Participatory Spirituality for the 21st Century
This is related to some questions we're currently having in the OOO thread on correlationism but I decided to start a new thread focusing on this author. Tom Murray has some new articles at this page, one of which is “Embodied realisms and integral ontologies.” Therein he quotes Wilber from IS, p. 252.
“…all objects are first and foremost perspectives. NOT 'are seen from perspectives,' but ARE perspectives…there is no 'apart from' how a thing appears…'things' do not exist in a pregiven world.”
Murray then asks:
“There are several assumptions or implications here. The idea that our perception of the nature of objects, and even their appearance as objects, is constructed by our mental apparatus is generally accepted. But this quote leaves open the question of whether perspectives exist in a pregiven world (and whether they might reasonably be considered 'things'—which would lead to a contradiction).... Are perspectives then things that humans have/use, or are they fundamental components of the world? Wilber's claim that 'there is no apart from how a thing appears' seems to be taking the non-realist (or radical socialconstructivist) position that a world 'out there' does not exist.... Wilber's claim also appears to fall prey to what Roy Bhaskar calls the epistemic fallacy.... Yet in the larger context of his body of his work Wilber does not take a radically anti-realist or social constructivist position (nor fall prey to the epistemic fallacy)" (3).
As Mike Meyers' character from SNL's Coffee Talk used to say, “discuss amongst yourselves.”
Compare the following in the section "are categories in nature" with my linked post above:
"My current interpretation of Bhaskar's 'categories are real' is that the categories we perceive (and enact) are not arbitrary and that they arise from mechanisms, processes, and structures in the Real. Nature does not produce trees vs. shrubs—it does not contain these human-invented categories. But there is something in nature (having to do with how genetics and reproduction work) that clusters
living objects with similar properties, such that our perception of the world as containing trees and
shrubs is mostly accurate. [...] Yet, to follow Embodied Realism, any category that we actually have or use, such as tree or force, can only be an approximation of what exists in nature. It is misplaced concreteness to assume that objects in nature are constrained to manifest according to any known
category — though we can assume that nature produces different types of things and thus contains
I'd also suggest the OOOers and SRealists like Bryant, DeLanda, and other embodied realists like Varela, Thompson and Clark, as well as post-structuralists like Derrida and Caputo, add to this discussion with autopoiesis, dynamic systems, extended mind and differance. All of which have been explored in the forum with regard to the very nature of Murray's inquiry.
Murry has a paper called "Mystical claims and embodied knowledge in a post-metaphysical age," apparently presented at the '13 ITC conference.
Yes, this is in queue for our ITC paper discussions; I've been looking forward to getting to it. (I started looking yesterday at the next one in line, by Wight, in anticipation of getting those discussions going again now that the busy-ness of the past two months has subsided).
A few quick comments on the last paper. Murray is critical of the metaphysical claims and language used by kennilinguists. And that such claims and language do not take account of the indeterministic factors he discusses. And he states that "in the postmetaphysical milieu we can no longer allow for the possibility of direct contact with 'reality' or 'true knowledge' by some privileged few" (18).
Yet we must nonetheless allow for the validity of one's feelings and perceptions of mystical states, which may not be amenable to rational or scientific analysis. While he argues for postmetaphysical notions of fallibility of belief on the one hand he seems to want to allow it on the other, with no way to adjudicate false from valid claims. And that is the postmetaphysical project, to indeed judge claims to direct experience to ultimate reality as metaphysical and thereby false. We need better ways to discern what exactly these mystical experiences are as yes, fallible best guesses for now open to revision. But they are better guesses than the metaphysical claims in a progression of worldview development.
Along that line see the thread on states, whichs attempt such a postmetaphysical recontexualization that honors the experiences but not the metaphysical interpretations. Also my thread on states and stages is another such attempt.
Balder posted in FB on this MetaIntegral interview of Tom Murray:
In this interview, guest host Sean Esbjörn-Hargens talked to Tom Murray of Perspegrity Solutions about his exploratory research on using automated text analysis to assess group developmental levels. Tom has teamed up with Suzanne Cook-Greuter and Terri O'Fallon to better understand how to do this effectively and accurately. Tom is a longtime member of the Integral community and a recent grant recipient through the MetaIntegral Foundation.
I'm wondering though if they take certain words for granted to represent different memes. Some of us use terms in different or unique ways that may fall through such standardized cracks. And with what standard or perspective are such words assigned to memes? What meme are the terms assholon or kennilingus, just MGM?
Balder: I won't have time to listen to this till this afternoon, so I don't know yet what Tom says in it, but in Terri's work on individual developmental assessment, I understand she assesses grammatical patterns in speech more than individual vocabulary words.
Me: I skimmed Murray's paper just now and got that impression as well. My first thought was that there are those who have advanced grammatical and rhetorical skill who are still regressive psychopaths. Frank Luntz, Paul Ryan and turd blossom Carl Rove come immediately to mind.
Comments like 'turd blossom' will only get you metric'd to the back of the integral class with a dunce cap on ! I apologize in advance for lowering the metric of this group:(
dzxs ayxtxong wtzhsn trfs myturc account for psychopathology?
I guess this was inevitable and a part of the MIP CIV.
As should be obvious by now, I no longer give one damn how I'm measured by some metaphysical stick.
I'm with you Sir!
Reading through a couple of Murray's papers. There certainly appears to be a group of relatively healthy 1%'ers.; which is completely consistent with my 'right hand of god ' metaphor (for the moment we won't talk about the lying 1% left handers like Mr. Blair who recently conceded one very tiny deception among very many done by his cabal over the past 500 years.) It should be noted that I don't hold an hysterical view of these 'evil' actors as they are performing their part in the universal 'passion play ', or so to speak.
Anyway, in one of the papers he makes a good point about the discrepancy between competence and performance and I immediately thought of ACP . At what point is civilzation going to run out of time for any competent performance in addressing the ability to change direction before climatic chaos minimizes our ability to act? And from the developmental perspective why do those who hold these views think it is possible to move 5 billion more people up to orange in the next 50 years (specifically how they live in the right quads). It seems to me there may be a bias towards complexity( we can solve complex problems via out techno prowess ) in the Integral community rather than a pragmatic move to simple living for the larger demographic of the earths population . BTW: I don't believe this needs to be a choice between income and unemployment . We could turn automobile factories into Tiny House production facilities and such.