Principles of Adjacency (draft) - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-29T11:16:42Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/principles-of-adjacency-draft?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A51184&xg_source=msg_com_forum&feed=yes&xn_auth=nothe perils of forums.
a few w…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-08-29:5301756:Comment:515092013-08-29T15:19:32.290ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>the perils of forums.</p>
<p>a few weeks ago i got two josephs mixed up and then took a principled stand declaring them to be the same person!</p>
<p>we are all josephs...</p>
<p>the perils of forums.</p>
<p>a few weeks ago i got two josephs mixed up and then took a principled stand declaring them to be the same person!</p>
<p>we are all josephs...</p> sorry, layman, i had just rea…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-08-28:5301756:Comment:515032013-08-28T22:33:09.406Zkelamunihttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/kelamuni
<p>sorry, layman, i had just read something by joseph. </p>
<p>sorry, layman, i had just read something by joseph. </p> Hey yourself, "joseph"
The as…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-08-26:5301756:Comment:511872013-08-26T14:56:45.415ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>Hey yourself, "joseph"</p>
<p>The assertion here is that nondualism is best and most accurately articulated as the variable phenomenon of same-difference. Traditional nondualism is a mixed bag of monists & tantrikas. That is to say, some invoke nonduality as an alternative to duality. Others observe that this duality is itself undone through nondualism -- and that duality is nonduality. This is one of the roots of the Metaphysics of Adjacency. It is a clarification of the nondual…</p>
<p>Hey yourself, "joseph"</p>
<p>The assertion here is that nondualism is best and most accurately articulated as the variable phenomenon of same-difference. Traditional nondualism is a mixed bag of monists & tantrikas. That is to say, some invoke nonduality as an alternative to duality. Others observe that this duality is itself undone through nondualism -- and that duality is nonduality. This is one of the roots of the Metaphysics of Adjacency. It is a clarification of the nondual principle which extends this common-aspect-of-sameness-and-difference throughout the "conditional world" as its structural organizing principle. </p>
<p>We are saying, in effect, that there is no way to prioritize either sameness or difference since they are fundamentally a single phenomenon. The separator is the connector. To say either is also to say the other. Any form of languaging which minimizes this difference is useful. </p>
<p>The ubiquity of multiplicity, say, is often a superior way of saying Oneness -- since it does not require a corollary opposite.</p>
<p>The intimate "adjacency" of sameness & difference varies such that it includes conditions ordinary described as different but also includes that state of optimal but potentially incomplete equivalence of same-difference in which we cannot find their seam of separation at all.</p>
<p>Variability should be emphasized in order to keep the join functioning of the conditional and unconditional reality in mind. When the alterity is forgotten then the spiritual experience of nonduality begins to feed into a philosophic approach which is beneath its contemporary dignity. Both variability AND ambiguity must anchor nondualism(ishness) in a post-post-modern approach. </p>
<p></p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>kelamuni said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/principles-of-adjacency-draft?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A51184&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment51184"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>yo, joseph: You say in (1.) that reality is a "variability of sameness and difference." Yet in (3.) you say that monism, dualism, and non-dualism are "not alternatives." Intuitively, this latter dictum sounds a bit like a bias toward monism/non-dualism. But, to add more to my aporias, since you speak of sameness AND difference in (1.), and also of "variability," does this not then already presuppose alterity and differance, and hence prioritize difference?</p>
<p>So which is it? Sameness or Difference? :-)</p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> yo, joseph: You say in (1.) t…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-08-26:5301756:Comment:511842013-08-26T02:05:39.975Zkelamunihttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/kelamuni
<p>yo, joseph: You say in (1.) that reality is a "variability of sameness and difference." Yet in (3.) you say that monism, dualism, and non-dualism are "not alternatives." Intuitively, this latter dictum sounds a bit like a bias toward monism/non-dualism. But, to add more to my aporias, since you speak of sameness AND difference in (1.), and also of "variability," does this not then already presuppose alterity and differance, and hence prioritize difference?</p>
<p>So which is it? Sameness or…</p>
<p>yo, joseph: You say in (1.) that reality is a "variability of sameness and difference." Yet in (3.) you say that monism, dualism, and non-dualism are "not alternatives." Intuitively, this latter dictum sounds a bit like a bias toward monism/non-dualism. But, to add more to my aporias, since you speak of sameness AND difference in (1.), and also of "variability," does this not then already presuppose alterity and differance, and hence prioritize difference?</p>
<p>So which is it? Sameness or Difference? :-)</p>
<p></p> Meanwhile, in an alternate --…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-07-14:5301756:Comment:500392013-07-14T22:51:15.010ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Meanwhile, in <a href="http://www.gizoogle.net/xfer.php?link=http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/principles-of-adjacency-draft&sa=U&ei=GSvjUbPSFMPMhAeM1YHICQ&ved=0CB0QFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGPWwf_NbCb5mbKoNHkL3tgKhWz4w" target="_blank">an alternate -- I mean, adjacent -- universe....</a></p>
<p>Meanwhile, in <a href="http://www.gizoogle.net/xfer.php?link=http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/principles-of-adjacency-draft&sa=U&ei=GSvjUbPSFMPMhAeM1YHICQ&ved=0CB0QFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGPWwf_NbCb5mbKoNHkL3tgKhWz4w" target="_blank">an alternate -- I mean, adjacent -- universe....</a></p> For example, principle 1 is a…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-07-13:5301756:Comment:497772013-07-13T00:33:41.497ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>For example, principle 1 is about the fundamental premise of same-difference or connective-separation. The latter pair is more suited to my purpose, as it exemplifies the relation between any 'two.' This could relate not just a philosophical axiom but practically to one person or two people (or more) in my above example. In practicing tai chi alone one is always playing with this ever-changing 'balance' between active and passive between parts of their body-mind, or substantial and…</p>
<p>For example, principle 1 is about the fundamental premise of same-difference or connective-separation. The latter pair is more suited to my purpose, as it exemplifies the relation between any 'two.' This could relate not just a philosophical axiom but practically to one person or two people (or more) in my above example. In practicing tai chi alone one is always playing with this ever-changing 'balance' between active and passive between parts of their body-mind, or substantial and insubstantial. And there are several of these balances going on at the same space-time, like between the two hands, the two feet, the head and feet, the front and back, etc. These complimentary parts are connected yet "clearly distinguished."</p>
<p>Where the resistance or pressure comes in is in the dynamic tension between them (principle 11). Note the preposition 'between.' It is what glues them together yet also keeps them apart like a generative (en)closure. I.e, they are adjacent, not one and not two, at least not exactly. This 4 ounces of resistance is strongly akin to any permeable boundary that is both open and closed, that not only separates one from another but also allows connection and communication with another. Hence the practice can also been done with another(s), which experience of working with another feeds back to working with oneself and vice-versa. The training requires both as an ongoing practice. Hence principle 10, for one is this practice is both/and/neither/nor one/two in oneself and with another.</p>
<p></p> To connect it to this thread,…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-07-12:5301756:Comment:497762013-07-12T23:06:41.242ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>To connect it to this thread, the last post relates specifically to principles 1 and 10.</p>
<p>To connect it to this thread, the last post relates specifically to principles 1 and 10.</p> Speaking of resistance, accor…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-07-12:5301756:Comment:498912013-07-12T21:20:00.317ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Speaking of resistance, according to the <a href="http://www.scheele.org/lee/classics.html" target="_blank">Tai Chi Classics</a> one can "using four ounces to deflect a thousand pounds." To do this one must "distinguish clearly between substantial and insubstantial." Both are accomplished via compression and leverage, both within one's body and by applying them to another body. Compression and leverage are accomplished by maintaining 4 ounces of resistance or pressure between them at all…</p>
<p>Speaking of resistance, according to the <a href="http://www.scheele.org/lee/classics.html" target="_blank">Tai Chi Classics</a> one can "using four ounces to deflect a thousand pounds." To do this one must "distinguish clearly between substantial and insubstantial." Both are accomplished via compression and leverage, both within one's body and by applying them to another body. Compression and leverage are accomplished by maintaining 4 ounces of resistance or pressure between them at all times and through all changes. Without this resistance our biomagnetic and biomechanical energy does not flow with enough force to move much of anything, much less a thousand pounds.This is also critical in partner dance connection/communication.</p> Bohr is a Bohrg. But resistan…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-07-12:5301756:Comment:499222013-07-12T20:59:17.048ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>Bohr is a <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/object-oriented-ontology?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A38249" target="_self">Bohrg</a>. But resistance is not only not futile <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/object-oriented-ontology?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A45431" target="_self">but necessary</a>.</p>
<p>Bohr is a <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/object-oriented-ontology?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A38249" target="_self">Bohrg</a>. But resistance is not only not futile <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/object-oriented-ontology?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A45431" target="_self">but necessary</a>.</p> This is marvelous -- style fi…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2013-07-12:5301756:Comment:497632013-07-12T16:59:14.195ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>This is marvelous -- style fitted to content. Also I thank you for using the term "MOA-constrictor" which is often in my heart but too seldom in my typing.</p>
<p>As any theory rises in complexity we expect it to fall increasingly under the description of something like an MOA... regardless of its genre. Physics is a great example because, like philosophy, it is an area in which the boundaries of the conceivable have been pressed into the space of their own apparent limits.</p>
<p>As you…</p>
<p>This is marvelous -- style fitted to content. Also I thank you for using the term "MOA-constrictor" which is often in my heart but too seldom in my typing.</p>
<p>As any theory rises in complexity we expect it to fall increasingly under the description of something like an MOA... regardless of its genre. Physics is a great example because, like philosophy, it is an area in which the boundaries of the conceivable have been pressed into the space of their own apparent limits.</p>
<p>As you say, there is a comfortable kinship between MOA-1 and multiple universes. It is tricksy to guess who gets how much further "up" and fascinating to see the resonances these moves have with the life and temperaments of the individuals. To mention De Broglie, whom I love, always bring the spirit of Einstein closer... </p>
<p>The promise of MOA is that it should give us the experimental and philosophical power of Bohr's complementarity with the harmony and adequate "realness" of Einstein's universe. To grasp those as one-ish is a task too often mention and too seldom attempted...</p>