Integral, Knowing, How - Integral Post-Metaphysical Spirituality2024-03-28T12:34:26Zhttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-knowing-how?feed=yes&xn_auth=noHere is an example of somethi…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-04-26:5301756:Comment:609162015-04-26T20:56:41.037ZLucy Summershttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LucySummers
<p>Here is an example of something that strikes me as taking us all astray.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Mr. Benjamin on Integral World discussing Wilber's "failure to be scientific" about spirit.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://www.integralworld.net/benjamin68.html" target="_blank">http://www.integralworld.net/benjamin68.html</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>He says:</p>
<p></p>
<p>Now I want to be clear that it is not the idea of “spirit in action” per se that I have a problem with. For all I know, perhaps this is…</p>
<p>Here is an example of something that strikes me as taking us all astray.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Mr. Benjamin on Integral World discussing Wilber's "failure to be scientific" about spirit.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://www.integralworld.net/benjamin68.html" target="_blank">http://www.integralworld.net/benjamin68.html</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>He says:</p>
<p></p>
<p>Now I want to be clear that it is not the idea of “spirit in action” per se that I have a problem with. For all I know, perhaps this is legitimate and reflects the reality of our universe. But in our current state of scientific knowledge I think this is a matter of faith, not science, and what I was left with from Wilber's talk, which perhaps was partly due to my own confusion about which part of his talk was “poetic license” and which was meant to be “scientific,” was that “all the data shows...” that there is “scientifically” some kind of “spirit” that has always been there; and that evolution is spirit's way of manifesting itself in the universe (no confusion about Wilber's intention for this last part).</p>
<p></p>
<p>Wilber presents the idea of "spirit in action" and Mr. Benjamin defends our scientific knowledge about the "reality of the universe" by chapping Wilber for being poetic.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Wilber, of course, has claimed that the "eye of spirit" follows the scientific method and there are spirit eye injunctions that lead to verifiable spirit eye knowledge.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Mr. Benjamin seems to demand radar gun readings for the speed of spiritual transmission. Goofy goofy.</p>
<p></p>
<p>What Wilber seems to be doing is an old-fashioned Two-Step. He starts by pointing to the Land of Knowing By Higher Eyes, and then he talks and talks some more, and slowly he slips into Lakoff's land of false reason, making reference to abstract facts of spiritual knowledge (throw in some conjencture about the evolution of Buddhism - who can argue with that?), and we end up with people like Mr. Benjamin shouting "This is all Bull! You're just making poetry."</p>
<p></p>
<p>The question is - what is the faculty or organ that would allow us to verify the knowledge of this realm, Mr. Wilber? And, if that faculty does not involve formal operational reason, shouldn't you be making this point over and over? Shouldn't you explain to people like Mr. Benjamin what they need to acquire and how they need to be looking to make sense of what you are saying?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Otherwise, we have the blind fighting the blind. I would figure that a 3rd Tier mind would be taking care of this laundry in an elegant and satisfactory way.</p>
<p></p>
<p>But, Mr. Benjamin's point is valid - isn't all of this formal-op talk about the world of spirit just grease to turn the wheels of the Soma Pot outside the temple? Isn't it just an invitation to spend 15 minutes feeling high about feeling high?</p>
<p></p>
<p>What am I missing here?</p> Theurj:
Indeed. When I ask "…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-04-21:5301756:Comment:610032015-04-21T04:52:27.878ZLucy Summershttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LucySummers
<p>Theurj:</p>
<p></p>
<p>Indeed. When I ask "how are we knowing AQAL?" my concern is just that - what lens are we using? What faculty or organ or modality or eye are we using?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Lakoff's phrase "preconceptual image schema" hits the mark.</p>
<p></p>
<p>As I think of AQAL stage theory, I envision a person on a journey up a ladder. Through grace and hard knock's, the person advances to higher levels, and may even reach a new tier.</p>
<p></p>
<p>But, according to AQAL stage theory,…</p>
<p>Theurj:</p>
<p></p>
<p>Indeed. When I ask "how are we knowing AQAL?" my concern is just that - what lens are we using? What faculty or organ or modality or eye are we using?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Lakoff's phrase "preconceptual image schema" hits the mark.</p>
<p></p>
<p>As I think of AQAL stage theory, I envision a person on a journey up a ladder. Through grace and hard knock's, the person advances to higher levels, and may even reach a new tier.</p>
<p></p>
<p>But, according to AQAL stage theory, the person in toto does not advance up the ladder. Instead, different lines (capacities) of the person advance up the ladder.</p>
<p></p>
<p>So, I have to rework my image schema. There is a person with the form of an octopus, and various line capacities of the person are more or less advanced up the ladder. The emotion leg may be orange while the cognitive leg is green and the self leg is amber, etc. The head is holding them all together.</p>
<p></p>
<p>It's like a game of Chutes and Ladders with multiple chutes and ladders side by side using different colored tokens.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The golden token is the Cognitive Line token. As Wilber says, it leads the rest.</p>
<p></p>
<p>But, then we learn that no one actually experiences Stages! Stages are level assignments made by others through assessment of a person's proclivities on a particular line.</p>
<p></p>
<p>So, we take the person off the ladder. What image schema do we use now?</p>
<p></p>
<p>In fact, my suspicion is that most Integral movement adherents don't take the experiencing person off the ladder. They leave them on and call them green or orange or whatever without making a distinction between the different chutes and ladders (capacities).</p>
<p></p>
<p>And then, we move onto the Lattice. Here, it is not lines of capacity moving up the ladder, it is gradations in the subtlety of consciousness.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Does this mean that for subtle mind, any of the various line capacities can be functioning and the focus is now on the quality of the awareness (subtlety) rather than the kind of awareness (self vs. emotion vs. aesthetic)?</p>
<p></p>
<p>We have our image schema of chutes and ladders for State and the same for States, and now we turn to quadrants.</p>
<p></p>
<p>How do we form image schema for this? We have an outsider evaluating John Doe's level of self development on the Stage Ladder and his quality of consciousness via self capacity on the Lattice. This observation is now subject to four possible perspectives? I am not sure how we go about building an image schema for this.</p>
<p></p>
<p>And, next, that John Doe self that we had pegged on the Stage ladder, John Doe happens to be an XYZ on the Myers-Briggs chart. Do we make his amber color louder or fainter based on this?</p>
<p></p>
<p>I completely agree with Lakoff. Everything we know, we know in some way. And, those ways can be described through some explicable concepts. My sense is that Integral has not been truly concerned about being transparent about the implications of its schemas. And, this unwillingness became an organizational given when the potential for Integral to become a "movement" arose.</p>
<p></p>
<p>They say that there are only 7 people who truly understand the world economy. I am wondering if there is 1 person who has a coherent image schema for Integral Theory.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>theurj said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-knowing-how?id=5301756%3ATopic%3A60582&page=2#5301756Comment60901"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>Along the line of other lenses missing from AQAL, another point in that linked post is that these other lenses</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>"tap into some basic relationships that exist in the human experience of reality. Consequently, they show up within every attempt to understand, explain, or get some handle on the complexity that exists within and around us and between us and through us. I see them as coming out of some kind of morphological fault line in the Kosmos, windows that we create and which we are drawn to look through, proclivities that we innately possess as sentient beings who act and imagine."</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>I noted in that post that indeed, the image schema (per Lakoff's work) provide that morphological fault line. I said:</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>"There are different kinds of preconceptual image schemas, which ground the basic categories: container, part-whole, link, center-periphery, source-path-goal, up-down, front-back and linear order are some examples. Concepts then build on these schemas: categories in general build on container schemas, hierarichal structures in terms of part-whole and up-down, relations in terms of links, radial structure in terms of center-periphery etc. I find an interesting correlation here with Mark Edwards' pluralistic lenses. [...] holarchical, bipolar, cyclical, standpoint, relational" etc.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>I also noted in other Ning IPS threads how these image schema show up as the different ways we formulate philosophical worldviews. From the above referenced link I relate how Lakoff sees the objectivitst paradigm as being solely reliant on a hierarchical category lens, and as a result we get a very dualistic, metaphysical conception of the world. While I don't see that Edwards criticizes this particular aspect in AQAL you can see I've repeated made that same connection with kennilingus metaphysical dualism.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Ambo:
Yes to goodness and ju…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-04-21:5301756:Comment:609032015-04-21T02:43:49.956ZLucy Summershttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LucySummers
<p>Ambo:</p>
<p></p>
<p>Yes to goodness and justice on the lower left.</p>
<p></p>
<p>My main concern is that Integral has created a map of Evolution, and in so doing, it has violently distilled a lot of things, thereby characterizing them in a way that strips them of the essence of how they are known.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Doing this leads to a storehouse of skeletons.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><br></br> <br></br> <cite>Ambo Suno said:…</cite></p>
<p>Ambo:</p>
<p></p>
<p>Yes to goodness and justice on the lower left.</p>
<p></p>
<p>My main concern is that Integral has created a map of Evolution, and in so doing, it has violently distilled a lot of things, thereby characterizing them in a way that strips them of the essence of how they are known.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Doing this leads to a storehouse of skeletons.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>Ambo Suno said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-knowing-how?id=5301756%3ATopic%3A60582&page=2#5301756Comment60799"><div><div class="xg_user_generated">Hi Lucy - I'm, obvious to me, not going to be able to achieve a mirroring understanding of all that you have been saying here. But let me pull out one aspect and see if I am understanding you quite a lot on this one aspect.<br/> <br/> In addition to the validity and reliability of assertions of knowledge, you care a lot about fairness and justness of how declared chunks of "knowledge" are used. Keeping to this narrow point, is it correct to say that the morality and ethics of application of assertions of knowledge have a strong impact on you. If we are being mislead by incorrect or false information and false impressions created by language, for the various reasons and motives, and with various consequences, you feel that a lot, and you care a lot that this not go on or that it be revealed for what it is. Did I get this small of piece of your whole consideration of a larger territory more or less correct? ambo</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Hi Balder:
It's Sunday, whic…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-04-20:5301756:Comment:609022015-04-20T21:06:58.108ZLucy Summershttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LucySummers
<p>Hi Balder:</p>
<p></p>
<p>It's Sunday, which means long post time! I will try to be coherent.</p>
<p></p>
<p>You said:</p>
<p><em>Lucy, I'm not sure where to begin in responding, as you've said so much and I'm not sure what stands out to you as of greatest interest or concern. One topic above that stood out for me was your surprise (and perhaps dismay) at Edwards discussing 'metatheory,' when we haven't even nailed down what Integral theory is (if this is, indeed, what you were saying). In…</em></p>
<p>Hi Balder:</p>
<p></p>
<p>It's Sunday, which means long post time! I will try to be coherent.</p>
<p></p>
<p>You said:</p>
<p><em>Lucy, I'm not sure where to begin in responding, as you've said so much and I'm not sure what stands out to you as of greatest interest or concern. One topic above that stood out for me was your surprise (and perhaps dismay) at Edwards discussing 'metatheory,' when we haven't even nailed down what Integral theory is (if this is, indeed, what you were saying). In my view, I think Integral Theory is a bit of a misnomer -- especially if we are thinking of 'theory' in its (most rigorous) scientific sense. IT is not 'theory' in that sense, and even 'Theory of Everything' is suspect (some prefer to say, 'theory for anything'). But, to me, metatheory -- not theory -- seems to be the best description of what Wilber/Integral is up to. Integral seems to be primarily concerned with the analysis and correlation of theories (and, more broadly, systems of thought and practice), along with related activities such as analyzing assumptions (or making implicit assumptions explicit), deconstructing theories or systems of thought, tracing homeomorphic equivalencies or interrelationships across multiple theories or forms of knowledge, integrating multiple theories and systems of thought, creating conceptual 'scaffolding' for inclusion of, and promotion of interaction between, multiple epistemologies and methodologies (IMP), etc. These are the activities of metatheory.</em></p>
<p></p>
<p>If I understand you, you are saying that Integral Theory should properly be regarded as a Metatheory. And, I am assuming that you are concerned about Integral delving into and opining on empirical domains for which it is not suited.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I agree with you that Integral devotes much attention to correlating other theories, looking for equivalencies and interrelationships among theories, and creating a framework or scaffolding to hold a variety of epistemologies and methods.</p>
<p></p>
<p>If Integral is properly a Metatheory, then according to Edwards, Integral would not in a position to validly opine about the empirical data of other theories.</p>
<p></p>
<p>My sense is that Edwards is trying to instill some overdue discipline to Integral Theory.</p>
<p></p>
<p>As theurj pointed out, Metatheory is best competent to deal with how theories and methods relate and how they might be integrated. But, Wilber goes far beyond simply marrying up theories.</p>
<p></p>
<p>What Wilber seems to have done is:</p>
<p></p>
<p>* start by declaring that his motivation is to "integrate" all theories and methods grounded in both empirical and metaphysical work;</p>
<p><br/> * distill the essence of those theories and methods;</p>
<p><br/> * create a slightly integrated model whereby individual theories are seen to fit into a scaffolding that is slightly larger than themselves.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I like the revised phrase "A Theory for Anything." The beauty of this phrase is that it properly recognizes that Integral Theory has no domain. It's domain is anything and everything that can be said or done or felt.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Integral Theory is a theoretical tool chest that invites you to use a hammer or a screwdriver or a pipe wrench, as you see fit, to get that nail in the board.</p>
<p></p>
<p>But, Integral Theory itself seems to be the ultimate triangulation device. It takes two theories or perspectives, and immediately finds a context whereby the two can be reconciled under a 3rd theory involving a slightly different order of abstraction or epistemological lens.</p>
<p></p>
<p>There is the development data on morality, and values, and self. All of these were standing alone, not talking to the others. Integral came along and said, "Hey look, you are all talking about holonic development. Greater wholes, greater complexity, transcending and including."</p>
<p></p>
<p>So, Integral creates the upward and onward scaffolding of growth. Vertical evolution. It becomes the prime impulse.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Integral says that the empirical events which give rise to the Stage Address are themselves not an experiencing of the Stage Address. These Stage Addresses reflect the level of intelligence via a variety of epistemologies (lines). The level of evolution (via a particular epistemology) is only recognized by an outsider. And, for the outsider to "recognize" the level, there would need to be an"overseeing" capacity to recognize the event at issue.</p>
<p></p>
<p>So, what we end up with is a variety of theories about development of emotions, and self sense, and artistic sensibility, and spiritual knowing, etc. all married together in a meta-model of a variety of epistemologies going upward along a track, with various stages of the journey being identified as embodying a new holonic order or complexity.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Anyone who understands this meta-model is by definition standing at a 2nd Tier level.</p>
<p></p>
<p>But, the whole discussion to this point has involved what? It has involved an outsider's evaluation of the complexity of your lived experience.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Stage theory has nothing to do with consciousness as lived. That gets Integral Theory into a new land involving the Wilber Combs Lattice.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The Lattice apparently tries to reconcile the degrees of subtlety of consciousness (gross, subtle, causal, etc.) with vertical stages of holonic complexity.</p>
<p></p>
<p>But, wait a minute. In discussing Stage Theory earlier, we have a variety of epistemologies running through the Stages. The race, as it were, involved a variety of ways of knowing things (self, emotion, aesthetic, spiritual, relational) and outsiders would be able to identify how complex these various ways were constituted and peg them onto the vertical Tiers.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Now, the Vertical Stage Tier has been stripped of its epistemologies, and consciousness subtlety has been inserted as a replacement for the "juice" that flows along the chart.</p>
<p></p>
<p>What has happened here? Why were the epistemologies deleted when we turned to State-Stages?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Next, we find Integral trying to reconcile Types. Take one of the objects for reconciliation: Myers-Briggs typology. The MB type system is designed to identify our preferences in seeing the world.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Integral's Theory for Anything efforts quickly realized that it would be a super daunting task to try and reconcile even a portion of variety of type theories. If you think about it, what is more instinctive than to take 5 points of empirical data and try to build a theory of types. We all do it. Are you an A or a B blood type? What is your horoscope? May I read your palms please?</p>
<p></p>
<p>So, Integral simply says, "hey, while you are digging in the tool chest to find a perspective you want to use, don't forget to try out that hodge podge of type stuff in that burlap bag."</p>
<p></p>
<p>But, how does a Type relate to a theory about Stages of Holonic Complexity, and about Evolution, and about Consciousness?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Are we to regard Types like the front and back sides of the same coin? While I am actively engaged in subtle awareness (State) grounded by a mythical stage (State-Stage) and I am knowing this via my sense of self (Line) which is at the Ethnocentric level (Stage), flip me over and put my head where my feet are and you get 4 different possible preferences for my way of knowing (Types) and for each of the 4 possible preferences there are a virtually infinite number of Quadrant perspectives (I am aware of my consciousness as it makes sense of your assertion that quantum physics analogies for economic models leads to systemically useless conclusions that are just plain Ugly!)</p>
<p></p>
<p>My sense is that Integral is best regarded as an ongoing Hybrid Modeling enterprise. As Edwards properly asks, "to what extent does Theory A reach out and invite correspondence from proponents of Theories B through Z?"</p>
<p></p>
<p>If Integral were a legitimate Theory, it would certainly require a vast brain trust of full time researchers to reach out, communicate, clarify, adjust, and generally make sense of all the valid theory work that is already done in each of the domains it involves itself with.</p>
<p></p>
<p>In fact, it seems like Integral reaches out to very few outsiders. And, this leads us to a new proposal: Integral may be best regarded as a Hybrid Modeling Movement.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Movements are going somewhere. And, they make their own definitions of who and what will aid them in their journey.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The original motivation for my post was a book by Wilber "Marriage of Sense and Soul" in which he makes the claim that the Scientific Method applies to a variety of epistemologies.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Wilber's claim starts with the premise: knowledge of physical matter is not the only form of knowledge available to us. I think that anyone who has ever been in love, or had a dream, or shared in a group mood would agree with this.</p>
<p></p>
<p>He then goes on to say: other forms of knowledge can be regarded as being "seen" with different eyes.</p>
<p></p>
<p>What he then tries to do is to rescue the "knowledge" acquired through these different eyes by saying that it is every bit as real and valid and enduring and identifiable and testable and attainable as knowledge of the physical world, provided that you are competent to function in the domain at issue.</p>
<p></p>
<p>This thesis certainly seems to be at the core of much that Integral does. As far as I can tell, Integral is proclaiming, among other things:</p>
<p></p>
<p>* the world is evolving and there is a moral imperative to help ensure this evolution is healthy<br/> * different levels of development shape our different views of the world<br/> * the different states of consciousness are all available at all times to everyone<br/> * we know in different ways and our level of development in knowing in these different ways can be balanced or imbalanced<br/> * different types govern the logic we use to frame experience and communicate<br/> * holons are found everywhere and we can use a variety of perspectives to see them</p>
<p>Etc.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Edwards said that when Integral Metatheory makes conclusions about empirical data it is operating outside its authority.</p>
<p></p>
<p>But, it seems that Integral Theory is in fact engaged in robust activities that are grounded in empirical events. Integral seems to be a movement using a hybrid modeling function.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Seen in this light, it becomes apparent that Integral only has to satisfy people who already have joined the movement. Integral is not inclined to reconcile itself with "theories" that are not inclined to join the movement.</p>
<p></p>
<p>To unpack what this movement is doing and how effective it can be (or how dangerous it can be), I feel strongly that we need to unpack the question of "how is anything known" in this movement? That is, what are the tools of epistemology that lead to validation of anything within this movement?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Is Integral a consciousness militia? Is it engaged in establishing its own rules of engagement? Does it have an internal chain of command obeying internal rules of validation?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Just once I would like to hear Integral Theory say, "Sorry, but we are not competent to evaluate that." Or, even better, the "way" that you go about "knowing" this "knowledge" is not susceptible to any form of categorization or language-based injunction.</p>
<p></p>
<p>As Edwards mentioned, "self-critical tools" used to recognize limitations are important. Integral seems to have an answer for everything without concern for pointing out the limitations of the answers.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I have a strong sense that by grappling with what Integral is and how it does what it does, we have a microcosmic resolution of the great themes of our times.</p> Along the line of other lense…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-04-20:5301756:Comment:609012015-04-20T17:37:26.504ZEdward theurj Bergehttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>Along the line of other lenses missing from AQAL, another point in that linked post is that these other lenses</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>"tap into some basic relationships that exist in the human experience of reality. Consequently, they show up within every attempt to understand, explain, or get some handle on the complexity that exists within and around us and between us and through us. I…</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>Along the line of other lenses missing from AQAL, another point in that linked post is that these other lenses</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>"tap into some basic relationships that exist in the human experience of reality. Consequently, they show up within every attempt to understand, explain, or get some handle on the complexity that exists within and around us and between us and through us. I see them as coming out of some kind of morphological fault line in the Kosmos, windows that we create and which we are drawn to look through, proclivities that we innately possess as sentient beings who act and imagine."</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>I noted in that post that indeed, the image schema (per Lakoff's work) provide that morphological fault line. I said:</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>"There are different kinds of preconceptual image schemas, which ground the basic categories: container, part-whole, link, center-periphery, source-path-goal, up-down, front-back and linear order are some examples. Concepts then build on these schemas: categories in general build on container schemas, hierarichal structures in terms of part-whole and up-down, relations in terms of links, radial structure in terms of center-periphery etc. I find an interesting correlation here with Mark Edwards' pluralistic lenses. [...] holarchical, bipolar, cyclical, standpoint, relational" etc.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>I also noted in other Ning IPS threads how these image schema show up as the different ways we formulate philosophical worldviews. From the above referenced link I relate how Lakoff sees the objectivitst paradigm as being solely reliant on a hierarchical category lens, and as a result we get a very dualistic, metaphysical conception of the world. While I don't see that Edwards criticizes this particular aspect in AQAL you can see I've repeated made that same connection with kennilingus metaphysical dualism.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p></p> Another point Edwards makes i…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-04-20:5301756:Comment:608812015-04-20T17:36:08.390ZEdward theurj Bergehttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>Another point Edwards makes in that thread, one relevant to other FB IPS discussions on the imposition of UL structural levels on other zones, is the following from <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/mark-edwards?hc_location=ufi" target="_self">this</a> post:</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>"AQAL metatheory has focused almost exclusively on the stage-based approach…</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>Another point Edwards makes in that thread, one relevant to other FB IPS discussions on the imposition of UL structural levels on other zones, is the following from <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/mark-edwards?hc_location=ufi" target="_self">this</a> post:</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>"AQAL metatheory has focused almost exclusively on the stage-based approach where development is seen as the holarchical emergence of qualitatively new forms of complexity and capacities. This is, what I call, the developmental holarchy lens. However, this is only one among many other explanatory lenses that might be used to describe and understand transformation.... We need to combine it with and differentiate it from many other lenses if we are to see how stage-based development aligns with other aspects of transformation."</span></span></span></span></p> Hi Lucy - I'm, obvious to me,…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-04-20:5301756:Comment:607992015-04-20T17:08:54.976ZAmbo Sunohttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/AmboSuno
Hi Lucy - I'm, obvious to me, not going to be able to achieve a mirroring understanding of all that you have been saying here. But let me pull out one aspect and see if I am understanding you quite a lot on this one aspect.<br />
<br />
In addition to the validity and reliability of assertions of knowledge, you care a lot about fairness and justness of how declared chunks of "knowledge" are used. Keeping to this narrow point, is it correct to say that the morality and ethics of application of assertions of…
Hi Lucy - I'm, obvious to me, not going to be able to achieve a mirroring understanding of all that you have been saying here. But let me pull out one aspect and see if I am understanding you quite a lot on this one aspect.<br />
<br />
In addition to the validity and reliability of assertions of knowledge, you care a lot about fairness and justness of how declared chunks of "knowledge" are used. Keeping to this narrow point, is it correct to say that the morality and ethics of application of assertions of knowledge have a strong impact on you. If we are being mislead by incorrect or false information and false impressions created by language, for the various reasons and motives, and with various consequences, you feel that a lot, and you care a lot that this not go on or that it be revealed for what it is. Did I get this small of piece of your whole consideration of a larger territory more or less correct? ambo We have a thread on Edwards'…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-04-20:5301756:Comment:607962015-04-20T15:44:00.922ZEdward theurj Bergehttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/theurj
<p>We have a thread on Edwards' work <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/mark-edwards" target="_self">here</a>. In <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/mark-edwards?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A47674" target="_self">this</a> post of that thread he said:</p>
<p>"Whereas theory is developed from the exploration of empirical events, experiences and 'first-order' concepts, metatheory emerges from the direct investigation of other theory, models…</p>
<p>We have a thread on Edwards' work <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/mark-edwards" target="_self">here</a>. In <a href="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/mark-edwards?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A47674" target="_self">this</a> post of that thread he said:</p>
<p>"Whereas theory is developed from the exploration of empirical events, experiences and 'first-order' concepts, metatheory emerges from the direct investigation of other theory, models and 'second-order' concepts.</p>
<p>"Integral metatheory building is based on the analysis of extant theory and does not deal with empirical data. Consequently, it cannot validly make conclusions about empirical data based on its metatheorising. If it does so, it is stepping outside its realm of authority. To put this in another way, metatheory is primarily about other theory and not about the prediction or evaluation of first-order empirical data."</p>
<p>It simply is not its purview to take on the specifics of empirical situations to find solutions. Hence we see that it can only deal in broad generalities about other theories and methods, how they might or might not relate, how we might or might not integrate some aspects of each. Hence when metatheory applies itself to specific problems or tries to create new methods or structures it seems completely inept. And it doesn't recognize this limitation because per Edwards it doesn't have the self-critical tools to evaluate its own metatheory, which is the ultimate purpose of this article.</p>
<p>You can find the entire article in JITP 3:2 Summer 2008.</p> Lucy, I'm not sure where to b…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-04-20:5301756:Comment:606862015-04-20T05:23:25.805ZBalderhttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/BruceAlderman
<p>Lucy, I'm not sure where to begin in responding, as you've said so much and I'm not sure what stands out to you as of greatest interest or concern. One topic above that stood out for me was your surprise (and perhaps dismay) at Edwards discussing 'metatheory,' when we haven't even nailed down what Integral theory is (if this is, indeed, what you were saying). In my view, I think Integral Theory is a bit of a misnomer -- especially if we are thinking of 'theory' in its (most rigorous)…</p>
<p>Lucy, I'm not sure where to begin in responding, as you've said so much and I'm not sure what stands out to you as of greatest interest or concern. One topic above that stood out for me was your surprise (and perhaps dismay) at Edwards discussing 'metatheory,' when we haven't even nailed down what Integral theory is (if this is, indeed, what you were saying). In my view, I think Integral Theory is a bit of a misnomer -- especially if we are thinking of 'theory' in its (most rigorous) scientific sense. IT is not 'theory' in that sense, and even 'Theory of Everything' is suspect (some prefer to say, 'theory for anything'). But, to me, metatheory -- not theory -- seems to be the best description of what Wilber/Integral is up to. Integral seems to be primarily concerned with the analysis and correlation of theories (and, more broadly, systems of thought and practice), along with related activities such as analyzing assumptions (or making implicit assumptions explicit), deconstructing theories or systems of thought, tracing homeomorphic equivalencies or interrelationships across multiple theories or forms of knowledge, integrating multiple theories and systems of thought, creating conceptual 'scaffolding' for inclusion of, and promotion of interaction between, multiple epistemologies and methodologies (IMP), etc. These are the activities of metatheory.</p> I am with you on things not b…tag:integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com,2015-04-20:5301756:Comment:607952015-04-20T04:04:57.162ZLucy Summershttps://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/profile/LucySummers
<p>I am with you on things not being so clear. Especially when we use language and the mode known as "thinking" to perceive them and sort them out and stack them into systems called Theories.</p>
<p></p>
<p>This claim that Mental and Spiritual (and I suppose even aesthetic and poetic and moral and emotional and relational and ....) Knowledge is subject to a Scientific Method whereby:</p>
<p></p>
<p>a. I am competent to judge what you are doing.</p>
<p>b. You perform an injunction.</p>
<p>c.…</p>
<p>I am with you on things not being so clear. Especially when we use language and the mode known as "thinking" to perceive them and sort them out and stack them into systems called Theories.</p>
<p></p>
<p>This claim that Mental and Spiritual (and I suppose even aesthetic and poetic and moral and emotional and relational and ....) Knowledge is subject to a Scientific Method whereby:</p>
<p></p>
<p>a. I am competent to judge what you are doing.</p>
<p>b. You perform an injunction.</p>
<p>c. Your performance follows the dictates of the injunction and does not violate the dictates of the injunction.</p>
<p>d. You get a result or observe a consequence. </p>
<p>e. You report your result. </p>
<p>f. I can make clear sense of your result and I (the competent one) can determine if you followed the injunction and made an accurate report by being able to compare your result with known results or by being able to perform your injunction to get the same result.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Many many people have worked soberly and patiently and with discipline and humility to build bodies of knowledge in various fields. The method known as the Scientific Method requires a degree of rigor beyond simply "hey, try this and see if you feel good."</p>
<p></p>
<p>It's one thing to concoct your own language among your friends as a joke. It's also one thing to lie to your friends as they lie to you.</p>
<p></p>
<p>It's another thing to proclaim to the world "hey, there is valid knowledge out yonder, and there are people who can tell if you got it. You know all those warm fuzzies you get when you hear about the Scientific Method? Well, this too follows the Scientific Method!"</p>
<p></p>
<p>What Wilber failed to do was to make it clear, "yes, there is Knowledge up yonder in those realms. But, it ain't knowledge like you understand it. And, yes, if follows a Scientific Method, but it ain't a Scientific Method as the term is commonly understood. It's a world of knowing in different ways."</p>
<p></p>
<p>I don't know if "we" need to pass through anything. I do know that bad things always happen when people are dishonest and when they misrepresent things.</p>
<p></p>
<p>As for novelty, every lie is novel. Every false claim is novel. And, every person who is lost without a guide is experience a novel form of misery.</p>
<p></p>
<p>As for the virtue of messiness, I am all for it, as long as it doesn't involve messing up my head with lies and false promises and grandiose visions lacking a foundation.</p>
<p></p>
<p>There may be another way to invite people to embrace the multiple ways of knowing, without asserting that these ways lead to stable capital K Knowledge verifiable by trained capital C Competent Persons.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Maybe we can just demonstrate our knowledge by our actions, and let people join us if they are inclined. No promises about it leading anywhere and no claims about who is in a position to make judgments of validity.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>Ambo Suno said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-knowing-how#5301756Comment60685"><div><div class="xg_user_generated">OK. I think I follow you.<br/> <br/> For me it's not quite so clear. ambo<br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <cite>Lucy Summers said:</cite><blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-knowing-how?commentId=5301756%3AComment%3A60684&xg_source=activity#5301756Comment60684"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Well, how about this: I have found that a way to achieve deep physical calm is to throw horseshows some people maybe.</p>
<p></p>
<p>To learn how to some people maybe, touch your head with are there things here.</p>
<p></p>
<p>To know if you have done it right, I will tell you after many chops.</p>
<p></p>
<p>That was certainly novel, you'd have to agree.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I invited you to inquire into how to achieve physical calm. And, you are probably wondering, "what does throw horseshows" have to do with it?</p>
<p></p>
<p>For my technique, you throw horseshoes. Why didn't I say that? Because, in my language you have to call horseshoes "horseshows" when you are using the term in an injunctive phrase.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Ah-so!!</p>
<p></p>
<p>I can go on and on about my novel use of language. But, if you boil it down, my injunction really means "don't eat a lot of sugar."</p>
<p></p>
<p>Well, why didn't I use those words? Because I wanted to be novel and start using words in new ways to free up poetic intuition. Can you see yourself throwing out the sugar sack like you throw a horseshoe?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Here, at least I have admitted I took a turn for the novel. Seems like a big difference.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I suggested that precision be a "good thing" for "Scientific Knowledge" emanating from "mental and spiritual scientific method." Precision allows us to trust what people say about what will and won't waste our time, harm us, play head games with us, manipulate masses, etc.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Sorry, Ambo, but I can't forgive gross manipulations of words like Science and Knowledge. I am going to ask they be justified.</p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>Ambo Suno said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://integralpostmetaphysics.ning.com/forum/topics/integral-knowing-how#5301756Comment60683"><div><div class="xg_user_generated">Yes, Lucy, I follow you and concur about conversational warfare, overt and occult, conscious and unconscious. The narcissistic and human nature sources of self-reinforcement seem sometimes to spring eternal.<br/> <br/> Your logic about what would benefit conversation, partly conveyed in the below pasted quote, makes plenty of sense to me.<br/> <br/> "Back to Wilber's idea of Science at all levels using all Eyes. People who work in the fields of physics and chemistry absolutely insist on precision in defintions of terms. Without this, the work is meaningless.<br/> <br/> I would expect that, if Science is used for mental and spiritual Knowledge, the concern for precision would be much stronger, since the threat of meaningless lurks just around the bend."<br/> <br/> I feel a little confused however about how to place a caveat around such common sense prerequisites for investigation, if "investigation" in a scientific manner is what we are really wanting and needing.<br/> <br/> I wonder if my confusion may be of a reflexive post-modern sort that wants to leave openings for non-conventional and even sometimes counter-conventional word usage. I could speculate a bit about why I don't want to rule that out, but I'll try not to.<br/> <br/> One reason that comes to mind is around the assertions, some probably based on research, that novelty is an important feature for discovery and growth, and moving towards novelty seems to be a human need/desire/tendency that is in dialectic with the seemingly more necessary grounding in reliable predictability - as with conventions of language.<br/> <br/> Maybe, as you say, we base conversations for the most part on more steady and effective definitions and language, until, for one example, there comes a sense that something new, fresh, important, a breaking through, could occur by being more creative.<br/> <br/> I think this has been one of Layman's fortes (and perhaps in terms of communication and communion, at times limiting.) It seems to me at the moment that his frequent emphasis on MOA (metaphysics of adjacency), as does an intent of the phrase "integral post-metaphysics", addresses the intrinsic fuzziness of all things, including signifiers.<br/> <br/> By musing and confusing on this, I seem to become more ready for instances where creative language and conversational messiness seems to happen. This reminds me of how finely parsed are the distinctions as well as how emphatic some people need to be around differences to which many people would say, "Close enough, already!" I'm thinking of, say, dzogchen and say a school of tantra (I don't know the specifics) or, closer to home, the seemingly endless distinctions seen here on IPS by so many bright scholars about the nature of our world.<br/> <br/> We are back to what you are saying, I think. You seem to be wondering if we can simplify all this slicing and dicing and talking at seemingly cross-purposes, partly because of language usages that don't align. At this moment, I am not sure we can clean this up fully. Partly because I am in over my head here, Lucy, I am tempted to repeat the trite sounding dictum I have heard - could it be that "The way out is the way through." The way to linguistic/mental simplicity may need to pass through linguistic/mental complexity.<br/> <br/> Have I diverted too much? If so, bring it back on track. However please let me remind again of this element we call novelty - where and how would that fit into a tidier system?<br/> <br/> Hanging my wings back in the closet.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>