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]

Bryant inciting insurrection? Or just academic posturing?

[Edward theurj Berge]

Legitimate Rape song. If you're unfamiliar with the GOP rape agenda see the two previous posts.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Related to my comment on the Batchelor video, see Bill Maher on regressive fantasy.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Deval Patrick's convention speech.

MA Governor Deval Patrick's speech last night at the convention was by far the best, even better than the First Lady's, which was quite good in itself.  Patrick not only showed why the regressive agenda is no good but why the progressive agenda is, and what values motivate that agenda.Truly inspiring and emotional speech, filled with facts and specific policy too. This is what an effective progressive speech looks like. I especially appreciated when he said if we want to see this agenda enacted they we must grow a spine and be proud about our values and policies.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Maher on god and money.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Sarah Silverman of voter ID. She's so funny.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Why Romney is losing.

[Edward theurj Berge]

NY Attorney General sues JP Morgan.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Obama v. Romney, round 1.

[Balder]

(I can't access your blog from here, unfortunately.  What did you think of the debate?  I only caught part of a re-play of it, when I got home late last night, but Obama's performance looked curiously weak...)

[Edward theurj Berge]

Here's what my blog said, of its own free will and accord:

"In last night's debate Romney definitely had the edge in terms of fight, his piss and vinegar quite tart and effective. The problem was that he declaimed virtually every policy he'd defended up to that point. Not only that, he basically lied about his previous views and about obvious facts. Obama of course challenged him repeatedly on the facts but in his usual cool, detached fashion. And he didn't challenge Romney on some other doozies like social security. The general consensus seems to be that Obama was too timid and intellectual in his style, while Romney was aggressive and forceful. Romney won on style and Obama won on specifics and facts. Yet what it seems everyone wants to see is Obama fight back, get down and dirty, raise his voice, show aggressive body language, glare Romney down, show spine and raised hackles. That is, grow a pair. If Obama would combine that with his specifics and facts he be demolishing Romney. Without that style though this race will get much tighter."

[Mary W.]

Obama might have simply been . . . tired. I heard some commentator point out how Romney actually practiced debating in Denver, while Obama arrived later and may have been affected by the mile-high altitude.

But it's also a tricky thing, I think, when you're the first black president in a country still grappling with its racism, and you've been perceived by some as arrogant and "uppity." What would be considered properly "aggressive" or "assertive" for a white candidate somehow gets translated as "angry" and "arrogant" for Obama. Which is odd, considering how cool and unflappable he usually is. He may be trying to walk a fine line . . .

(OTOH, I also suspect that Obama is a 9 on the Enneagram -- Nines have a tendency to avoid conflict and to be out of touch with their own angry feelings. Sigh.)

At any rate, the presidential debates don't necessarily make that much of a difference in people's choices -- at least not in recent elections. Kerry came off really well in his debates against Bush, for example, but he still lost the election to Bush.