integral postmetaphysical enaction

[Edward theurj Berge]

It is with much ado that I change the name of my blog to “integral postmetaphysical enaction” but will keep the same address. The term nonduality is too limited and too attached to certain metaphysical schools of philosophy and religion. Yes, I can recontextualize the term, make it mean whatever I want, but the weight of its historical association is more than my miniscule influence can overcome. On the other hand the term enaction is within the historical context of recent developments in cognitive science yet applicable to all methodologies across the spectrum. Plus it specifically denotes the kind of nonduality in which I'm interested through continuity, both within an individual and between an individual with others and the environment. In AQALese, the integrated and inseparable relations between the one and the many, the inside and the outside. And all within a postmetaphysical, developmental trajectory that dynamically enacts a worldspace, not discovers a universal, given world. It also demonstrates the relation of action and theory, for it is my hope to inspire action in those who read these theoretical ramblings.

 

By the way, I did an internet search on those terms in  parentheses and again it is currently the only link on the web, another first.

 

Here is a good working definition of enaction from Enaction School 2010:

 

“The term enactive is used to identify a way of thinking about, and a set of methodologies for conducting, cognitive science. This approach to describing, explaining and investigating the mind emphasises the valued, meaningful interaction between a living agent and its environment. It emphasises the continuity between the basic processes of living (e.g. metabolism) and cognition. It recognises the autonomy of living systems and the way in which meaning, thought and experience emerge within the dynamic, skilful activity of the agent - the enaction of meaning, thought and experience.

 

“Standing in contrast to much of mainstream thinking within Cognitive Science, the enactive approach challenges many of the basic assumptions of extant theory. The body (including but not limited to the brain) is considered to have an integral role in the processes of the mind. Cognitive processes are seen as the means by which an agent adapts their behavior so as to maintain their values (in the simplest case, biological values such as continued existence but in more complex cases, social and cultural values come into play). The nature of such processes is considered to be dynamic and adaptive, rather than a set of structures that are universal and modular in character.”

[Edward theurj Berge]

France and Greece refute austerity.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Death to the transcendent!

[Edward theurj Berge]

Objectile Madhyamakhorakaka.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Same old shit with the banks, still.

[Edward theurj Berge]

No surprise: Scott Walker is a liar.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Bain's vulture capitalism.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Petition the DNC to invest in the WI recall election. And please pass this along. This one is too important to not win.

[Edward theurj Berge]

This is what your support if you use Facebook. Spiritual enaction anyone?

[Balder]

Darn, I can't view it now.  I'll look later.

[Edward theurj Berge]

It's a story about how the owners of Facebook do not want to pay any taxes. They basically renounce giving back to the society that gave them the infrastructure and customers that made them rich. They've joined the 1% in their attitudes and behavior so IMO participating in Facebook is supporting this kind of behavior. No, this is not about resenting success; it is about what one does, or doesn't do, with their success. This is a moral/spiritual issue.

[Balder]

I agree.  If that is what they are doing, I don't support that at all and that would be a good reason to remove myself from FB.  It is not easy, now, though, since I have regular daily contact with folks now that I would certainly miss.  I wish there were alternatives...  But ethics-wise, I'm not expecting Google Plus to be much better (isn't Google in bed with the NSA, recently?).

[Edward theurj Berge]

I understand the convenience of Facebook in connecting us to our friends and family. It is a service for sure, and apparently a good one. but Google+ is likely no better in terms of ethics. I know I'm not happy with some of their business practices either.

I'm just wondering if collectively we could create alternative social networks based on other principals like P2P, or even good old-fashioned, socially responsible business models. We've explored such models in numerous threads, and given the collective talent of socially conscious people that use Facebook I'm certain "we" could come up with an alternative social network just as good without  the ethical dilemmas.