Postmetaphysical Puritanism - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-28T23:44:25Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/postmetaphysical-puritanism?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A16421&feed=yes&xn_auth=noBruce: Enforcing some kind of…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-05-30:5301756:Comment:176312011-05-30T16:22:05.352Zehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/e
<p>Bruce: <em>Enforcing some kind of postmetaphysical puritanism is not my conscious intent, and does not represent my aspirations, ...</em> <br/><br/>It's good to be explicit about this once in awhile in the group but don't sweat it Bruce...I've never gotten that vibe from you.</p>
<p>Bruce: <em>Enforcing some kind of postmetaphysical puritanism is not my conscious intent, and does not represent my aspirations, ...</em> <br/><br/>It's good to be explicit about this once in awhile in the group but don't sweat it Bruce...I've never gotten that vibe from you.</p> Mary: And by the way, did yo…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-05-18:5301756:Comment:165322011-05-18T18:34:32.040ZMary W.http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/MaryW
<br></br>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/postmetaphysical-puritanism?id=5301756%3ATopic%3A16215&page=2#5301756Comment16521"><div><blockquote><p>Mary: And by the way, did you have your discussion with *Kendling today?</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Bruce: Yes, I did, and it was really a pleasure. He was very warm and receptive to the paper -- said it was "terrific," urged me to keep writing on these topics, said he learned something new from it and thanked…</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br/>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/postmetaphysical-puritanism?id=5301756%3ATopic%3A16215&page=2#5301756Comment16521"><div><blockquote><p>Mary: And by the way, did you have your discussion with *Kendling today?</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Bruce: Yes, I did, and it was really a pleasure. He was very warm and receptive to the paper -- said it was "terrific," urged me to keep writing on these topics, said he learned something new from it and thanked me for that, and told me he agreed with essentially all of it, even the points that I was suggesting as possible critiques of his model. He did make some suggestions for expanding on a few points, which I will do, but overall we just had a good conversation about this material. And he actually read my entire paper out loud to me (except for a few filler passages that he skipped), stopping to comment on it as he went. I felt really warm and appreciative towards him after this exercise -- I know he is not in full health and is likely tired, and he still spent a lot of quality time with me and discussed these ideas for over an hour in an engaging, supportive way. Very cool. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>--A delight to hear this, Bruce! Warms my heart. Ah, to have been a fly on that wall! And -- though this is secondhand information -- I heard from a friend in Boulder that Kendling's health improved recently after a change in medication. I'm looking forward to reading the revision of your paper. :-)</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote> I am very happy to see this d…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-05-18:5301756:Comment:166112011-05-18T16:07:51.512ZJosephhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/JosephFarley
I am very happy to see this discussion taking place. When I read the posts on Sam Harris & Spiritual Experience my initial reactions were "Give me a break. Harris' take on this is as metaphysical as anyone's." Also, it occurs to me if you paint yourself into the skeptic/atheist corner, the only spiritual practice you are going to allow any legitimacy is going to be something like mindfulness. I believe atheist Susan Blackmore has come to the same rationalist/buddhist approach as…
I am very happy to see this discussion taking place. When I read the posts on Sam Harris & Spiritual Experience my initial reactions were "Give me a break. Harris' take on this is as metaphysical as anyone's." Also, it occurs to me if you paint yourself into the skeptic/atheist corner, the only spiritual practice you are going to allow any legitimacy is going to be something like mindfulness. I believe atheist Susan Blackmore has come to the same rationalist/buddhist approach as Harris.<br />
<br />
For most people, religious & spiritual practice involves engagement with metaphysical narratives that are not terribly rational. Harris advocates a metaphysical position that purges itself of non-rational elements, but it remains metaphysical. To quote Caputo:<br />
<br />
"True understanding is never unconditional, but always a matter of finding the right conditions under which understanding can take place-like possessing the complex preconditions involved in understanding an ancient language and a long gone historical context. Understanding is always interpreting, and to interpret means to locate and acknowledge the relevant presuppositions."<br />
<br />
I am with Mary though. This is a rich forum that I keep coming back to, even though I rarely have time to engage as much as I like.<br />
<br />
Peace<br />
Joseph From Chapter 1, section “inte…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-05-18:5301756:Comment:165232011-05-18T12:55:37.704ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>From Chapter 1, section “integral postmetaphysics”:</p>
<p><em>Habermas calls monological knowledge by various names, particularly “the philosophy of the subject” and the “philosophy of consciousness”—both of which he and every postmodern theorist worth their salt completely savaged. The “philosophy of the subject” simply takes it that an individual subject is aware of phenomena, whereas that subject is actually set in cultural contexts of which the subject is totally…</em></p>
<p>From Chapter 1, section “integral postmetaphysics”:</p>
<p><em>Habermas calls monological knowledge by various names, particularly “the philosophy of the subject” and the “philosophy of consciousness”—both of which he and every postmodern theorist worth their salt completely savaged. The “philosophy of the subject” simply takes it that an individual subject is aware of phenomena, whereas that subject is actually set in cultural contexts of which the subject is totally unaware.</em></p>
<p><em>“The philosophy of consciousness” is the similar assumption, namely, that there is consciousness and that phenomena present themselves to consciousness, either individual or a collective or store-house consciousness (e.g.,alayavijnana). Every meditative and contemplative tradition makes this assumption. And it is simply wrong.</em></p>
<p><em>Integral Post-Metaphysics replaces perceptions with perspectives, and thus redefines the manifest realm*as the realm of perspectives.</em></p>
<p>*Note the qualifier "manifest realm." This doesn't apply to the absolute realm, which still retains all of the pre-modern metaphysical monism a kennilinguist can muster. Place at least the absolute pole in the category or those "regressive monist" and non-sustainable (either in labor or environment) philosophies being explored in <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/the-rising-culture-and" target="_self">this new thread</a>.</p> So let's bring in kennilnguis…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-05-18:5301756:Comment:164272011-05-18T12:45:50.178ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>So let's bring in kennilnguist postmetaphysics. A few excerpts from Appendix II of IS:</p>
<p><em>What is metaphysics? Metaphysics is generally taken to be the branch of philosophy that deals with issues of ontology—what is being or reality?...Kant’s critical philosophy replaced ontological objects with structures of the subject....Various a priori categories of the knowing subject help to fashion or construct reality as we know it. Reality is not a perception, but a conception; at least in…</em></p>
<p>So let's bring in kennilnguist postmetaphysics. A few excerpts from Appendix II of IS:</p>
<p><em>What is metaphysics? Metaphysics is generally taken to be the branch of philosophy that deals with issues of ontology—what is being or reality?...Kant’s critical philosophy replaced ontological objects with structures of the subject....Various a priori categories of the knowing subject help to fashion or construct reality as we know it. Reality is not a perception, but a conception; at least in part. Ontology per se just does not exist. Metaphysics is then a broad name for the type of thinking that can’t figure this out. Or, metaphysics is thinking that falls prey to the myth of the given.</em></p>
<p><em>What this means for spirituality in general is that metaphysics needs to be jettisoned, or at the very least, completely rethought..the claim of Integral Post-Metaphysics is that you can indeed account for all the really necessary ingredients of metaphysics or a spiritual philosophy without them. These metaphysical assumptions are, quite simply, unnecessary and cumbersome baggage that hurts spirituality more than helps. Spirituality, to survive in the present and future world, is and must be post-metaphysical.</em></p> Where else would I find explo…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-05-18:5301756:Comment:165212011-05-18T03:53:22.275ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<blockquote><p>Where else would I find explorations of Caputo, Brian Swimme videos, prayers for Charlie Sheen, links to an integral monastery, mini-treatises on Lady Gaga, critiques of capitalism, great Panikkar excerpts, and existential <em>Star Wars</em> all in one place, after all?</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>:-D You <em>have</em> been lurking and reading!</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><p>And by the way, did you have your discussion with *Kendling today?</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes, I…</p>
<blockquote><p>Where else would I find explorations of Caputo, Brian Swimme videos, prayers for Charlie Sheen, links to an integral monastery, mini-treatises on Lady Gaga, critiques of capitalism, great Panikkar excerpts, and existential <em>Star Wars</em> all in one place, after all?</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>:-D You <em>have</em> been lurking and reading!</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><p>And by the way, did you have your discussion with *Kendling today?</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes, I did, and it was really a pleasure. He was very warm and receptive to the paper -- said it was "terrific," urged me to keep writing on these topics, said he learned something new from it and thanked me for that, and told me he agreed with essentially all of it, even the points that I was suggesting as possible critiques of his model. He did make some suggestions for expanding on a few points, which I will do, but overall we just had a good conversation about this material. And he actually read my entire paper out loud to me (except for a few filler passages that he skipped), stopping to comment on it as he went. I felt really warm and appreciative towards him after this exercise -- I know he is not in full health and is likely tired, and he still spent a lot of quality time with me and discussed these ideas for over an hour in an engaging, supportive way. Very cool. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p> I like your neologism Kendlin…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-05-18:5301756:Comment:164262011-05-18T03:12:30.405ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
I like your neologism Kendling. Although mine, Kennilingus, seems more disparaging, and to some degree intentionlly so, I too still hold some endearment toward the man and his work. So my term also contains some of that as well, after all having a pet name that plays on one of my favorite sexual pastimes. And which work that I still agree with in many ways, most importantly in a focus on postmetaphysics.
I like your neologism Kendling. Although mine, Kennilingus, seems more disparaging, and to some degree intentionlly so, I too still hold some endearment toward the man and his work. So my term also contains some of that as well, after all having a pet name that plays on one of my favorite sexual pastimes. And which work that I still agree with in many ways, most importantly in a focus on postmetaphysics. Ed -- Thanks for that explana…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-05-18:5301756:Comment:166052011-05-18T02:31:33.036ZMary W.http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/MaryW
<p>Ed -- Thanks for that explanation on "metaphysical" versus "postmetaphysical." You are patient with people like me as well, taking the time to (yet again) explain ideas that you have already explained umpteen times, linking up to previous discussions and other material ... It is a help to me. Some of this stuff I need to read and re-read (when time allows) -- it takes longer for abstractions to "stick" in my brain (which is why I have a preference for story). I grok and concur with the…</p>
<p>Ed -- Thanks for that explanation on "metaphysical" versus "postmetaphysical." You are patient with people like me as well, taking the time to (yet again) explain ideas that you have already explained umpteen times, linking up to previous discussions and other material ... It is a help to me. Some of this stuff I need to read and re-read (when time allows) -- it takes longer for abstractions to "stick" in my brain (which is why I have a preference for story). I grok and concur with the "embodied realist" notion that we cannot have objective and absolute knowledge of the world-in-itself. And, as a contemplative, I savor approaches involving "unknowing" and and a trust in "mystery" -- I accept, and even embrace, the fact that I cannot "know" -- while simultaneously having some kind of inwardly "felt" access to what I cannot know. I "taste and see," but without knowing, without seeing anything "as it is." And that capacity -- that choice, actually, to trust and surrender to this tasting without knowing is part and parcel of what I call "faith." I choose faith in a mystery that flows both within and beyond thoughts, concepts, feelings, experiences. [Richard Rohr speaks of faith as "an initial opening of the heart or the mind space from our side ... our small but necessary offering to any new change or encounter."] But if I assert this kind of thing here, my sense is (on occasion, at least) that it's too close to regular old metaphysical / mystical concepts that must be "shed" to be properly postmeta.</p>
<p>FWIW, here's another Rohr quote that (kind of) expresses where I'm coming from: "Only abstract concepts and verbal dogmas contain the air of mathematical or divine perfection, but mystics do not primarily love concepts. They have had at least one significant encounter with the Divine, which is all it takes, and which they themselves cannot understand or describe in a clear concept .... Afterwards, such people are not rebels against anything except any attempts to block that kind of encounter for others." (I hasten to add, lest I'm misunderstood: I do not think that you are trying to block such encounters, Ed).</p>
<p>Bruce --I actually did not read that entire article that you linked to -- I couldn't find the button to make the pages rotate, which surprised me because I know I've seen it before. Probably means I have to update my software.</p>
<p>Anyway: My reflection about the puritanism among those searching for the perfect community of practitioners was not intended as a statement / judgment on what you're trying to do here with this forum. It was mostly meant as an example to illustrate my recurring hypersensitivity to what I'm perceiving (rightly or wrongly) as puritanism and perfectionism -- anywhere. I understand that this is a space for exploration, creative visioning, and inquiry -- and actually, I dig much of the wildness and "messiness" here. Where else would I find explorations of Caputo, Brian Swimme videos, prayers for Charlie Sheen, links to an integral monastery, mini-treatises on Lady Gaga, critiques of capitalism, great Panikkar excerpts, and existential <em>Star Wars</em> all in one place, after all?</p>
<p>And by the way, did you have your discussion with *Kendling today?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>*Kendling is what I'm gonna start calling KW here. It's intended to be suggestive of "kindling" -- the bits of wood that are used to start a fire -- and a bow to the one who has, in good part, sparked integral forums such as these. It's also intended as a term of endearment, because despite his flaws and shortcomings, I'm still quite fond of the fellow.</p>
<p> </p> In my understanding, elements…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-05-17:5301756:Comment:166042011-05-17T21:48:16.984ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
In my understanding, elements of both are involved.
In my understanding, elements of both are involved. Also, and once again, all of…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-05-17:5301756:Comment:166032011-05-17T19:30:54.672Zkelamunihttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/kelamuni
<p>Also, and once again, all of this depends on what we mean by "metaphysics." The logical positivists had attempted to do away with metaphysics, until it was shown that their position presupposed at least some form of metaphysics, or what Wittgenstein referred to as a linking up of propositions with "facts" and "factual reality."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And once again, I sense a kind of schizoid understanding of what we mean by post-metaphysics. For some it appears to mean simply that propositions be…</p>
<p>Also, and once again, all of this depends on what we mean by "metaphysics." The logical positivists had attempted to do away with metaphysics, until it was shown that their position presupposed at least some form of metaphysics, or what Wittgenstein referred to as a linking up of propositions with "facts" and "factual reality."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And once again, I sense a kind of schizoid understanding of what we mean by post-metaphysics. For some it appears to mean simply that propositions be linked with empirical experiences. But for others, the term refers to expunging or at least keeping in check the "philosophy of the subject," and/or "the philosophy of presence," and other pomo or post-structuralist concerns.</p>