ITC 2015

[Balder]

Meta-Integral has just sent out the call for papers for the upcoming 2015 Integral Theory Conference.  The theme for the conference is Integral Impacts: Using Integrative Metatheories to Catalyze Effective Change.

See here for details.

[Ambo Suno]

Yes, go with that title. And charge admission.



Balder said:

Thank you, theurj.  :-)  I am excited about my topic and look forward to introducing it (empty room or not!).  I am not sure about many of the others, because I don't know their topics, but I do think Sean will be bringing something quite new (I've seen some of it). 

LOL, Ambo and David!  I like your suggestions for sexing up my title.  Maybe "Sex, Sophia, and Spirituality: 69 Startling Tips for Achieving Post-Grammatical Orgasm."

[Layman Pascal]

Here is the current version of the BIBLE OF METATHEORY

[Layman Pascal]

Here is my ITC 2015 Paper WHAT THE FUCK IS METATHEORY???

[Layman Pascal]

And they both are at my MIDRIFFSblog

[Edward theurj Berge]

Reading the second page of your ITC paper I was insulted that our forum is nothing but "endless repetitions of predictable arguments between 'conventional integral theory' and 'its standard critics.'" And ironically enough, after that straw statement you proceed to re-do a lot of the original material in the forum, albeit in your own style. You've learned that tactic well from Kennilingam. Especially in light of your stated goal of wanting us to work together to create collective impact, which is of course the goal of the forum and one I've long harped upon. Your opening, contrary to your intended goal, throws cold water on it from the outset.

[Balder]

Hey, I have to second that:  what's with the bit of unkindness to your hosts and co-thinkers here?  I haven't read your paper yet, but I read the section Edward referenced.

[Ambo Suno]

Though, t, the conclusion of insulted is less a feeling and more a conclusion of the beholder, I confess to feeling momentarily a tidge of emotional/cognitive perturbation that propels me to wonder various things about the issue raised, about Layman, what we are up to, about the reverberations of (seemingly) endless interpersonal history.

I think Layman is dead wrong about one thing. I think it's way way premature to call it "endless." :)

Easy big stallions, d

theurj said:

Reading the second page of your ITC paper I was insulted that our forum is nothing but "endless repetitions of predictable arguments between 'conventional integral theory' and 'its standard critics.'" And ironically enough, after that straw statement you proceed to re-do a lot of the original material in the forum, albeit in your own style. You've learned that tactic well from Kennilingam. Especially in light of your stated goal of wanting us to work together to create collective impact, which is of course the goal of the forum and one I've long harped upon. Your opening, contrary to your intended goal, throws cold water on it from the outset.

[DavidM58]

Ambo,

I appreciate that your NVC consciousness is showing through! Thank you! I note that you are acknowledging feelings, and setting aside judgements.

Ambo Suno said:

Though, t, the conclusion of insulted is less a feeling and more a conclusion of the beholder, I confess to feeling momentarily a tidge of emotional/cognitive perturbation that propels me to wonder various things about the issue raised, about Layman, what we are up to, about the reverberations of (seemingly) endless interpersonal history.

I think Layman is dead wrong about one thing. I think it's way way premature to call it "endless." :)

Easy big stallions, d

theurj said:

Reading the second page of your ITC paper I was insulted that our forum is nothing but "endless repetitions of predictable arguments between 'conventional integral theory' and 'its standard critics.'" And ironically enough, after that straw statement you proceed to re-do a lot of the original material in the forum, albeit in your own style. You've learned that tactic well from Kennilingam. Especially in light of your stated goal of wanting us to work together to create collective impact, which is of course the goal of the forum and one I've long harped upon. Your opening, contrary to your intended goal, throws cold water on it from the outset.

[Ambo Suno]

Hah - I try stuff :) Thx.

DavidM58 said:

Ambo,

I appreciate that your NVC consciousness is showing through! Thank you! I note that you are acknowledging feelings, and setting aside judgements.

Ambo Suno said:

Though, t, the conclusion of insulted is less a feeling and more a conclusion of the beholder, I confess to feeling momentarily a tidge of emotional/cognitive perturbation that propels me to wonder various things about the issue raised, about Layman, what we are up to, about the reverberations of (seemingly) endless interpersonal history.

I think Layman is dead wrong about one thing. I think it's way way premature to call it "endless." :)

Easy big stallions, d

theurj said:

Reading the second page of your ITC paper I was insulted that our forum is nothing but "endless repetitions of predictable arguments between 'conventional integral theory' and 'its standard critics.'" And ironically enough, after that straw statement you proceed to re-do a lot of the original material in the forum, albeit in your own style. You've learned that tactic well from Kennilingam. Especially in light of your stated goal of wanting us to work together to create collective impact, which is of course the goal of the forum and one I've long harped upon. Your opening, contrary to your intended goal, throws cold water on it from the outset.

[Layman Pascal]

Snuss Mufflegub!

Or: My apologies if it came across as insulting.  

Of course it is desirable to be provocative, but the intention of that opening is not in any sense a particular statement about IPS forums.  As I noted on Facebook my involvement here is precisely because I think the people here are often involved in addressing and overcoming these very issues. 

theurj said:

Reading the second page of your ITC paper I was insulted that our forum is nothing but "endless repetitions of predictable arguments between 'conventional integral theory' and 'its standard critics.'" And ironically enough, after that straw statement you proceed to re-do a lot of the original material in the forum, albeit in your own style. You've learned that tactic well from Kennilingam. Especially in light of your stated goal of wanting us to work together to create collective impact, which is of course the goal of the forum and one I've long harped upon. Your opening, contrary to your intended goal, throws cold water on it from the outset.

[Layman Pascal]

As for that pesky Ambo Suno:

Let's hope it ain't endless!  But, at the same time, let's help it come to an end by fearing its endlessness...

Ambo Suno said:

Though, t, the conclusion of insulted is less a feeling and more a conclusion of the beholder, I confess to feeling momentarily a tidge of emotional/cognitive perturbation that propels me to wonder various things about the issue raised, about Layman, what we are up to, about the reverberations of (seemingly) endless interpersonal history.

I think Layman is dead wrong about one thing. I think it's way way premature to call it "endless." :)

Easy big stallions, d

theurj said:

Reading the second page of your ITC paper I was insulted that our forum is nothing but "endless repetitions of predictable arguments between 'conventional integral theory' and 'its standard critics.'" And ironically enough, after that straw statement you proceed to re-do a lot of the original material in the forum, albeit in your own style. You've learned that tactic well from Kennilingam. Especially in light of your stated goal of wanting us to work together to create collective impact, which is of course the goal of the forum and one I've long harped upon. Your opening, contrary to your intended goal, throws cold water on it from the outset.

[Edward theurj Berge]

For those of you not so afflicted with Facefuck, here are some excerpts of conversation from that diseased media outlet. After Balder noted that there are no references in the paper:

LP: NO REFERENCES AT ALL. That's right. The introduction to the Bible of Metatheory is NOT an "academic paper". Maybe it even the complete opposite (or at least counterpoint) to normal academic papers? Probably not but at the very least it will have more play, more jokes, more density of observations and a lot more medieval glyphs than normal...

Me: Citing references and influences in ANY paper is not just an academic exercise. Michael Schwartz noted in another thread that

"Once we move into 'second tier' and 'dialectical' (in the Bhaskarian sense) waves of cognition, but also in being with one another do our projects, as 'totalizing,' present themselves as also open, dynamic, stratified, always already on-the-way, and only activated as such via dialog and in community."

Mark Schmanko also noted in this thread that

"[I]t'd be nice if an explicit gesture of appreciation of some sort were voiced in tandem, mainly because, it's true, in these types of internet spaces we end up drawing from each other's insights a great deal, and much of this is not conscious - I no doubt have learned and refined in so many ways my thinking by virtue of this forum (and to a lesser extent the website)."

Citing references is one way of expressing how our own innovations were inspired by, and grew out of, dialog within our community. We can at once take credit where it is due for our unique contribution to that community while also recognizing that we stand on its shoulders. Hence it's not just academic papers that express this sentiment but any paper.

Your expression of that appreciation in responses here should also find its way into the paper by referencing IPS as more than just that one denigrating statement, which sets us up a foil to your brilliant and apparently and solely individual correction. While I appreciate your own variations on ideas in the paper, there are numerous sources from which you draw and those ideas are not completely your own.