical heuristic device, to the "boundary" insight, but I'm not sure yet whether it makes sense to talk about "directly perceiving" a boundary, since (it seems to me) boundary is an essential pre-condition for both perception and conception.  In my comments immediately above, I am not trying to put words into your mouth, but only to express my as-yet unclear reading of your ideas.  Can you help clarify this question for me?  Is boundary a perception, or a condition for perception?  Or both?

Are you familiar with the book, SpinbitZ?  With your emphasis on boundary, you may find it of interest: the author develops an integral philosophy based on the concepts of boundary or interface and polarity.  (He describes his approach as "interface philosophy.")  For a quick preview, I recommend doing a search for "boundary," "interface," and "mnemonic primitives" to get a glimpse of some of his ideas.  (I may write to him and ask him to read and/or join this discussion, if he's interested, as he's a member of this forum.)

It's not what I assert. Again, I don't mean you are completely free from something, but you can be free from identifying with something. It's also not the same, you know.

Okay, thank you.  Yes, I agree.

That is why in particular I suggest a new language for philosophy. Madhyamika Prasangika indicates clearly that you won't be able to assert something as absolute truth (even that statement). So everything that we can assert more or less truly are negations. That gives us philosophy pure from preferences, but not too good for life. So when you start to assert something, you give preference to something that means you also deny something. You single out figure and at the same time you make background. Right? So we can't philosophize without attention to both parts at same time. Like in previous letter I indicated that initial tension of presence gives us 2 interpretions in same time: "I'm Universe" and "I live in Universe". It's illusory problem about philosophy on consciousness and metaphysicss of presence if you don't forget to take BOTH possible interpretations of initial tension at same time as both contexts have its place in some sence. Wilber as a rule represses monological view in favor of dialogical that equals to denying of left quadrants in favour to right quadrants. So we have to do simultracking here the same way we do with quadrants. Other words, we have to consider the "Universe that arises in me" along with the "Universe where we all live" and also explore how them correlate. And it's not a matter of quadrants, another boundary. So it's not a difficult question now.

I definitely like -- and agree with -- your recommendation to hold these polar interpretations simultaneously.  I recently wrote a paper (on practicing in multiple religious traditions simultaneously) in which I argued for a similar approach.  The only part of your statement above that gives me pause, and raises some questions and concerns, is the claim that this move gives you "philosophy pure from preferences."  The part that gives me concern is that this appears to assume or suggest that 1) our preferences and interpretations and beliefs are transparent to us, or can be made wholly transparent (such that we can achieve philosophical purity by unearthing and holding all relevant ones simultaneously); and 2) that two possible polar interpretations exhaust our interpretive possibilities for any given moment or situation.  What do you think?

So when one claims something like "to live = to differ" I know that he lives in the world of "while you don't love, don't dissolve in feelings, afraid of relaxed dreaming and so on" and he meets challenges of all that. And of course there are 10 main contexts or archetype scenarious of that.

I did not say "to live = to differ."  I was talking about the metaphysical notion that, to be anything at all (and/or to perceive or conceive anything at all) requires difference: contrast, boundary, interface, foreground/background, etc.  This doesn't mean that there can't, or shouldn't, be periods of letting go, dissolution, deep relaxation, communion, etc.  Of course these are valuable!  But have you noticed that unitive experiences are often equated with death?  Sexual climax as "little death."  In such moments of boundary-loss (hedewa, in Tibetan tradition), there is the (apparent/phenomenal) end to distinction or "being anything at all."

Lets say you see a mountain and feel greatness. Is it you are who is great and just feel it when mountain is near or it's mountain that is great and you just percieve it? Who is great? As you understand both interpretations are possible. You are the one that chooses one of them. Either you experience this state as someone small that is near great mountain, or you experience that as a great being that can feel it bit better near mountain or near the ocean. OR you can feel yourself empty of these 2 and realize yourself as the one that can choose one of these 2 interpretaions. So you are free from them!

Yes, I get you here.  Am I in my body, or is my body in me?  (Advaitins usually say, or at least emphasize, the latter).  We can clearly "toggle" between such interpretations (or interpretative-experiences), and I agree it is personally fruitful and creatively generative to adopt the both/and approach to these interpretations as well as the traditional neti/neti approach.  (The latter helping you to avoid absolutizing or unconsciously identifying with either positive interpretations, while the former allows you still to creatively play with both).

The same way of thinking... You just found yourself FREE from interpretations. And you seem to confuse what to do with that then and put yourself again in a dual frame of "I am utterly free from being human" and start to argue with yourself again. WHY? It seems to me you can't keep beyond one of ideas about self. You jump out into duality immediately. But try not to take any first. It's good enough. You are not identified with anything for a while. And when you need to take an action use both contexts of your being condition at once. KEEP AWAY FROM DUALITY BY TAKING 2 PERSPECTIVES FOR ANY TENSION, NOT 1!

Okay, I understand you now.  I asked the question I did because it seemed to me that you were taking a stand, in some of your comments and questions to me, on one side of these possible interpretations (preferring the primacy of transcendent, non-identified awareness).

[Oleg Linetsky]

Dear Bruce,

Hi, Oleg, thanks for your response.  It appears there has been some misunderstanding -- on both sides of this discussion.  I hope this post will help clear some of that up (as your last post was clarifying for me).

Sounds good, thank you.

Layman is correct that my use of assert is only intended in the sense of "say" or "communicate," not something like "take a rigid, dualistic stand" or "dogmatically insist upon."

Ok, thanks, I'll have in a view. It's probably connected to my english that is not perfect...

Regarding "boundary," I believe I prefer your second way of looking at it -- as a primitive or proto-concept, or a proto-con-percept.  However, regarding the claim that boundary is a perception (as "tension"), I am wondering if boundary, as sub-AQAL condition for experience, is being conflated with a type of experience (tension).  I can see using the felt tension as a metaphorical doorway, and perhaps also a practical heuristic device, to the "boundary" insight, but I'm not sure yet whether it makes sense to talk about "directly perceiving" a boundary, since (it seems to me) boundary is an essential pre-condition for both perception and conception.  In my comments immediately above, I am not trying to put words into your mouth, but only to express my as-yet unclear reading of your ideas.  Can you help clarify this question for me?  Is boundary a perception, or a condition for perception?  Or both?

Ok, got you. Thanks for clarifying. Your question, as any other boundary-related question, has 2 contexts. (There is tension in the question, not in boundary itself.) In the beginning of my essay I indicate that our very I is not whole, it's already splitted on transcendent and immanent part. So any experience in some sence is comprised of 2 acts, feeling and discrimination. When you focus on boundaries they just join in oneness and feeling=discrimination (in a context you chose that boundary is proto-con-percept). This is again causal/nondual paradox context and reply should consist of 2 simult. replies. When "I'm in the world" context then boundary is condition, and when "World is in me" context then boundary is perception. And there is no common context in duality where this paradox is resolved! But when you are experiencing, then condition becomes perception, you become pure nondual rigpa.

Are you familiar with the book, SpinbitZ?  With your emphasis on boundary, you may find it of interest: the author develops an integral philosophy based on the concepts of boundary or interface.  (He describes his approach as "interface philosophy.")  For a quick preview, I recommend doing a search for "boundary," "interface," and "mnemonic primitives" to get a glimpse of some of his ideas.  (I may write to him and ask him to read and/or join this discussion, if he's interested, as he's a member of this forum.)

Actually my game is more about bringing wisdom to people that invoke for it. ))

Thank you for the book. The author looks to be very smart! But he just defines "interface" as a boundary between polarities and I go little bit further. I indicate that only 5 are enough to make wise decisions, those 5 constitute 5 elements and buddha wisdoms, types of enneagram, bardo experiences, and so on. Glancing over the book I havn't found anything about what is minimum number of polarities that require consideration to take any life challenge.

And I in particular emphasize the great pair of initial contexts "I'm in Universe" and "Universe is in me" that must be considered in parallel way. Without it any thought system will be either reduction to consider me us simple human or reduction to exalt us all as dieties. Most do first mistake like Wilber (dialogical). Eastern traditions do second (monological). None is free of preferences. I'm neither human, nor God. I insist that we can't talk seriously in philosophy without parallel consideration of both.

So we have 3 more fundamental tensions (and their double contexts).

I definitely like -- and agree with -- your recommendation to hold these polar interpretations simultaneously.  I recently wrote a paper (on practicing in multiple religious traditions simultaneously) in which I argued for a similar approach.  The only part of your statement above that gives me pause, and raises some questions and concerns, is the claim that this move gives you "philosophy pure from preferences."  The part that gives me concern is that this appears to assume or suggest that 1) our preferences and interpretations and beliefs are transparent to us, or can be made wholly transparent (such that we can achieve philosophical purity by unearthing and holding all relevant ones simultaneously); and 2) that two possible polar interpretations exhaust our interpretive possibilities for any given moment or situation.  What do you think?

Right. 1). As I maintain that all tensions are reduced to 5 fundamental, I detaily describe 10 types of figure/background that comprise archetypal set of common configurations preference/shadow_context. It makes all this task much more easier. And again, it turned out that that from experiential point of view this set matches enneagamm. 

2). Right. But we have to clarify word "interpretation". Number of interpretations is not limited. BUT essential number of interpretations for every boundary is two/three. Either you take side of one, two, or both. Other words, question is how many interests/contexts this interpretation takes into account.

I did not say "to live = to differ."  I was talking about the metaphysical notion that, to be anything at all (and/or to perceive or conceive anything at all) requires difference: contrast, boundary, interface, foreground/background, etc.  This doesn't mean that there can't, or shouldn't, be periods of letting go, dissolution, deep relaxation, communion, etc.  Of course these are valuable! 

Ok. Sure.

But have you noticed that unitive experiences are often equated with death?  Sexual climax as "little death."  In such moments of boundary-loss (hedewa, in Tibetan tradition), there is the (apparent/phenomenal) end to distinction or "being anything at all."

Right. 

Yes, I get you here.  Am I in my body, or is my body in me?  (Advaitins usually say, or at least emphasize, the latter).  We can clearly "toggle" between such interpretations (or interpretative-experiences), and I agree it is personally fruitful and creatively generative to adopt the both/and approach to these interpretations as well as the traditional neti/neti approach.  (The latter helping you to avoid absolutizing or unconsciously identifying with either positive interpretations, while the former allows you still to creatively play with both).

Exactly. But again, body example is about int/ext boundary and I also especially insist on causal/nond one when "I'm God" / "I'm human" because they are not reducible to int/ext as well (even thoug int/ext and ind/coll are reducible in a sence to causal/nondual).

Okay, I understand you now. I asked the question I did because it seemed to me that you were taking a stand, in some of your comments and questions to me, on one side of these possible interpretations (preferring the primacy of transcendent, non-identified awareness).

Yes, that's why I clarified. Thank you for your patience and interest.

And please try to think towards 3 more fundamental boundaries, as their sides are also irreducible to one context except of unity states.