Sophia Speaks - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-29T08:36:35Zhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/sophia-speaks?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A57230&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThanks Joe,
The two-axis char…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-03:5301756:Comment:572492014-07-03T18:06:23.184ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>Thanks Joe,</p>
<p>The two-axis chart is probably too much for an introduction (given the level of people who are telling me that they are using this "dictionary") but I have incorporated some of your phrasings into the definitions in the <a href="http://doowikis.com/m/4bcYIXTZG0" target="_blank">archetype entry</a>.</p>
<p><br></br> <br></br> <cite>Joseph Camosy said:…</cite></p>
<p>Thanks Joe,</p>
<p>The two-axis chart is probably too much for an introduction (given the level of people who are telling me that they are using this "dictionary") but I have incorporated some of your phrasings into the definitions in the <a href="http://doowikis.com/m/4bcYIXTZG0" target="_blank">archetype entry</a>.</p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>Joseph Camosy said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/sophia-speaks?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A57247&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment57247"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p><br/> Off the top of my head, I would say...</p>
<p>One way to organize these different "types" could be to place them on a chart with two axes. The Y-axis going from one to many indicating whether the form encompass a singleness of form or a multiplicity of form. The X-axis indicating the fluidity (abstraction) or rigidity (concreteness) of the form. </p>
<p></p>
<p>So with this in mind we would have:</p>
<ul>
<li>Archetype would then be in the UL quadrant. (single and abstract)</li>
<li>Stereotype would be in the LL quad. (multiple and abstract) A cookie-cutter of conflated traits cobbled together into an amalgam that can be used to stamp out multiple copies.</li>
<li>Caricature would be in the LR quad. (multiple and concrete). A stereotype, instantiated into an individual character.</li>
<li>Prototype in the UR quad (single and concrete), an actual exemplar of a particular trait or archetypal characteristic.</li>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Joe</p>
<p></p>
<p><br/> <cite>Layman Pascal said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/sophia-speaks?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A57067&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment57067"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Hey Joe,</p>
<blockquote><p><span> isomorphic forms that can be found across all domains and which thus can act as a bridge to analogical knowledge. In other words, through these isomorphic forms, knowledge in one domain can be applied analogically to another domain.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm speaking specifically of the entry on archetypes in the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://doowikis.com/m/1RvIG4x5Fk" target="_blank">"Christmas Wiki"</a>. I want the definitions to make a fairly succinct but already reasonably comprehensive distinction between different types of isomorphic topological forms -- arche-types, stereo-types, proto-types & caricatures are the four classes that I have needed to mobilize so far. However I am not yet satisfied with the definitions laid down in my first pass through. If you have any old or new insights that you would like to see in a simplified definition let me know. </p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Off the top of my head, I wo…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-03:5301756:Comment:572472014-07-03T17:11:04.808ZJoseph Camosyhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/JosephCamosy
<p><br></br> Off the top of my head, I would say...</p>
<p>One way to organize these different "types" could be to place them on a chart with two axes. The Y-axis going from one to many indicating whether the form encompass a singleness of form or a multiplicity of form. The X-axis indicating the fluidity (abstraction) or rigidity (concreteness) of the form. </p>
<p></p>
<p>So with this in mind we would have:</p>
<ul>
<li>Archetype would then be in the UL quadrant. (single and…</li>
</ul>
<p><br/> Off the top of my head, I would say...</p>
<p>One way to organize these different "types" could be to place them on a chart with two axes. The Y-axis going from one to many indicating whether the form encompass a singleness of form or a multiplicity of form. The X-axis indicating the fluidity (abstraction) or rigidity (concreteness) of the form. </p>
<p></p>
<p>So with this in mind we would have:</p>
<ul>
<li>Archetype would then be in the UL quadrant. (single and abstract)</li>
<li>Stereotype would be in the LL quad. (multiple and abstract) A cookie-cutter of conflated traits cobbled together into an amalgam that can be used to stamp out multiple copies.</li>
<li>Caricature would be in the LR quad. (multiple and concrete). A stereotype, instantiated into an individual character.</li>
<li>Prototype in the UR quad (single and concrete), an actual exemplar of a particular trait or archetypal characteristic.</li>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Joe</p>
<p></p>
<p><br/> <cite>Layman Pascal said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/sophia-speaks?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A57067&xg_source=msg_com_forum#5301756Comment57067"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Hey Joe,</p>
<blockquote><p><span> isomorphic forms that can be found across all domains and which thus can act as a bridge to analogical knowledge. In other words, through these isomorphic forms, knowledge in one domain can be applied analogically to another domain.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm speaking specifically of the entry on archetypes in the <a href="http://doowikis.com/m/1RvIG4x5Fk" target="_blank">"Christmas Wiki"</a>. I want the definitions to make a fairly succinct but already reasonably comprehensive distinction between different types of isomorphic topological forms -- arche-types, stereo-types, proto-types & caricatures are the four classes that I have needed to mobilize so far. However I am not yet satisfied with the definitions laid down in my first pass through. If you have any old or new insights that you would like to see in a simplified definition let me know. </p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Hey Joe,
isomorphic forms th…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-03:5301756:Comment:570672014-07-03T15:22:25.033ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>Hey Joe,</p>
<blockquote><p><span> isomorphic forms that can be found across all domains and which thus can act as a bridge to analogical knowledge. In other words, through these isomorphic forms, knowledge in one domain can be applied analogically to another domain.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm speaking specifically of the entry on archetypes in the <a href="http://doowikis.com/m/1RvIG4x5Fk" target="_blank">"Christmas Wiki"</a>. I want the definitions to make a fairly succinct but…</p>
<p>Hey Joe,</p>
<blockquote><p><span> isomorphic forms that can be found across all domains and which thus can act as a bridge to analogical knowledge. In other words, through these isomorphic forms, knowledge in one domain can be applied analogically to another domain.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm speaking specifically of the entry on archetypes in the <a href="http://doowikis.com/m/1RvIG4x5Fk" target="_blank">"Christmas Wiki"</a>. I want the definitions to make a fairly succinct but already reasonably comprehensive distinction between different types of isomorphic topological forms -- arche-types, stereo-types, proto-types & caricatures are the four classes that I have needed to mobilize so far. However I am not yet satisfied with the definitions laid down in my first pass through. If you have any old or new insights that you would like to see in a simplified definition let me know. </p>
<p></p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>Joseph Camosy said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/sophia-speaks?page=2&commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A57241&x=1#5301756Comment57241"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Layman,</p>
<p></p>
<p>Bring me up to speed here. "When you write "make sure gets mentioned," was this in reference to some document being developed? </p>
<p></p>
<p>As far as archetypes, etc.. I would instead present these as isomorphic forms that can be found across all domains and which thus can act as a bridge to analogical knowledge. In other words, through these isomorphic forms, knowledge in one domain can be applied analogically to another domain.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'm on the verge of "cracking the code" of Lacanian theory using this approach. In mapping from the Borromean Rings to a topology where SIX is a prominent feature, one innovation is required, and I find Kristeva lends support to my innovation with her concept of "The Semiotic." Here's a quote from <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lacan.com/kristeva.htm" target="_blank">http://www.lacan.com/kristeva.htm</a> (emphasis mine): "She proposes a "new" semiotics, which she terms semiology or semanalysis, in which meaning is conceived of as a <strong>signifying process</strong> rather than a sign system. "</p>
<p></p>
<p>Aristotle, Heidegger, Lacan, Wilber, the Parts of Speech, etc.. they all can be mapped isomorphically on to one topology.</p>
<p><br/> <cite>Layman Pascal said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/sophia-speaks?xg_source=msg_com_forum&id=5301756%3ATopic%3A51306&page=2#5301756Comment57064"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Joseph,</p>
<p>Anything you would like to make sure gets mentioned in the entries on "archetypes" "stereotypes" "prototypes" etc.?</p>
<p></p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>Joseph Camosy said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/sophia-speaks?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A57060#5301756Comment57230"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Morphological?</p>
<p></p>
<p>From the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28linguistics%29" target="_blank">Wikki</a>: (emphasis mine)</p>
<blockquote><p>In linguistics, morphology is the identification, analysis, and description of the structure of a given language's morphemes and other linguistic units, such as root words, affixes, <strong>parts of speech</strong>, intonations and stresses, or implied context. In contrast, morphological typology is the classification of languages according to their use of morphemes, while lexicology is the study of those words forming a language's wordstock.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Layman,
Bring me up to speed…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-03:5301756:Comment:572412014-07-03T05:19:31.692ZJoseph Camosyhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/JosephCamosy
<p>Layman,</p>
<p></p>
<p>Bring me up to speed here. "When you write "make sure gets mentioned," was this in reference to some document being developed? </p>
<p></p>
<p>As far as archetypes, etc.. I would instead present these as isomorphic forms that can be found across all domains and which thus can act as a bridge to analogical knowledge. In other words, through these isomorphic forms, knowledge in one domain can be applied analogically to another domain.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'm on the verge…</p>
<p>Layman,</p>
<p></p>
<p>Bring me up to speed here. "When you write "make sure gets mentioned," was this in reference to some document being developed? </p>
<p></p>
<p>As far as archetypes, etc.. I would instead present these as isomorphic forms that can be found across all domains and which thus can act as a bridge to analogical knowledge. In other words, through these isomorphic forms, knowledge in one domain can be applied analogically to another domain.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'm on the verge of "cracking the code" of Lacanian theory using this approach. In mapping from the Borromean Rings to a topology where SIX is a prominent feature, one innovation is required, and I find Kristeva lends support to my innovation with her concept of "The Semiotic." Here's a quote from <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lacan.com/kristeva.htm" target="_blank">http://www.lacan.com/kristeva.htm</a> (emphasis mine): "She proposes a "new" semiotics, which she terms semiology or semanalysis, in which meaning is conceived of as a <strong>signifying process</strong> rather than a sign system. "</p>
<p></p>
<p>Aristotle, Heidegger, Lacan, Wilber, the Parts of Speech, etc.. they all can be mapped isomorphically on to one topology.</p>
<p><br/> <cite>Layman Pascal said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/sophia-speaks?xg_source=msg_com_forum&id=5301756%3ATopic%3A51306&page=2#5301756Comment57064"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Joseph,</p>
<p>Anything you would like to make sure gets mentioned in the entries on "archetypes" "stereotypes" "prototypes" etc.?</p>
<p></p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>Joseph Camosy said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/sophia-speaks?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A57060#5301756Comment57230"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Morphological?</p>
<p></p>
<p>From the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28linguistics%29" target="_blank">Wikki</a>: (emphasis mine)</p>
<blockquote><p>In linguistics, morphology is the identification, analysis, and description of the structure of a given language's morphemes and other linguistic units, such as root words, affixes, <strong>parts of speech</strong>, intonations and stresses, or implied context. In contrast, morphological typology is the classification of languages according to their use of morphemes, while lexicology is the study of those words forming a language's wordstock.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> I don't see image schema in t…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-03:5301756:Comment:571622014-07-03T02:30:05.182ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>I don't see image schema in the wiki, so not sure if you plan to include them. I obviously think they are pivotal for an IPS, given a strong attraction for embodied cognitive linguistics in the forum. And in regard to archetypes, recall Knox's contention that image schema are the modern equivalent of archetypes (like <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/james-hillman?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A47461" target="_self">here</a> and a few posts following).</p>
<p>More…</p>
<p>I don't see image schema in the wiki, so not sure if you plan to include them. I obviously think they are pivotal for an IPS, given a strong attraction for embodied cognitive linguistics in the forum. And in regard to archetypes, recall Knox's contention that image schema are the modern equivalent of archetypes (like <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/james-hillman?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A47461" target="_self">here</a> and a few posts following).</p>
<p>More references can be found by searching for Knox and image schema in the upper right search box.</p> Joseph,
Anything you would li…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-02:5301756:Comment:570642014-07-02T21:35:57.409ZLayman Pascalhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LaymanPascal
<p>Joseph,</p>
<p>Anything you would like to make sure gets mentioned in the entries on "archetypes" "stereotypes" "prototypes" etc.?</p>
<p></p>
<p><br></br> <br></br> <cite>Joseph Camosy said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/sophia-speaks?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A57060#5301756Comment57230"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Morphological?</p>
<p></p>
<p>From the…</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Joseph,</p>
<p>Anything you would like to make sure gets mentioned in the entries on "archetypes" "stereotypes" "prototypes" etc.?</p>
<p></p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>Joseph Camosy said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/sophia-speaks?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A57060#5301756Comment57230"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Morphological?</p>
<p></p>
<p>From the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28linguistics%29" target="_blank">Wikki</a>: (emphasis mine)</p>
<blockquote><p>In linguistics, morphology is the identification, analysis, and description of the structure of a given language's morphemes and other linguistic units, such as root words, affixes, <strong>parts of speech</strong>, intonations and stresses, or implied context. In contrast, morphological typology is the classification of languages according to their use of morphemes, while lexicology is the study of those words forming a language's wordstock.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Yes, with these emphases and…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-01:5301756:Comment:571572014-07-01T21:01:50.620ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Yes, with these emphases and also its cross-disciplinary scope, I think this book may be helpful for future papers.</p>
<p>For GPS, alternate meanings: grammatical philosophy system, grammatical positioning system, global positioning system, global grammatical positioning system, etc.</p>
<p>Yes, with these emphases and also its cross-disciplinary scope, I think this book may be helpful for future papers.</p>
<p>For GPS, alternate meanings: grammatical philosophy system, grammatical positioning system, global positioning system, global grammatical positioning system, etc.</p> There is a free Google book p…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-01:5301756:Comment:572342014-07-01T20:51:42.872ZEdward theurj Bergehttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>There is a free Google book preview <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=glc_bFDmOMEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ontolinguistics&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vhyzU7m6H8yjyAT-tYHwAg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ontolinguistics&f=false" target="_blank">here</a>. I see chapters by Gallese and Talmy, two researchers of embodied cognitive linguistics I mentioned in…</p>
<p>There is a free Google book preview <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=glc_bFDmOMEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ontolinguistics&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vhyzU7m6H8yjyAT-tYHwAg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ontolinguistics&f=false" target="_blank">here</a>. I see chapters by Gallese and Talmy, two researchers of embodied cognitive linguistics I mentioned in <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/sophia-speaks-bruce-alderman?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A57233" target="_self">the other thread</a>.</p>
<p>I like Integral GPS, as it globally positions those systems.</p> I thought of the term, onto-l…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-01:5301756:Comment:570612014-07-01T20:26:24.964ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>I thought of the term, onto-linguistics, and Googling it I just found the following, which looks interesting for my project: <a href="http://www.degruyter.com/view/product/36517" target="_blank">Ontolinguistics</a>. </p>
<p>Grammontology</p>
<p>Logosophy, Grammosophy, Grammatosophy</p>
<p>Given Integral's use of techological terms, such as operating system (OS), maybe something like Integral GPS (grammitico-philosophical system).</p>
<p>I thought of the term, onto-linguistics, and Googling it I just found the following, which looks interesting for my project: <a href="http://www.degruyter.com/view/product/36517" target="_blank">Ontolinguistics</a>. </p>
<p>Grammontology</p>
<p>Logosophy, Grammosophy, Grammatosophy</p>
<p>Given Integral's use of techological terms, such as operating system (OS), maybe something like Integral GPS (grammitico-philosophical system).</p> Hmm, I do like that. I was t…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2014-07-01:5301756:Comment:569952014-07-01T19:08:04.867ZBalderhttp://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Hmm, I do like that. I was thinking about something that would indicate a generative/enactive or creative element.</p>
<p>Hmm, I do like that. I was thinking about something that would indicate a generative/enactive or creative element.</p>