People Planets And Parking Places - 2 - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-28T14:07:44Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/people-planets-and-parking-places-2?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A56109&feed=yes&xn_auth=noBeing did not precede dualit…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-05-02:5301756:Comment:561092014-05-02T05:04:09.058Zvallihttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/vallisan
<p></p>
<p><strong><i>B</i><i>eing did not</i><i> </i><em>precede</em><i> </i><i>duality. Being is simultaneous with duality</i></strong></p>
<p><i> </i></p>
<p>Agreed :) so we have co-incidence of existence and creativity. That which is of time and not of time. We can’t say that which is not of time is a thing, and say being is two things or more is a given. Half way to divergence, perfect! But a grouping of multiplicity?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The interesting thing is the boundary zone. One thing…</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong><i>B</i><i>eing did not</i><i> </i><em>precede</em><i> </i><i>duality. Being is simultaneous with duality</i></strong></p>
<p><i> </i></p>
<p>Agreed :) so we have co-incidence of existence and creativity. That which is of time and not of time. We can’t say that which is not of time is a thing, and say being is two things or more is a given. Half way to divergence, perfect! But a grouping of multiplicity?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The interesting thing is the boundary zone. One thing has to become another for the boundary zone, the locale of emergence that interprets the creative and the created, the observer and the observed. So everything that is, is that interpretation. The drive to independence stretching the edge</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Another approach. If multiplicity (minimally multiple) is implicit (as *a* quotient<i>)</i>, then sameness (oneness) is explicit. The moment it is explicit then there is the drive to multiplicity, one thing finding the other, a deepening polarity within and without, hence the range of polarity as a trajectory. Since sameness as difference is the extent of separation and integration, there is the drive to independence of existence and time, to separation</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The other thing about having levels of independence is that it is the only real break from linearity, familiarity, monotony. And since we have extent as a factor, we can have a narrowing down of multiplicity, sort of omnidirectional, whichever way we go from here, polarities across quotient and/or manifest, explicit and/or implicit</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong> </strong></p> Smiles & fragrant spontan…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-04-30:5301756:Comment:557002014-04-30T16:25:38.670ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>Smiles & fragrant spontaneous nodding. </p>
<p>Not wanting to overload things I will address just one point in two forms:</p>
<p><cite> </cite></p>
<p>1. Being suggests the "Causal" and sometimes the "Nondual". The Causal is the pure, syntactical eternity of Reality (thresholds of non-conditional generative divergence rather than concrete assertions and may be better described as differentials or dualities than as unities). The Nondual indicates the blending or exceeding of all other…</p>
<p>Smiles & fragrant spontaneous nodding. </p>
<p>Not wanting to overload things I will address just one point in two forms:</p>
<p><cite> </cite></p>
<p>1. Being suggests the "Causal" and sometimes the "Nondual". The Causal is the pure, syntactical eternity of Reality (thresholds of non-conditional generative divergence rather than concrete assertions and may be better described as differentials or dualities than as unities). The Nondual indicates the blending or exceeding of all other conditions. But neither of these need to be thought of as historically prior. In fact their perpetual simultaneity with the manifest universe is an object of great interest. <strong>Being did not <em>precede</em> duality. Being is simultaneous with duality.</strong></p>
<p>Since there can be no duality between nonduality and duality we end up with the quite sensible position that duality IS nonduality. </p>
<p>2. Beingness does not have to be "one thing" first in order to because other things. Its self-consistency and luminously pleasing coherence leads us often to treat it as "one" but that is always a sort of short-hand. Oneness is always an act of one-ification. If we examine the world we find that unity is a grouping of multiplicity which must have preceded unity. That is what our word "one" refers to. To be One is to have been multiple first. This does not take away from the experience of the Primal Unity but it massages the concept of Unity to be at least halfway to divergence -- not as subsequent occurrence but as its implicit eternal self-nature. The one does not precede the many but the One-Many persists and self-transforms perpetually. The Manyness is the Omnipresent. </p>
<p>Now, we could call all of that One if we wanted... but we would be calling-it-one and therefore implying that it was at least minimally multiple before we did that.</p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/people-planets-and-parking-places-2?page=1&commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A55936&x=1#5301756Comment55936"><div class="xg_user_generated"><p></p>
</div>
</blockquote> Hi Layman
While I was gettin…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-04-29:5301756:Comment:559362014-04-29T07:26:17.074Zvallihttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/vallisan
<p></p>
<p>Hi Layman</p>
<p>While I was getting into this story I was being drawn deeper and it began to clash with my everyday life. And with it a growing anxiety I wouldn’t be able to do justice to it.</p>
<p>But when you said, it stirs the peculiarly smooth "white-gold streams" up through the centre of the skull and beyond and rejoice like that, It’s a way better affirmation of this effort and the process itself than anything I could have expected. Damn. Really, thanks</p>
<p>Oh and please…</p>
<p></p>
<p>Hi Layman</p>
<p>While I was getting into this story I was being drawn deeper and it began to clash with my everyday life. And with it a growing anxiety I wouldn’t be able to do justice to it.</p>
<p>But when you said, it stirs the peculiarly smooth "white-gold streams" up through the centre of the skull and beyond and rejoice like that, It’s a way better affirmation of this effort and the process itself than anything I could have expected. Damn. Really, thanks</p>
<p>Oh and please do mangle, unreservedly. The extent the inspiration is personal is also the extent it is not :) the inspiration is very much this conversation, the dialectics. All that I have read from Jung is what Camosy posted, if I missed a beat being casual :) I have to confess to being a wee illiterate. Or a lot ! I haven’t read the transpersonalists or the philosophers or the scriptures for that matter. My exposure is when I come around to this forum, and read the posts/links around.</p>
<p><i>The universe can’t exist prior to duality. duality precedes and is implied in the naming of any universe</i></p>
<p>True, but I did qualify a duality within the domain and the pre-given duality you are pointing out. What I’m suggesting is that this singularity to duality is momentous enough to be given a greater view.</p>
<p><i>The latter cannot give rise to the former and the suggestion that it could may "embolden the terrorists</i>".</p>
<p>Oh, but the latter did give rise to the former, given the locale :) that is the whole trajectory of this model. This also addresses the issue of space, the minimalistest reference to thing, to existence, to time, while having the ethos of being the first being. An uninterrupted (what joy) sameness to begin with. Space, consciousness, the I, whatever name we want to give it. Isn’t the cool thing about beingness that it can’t be just one thing but has to become other things. But it has to be one thing first. It is then a deconstruction of effort, it’s easier. And effort in cosmic parlour has very little traction. The inexplicable fuzz of creation has to be easier than sweeping it religiously under a rug, that with the limitless mess and its guardians, we might never want to lift the rug. I couldn’t resist that pitch :)</p>
<p>We understand all of existence as time, as a movement in time. Now if we agree that imagination is not of time, then we can see it as one expanding perpetual moment that enshrines all of time, outside time. That which creates time even if it is co-incidental with it. Hence the divine conflict</p>
<p>Which locates existence, there is the huge problem of locating the universe (all existential content) where would you locate it?</p>
<p>So when we talk about non local again we have to qualify locations within the domain and a location that is not subject to <i>any</i> domain as in outside of time.</p>
<p>The approach is that the latter gives rise to the former, in the process of differentiation, the move to separation. This move to separation is the whole trajectory of the universe, from that pre-given duality and <i>because</i> of that pre-given duality. In cosmic time, so it’s in its fundamental instincts to not be in a hurry. And in that move we have three singularities, three senses if the I within an entity. When this happens, we have available a great deal of consciousness just being aware of the three identities within a single entity.</p>
<p></p>
<p><i>Distance does NOT cause difference. Although difference must be conceived as a gradient of proximity -- that is a syntactical condition implicit within both spatial and non-spatial domains. So while this could be considered technically correct it may over-invoke the notion of "physical space" which is not exactly necessary for differentiality.</i></p>
<p>We have to look at distance, again, in the context of space as a being or in its beingness. Then it doesn’t over invoke the notion of physical space, because physical space is never just physical space. It has both spatial and non spatial content. This is interesting, it’s what drives a being to be other things ?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>LP, that everyday stuff is creeping into my reality. I’ll come back to your other points later. It’s a real pleasure too :)</p> Hi Valli (& everyone),
It…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-04-28:5301756:Comment:556932014-04-28T18:41:16.299ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>Hi Valli (& everyone),</p>
<p>It would almost be uncharitable for me to pick at this flow of articulation. Both because it is in strong consonance with the "art of adjacency" for which I stand and because its style is more than half poetic, inspirational, too <em>personal</em> to mangle. There is a very real sense in which the following critiques do not actually apply but I will present them, parenthetically, in order to engage and "churn" these holy notions.</p>
<p>Firstly, let us be…</p>
<p>Hi Valli (& everyone),</p>
<p>It would almost be uncharitable for me to pick at this flow of articulation. Both because it is in strong consonance with the "art of adjacency" for which I stand and because its style is more than half poetic, inspirational, too <em>personal</em> to mangle. There is a very real sense in which the following critiques do not actually apply but I will present them, parenthetically, in order to engage and "churn" these holy notions.</p>
<p>Firstly, let us be clear:</p>
<blockquote><p>The movement then is from the infinity of opposition to the capture of infinity and polarity.</p>
<p>A movement at once, the extent of capture, the extent of separation, the extent of independence and the extent of integration. Sameness as difference, gapless. Infinity of opposition to the next level of closure, as perfect attractors . The degree of separation is the degree of integration, total separation, is then total integration. Emptiness - fullness.</p>
<p>Individual spirit and collective spirit, Atman and Brahman are not separate post emptiness. Since location is not locatable outside time, imagination could be outside time. A first hand reference is that familiarish feeling that creativity is timeless</p>
<p>So, imagination is the trans-location to location. <i>Of great significance, is that the universe is not illusory but that imagination is real.</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Absolutely (sic). This stirs my solar plexus to excrete peculiarly smooth "white-gold streams" up through the center of the skull, beyond and all over the surface of my goosebumps. I would be a true cad if I did not rejoice at hearing my own God playing the fiddle soundtrack for these sentences. So bear that in mind as I lash out wildly and trivally!</p>
<p></p>
<ul>
<li>Duality is NOT "<em>the greatest move the universe ever made</em>". Why not? Not universe can exist prior to duality. Duality precedes and is implied in the naming of any universe. The latter cannot give rise to the former and the suggestion that it could may "embolden the terrorists".</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Distance does NOT cause difference. Although difference must be conceived as a gradient of proximity -- that is a syntactical condition implicit within both spatial and non-spatial domains. So while this could be considered technically correct it may over-invoke the notion of "physical space" which is not exactly necessary for differentiality.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>"<em>I have to get into how intimate and wondrous opposition really is</em>." Can't argue with that! I tried... but I can't.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>We do NOT "<em>need to differentiate between empowering a tool, and making the tool smarter.</em>" In fact this is a very dangerous thing to do! We need to insist that these are convergent or identical terms. Intelligence <span style="text-decoration: underline;">is</span> a quality of the arrangement of the flows of power which constitute all entities. The intelligence of a tool cannot be conceived apart from the empowerment of its relations. If we contrasts intelligence and empowerment potential then we conceptually re-secure a false potential. We cannot afford the perpetuation of the concept that intelligence is a valid phenomenon when promoted apart from integrated development and empowerment.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Posthumanism <em>does</em> need to get human first. Couldn't agree more.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>This Heraclitean reading of Jung is fine, just fine. A nice way to honor an old man who, rightly or wrongly, was held in high esteem by several generations of Transpersonalists.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>It IS amusing to separate the Nondual from the Non-local... but not only amusing. It is dubious to conflate these terms. Nonduality indicates a trans-separative blending condition relative to any and all other conditions -- only one of which is the differential of two spatially "local" entities.</li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p>And a few tweaks on the Map:</p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>"Locations"</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">(<em>All these levels are equally non-local.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>They can be anywhere relative to each other.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>They have the full locational range.</em>)</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p>1. Awarnesss (Will-to-Power) at the Level of Pre-Material Energetics</p>
<p>2. Awareness (Collision Encoding) at the Level of Mass-Bearing Energetic Constellations (Matter)</p>
<p>3. Awareness (Sentience) at the Level of Sensitive (Biological) Constellations</p>
<p>4. Awareness (Sapience or "Consciousness") at the Level of Voluntary Attention and "Dimensional" Contextual Engagements</p>
<p>5. Awareness (Salience) at the Level of Apex Attention</p>
<p>6. Trans-Awareness (Nondual) integrating Local/Nonlocal and/or any other Oppositionality via the dynamics of same-difference and non-absence. This level is generative, transformative & creative as all boundaries.</p>
<p></p>
<p>And again -- a real pleasure.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>