Dimensions in deconstruction - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-28T22:59:18Zhttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/dimensions-in-deconstructions?id=5301756%3ATopic%3A24610&feed=yes&xn_auth=no
Excerpts from Gebser and Gi…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-08-23:5301756:Comment:263102011-08-23T13:09:01.523Zvallihttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/vallisan
<p> </p>
<p>Excerpts from Gebser and Gidley are from the <em>Real and false reason</em> and <em>Bill Torbert</em> threads, thanks to Edwards posts</p>
<p>I want to consider two aspects of mutation or intensification – of the past, future and present, and the linear and the orthogonal - and two aspects of the concretization of time - <em>Gebser’s</em> <i>temporic concretion,</i> <em>an intensification of consciousness that enables re-integration of previous structures of consciousness—with…</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Excerpts from Gebser and Gidley are from the <em>Real and false reason</em> and <em>Bill Torbert</em> threads, thanks to Edwards posts</p>
<p>I want to consider two aspects of mutation or intensification – of the past, future and present, and the linear and the orthogonal - and two aspects of the concretization of time - <em>Gebser’s</em> <i>temporic concretion,</i> <em>an intensification of consciousness that enables re-integration of previous structures of consciousness—with their different time senses—honoring them all, </em>and as in embedded structures, seeing the organism as a structure of consciousness</p>
<p>Gebser’s concretion <em>- opens to new understanding through atemporal translucence whereby</em> <i>all <em>times are present to the intensified consciousness</em> in the same fully conscious moment<em>.</em></i></p>
<p>This intensification , effects a change in the linear structure, in the organism. Weather in a gradual evolutionary sense or in an arational mutation. This is an interesting pointer to how things are, or the way things are subject to the nature of observation. For one thing, the structures of consciousness exist independently. Given a linear context the scientific reading stays true within that frame, it need not account for the intensifier. In other words the span of time taken for a mutation is one thing during a mutation and another in the linear frame. But the result is the same. This dual validity suggests simultaneous existence of the two events . a sort of quantum discontinuity. Gebser's discontinuity is between past, present and future - suggesting linear patterns or transcending linearity altogether. no jumps or simultaneity</p>
<p>I was saying in the quantum thread there is no sense of interiors to perspectives in his atemporal, but this from Gebser indicates there is a consideration <i>- “In characterizing the emergent consciousness as arational (as opposed to irrational) and aperspectival, Gebser sought to indicate that it transcended the dualistic, black-or-white categories of the rational orientation to life. Rationalism, for him, was by no means the pinnacle of human existence, but, on the contrary, an evolutionary digression with fatal consequences</i></p>
<p>And he differentiates between expanded consciousness and intensified consciousness, <i>For Gebser, integral-aperspectival consciousness is not experienced through expanded consciousness, more systematic conceptualizations, or greater quantities of perspectives. In his view, such approaches largely represent over-extended, rational characteristics .</i>The problem I have is that consciousness is perspectival, I can see intensified consciousness as a movement away from perspectives though. At this point I have to ask, how does this intensity come about, this activity is not available to consciousness in itself (considering, Gebsers own approach as well, arational and aperspectival). aperspectivalism points to the interiors of emergent consciousness and structures of consciousness. Emergent consciousness is not in itself aperspectival. (Iam reminded of Hagglunds reading of Derrida on the unconditional)</p>
<p>I guess I’ll come back to this when I get a chance to read ‘the mutation of the structures of consciousness’</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
On the counter aspect of th…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-08-11:5301756:Comment:251312011-08-11T12:05:36.257Zvallihttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/vallisan
<p> </p>
<p>On the counter aspect of the whole, and of things, that came up above, I find it clarifies the realm of consciousness, and the subjective range it has been granted as a stretch. I am using the term unconscious now in a direct way without any prior context. And as different from subconscious. Though this has been an area of contention between Jung and Gebser and transpersonal psychologists etc. By unconscious I mean a state of awareness not reduced by consciousness. As literally a…</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On the counter aspect of the whole, and of things, that came up above, I find it clarifies the realm of consciousness, and the subjective range it has been granted as a stretch. I am using the term unconscious now in a direct way without any prior context. And as different from subconscious. Though this has been an area of contention between Jung and Gebser and transpersonal psychologists etc. By unconscious I mean a state of awareness not reduced by consciousness. As literally a prerequisite for awareness . unmediated if you like by the sheer momentum of memory or habit or the old.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>a relevant paper I found, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://footnotes2plato.com/2010/12/25/uncovering-the-unconscious-towards-an-integral-psychology/" target="_blank">uncovering the unconscious - towards an integral psychology</a> . I have to go through yet, but at a glance, some excerpts</p>
<p> </p>
<p><i>Gebser suggests that the concept of the unconscious may still be used to describe the relationship between a structure of consciousness one dimension less than the incremented structure above it, but rejects entirely the dualistic framework, wherein consciousness is opposed to an unconscious. Jung himself rarely if ever collapsed the psychic terrain into so neat a dichotomy, but Gebser’s phenomenology of consciousness<a rel="nofollow" href="http://footnotes2plato.com/2010/12/25/uncovering-the-unconscious-towards-an-integral-psychology/#_ftn4">[4]</a> in terms of a potentially ever-present, and yet also historically unfolding series of structures assures that such a rationalistic reduction is avoided.</i></p>
<p><i><br/></i></p>
<p>I am suggesting a neat dichotomy (not opposed to, a duet maybe rather than a duel), <em>simply</em> as a process of being aware of a potentially ever present and yet also a historically unfolding series of structures to use Gebsers reference. and as a referential issue, since in a colloquial sense (which the term is tagged to) its almost as if to say I would then be conscious of the unfolding and structures. beside of course the nature of its content as literally content :)<i><br/></i></p>
<p><i><br/></i></p>
Thanks Tom , when I have th…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-08-11:5301756:Comment:250222011-08-11T11:56:10.972Zvallihttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/vallisan
<p> </p>
<p>Thanks Tom , when I have the time I'll look into more of QM, before I pick up on this.</p>
<p>this just crossed my mind picking up on your phrase <em>when deconstruction deconstructs itself</em>, is where the dimensional aspect comes through....</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thanks Tom , when I have the time I'll look into more of QM, before I pick up on this.</p>
<p>this just crossed my mind picking up on your phrase <em>when deconstruction deconstructs itself</em>, is where the dimensional aspect comes through....</p>
Hi Tom, mind bends time ben…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-08-08:5301756:Comment:248282011-08-08T11:37:34.271Zvallihttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/vallisan
<p> </p>
<p>Hi Tom, mind bends time bends, it’s a threshold. I need to strip the abstract from acausality :) How, is the wrong question, what about when and where? I could ask better questions….</p>
<p>Is it incidental you wrote glass empty to glass full ? whole state -1 to whole state -2. Again this comes up – that the whole is synchronous with emptiness. No movement as in, its every movement. the whole remains seamless inclusive of all whole states ?</p>
<p>The discontinuous jumps makes me…</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Hi Tom, mind bends time bends, it’s a threshold. I need to strip the abstract from acausality :) How, is the wrong question, what about when and where? I could ask better questions….</p>
<p>Is it incidental you wrote glass empty to glass full ? whole state -1 to whole state -2. Again this comes up – that the whole is synchronous with emptiness. No movement as in, its every movement. the whole remains seamless inclusive of all whole states ?</p>
<p>The discontinuous jumps makes me think of event as unity. If theres a break in serial events (as in time and space) then this isolation accesses all events through the jumps. If there is continuity of course it’s a linear trap and you don’t have direct access to any event let alone sequences of events</p>
<p>To extend the view . I am reading whole state as event as unity. Whole state one = event as unity = reality one . numbers in reality feels like you think thats <i>how</i> it should be , haha . Anyways I get discontinuous jumps between realities, whole state is <i>beyond</i> reality . fair to say that?</p>
<p> </p>
or non-movement (as nothing…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-08-06:5301756:Comment:246332011-08-06T10:23:27.905Zvallihttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/vallisan
<p> </p>
<p><i>or non-movement (as nothing moves in a discontinuous frame)</i></p>
<p><i><br></br></i></p>
<p>Tom, Nothing moves in a discontinuous frame, but changes and jumps ? feels like the collapse of effort than the intent of movement for one thing. Iam curious, a lot left unsaid ..</p>
<p>the problem of serial separate events has been coming up with Kenny, and in Edwards and Infimitas’s posts. Now, could isolated discontinuous events fix that , numerical width and its order in time are…</p>
<p> </p>
<p><i>or non-movement (as nothing moves in a discontinuous frame)</i></p>
<p><i><br/></i></p>
<p>Tom, Nothing moves in a discontinuous frame, but changes and jumps ? feels like the collapse of effort than the intent of movement for one thing. Iam curious, a lot left unsaid ..</p>
<p>the problem of serial separate events has been coming up with Kenny, and in Edwards and Infimitas’s posts. Now, could isolated discontinuous events fix that , numerical width and its order in time are resolved ?</p>
Hi infimitas,
This is bec…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-08-06:5301756:Comment:245542011-08-06T10:20:34.728Zvallihttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/vallisan
<p> </p>
<p>Hi infimitas,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is because of that and that is because if this. Interdependence, the Buddhist view. Or from Einstein, everything must be understood as a relationship. And Wilber’s IS - perspectives are not things but relationships – takes it a notch ahead. Just a notch. Of course there are no subjects without objects, given a fix or two</p>
<p>The issue though is <i>how</i> they are observed, which is who or what things are. It changes things, including logic.…</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Hi infimitas,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is because of that and that is because if this. Interdependence, the Buddhist view. Or from Einstein, everything must be understood as a relationship. And Wilber’s IS - perspectives are not things but relationships – takes it a notch ahead. Just a notch. Of course there are no subjects without objects, given a fix or two</p>
<p>The issue though is <i>how</i> they are observed, which is who or what things are. It changes things, including logic. Which is what QM, Now brings to the table.</p>
<p>Kenny doesn’t address the gap between the idea of <i>I am</i> and the event of <i>I am</i>. The big mind thing. There is no event 500 years ago, <i>that</i> is subjective. It must be who <i>I am</i> at anytime . or something or sometime :) but, this is the question. So there is the critical process of deconstruction that is missing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p> "Without difference everythin…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-08-05:5301756:Comment:246282011-08-05T17:46:30.871Zinfimitashttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/GavinRiggott
<blockquote><p>"Without difference everything becomes a blob not just consciousness. Isn’t that the likely first act, differentiation?"</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Hi Vali,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The way I look at it, it's logically impossible to have an object without a subject, or a subject without an object. I don't mean just <em>human</em> subjects, but anything -- that is, any <em>thing</em>, all the way down, even to the fundamental level of physics. I barely understand even the basics of…</p>
<blockquote><p>"Without difference everything becomes a blob not just consciousness. Isn’t that the likely first act, differentiation?"</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Hi Vali,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The way I look at it, it's logically impossible to have an object without a subject, or a subject without an object. I don't mean just <em>human</em> subjects, but anything -- that is, any <em>thing</em>, all the way down, even to the fundamental level of physics. I barely understand even the basics of relativity, but the one thing I got from Einstein is that everything must be understood as a relationship (a temporal process of change and differentiation), not as an atemporal, Platonic-style, self-existing object. Then we create words and concepts for these processes (nouns especially -- btw, Balder, I'll post on your language thread soon), and reify them as objects. (Perhaps Thomas can confirm this, or slap my wrists if it's BS?)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But if differentiation is the <em>first</em> act (and I think it is), then it suggests that there was some "thing" prior to it -- logically prior, that is, not chronologically prior, because time means change, and change requires difference. And if the first "thing" (actually thingness, not a thing) is identified with consciousness (and I think it must be), then consciousness really is like an undifferentiated blob... <em>and</em>, at the same time, everything that exists in duality.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So you don't need to do Big Mind meditation to touch the ultimate. We are all doing it right now. However, a charitable reading of Wilber is perhaps to suggest that he's giving us instructions to get into a state where we are susceptible to knowing that (or something like it) experientially. So long as you don't go further and take his metaphysics too seriously...</p>
Balder, I think there is a…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-08-05:5301756:Comment:241542011-08-05T12:44:16.429Zvallihttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/vallisan
<p> </p>
<p>Balder, I think there is a problem with the infallibility of I am, to start with. monolithic too. i’ll get back to this. I quite like the sense of I am Ken is talking about, the seamless feel of it, the connection. Only it is not seamless, the too easy approach. You can’t just integrate the gaps in time and space by some mantra. My criticism is that this is not a feature of content, of consciousness, you don’t arrive at that in a positivist way. Past phenomena the connection is…</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Balder, I think there is a problem with the infallibility of I am, to start with. monolithic too. i’ll get back to this. I quite like the sense of I am Ken is talking about, the seamless feel of it, the connection. Only it is not seamless, the too easy approach. You can’t just integrate the gaps in time and space by some mantra. My criticism is that this is not a feature of content, of consciousness, you don’t arrive at that in a positivist way. Past phenomena the connection is axial</p>
<p><i>-so deconstruction implies both: existence doesn't arrive, otherness doesn't arrive</i></p>
<p>Tom, Yes they don’t arrive necessarily. but deconstruction <i>negates</i> both . It is also true to say existence <i>and</i> otherness arrives. Its like, when you state something , you need a contrary statement to complete that. You can only refer to something partially at anytime, otherwise you get into absolute territory (foot note - this may be a structural aspect that adds to the integrity of events, the gatekeeper not marginalized) The waywardness is cool though, loose the trail to find the location! Then, there is an instant resolution for the absolute in <i>nothing</i>, a basic premise for creativity. I don’t think otherness is absolute, its dimensional. Iam saying any fixation is untenable. Down this line the absolute is remote . Don’t you think the exciting thing about the instant stuff is that the absolute gets a break?</p>
<p>If you’re sure of something, there is also its non viability. You go with both and then it changes and you may get surer. Ha ha, This looks regenerative , works on itself. An implied nonlinearity in things if you like.</p>
<p>My intent remains the need to discriminate – not to mix up structural, existential and dimensional issues. there is the structural issue and the incidence of the counter aspect of things at the outset - to get some order into this view. Then, What happens when you have certain asymmetric arrangement of events and their locales ? When a simple undertaking like the contrary aspect is not enough ? so, greater symmetry is an option . The thing is, You might have to qualify kinds of asymmetry or symmetry. so far discrimination gets a heads up - between consciousness, evolution and the nonlinear for one thing. closes the gap between them. And so, I go on…</p>
<p>on Dawid's take - Without difference everything becomes a blob not just consciousness. Isn’t that the likely first act, differentiation? And then you have the reverse – micros become mammals.</p>
<p> </p>
that’s like a rush transcript ….<br/>
<p> </p> If I'm following you, here, v…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-08-04:5301756:Comment:246232011-08-04T21:42:51.726ZBalderhttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
If I'm following you, here, valli, you are addressing an element in Wilber's formulation which Dawid, another member here, used to criticize as the "Big Blob of Consciousness" -- consciousness conceived as a monolithic thing or field. Is this correct -- meaning, is this what you are criticizing?
If I'm following you, here, valli, you are addressing an element in Wilber's formulation which Dawid, another member here, used to criticize as the "Big Blob of Consciousness" -- consciousness conceived as a monolithic thing or field. Is this correct -- meaning, is this what you are criticizing?
IMO, Wilbur or anyone could…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2011-08-04:5301756:Comment:245362011-08-04T09:58:09.208Zvallihttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/vallisan
<p> </p>
<p>IMO, Wilbur or anyone couldn’t have said it better what is <i>not</i> big mind. He says the one thing that’s infallible is the sense that I am. What was there five minutes ago or 5oo years ago. Forever</p>
<p>This is what I mean existence never arrives. the same five minutes ago or 500 years ago. Bewildering monotony. This fallacy is like, big, about consciousness . A dead end so fixing its forever – sorry its cynical – but theres a puzzle here that needs to be sorted…</p>
<p> </p>
<p>IMO, Wilbur or anyone couldn’t have said it better what is <i>not</i> big mind. He says the one thing that’s infallible is the sense that I am. What was there five minutes ago or 5oo years ago. Forever</p>
<p>This is what I mean existence never arrives. the same five minutes ago or 500 years ago. Bewildering monotony. This fallacy is like, big, about consciousness . A dead end so fixing its forever – sorry its cynical – but theres a puzzle here that needs to be sorted out</p>
<p> </p>