GNOSIS VS EPISTEME

[Oleg Linetsky]

Dear friends,

I want to share with you my speech on the IEC2014 conference in Budapest.

It's about the absolute truth and wisdom in the Integral framework,

about the ontology, Ukrainian crisis and a potential of the AQAL 

to solve the world problems.

PDF file is attached to this post.

Would be glad an opportunity to discuss it with you.

[Layman Pascal]

Joseph,

Russell's paradox (generalized as Godel's proof that any sufficiently complex and consistent system cannot enclose its own validity) does not necessarily require a paradox -- it only requires that each consistent sub-system remain open.  The general principle of quadrants/tetra-enaction is also an address to this very problem since it manifestly requires that the completeness of any type of epistemological engagement be supplemented (extrinsically supported) by systems of a radically different nature.  Russell may only have shown that types of systems must "hold hands" with each other.  Now of course that is not too different from what is normally signified by Paradox -- however the centrality is not therefore justified.  Envisioning its centrality tends to make it resemble a singular object which it is not.  While, on the other hand, interpreting it as being distributed throughout the model (explicitly!) in the form of the boundaries between the sections offer the flavor of nonlocality combined with the connective-differential function that is the logical structure of paradoxical activity.  It  also frees us from the traditional problem of envision the Mystery as an "additional" factor which therefore occupies some "other space" of its own.  It is much more coherent and positive to locate the Mystery at all of the thresholds of "this space" without imputing thingness to it.

2.

Exactly. In order to provide a robust typology we must tease apart levels from types.  That means minimizing the flexible core of each.  One of the classic ways in which that conflation persists is in the popular identification of "reasonable" as a type.  Clarification of typology requires a more-than-reasonable position which distinctions robust types from pre-rational habits of inherited group and self identification.  And that is a central issue!

[Layman Pascal]

Dear Oleg,

No one here recommends Wilber as a source of information about how to act in morally uncertain circumstances.  Why would anyone want that?  The BMI is NOT a "criteria" for individuals to use when making wise/moral decisions.  

BMI is a description of criteria demonstrated by different people making different solutions to moral problems.  At best it is a tool to orient groups when having discussions about moral behavior.  But all integrative moral approaches depend upon circumstantial pondering, feeling and emerging of understanding.

In fact moral development does not seem to need "criteria".  That is too intellectual, too systematic, "just words".  Moral understanding is a form of growth.  It develops and deepens.  It is not based on a rule about how to behave.  

Integral Theories are NOT supposed to be a ground and support when something worrying happens. They are only systems of thought which have to integrate and make sense of whatever insights into morality are produced by individuals.

And if you want other people to provide examples of responses to moral situations you must (a) tell them what you are going to do with this information (b) provide particular examples of what you consider to be a moral situation.

 

[Balder]

Hi, Oleg, I haven't finished reading your paper yet.  I had wanted to do that before writing to you, but the discussion on this thread has prompted me to respond sooner.  My sentiments are similar to Layman's (in his most recent post):  I do not expect Integral Theory, as a meta-theory, to serve as either a primary spiritual or philosophical tradition or source of wisdom.  That is not its role.  I've observed some people attempting to treat (Wilberian) Integral as a stand-alone spiritual "way," complete in itself, but I don't think that's a wise or well-informed move; it isn't such an animal. 

More generally, in response to some issues you raised in your paper, I don't see IT as opposed to Eastern spiritual traditions (meaning, as an opposite which can be contrasted with them), because it isn't meant to do or be the same kind of thing.  It works at a different level, for different ends.

[Joseph Camosy]

Layman,

Within any given system of representation, be it AQAL or some other, contradiction can certainly be avoided in an arm-waving fashion by "kicking the can down the road" and appealing to some un-articulated, higher, or mysterious power or level which is asserted to be able to "solve" the contradiction. 

So the question becomes: 

Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?

I say 'tis Nobler to face the hard problem first, rather than to suffer the never-ending arm-waving attempts to forestall contradiction to some future Judgment-Day, uplevel-rescue, or promise of salvation.  What this means is that we must face the Basic Moral Intuition (BMI) IMMEDIATELY - right at the start.  In my previous post, I included an excerpt from the Kybalion on the Divine Paradox.  If you read it, did you notice that the BMI is in there right off the bat?

BMI:  "preserve and promote the greatest depth for the greatest span"

Divine Paradox:

The truly wise, knowing the nature of the Universe, use Law against laws; the higher against the lower; and by the Art of Alchemy transmute that which is undesirable into that which is worthy, and thus triumph.

[...]

...to all that is Finite, the Universe must be treated as Real, and life, and action, and thought, must be based thereupon, accordingly, although with an ever understanding of the Higher Truth. Each according to its own Plane and Laws.

The rest of Chapter 6 in the Kybalion goes into more detail, but the jist of it is this:

Do the best you can on whatever LEVEL you are on (wholeness), while also striving for the higher (deeper) levels of understanding and attainment.

So the Divine Paradox and its consequences show up in a number of forms:  contradiction within any given system of representation, paradox, non-duality, and the BMI, but it's centrality lies in the fact that it is also the ground of ALL.  Placing paradox at the center of a model implies that all else that follows, follows OUT of this central paradox - which is does.  In fact, that IS the paradox.

Now, regarding your model where you propose to represent this as distributed in the "boundaries between the sections", I have no problem with that.  Any given model is going to give some aspects greater emphasis than others.  I would only remind you that this paradox/nonduality is not only at the boundaries, but is also the sections themselves and in every/any kind of manifestation imaginable.  It is only by making this fact explicit from the get-go that we avoid turning it into some kind of separate "object" or "thing," and must face the BMI immediately.

You write:

In order to provide a robust typology we must tease apart levels from types.  That means minimizing the flexible core of each.  One of the classic ways in which that conflation persists is in the popular identification of "reasonable" as a type.  Clarification of typology requires a more-than-reasonable position which distinctions robust types from pre-rational habits of inherited group and self identification.  And that is a central issue!

Agreed.  As currently used in Integral Theory, a Level or vMeme is actually a stable and adaptive collective complex and thus acts like a holon.  "Level" needs to be further broken down into a developmentally quantitative part and a qualitative typology aspect.  However, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "minimizing the flexible core of each."  Can you restate this?

Joe

Layman Pascal said:

Joseph,

Russell's paradox (generalized as Godel's proof that any sufficiently complex

[Layman Pascal]

Joseph,

It is commonly said that the transcendent condition depicted by any map of reality is signified by the "paper" upon which the map is inscribed. However that is does not enfold the background into the foreground.  Yet the other extreme is to single the background out by a singular representation which faces the problems I have been elaborating.  The "middle path" is to make use of the thresholds.  Not only are these more technically accurate but they are already present in the design of all meta-models.  And, since each epistemological zone is available to something approximating an infinite regress, the fractal reiteration of actual boundaries must be understood to ultimately "fill" all the sections.  Yet that is impractical to depict.

This is in keeping with the strictly postmetaphysical notion that "boundaries" fill the entirety of all available existential space.  Manyness is itself the univocal commonality of the multitude in way that exceeds the utility of a singular "one-ish" representation.

We might argue that a central depiction of the paradox is appropriate to the mythic/Amber level form of integrative maps (since Amber is centralizing and totalizing in its approach to reality).  However that would face the counterargument that this is precisely the problematic and self-limiting aspect of the mythic-membership consciousness which so often has created this phase of society into autocratic-dogmatic monotheism. 

The decentralized, implicit and connective-differentiating depiction of the Mystery requires a sophisticated level of nuanced insight but this makes the model into an analogue of the very process by which consciousness comes to perceive the Mystery "inbetween & everywhere".  It was there all along but did not stand out until cognition exceeded the causal forms of "infinite sites" and passed into the nonduality of threshold.

"There is a crack, a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in..." sang Leonard Cohen.  But we should go a step further and observe that the crack and light are functionally identical. 

(And, yes, it is edifying to see the BMI echoed in the Kybalion.)

When I say "minimizing the flexible core of each" I mean to imply that both types and levels must be stripped down to their basic form (minimized) and that this form has to be grasped in its adaptive capacity (i.e. the ability to apply to various lines, realms, etc.).  So both levels and types must be teased apart progressively from their confusion with each other and from the over-specification resulting from defining them according to their most popular examples.  For example (sic) the conformist function must be isolated so that we can plainly see that most post-modernism is not post-modern at all.  The stripped down and flexible form of Amber populism is the one which can adapt itself to whatever values it hears are popular at any phase of human history and technology.  Ditto for all the levels and whatever "all the types" turns out to mean.

[Joseph Camosy]

Layman,

I'm an advocate of cartographical pluralism.  Each model to its purpose.   As to the decision on how to model or depict paradox/nonduality - either in a centralizing position or decentralized and distributed, there is no need to choose one over the other if your model can simultaneously illustrate (transcend and include) BOTH of these.  :-)

Good to see that we're in agreement on the conflationary nature of the current Integral "levels" depiction.

Joe

P.S. The Integral way to win any argument:  "I transcend and include you!" :-))

Layman Pascal said:

Joseph,

It is commonly said that the transcendent condition depicted by any map of reality is signified by the "paper" upon which the map is inscribed.

[Oleg Linetsky]

Layman Pascal said:

Integral Theories are NOT supposed to be a ground and support when something worrying happens. They are only systems of thought which have to integrate and make sense of whatever insights into morality are produced by individuals.

In this case integralists must forget about word 'philosophy' and just be content with something like 'epistemological eclectic'. 

In fact moral development does not seem to need "criteria".  That is too intellectual, too systematic, "just words".  Moral understanding is a form of growth.  It develops and deepens.  It is not based on a rule about how to behave. 

If you can imagine morality in a context of development only, then it's exactly what I mean by 'living in a head', 'atheistic' and so on. If so, then it's nothing to discuss, indeed. You just entertain thoughts - it's fine. Not my game, and not a philosophy. At least in the eastern meaning. 

[Oleg Linetsky]

Balder said:

I do not expect Integral Theory, as a meta-theory, to serve as either a primary spiritual or philosophical tradition or source of wisdom.  That is not its role.  I've observed some people attempting to treat (Wilberian) Integral as a stand-alone spiritual "way," complete in itself, but I don't think that's a wise or well-informed move; it isn't such an animal. 

More generally, in response to some issues you raised in your paper, I don't see IT as opposed to Eastern spiritual traditions (meaning, as an opposite which can be contrasted with them), because it isn't meant to do or be the same kind of thing.  It works at a different level, for different ends.

Well, it's nice observation. If Wilber didn't declare his approach as 'all-inclusive world philosophy', there wouldn't be any censures. But he did. It means that he insists he included all possible methodologies in his model. I object to this statement and show one more methodology, gnosiological.

I'm not going to consider IA as a spiritual path or source of wisdom. But it turned out that this methodology is related to the absolute wisdom, absolute morality and conscience. So I have to talk about relief and moral dilemmas in order to point out the missing methodology.

[Layman Pascal]

Oleg,

On behalf of all integralists I hereby renounced the word "philosophy" and adopt the term "epistemological eclectic".  However I would note that this eclectic mix is adaptable and can include all moral philosophies. As it includes moral philosophies it also discovers what they have in common...

I think you are overreacting to the impression that some guy name Wilber is asserting an "all-inclusive world philosophy".  I think you can propose gnosiological methodology as either a non-included option or you could figure out where it fits on an already existing model.  Both are viable approaches -- but you quickly choose one and use it to complain and assert strange dualisms.  

You seem overly attached to theory.  In fact I think you are the integral-ist.  

You are very hasty to make remarks like "If you can imagine morality in a context of development only, then it's exactly what I mean by 'living in a head', 'atheistic' and so on."  These remarks are unfair and exaggerate a division that does not really exist.  It is your belief in this division that marks you as, so speak, an Atheist.  The impulse to take narrow bits of information and  use them to reject other people as mere thinkers, game players, etc. is uncharitable and not based in reality or empathy.

When I (or anyone) makes statements about the developmental context of morality we are not suggestion that this is ONLY what is going on.  

Developmental morality means this: That people can get better at feeling and knowing how to act from the moral power of the Heart. 

[Oleg Linetsky]

)))

[Balder]

Oleg,

I think we (meaning Wilber, you, me, any of us) overestimate what Integral Theory is if we assume that, by virtue of having the capacity to "account for" or "have a space for" or even "postmetaphysically recontextualize" a particular philosophy or discipline or capacity, moral or otherwise, IT therefore can do the work of that philosophy or discipline.  It cannot.  As a meta-philosophy, IT allows us to consider (possibly generative) relationships among various philosophies and methodologies, and to reconfigure our understanding of and approach to these disciplines and perspectives (including providing some non-exhaustive guidelines for translineage or methodologically pluralist practice), but it doesn't thereby replace these approaches or methodologies.

That, at least, is how I look at it.  IT is certainly an inclusive meta-philosophy or meta-theory, but we should not conflate such a "meta-" approach with the things that it maps and includes.  In this sense, I have suggested (following Michel Serres) that we see IT as a kind of parasite -- in a non-derogatory sense (or, maybe, a not-only-derogatory sense).  Many parasites live off of and depend on other (host) entities, yes, but in their attachment to those entities, they also work in and through them to transform them in various ways (sometimes, and ideally, to their benefit).

Best wishes,

Bruce

[Oleg Linetsky]

Bruce,

I'm amazed at how some people can be absorbed with wrapping and insignificant details, not seeing the main point. In many respects this confirms the thesis of my presentation. Unfortunately.

The irony is that this forum (as the name implies) is dedicated to postmetaphysics. I can suggest you a way, a key to it and it seems that most of guys here just don't want (or unable) to see anything except of words and conceptions ('systems of thought'). Out of a head you can hardly reach your goal.

And first of all it requires to see and admit a mystery of existence, the role of tensions and anxiety, the boundaries.

If you are interested in understanding of my eastern vision of postmetaphysical approach, we can continue this conversation in person. But it's up to you. Instructive and disdainful tone of Layman is unbearable to me. 

You can also read the introductory article attached.

All the best!