Participatory Spirituality for the 21st Century
* FYI, theurjism is the term for my unique neologisms.
You may have noticed that I use a few terms that are not in the dictionary, that I've made up to get across a meaning that is also not in the dictionary. So let me clarify at least two of them for the moment. Kennilingus* is one such term. It is a take on the word “cunnilingus” with which you are already familiar. The “kenni” part refers to Ken Wilber, so it's a sort of play on one who licks Wilber. This of course is metaphorical, not meaning one who actually gives head to him, although that most certainly could be included, especially since his “suck my dick” comment to critics, which comment it seems acolytes take literally. It's more like those who unflinchingly accept his work verbatim without much, if any, criticism. We all know the type, who when speaking of “integral” will use the exact same language as Wilber, not only in content but often in the same style with the same prejudices. I also use it to refer to the source from when the language comes, to Wilber's own dogma. To make it more akin to fellatio I have another variation for the object of worship in kennilingus, Ken Wilber as Kennilingam. (See this for a definition of lingam, which includes penis but goes into its religious meanings as well, a fit symbol of the AQAL religion.)
To distinguish the alternative integral movement from kennilingus I use the term “intergraal.” “Inter” comes more from the interrelations of the elements of AQAL instead of their rigid distinctions. Granted the elements should be separated out to gain invaluable analysis and clarity. Nor should they be reduced to each other in some form a overarching, dominant and relativistic mush of equality. But neither should they be so distinct as to not see how they relate, for it is in the relationships that any sense of a whole emerges from which the parts participate. And said whole is not THE whole, just a particular whole relative to a particular focus in a particular context. And this doesn't have to be reduced to another form of relativism, since it can also accommodate qualitative distinction and make value judgments so to which wholes are better in which circumstances. Also said parts do not have to be entirely subsumed in any given whole, since they retain their own agency and participate in other wholes in other contexts.
The “graal” of intergraal is the Old French spelling of the term “grail.” We often associate grails with the Holy Grail, the cup that caught the blood of Christ on the cross, and which nectar is purported to induce in one communion with the divine. Hence from such cups in religious masses where wine is transubstantiated into the blood of Christ we are washed of our sins by partaking in this ritualistic cannibalism. But again metaphorically it symbolizes more that communion with the big Other. We can demythologize that other from some metaphysical divinity to a more humane other, to focusing more on humanity in the here and now in this world and in this context, in our present embodiment and interactivity with our environment and other human beings. It is a transforming and perhaps even transubstantiating conversion from our isolated agency to a balance with our human communion through the emerging next wave of development in P2P networks. Hence intergraal is in distinction from the typically more agentic, individualistic, authoritarian, capitalistic and intellectualized kennilingus.
* Aka AQALingus for those more sensitive snowflakes offended by kennilingus. They'll probably be offended by this more innocuous version too though.
I forgot to add this one from an earlier post (and see the few posts above it): Retardigrade. Since the video discusses tardigrades as possibly the first life form on earth arriving from deep space, as the very progenitor of all terran life, then we, its descendents, are re-tardigrades as well as retardigrades. We are the latter due to the Fall from origin, being a debased form far from its heavenly genesis.
Image stigmata (from this post):
One of the ways our brain/body has evolved is by using references to the environment in terms of spatial relations and locomotion (9). And this is none other than the image schemas (or schemata*) discussed above, which are formed by the coupling of our brains with environments and there from the beginning. As the Bible says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God." Alleluia and Amen!
* The sound of schemata reminds me of stigmata, as in when a person's hands and/or feet bleed in the same places as the nails driven into Christ. Yes, image schemata are like that, as they bear the marks of the initial relationship to origin. And they bleed!
This time it's a real word, but one that some might use to describe what I do to words. It's the word of the day from dictionary.com.
catachresis \kat-uh-KREE-sis\, noun:
Misuse or strained use of words, as in a mixed metaphor, occurring either in error or for rhetorical effect. Catachresis is derived from the Greek root chrêsis which meant "to use." The prefix cata- means "down, back, against." The word katachrêsthai meant "to misuse" in Greek.
Here's another real word of the day from dictionary.com, since it too points to what I do to language. It's cool that interesting real words apply here:
zeugma \ZOOG-muh\, noun:
The use of a word to modify or govern two or more words when it is appropriate to only one of them or is appropriate to each but in a different way, as in "to wage war and peace," or
"on his fishing trip, he caught three trout and a cold." Zeugma stems from the Greek word of the same spelling which meant "a yoking."
--So language in my hands takes a yoking and keeps on toking? Come now, I cant' be serious, I must be yoking?
Can tree bark bark up the wrong tree? I guess it depends on if said bark is an element in the tree or its own suobstance?
"syn·tag·ma [sin-tag-muh], noun, plural syntagmas, syntagmata
|1.||a syntactic unit or a word or phrase forming a syntactic unit|
|2.||a systematic collection of statements or propositions|
[C17: from Late Latin, from Greek, from suntassein to put in order; see syntax ]"
Since the plural is syntagmata, reminding me of the syntagma "image schemata," I'm wondering... image syntagmata? Since it can be argued that image schemata are the base for syntax? Syntax...is that like the tax on cigarettes or alcohol???
Earlier in the thread I had the below. I failed though to put its predecessor in this thread, from this post:
This hybrid, bastard reasoning, in my twisted postmeta parlance, is the ego turned back to its roots in the body, the centaur that is neither and both, again "in the middle" way of my mad, madhyamaka kaka.
I like that: mad madhyamaka kaka. I'm going to write a song with that title. You heard it first here.
Objectile Madhyamakhorakaka: In reference to this post about using onticology, differance and Madhyamaka to elucidate the ground. Sort of like projectile vomit, but with kaka as in explosive diarrhea. Very purging and liberating, but really messy and stinky rather than sweetness and light.
Hier(an)archy from this post:
Yes, but I prefer a distinct, sacred kind of anarchy called hier(an)archy, a term coined by Caputo. Recall this from the Caputo thread in the old Gaia forum, referencing his book The Weakness of God (IUP, 2006):
To be sure, by advocating différance Derrida does not advocate outright chaos. He does not favor a simple-minded street-corner anarchy (nothing is ever simple) that would let lawlessness sweep over the land, although that is just what his most simplistic and anxious critics take him to say. For that would amount to nothing more than a simple counter-kingdom, a reign of lawlessness….Just like a simple totalitarianism…the opposite way, a simple anarchy would break the tension between the arche and the an-arche, erasing the slash between power and powerlessness….in “Force of Law” Derrida made it plain that deconstruction is not a matter of leveling laws in order to produce a lawless society, but of deconstructing laws in order to produce a just society. To deconstruct the law means to 'negotiate the difference' between law and justice, where the law is thought to be something finite, and ‘justice' calls up an uncontainable event, an infinite or unconditional or undeconstructable demand (27).
I've been exploring another version of this hier(an)archic maintenance of the tension between the arche and the an-arche in this thread with the "space between" and image schemas. And the images provided are to symbolically represent those interstices.
Aleastory, from this post:
I was reminded of our naughty knots in dictionary.com's word of the day. All indicative of that excess or remainder that is not captured by any model or grid. However a model that includes this 'wild hair' might then be called an aleastory?
aleatory \EY-lee-uh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee, AL-ee-\, adjective:
1. of or pertaining to accidental causes; of luck or chance; unpredictable: an aleatory element.
2. Law. depending on a contingent event: an aleatory contract.
3. Music. employing the element of chance in the choice of tones, rests, durations, rhythms, dynamics, etc.
Hailing from the Latin word meaning "the dice" or "chance" alea, aleatory first surfaced in English in the late seventeenth century.
I subscribe to dictionary.com’s word of the day, and today it is theurgy, from which my screen name is derived and explained herein.
theurgy \THEE-ur-jee\, noun:
1. the working of a divine or supernatural agency in human affairs.
2. a system of beneficent magic practiced by the Egyptian Platonists and others.
Theurgy entered English in the 1560s. It comes from the Greek word theourgeía meaning "magic."
See taichiurgy in this post.
In this blog post I come up with bryantics. It's similar to kennilingus only applied to Levi Bryant's anti-religious rants and those who echo them.