Balder,

I have been investing a little time in establishing this Christmas Wiki to serve as both a community reference and model of my own understanding.  I've been getting a lot of feedback and requests for definitions.  I was just asked to add SPACE and TIME (which I did) but I thought you might want to take a peek from your TSK, tsk, perspective and see if you can life with my definitions.

Likewise anyone in this community should feel free to message me or email me with suggestions for terms to be defined or modifications to existing definitions.

Views: 488

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

So I added KENNILINGUS (Theurj may want to check on that).

I also intend to add an entry on Bruce's grammatical approach to integrative theology -- but which single term does he think is popular/useful enough to be the "one" term?

Kennilingus is aptly described and duly attributed. "Quasi-crude" made me smile. Although I think you meant to use the term 'contexualize' in that sentence? And I do not capitalize 'theurj,' since it is an improper noun, so to speak.

two small changes made -- thanks.

It is also partly inspired by the infamous Wyatt Earp affair where the Lingam said "suck my dick" to his critics. Which ironically is basically what his acolytes do, and what is required of them in terms of vomiting kennilingus verbatim to be confirmed in the catechism. And my theurjisms and criticisms have pretty much been reduced to projective shadow-boxing/hugging in this Lingam post, the paragraph on the guy (me) who told I-I's university associates to use caution given the Wyatt Earp posts.

I'm diggin' your wiki glossary, Layman.  Some great entries in there.  (I really liked your definition of the Many-One). 

Your entries on time and space seem workable to me, although (perhaps fittingly) your description of space sounds a bit to me the way TSK would define time.  TSK distinguishes between conventional space and time, in which the former is associated with extension and the latter with succession, and more refined understandings/experiences.  Space as extension is seen, for instance, as one limited expression of space as 'allowingness'-for-manifestation (which is deeper or more basic than extended space-and-objects or non-extended mind-and-thought).  The 'series' or sequential flow (or 'momentariness') of time are similarly challenged; for ex., time becomes, at the second level, an embodying process which unfolds past-present-future constellations according to different tempos and patterns.  Here's what TSK says about level-three time:  "When fully appreciated, Great Time is seen to be a kind of perfectly liquid, lubricious dimension -– it is quintessentially 'slippery'. For this reason -– although there seems to be movement and separate places to move to on the first level, and still more open, fluid possibilities of movement on the second level -– on the third level there is no 'going' and no separate places. It is as though all the friction in the world were removed –- nothing can then walk away from anything else. So, from a third level view, an eternity of 'straying' still leaves us very much `at home', intimately united" (p. 162, TSK).

I'd be honored if you included something about my grammar philosophy in your Christmas Wiki.  I have been searching for a sexy name for this project and haven't settled on a final one yet.

Some terms I've used or considered:

Integral Grammatology

Grammatico-theology (and grammatico-philosophy)

The Six Views (which summarizes the six primary part-of-speech-based ontological views or philosophemes I explore in Sophia Speaks)

And then I have two terms I use to define what I am doing with the grammatical philosophemes:

Heno-ontology

Onto-choreography

Maybe I'll do a little brainstorming (and poll-taking) on the Sophia Speaks thread.

A very light version of "heno-ontology", "onto-choreography" and integral grammatology are now included -- and connected to "grammar theology".  That latter is not necessarily sexy but it is pretty straight-up.  I'd like to get a little more detailed and stylized on a re-edit so let me know what feels essential.

I like your first-pass definitions.  I'll think about what to add or tweak.  Given the stronger focus on embodied cognitive linguistics than on Chomsky's generative grammar in my paper, I think you should include the former in your list of convergent philosophical elements or influences.

I'm not sure if you've seen it, but we have about 8 posts' worth of brainstorming on a proper name for the grammar philosophy approach, starting here.  I haven't found a definite winner yet.  I don't think I'm going to go with Integral Grammatology (the primary meaning of grammatology is a study of writing, not grammar), so I will ask you to update that once I decide on a term. 

One of the suggestions was similar to your grammar theology, and is an unsexy but straightforward term I used in my paper:  grammar philosophy.  So, one option could be just integral grammar philosophy.

One more stylized name I came up with, in line with the Integral notion of the Integral Operating System (iOS), was iGPS (which could be short for integral grammatical philosophy system, integral grammatical positioning system, integral global positioning system, integral global grammatical positioning system, integral grammatico-philo-sophy, or integral grammar philosophy-- take your pick).

I'm still working on it....

Oh, also, on your Grammar Theology entry, you have my name as Alderson but it should be Alderman.

doh -- so many entries!  Alderson was my Computer Science teacher years ago. Fascinating guy.  Used to do theory in the "Western Civ" class and so our algorithms on the chalk board would have behind them very  faint and spectral, half-erased messages about the Holy Grail, etc.

iGPS is catching (though I'm not sure small "i"s will stand the test of time).  I mention Chomsky in order to populist and set a big open space for various approaches to grammatics.  The "embodied cognitive grammar" should play a bigger role in the heno- and onto- definitions, I think -- in order to make it clear that your approach leans more in that direction.

Balder said:

I like your first-pass definitions.  I'll think about what to add or tweak.  Given the stronger focus on embodied cognitive linguistics than on Chomsky's generative grammar in my paper, I think you should include the former in your list of convergent philosophical elements or influences.

I'm not sure if you've seen it, but we have about 8 posts' worth of brainstorming on a proper name for the grammar philosophy approach, starting here.  I haven't found a definite winner yet.  I don't think I'm going to go with Integral Grammatology (the primary meaning of grammatology is a study of writing, not grammar), so I will ask you to update that once I decide on a term. 

One of the suggestions was similar to your grammar theology, and is an unsexy but straightforward term I used in my paper:  grammar philosophy.  So, one option could be just integral grammar philosophy.

One more stylized name I came up with, in line with the Integral notion of the Integral Operating System (iOS), was iGPS (which could be short for integral grammatical philosophy system, integral grammatical positioning system, integral global positioning system, integral global grammatical positioning system, integral grammatico-philo-sophy, or integral grammar philosophy-- take your pick).

I'm still working on it....

"iGPS is catching (though I'm not sure small 'i's will stand the test of time)."

Hello, iPod has been around since '01. iTunes even longer.

Yeah, and the actual letter "i" has been around even longer!  Some say it even predates Steve Jobs but scholars are divided on the issue...

Reply to Discussion

RSS

What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2019   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service