Hi Bruce, I had a message posted on my wall by a new member, James Pollard, asking me to contact him by email with a vague message that sounds like phishing to me. He's listed as a new member, from Ghana, but I thought the group was full at this time. Is it possible the forum has been hacked?
Bruce, Is this old email address still one that you have or use?
I sent you a copy of most recent draft of the book Your Third Nature which I'm working on (118 pages into it). I further developed my flare/self model. Explore many "gray areas" between quadrants in certain (recent) sections of the book. Quad crossover is not two contradictory if one assumes a reality substratum where convergence and non-locality might be. All it takes is a bit of dipping deeper into reality and then bringing the information back up toward the surface layers of reality (or ways of enacting?) in order to successfully cross from one quadrant to another, without merely conflating them. This is essentially a non-dual perspective of dualities. Depth recognition resolves the the paradox of non-dual duality. At the deeper perspective all the ten thousand things (Taoism) are one, but at a shallower perspective they remain many. If "deeper" is more of an essense of reality, then in some sense it is more really real than duality, but that doesn't mean that duality is nothing but an illusion. It is as real as can be at the level in which it is. Somehow even though a real, objective-like, depth dimension is added to reality, the viewing from different depth levels seems like the good old frames of reference or sets of operations valued by a postmetaphysical camp. If a new metaphysical reality has been posited in the form of a reality-with-depth-and-unfolding, at least it includes careful qualifications about "truth," instead of positing a one-size-fits all truth. Truth is relative to how deep in the flare you are centered. Also it is relative to how well integrated depth and surface experiences and/or transactions are (my "d x dc" formula, or "depth with depth continuity").
Let me know if I need to use a different email address.
Do you have time, energy, and interest to look into the line of thought I am sharing here (and in the book)?
My line of thought is much in line with the whole quantum consciousness line of thought, and subject, I suppose, to the same quad-conflation criticism.
Thanks Bruce, Good to be a part of the forum. I'm looking forward to getting a bit involved with it. I'm glad we will be discussing my paper down the track. You may need to right click on it , to access it on the metaIntegral site, probably because I used an older edition of Adobe Reader.
Thank you Bruce! Looking forward to discussing Integral theory and how it interfaces with other post-metaphysical theories. Right now I'm most interested in AQAL theory and the three major components of the map, the interior-exterior dimension perspective, the individual -collective dimension perspective and the third being "enactment," with the possibility that enactment could also be seen as a dimension -perspective, and if so the implications of this.
Thanks for your Welcome Balder. I'm not sure at the moment what I can contribute but the website is most interesting & I'm enjoying the content. It's been 30 years since I did my BA Hons in philosophy & politics but I have never strayed far from exploring the frontiers of knowledge & understanding. I often feel I'm out there dancing on my own, now I have this community to dance with. Thank you
Hey thanks Balder. That sounds great. I read a great deal on my ipad and being able to post directly with ease is something to look forward to. And, by the way, you gave a very nice articulation of both your own thought and OOO in response to LaymanPascal. I've been following the exchange with interest.
You have seen earlier rounds of the "flare" model, but I have added some refinements along the way. Also, I attempt to speak in favor of some good old metaphysical speculation, and try to conceptualize how it might fit in with the Integral line of thought, even though IPM tends to shun metaphysical speculations.
I wanted to see how accurate my reason is in regards to Integral line of thought. I don't want to wait to become an expert before I philosophize about Integral things, but I don't want to offer wrong conceptions of IL either. Best I can do is post, and then seek quality review by persons such as yourself.
Thanks so much for your welcome! Looks like a very engaged comment. I'm doing a PhD that focuses a lot on higher stage development of leaders--like that examined by Kegan and Torbert. So it seems there's a lot here for me.
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.