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.”

[andrew]

Or put another way: what purpose cannot be achieved by the spirit of truth, beauty and goodness will be achieved by the spirit of lies, ugliness and corruption.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Does money make you mean? A very interesting TED talk.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Maher's new rule: Facebook makes you stupider.

[Balder]

Cute but not really true, in my experience of FB.  Yes, definitely, there are legitimate concerns about FB as a corporation, and there are also limitations to being exposed primarily to peer-generated content, but the limitations of the latter are dependent in large part on the extent (or limitedness) of your own expressed interests and your own circle of "friends."  If you show interest in a broad range of topics and perspectives, including divergent or contradictory ones, you will get more of that; and if you have a wide, diverse group of FB friends from multiple parts of the world and from multiple cultural and ideological backgrounds (as I do), then you can be exposed to a pretty diverse range of content.  I find, for instance, that the "news feed" that is presented to me daily on FB (not through FB's new app, Paper, but just the regular feed of folks' posts) is often more diverse and instructive than a lot of what I get from the popular news sources and talk programs.  I find stories there, for instance, that don't get coverage -- or barely get coverage -- in many mainstream news sources.

[Edward theurj Berge]

I'd agree that with tribes like yours--and I include myself therein--higher educational opportunities gives us immunity to some degree from being easily manipulated by the powerful shaping influences of super media like Facebook. But many without those opportunities and development are easily so manipulated to not only remain within their limited 'likes' bubbles, but their likes themselves are shaped by the very structure of said media. So this in effect enbubbles us too by thinking that because we are somewhat immune then so is everyone else, which allows us to continue to support said media by our participation.

I'm not blaming you or the tribe, for I understand the benefits of such giant media structures for convenient communication and networking which indeed generates alternative ideas that counter said media manipulation, in theory. I'm just saying its a double edged sword, and wish we could in practice create alternative media structures like FB without the corporate agenda doing its usual manipulative thing to its members. Sharing our ideas and theories is great but when its kept within the very structures we'd like to change we are in effect also being held back. See e.g. my criticism of MSNBC on that very score here regarding the Comcast merger.

[Edward theurj Berge]

We the people can and do make a difference if we but engage. I'm enclosing excerpts of Senator Sanders blast email below, showing how if we get involved we can overcome the powerful forces of big money and bought legislators. This is what the latter do not want you to know, for they want you to feel helpless. Then they can continue their plutocracy unimpeded. We can and must continue to participate to retain our democracy, for rest assured the plutocrats want no part of that.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Facebook's myth of freedom.

[Edward theurj Berge]

A message from Comcast.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Enlist Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix and Yahoo for net neutrality. Do we really want to privatize yet one more commons for the public good? And make it so that only the rich can have access to global communication? If you purport to want democracy then free access to information is critical. Controlling said access is the hallmark of fascist totalitarianism. And this is not hyperbole but fact. Choose sides and take action before you no longer have the choice.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Obama on Funny or Die.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Facebook and others lied about participating in NSA spying.

[Edward theurj Berge]

8 ancient beliefs backed by modern science. Note: none of them are metaphysical.