Participatory Spirituality for the 21st Century
After much extended consideration I changed the name of my blog from Integral Postmetaphysical Enaction to the above. (Former blog postings in this thread.) It will still be at the same link. I've decided to change the name largely due to no longer having much interest in integral theory. Still some, but not enough to justify it in the name. I'm still interested in postmetaphysics, but who the hell has heard of that outside a select few eggheads? I am much more interested in motivating myself and others into participating with progressive ideals and enacting those policies in all domains. Keeping the old blog name was more than a bit off putting for that broader agenda. I'll keep the old name as a subtitle for now for those familiar with and searching for it. But my intent is to get more people involved in the hope of actually changing things for the better instead of engaging in interesting but mostly armchair speculations.
I retained the word enaction for a few reasons. It relates to specific philosophical models of embodied cognition (and/or realism) in which I'm still interested and will continue to write about. It is a progressive evolution over previous models highlighting our participation with co-creating our realities. Note the prefix co, indicating that though we participate the Real grounds and delimits that participation. But that's still egghead. Mostly because the word means creating law, which to me is the most effective way for us to implement our values in society. Hence a lot of my focus is on motivating us to participate in changing or creating laws aligned with progressive ideals.
The blog will still be the same except that the name will more accurately reflect what I've been doing here for the past several months. I hope the current audience will continue to read. And I hope the new name will attract new readers who are motivated to join me in participating in progressive ideals and enacting laws and structures to express that agenda.
Robert Reich on Labor Day. He does it again with another 2-minute+ video summarizing what we need to once again support US laborers, thereby creating an economy that works for all. The items he suggests have overwhelming public support. The 1% and their Congressional lackeys fight them at every turn. So keep in mind when you hit the voting booth who supports we the people and who does not. And choose your vote accordingly. Also consider signing his petition at the end of the video. Just click on the link.
In this video scientists have discovered a new supercluster of galaxies called Laniakea, of which the Milky Way is a peripheral part. They did so by observing how galaxies move in relation to each other and found that superclusters have a 'great attractor' at their center, which gravitationally binds the galaxies into these superclusters and determines their movement. It's very much like the strange attractors of dynamic systems theory. And the hyperobjects of ontocartography.
The Dalai Lama lets go of one myth in this story. He doesn't think there is any longer a need for the institution of Dalai Lama. At least he's let go of one myth, that of a necessary hero/leader. And that a more peer-to-peer structure is sufficient to carry on the tradition. He still believes in other myths though, like reincarnation. And that his dreams foretell the future. One myth at a time I guess.
It might be the surrendering of a myth, or it might be a calculated political move. Or both. I'm sure he recognizes China's intent to influence the next selection process and get a Dalai Lama more favorable to their agenda, and he may be attempting to forestall that.
Good point. It makes sense that the political consideration is a motivation since he's not giving up myth per se, still hanging on to others. I can't help but wonder though that his participation in the neuroscience studies with Thompson, and the latter's interpretations, aren't affecting him somewhat as well. DL, myth included, is still a smart cookie, even if a fortune cookie.
Ah, thank you for that, Joseph. I'm interested in this one (John Caputo and Catherine Keller will be teaching). I'm also interested in the ones on Spinoza and Deleuze...
Indeed. I've written quite a bit about Priest's paraconsistent logic. And how that relates to and in part refutes the MHC, as the latter depends on "naive set theory" with its metaphysical basis. And of course how this relates to the politics of those kinds of developmental models with said unconscious biases.
Joseph Camosy said:
The course "Formalism for Ontology and Politics" looks particularly interesting.
I appreciate this from CGAS's about page, indeed resonant with the focus in my blog: "Committed to ideas, art and justice for the oppressed. [...] We need each other to do this believing that banks and corporate interests should not continue to dictate the terms on which 'education' is determined. We want to create an education that is inclusive, democratic, and committed to justice for the oppressed." I'd add that I want to enact a political-economic system along the same lines.
Colbert on the Dalai Lama, or the DLam as he affectionately calls him.