Sophia Speaks

[Balder]

Now that the presentation has been given and the paper is available on the MetaIntegral website, I would like (per theurj's suggestion) to open a thread dedicated to this topic.

An excerpt from the intro:

"In an article advocating for a more verbal, process-oriented reading of Integral Theory, ... Bonnitta Roy (2006) has noted that the first-, second-, and third-person lenses at the center of the Integral model are insufficient, in themselves, to disclose the deeper metaphysical view in and through which first-, second-, or third-person research is pursued and articulated.  In particular, these lenses alone cannot account for the different territories enacted by structural or process-oriented metaphysics.  In contrasting her preferred 'pure process' view with the commonly nounal character of substance metaphysics and structuralist orientations, she emphasizes the need to shift to a more verb-centered language.  We will return to her specific arguments about this later in the chapter, when we are reviewing various verb-oriented metaphysics; for now, I would like only to note that we already have, here, the suggestion of at least three possible grammatical-philosophical approaches: a pronoun-centered perspectival epistemology, a noun-centered metaphysics of things or structures, and a verb-centered metaphysics of processes or events.  But, while Roy (2006) emphasizes that the structural and process views are deeper than the perspectival lenses that comprise the quadrants, and thus are not explicitly disclosed by them, I will argue that all are also related in that each employs and organizes itself around a particular grammatical category or metaphor.

In this chapter, then, I would like to review a number of the major philosophical approaches or metaphysical systems that have developed around each of six basic grammatical categories:  pronouns, nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, and prepositions.  As I have already suggested above, these approaches range from various perspectival epistemologies, to substance, process, or relational metaphysics, among others.  When considering these systems alongside one another, we may be led, in integral fashion, to perceive each as true but partial:  as necessarily limited in scope, but still delivering important and irreducible truths.  In this way, I hope to demonstrate the merit of expanding the Integral model beyond its pronoun focus, to enact a broader integrative approach employing multiple grammatical lenses.  But as I will discuss below, each grammatical-philosophical system in itself can also be a site for integral theorizing:  just as the pronouns can be used as a base to construct a broadly integrative model, so can nouns, verbs, or other grammatical elements.  As we will see, both object-oriented (nounal) and process-oriented (verbal) philosophical systems, for instance, have already realized their own integral formulations.  Thus, the six grammatical lenses or philosophemes I will introduce here can be understood from two perspectives at once: collectively, as true-but-partial elements of any comprehensive philosophical system; and individually, as unique, generative centers around which a number of philosophical models and emergent integrative meta-theories have been organized.

With these distinctions in mind, I will introduce two new terms to frame and guide our explorations: onto-choreography and heno-ontology.  I will save fuller discussion of the former term until the end of the paper, when I will review the ground we have covered and will reflect on various integrative meta-theories that have been proposed, but in brief: by onto-choreography, I mean the integrative task of weighting and coordinating the grammatical elements or philosophemes into various metaphysical systems.  How do these ontological elements dance together in the different philosophical models we will consider here?  This question is related also to the second term I have coined, heno-ontology, by which I mean a meta-philosophical approach which allows for metaphysical pluralism, both across stages of development and even at the same level of development.  As in henotheism, where multiple gods are recognized, but only one might be worshipped at a given time as supreme, depending on the circumstance or the proclivities of the devotee, I intend here to evoke an ambiguous field of multiple possible ontologies and integrative lenses, a chthonic matrix with a shifting absolute (which, in each ‘form’ that it manifests, may be seen to enfold in its own way certain of the qualities of the other ‘deities’).  This is not an argument for the full equality of each choice of metaphysical or ontological center, however, or of the integrative models they may support.  Each has its weaknesses as well as strengths, and I will review a number of them in the discussion to come.  But rather than arguing for the ultimate superiority of one metaphysical or integrative model over all others, I prefer to adopt a meta-metaphysical, heno-ontological approach:  a robust, speculative, experimental form of philosophical engagement which does not shy away from, but rather embraces and enacts, metaphysical pluralism."

[Layman Pascal]

Hey Joe,

 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.

I'm speaking specifically of the entry on archetypes in the "Christmas Wiki". 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.  

Joseph Camosy said:

Layman,

Bring me up to speed here.  "When you write "make sure gets mentioned,"  was this in reference to some document being developed? 

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.

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 http://www.lacan.com/kristeva.htm (emphasis mine):  "She proposes a "new" semiotics, which she terms semiology or semanalysis, in which meaning is conceived of as a signifying process rather than a sign system. "

Aristotle, Heidegger, Lacan, Wilber, the Parts of Speech, etc.. they all can be mapped isomorphically on to one topology.

Layman Pascal said:

Joseph,

Anything you would like to make sure gets mentioned in the entries on "archetypes" "stereotypes" "prototypes" etc.?

Joseph Camosy said:

Morphological?

From the Wikki: (emphasis mine)

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, parts of speech, 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.

[Joseph Camosy]

Off the top of my head, I would say...

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. 

So with this in mind we would have:

• Archetype would then be in the UL quadrant. (single and abstract)
• 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.
• Caricature would be in the LR quad. (multiple and concrete).  A stereotype, instantiated into an individual character.
• Prototype in the UR quad (single and concrete), an actual exemplar of a particular trait or archetypal characteristic.

Joe

Layman Pascal said:

Hey Joe,

 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.

I'm speaking specifically of the entry on archetypes in the "Christmas Wiki". 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.  

[Layman Pascal]

Thanks Joe,

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 archetype entry.

Joseph Camosy said:

Off the top of my head, I would say...

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. 

So with this in mind we would have:

• Archetype would then be in the UL quadrant. (single and abstract)
• 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.
• Caricature would be in the LR quad. (multiple and concrete).  A stereotype, instantiated into an individual character.
• Prototype in the UR quad (single and concrete), an actual exemplar of a particular trait or archetypal characteristic.

Joe

Layman Pascal said:

Hey Joe,

 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.

I'm speaking specifically of the entry on archetypes in the "Christmas Wiki". 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.