On open letter to Ken Wilber and integral teachers

[Oleg Linetsky]

Dear friends,

recently I wrote my letter to Ken Wilber where I state several ideas important to postmetaphysics discussion as I guess.

When I first read "Integral spirituality" several years ago I was surprised to see pure metaphysical "postmetaphysical" approach. I feel I have something to contribute in this conversation from mystical point of view as pure mystical vision is really free from metaphysics, from any beliefs and universal views. Since my first article about AQAL 2.0 several years ago I suggest a certain method for postmetaphysical philosophy how to treat our experience without universal beliefs and axioms. Truth is out of conceptual mind,  thus we should look there to find a basis for good philosophy. It's not difficult.

Applying it to current AQAL gives us some new great insights and I want to share it with you and to ask about your feedback. Here is a link for an article

http://integralportal.ru/Open_letter_to_KW.pdf

If you consider it too long, have a look on p.17 at least, where I describe 10 primordial  inclinations in wordviews on any levels of development. Even though before I consider boundaries that are extremely important for conversation about postmetaphysical spirituality. Boundaries between sectors and states are also objects that can be percieved! Moreover they are 5 classic elements traditions all over the world talk about.

I'm really interested in oppinion this respectable community. Thanks to all.

[Oleg Linetsky]

Dear Bruce,

thanks for joining to this interesting discussion.

I am glad we've finally been able to get a conversation going around your paper (although regrettably I've yet to contribute substantially).

I'm waiting for that with interest. ))

I appreciate the (likely intentional) resonance between central elements of your vision and Tibetan Buddhist cosmological teachings.  I'm thinking here, for instance, of the description in Dzogchen of the spontaneous emergence of the five lights out of the empty clarity of the natural state.  I appreciate this because you are attempting to articulate a postmetaphysical spirituality that is consonant with the tradition in which I have primarily practiced, and so I am curious to see how and where you go with this.

Sure, at your service, Bruce. I'm ready to answer any questions and share what I have.

However, as I mentioned to you in an email, my own thinking has taken a different path in recent years, and this is one of my primary "sticking points" with your paper:  your definition of postmetaphysics is apparently quite different from my own.

Actually in paper I didn't give certain definition on that. And my point is that whatever it was it should provide 2 important things:

1. It should explain life somehow and help me to make wise decisions (i.e. explain pain);

2. It should not make me believe in anything as an absolute truth! But it can propose some notions in order to fulfill n.1.

If your definition differs from that, please let me know so that we can form a common ground and language. I will appreciate it!

Like Layman, apparently, I stumbled over your equation of non-conceptuality with post-metaphysics.  The idea of going beyond concepts to encounter reality as it is seems, to me, to repeat the very metaphysical moves of past traditions that post-metaphysics aims to redress.

Maybe it's a kind of misunderstanding. Let me clarify. 

I'm not talking about non-conceptuality of post-metaphysics. What I talk about is that WITHOUT getting BEYOND concepts it is not possible to build any post-metaphysics. Why no? Because in n.1 we have such category like PAIN (or tension, or suffereing) that is NOT CONCEPTUAL. If we remove it, then why do we need such philosophy?? And if we leave it we have to deal with non-conceptual stuff as well to connect pain and thoughts. Otherwise we don't have a LINK that explains why some pure thought system is ever able to allow me to avoid the suffering. And it sounds rediculous otherwise. Am I clear enough?

Preference to concepts is a great metaphysics. We can't afford to prefer concepts or non-concepts if we want to build good philosophy!

If someone takes the responsibility to teach others to live, the main question he must answer is how to avoid suffering without avoiding life itself. Right? So main point of ANY philosophy is responsibility for someone's suffer, that is NOT CONCEPTUAL! Thus without not conceptual aspects it's not possible to achieve the goal. Metaphysics allows to do that partially just because the very belief lies on tension of uncertainity that one can't stand deeper. 

Recalling your previous paper on postmetaphysics and Wilber's holon, I realize your view on postmetaphysics may be subtler than I am representing it, however, so would you please state for me what you mean by the term, particularly as you are using it in this paper?

Thanks for good question, Bruce, just did it above.

Concerning your use of "I," I am reminded of Assagioli's work.  Do you have him in mind here? 

Yes, I read him, but I didn't mean the same. For me "I" is a source of making decisions in you. Something that feels tensions and chooses interpretations. If I ask you "who reads this now?" - you'll reply "I" - that is it! Not Self-system, not concept of "I", but very true YOU, FREE from anything.

One of the ways to read or employ the quadrants is fractally, where terms associated primarily with one quadrant can be further opened through an additional quadratic analysis.  This is a technique Suzanne Cook-Greuter wrote about a few years ago; I mention it here because it seems this is what you are doing, but we could also set your quadrated "I" alongside other quadrated elements (particularly if we want to avoid the latent solipsism/narcissism that could skirt around an approach which puts "I" at the center as Absolute).

I state it precisely in p.17 that we must consider 2 interpretations at same time (causal/non-dual) "I'm universe" and "I'm in Universe". Preference to any of them is pure metaphysics. Wilber's "I'm in Universe" is dialogical metaphysics and buddhists "I'm Universe" is monological metaphysics. I don't see another way rather then to simultrack this both interpretations the same fashion like is done with quadrants. So I put attention to very tension between causal and nondual and consider both possible interpretations.

For instance, the "Object Oriented Ontology" we have been discussing here seems, in its own way, to be "quadrating" the rather lifeless "object" of conventional understanding and drawing out all sorts of hidden richness and strangeness.

Please read also a part with "A"/"-A"s in my previos reply to Layman in order to understand my point better.

[Layman Pascal]

Dear Oleg,

Do we agree or disagree? Are we responding to each other or to arguments that we remind each other of?  Anyway, I seem to have two problems with what you are saying.

1.

I think that it is misleading to use the trans-conceptual as the basis for discussion.  It is true in meditation but not true in conversation.  And we are in conversation.  Therefore we must limit ourselves to concepts since that is the immediate reality.  It does no good to say that we know the trans-conceptual is only a concept and so we are not bound by it.  That only makes the conversation fluid, circulatory, ruptured.  Unless we agree to lock down a metaphysics we cannot go on to post-metaphysics.  The goal of meditation may be to break models... but the goal of talking about meditation is to make models.

It doesn't matter if we are good swimmers, or if we are fish -- the boat-builder's job is to build boats without holes. 

So your metaphysics is not something which goes beyond A & -A, etc.  Rather the A which you claim IS really real is this "tension itself or energy or element".  That's fine.  Let's go with that.  The moment we back off and use the meditative experience of the trans-conceptual to say that we are not confined by our own concepts... then we are not longer being responsible with our concepts. 

This energy initiates action.  This energy is felt uniquely in the tension of boundary conditions.  This energy is felt to permeate, absorb and fill oneself in that "space" beyond thinking.  This energy erases cognitive lag and produces a bliss of "pure interest".  That's all good.  All metaphysical. 

2.

I don't agree about the 5 boundaries.  I think the Causal is the nature of all differences, of difference itself, and when it perceives differences it encounters itself.  All 5 pairs are examples of the "causal" element which causes the Gross & Subtle to have boundaries, forms, alternatives. 

When the Causal, seeing itself, cannot tell which is seen and which is seeing - then the non-dual is presencing itself. 

Who observes the difference between the causal and non-dual?  I would say that this difference is not observed.  The non-dual is precisely the absence of any comparison.  The non-dual, distinguished from the causal, IS the causal.  Just as the non-dual distinguished from the dual IS the causal. 

But when the dual is understood to be already non-dual... then the non-dual is presencing. 

Do I believe duality exists?

Of course.  Only duality can be shown to exist.  There is no demonstration which is not relational, contextual.  It takes two to tango.  But what is the status of this duality.  Is it already non-dual -- yes, in my experience, but this does not reduce its duality.  Does it always involve a tension?  This is uncertain... maybe yes, maybe no.  Here we agree.

Pascal.

[Oleg Linetsky]

Ok, Pascal,

we've come to interesting place now. It's getting warmer. ))

Lets get back to basics. Why people need philosophy and all these maps of reality? To get rid of pain and suffering. From initial horror of not-knowing to regular tensions in life situations. So wise people take this trouble and responsibility to show people path to better life. Main point for them is to know what is fear, to be able to look into severe fear's eyes and to show people how to treat with it. In Asia they call people of great wisdom as "lords of snakes" (because thoughts are like snakes in mind). People trust them and respect their courage and clarity. 

Buddha's teaching starts from 4 nobel truths just because he understanded main goal of philosophy. He asserted that he knew the reason of suffering and people followed him. They trusted his authority that he knew it. Personally I don't agree with this statement now fully, but I support this direction. Now postmetaphysics must show people that it knows the reason of suffering. Otherwise how can I trust that all this mental reflections can guarantee that I have less suffering in my life with their theories?!

And this is difficult question unless you say something like "trust me, I'm sure it works". Because fear is not real, and is not not_real, it's beyond mind, it's not conceptual! How all these theories are connected with fear? So by now postmetaphysics often looks to me like intellectual game for the elite. Something like "How to make statements without taking responsibility for them". It's very postmodern, very shallow, very individualistic. Even not too much smart lamas radiate a tangible compassion and in many postmetaphyscis circles I can't feel a part of it. It's not surprisingly people don't follow them much.

You can't overcome this question even if you succeed to find a way of formulation without assertion.

Actually I admire commitment to pure truth of all who deals with postmetaphysics. But truth is also beyond conceptual mind. It's a challenge for all of us. I have to remind that very tension/energy is not A and not -A, it's beyond conceptual mind! So do truth. We can interpret tension as A and as -A, but tension itself is free from that. Sorry, but it's nothing further to discuss by now if you can't discriminate tension itself and thoughts about tension. But it's even worse you ascribe to me that I claim "tensions are only real". I didn't say that! I try not to live in head. I discriminate "to be real" and "to be not a concept". And it's metaphysical belief that "to be free of mind" = "not to be responsible of concepts". To be free of mind in particular means to descriminate thoughts and tensions that underlie and to be much more responsible for interpretations. Meditation practice helps with that.

All the best, Oleg

[Balder]

Oleg:  Actually in paper I didn't give certain definition on that. And my point is that whatever it was it should provide 2 important things:
1. It should explain life somehow and help me to make wise decisions (i.e. explain pain);
2. It should not make me believe in anything as an absolute truth! But it can propose some notions in order to fulfill n.1.
If your definition differs from that, please let me know so that we can form a common ground and language. I will appreciate it!

Yes, I appreciate and generally share these aims, but don't think these points really help to clarify what is meant by "postmetaphysics."  Can you say more what you mean by the term, beyond these general epistemological and soteriological concerns?  What (more specifically) does a postmetaphysical orientation involve, and what distinguishes it from a metaphysical approach?

Oleg:  If someone takes the responsibility to teach others to live, the main question he must answer is how to avoid suffering without avoiding life itself. Right? So main point of ANY philosophy is responsibility for someone's suffer, that is NOT CONCEPTUAL! Thus without not conceptual aspects it's not possible to achieve the goal. Metaphysics allows to do that partially just because the very belief lies on tension of uncertainity that one can't stand deeper.

I would prefer to say, not "just" conceptual rather than it being wholly non-conceptual.  I understand that suffering is embodied and energetic, meaning it is not wholly reducible to linguistic forms or "merely" conceptual activities or distinctions, but it seems to me that suffering cannot be wholly or neatly distinguished from conceptuality.  For instance, pain becomes suffering precisely in and through our conceptual identifications and resistances to our feeling states.  And our feeling states are inseparable, it seems to me, from our embodied situatedness in the world, our protoconceptual (metaphorical) involvement and intimacy in/with others and the world, which includes and involves various modes of knowing and experiencing (and therefore cannot be wholly separated from the activity of "mind").  Would you agree?

Bruce:  Concerning your use of "I," I am reminded of Assagioli's work.  Do you have him in mind here?

 
Oleg:  Yes, I read him, but I didn't mean the same. For me "I" is a source of making decisions in you. Something that feels tensions and chooses interpretations. If I ask you "who reads this now?" - you'll reply "I" - that is it! Not Self-system, not concept of "I", but very true YOU, FREE from anything.

This is quite close to Assagioli's understanding of "I."  In psychosynthesis, the "I" is a transcendent-immanent, non-conceptual center of awareness and will, quite distinct from the object-relational or psychological structures indicated by "ego" or "self."

[Oleg Linetsky]

Balder said:

Yes, I appreciate and generally share these aims, but don't think these points really help to clarify what is meant by "postmetaphysics."  Can you say more what you mean by the term, beyond these general epistemological and soteriological concerns?  What (more specifically) does a postmetaphysical orientation involve, and what distinguishes it from a metaphysical approach?

))) Ok. But I don't see soteriological concern here (if we consider salvation by that).

Thought system that denies universal ontology per se without proving and is based on critical thinking. Wilber is more focused on giving postmetaphysical status of levels of development though. But this does not actually mean that other arbitrary assertions without proof are acceptable. Especially implied ones.

And what you read into that? Is there any discussion here on this regard?

I would prefer to say, not "just" conceptual rather than it being wholly non-conceptual.  I understand that suffering is embodied and energetic, meaning it is not wholly reducible to linguistic forms or "merely" conceptual activities or distinctions, but it seems to me that suffering cannot be wholly or neatly distinguished from conceptuality.

I can agree that suffering can't be definded without lingvistic forms, indeed, but its nature is not conceptual. We don't know suffering, we feel it. Sometimes it's so strong that we can't even think or be conscious. You know Ekhart Tolle got enlightened experiencing great suffering.

For instance, pain becomes suffering precisely in and through our conceptual identifications and resistances to our feeling states.

Right. Do you consider any preference as conceptual identification?

And our feeling states are inseparable, it seems to me, from our embodied situatedness in the world, our protoconceptual (metaphorical) involvement and intimacy in/with others and the world, which includes and involves various modes of knowing and experiencing (and therefore cannot be wholly separated from the activity of "mind").  Would you agree?

Correct. And in some sense everything is one. But it doesn't help us with our issues because development in general is division and linking, differentiation and integration. And I'm focused on differentiation of mind and non-mind AND their integration for the good of postmetaphysics. Because all of them are parts of reality and we can't throw away half of reality. Not more important part, but equally important. And again, it gives us firm and flawless foundation for conceptual system.

This is quite close to Assagioli's understanding of "I."  In psychosynthesis, the "I" is a transcendent-immanent, non-conceptual center of awareness and will, quite distinct from the object-relational or psychological structures indicated by "ego" or "self."

And in certain sense to any other mystical and spiritual understanding from Abhidharma to Upanishads. But what this similarity gives us then? ))

[Layman Pascal]

Ok (& fiesty),

Nonsense!  Philosophy is a natural activity like art, poetry, science & love.  When people feel good & clear they naturally become interested in the patterns of reality and life.  Through the force of good-feeling they lose that ordinary fear of logic, that small-hearted sense of being endangered by abstractions, that resistance to self-criticism, that child's idea of the difference between "things" and "symbols".  All these intensities become enjoyable.  

So one goes forward from pleasure to pleasure, finding great peaks in the absolute truths & vast vistas & the dizzingly valleys of uncertainty & the intricately rare gems of thought.  This is one particular facet of the dharma active in the world.  It is the dharma chewing the mind, repatterning language, making a more correct relationship between symbols and realities.  Generating resonance.  It is the activity of wisdom expressing itself and increasing itself in the world.  A free activity -- and because it is free it is also a freeing activity.  And it is not a mental activity but the action of truth itself re-sculpting the mind.

Philosophy is not about trusting that a map will lead beyond the world of suffering.  It is not a medical treatment.  It would be insane to trust a philosophy with the care of your well-being in the universe.  Philosophy is for people who are already pretty happy.  But of course it can demonstrate how to examine, how to dig, how to find truths which are liberating and self-authenticating.  

In a sense, post-metaphysics IS a game for the elite.  Perhaps only a few people in the world will use the great big telescopes -- but what they see in space will be "more true".  These discoveries can be used as part of a package to help people but they are not obliged from the beginning to be popular, easy to understand and immediately helpful.  

However it is not about "how to make statements without taking responsibility for them".  Exactly the opposite.  It is saying that a lot of statements, even those which seem very profound and trans-conceptual are actually irresponsible -- even if they make people feel spiritually impressed.  It is a higher standard of truth.   

You are, as far as I can tell, making statements without taking responsibility for them.  You want to say that this tension/energy is what exists, what underlies the different options for seeing and believing.  But you refuse to admit to this is all your A.  You keep saying that A & not-A are limitations which you have gone beyond.  But all that is your A.  Which is fine -- but you don't want to be responsible for you A?  You keep imagining this limited idea of going beyond dualistic concepts.  You keep making claims and then denying that they are claims.  "I'm not stuck in beliefs -- but this is what's true.  But's that's not a belief.  But if you say it's a belief, that's fine.  I'm not stuck in beliefs.  You're stuck in beliefs because you can't tell that I'm not stuck in beliefs!"  That's my definition of being stuck in beliefs!  It is not free from claims -- it is just a cul-de-sac of claims.

>To be free of mind in particular means to descriminate thoughts and tensions that underlie and to be much more responsible for interpretations. Meditation practice helps with that.

Agreed.  All the best, Layman.

[Oleg Linetsky]

Excellent, Pascal! You are great!

> Philosophy is for people who are already pretty happy. 

> Philosophy is not ... lead beyond the world of suffering.

> post-metaphysics IS a game for the elite.

You are partially right, Pascal, as it should be. For some people philosophy is entertainment or linguistic game. That's fine. We ascribe own meanings to things, right. It's interesting that most of Buddhas didn't think that philosophy is for happy people (and also for white, well educated, successful, brahmans ...). We have different motivations here, but it's not our subject. We are now on the border of the identifications here and can go slowly further. ))) If you don't mind.

God doesn't "exist", God is experienced, right? So does energy/tenstion. You discriminate "thing" and "symbol". I see we agree on that. Fine.

Look what I suggest then. I give you introduction in 5 tensions first. Then technically we use your own language to describe these tensions I transmitted. Like you confirm that this certain kind of tension you feel when you split apart between YOUR interests and OUR interests. Ok? If you have different metaphors then fine, we use your other ones. I don't care much about metaphors and language.

Then I ask you to confirm that both sides of the tension are your own interests. Why otherwise you care about them and feel tension? If so, we have to take both of them in consideration, both contexts! Again with YOUR OWN METAPHOR, not mine! My examples (but it's not neccesary to use them) are "I'm individual"/"I'm collective", "I'm a doer"/"I'm a dreamer" and so on... And by now I havn't aks you to believe in anything. I just directly transmitted 5 tensions and used your metaphors to indicate you who you are in 10 contexts! Isn't it great! I propose to take in a consideration doubled contexts A/-A for any boundary. And you are free to use any. So I transmit a map without support of MY language and without beliefs. This philosophy is free of ontology and definitions, it's empty of language. We just use some words in process but none of them are important. It's not based on statesments! It's like good coaching - I use language and beliefs of client. My point is to reveal WHAT IS without adding anything.

What is your oppinion on this?

[Oleg Linetsky]

Dear Bruce,

what do you think on this?

Look what I suggest then. I give you introduction in 5 tensions first. Then technically we use your own language to describe these tensions I transmitted and you recognized. Like you confirm that this certain kind of tension you feel when you split apart between YOUR interests and OUR interests. Ok? If you have different metaphors then fine, we use your other ones. I don't care much about metaphors and language.

Then I ask you to confirm that both sides of the tension are your own interests. Why otherwise you care about them and feel tension? If so, we have to take both of them in consideration, both contexts! Again with YOUR OWN METAPHOR, not mine! My examples (but it's not neccesary to use them) are "I'm individual being"/"I'm collective being", "I'm a doer"/"I'm a dreamer" and so on... And by now I havn't aks you to believe in anything. I don't make statements, you do! I just directly transmitted 5 tensions and used your metaphors to indicate you who you are in 10 contexts! Isn't it great! 

I propose to take in a consideration doubled contexts A/-A for any boundary. And you are free to use any. So I transmit a map without support of MY language and without beliefs. This philosophy is free of ontology and definitions, it's empty of language. We just use some words in process but none of them are important. It's not based on statesments! It's like good coaching - I use language and beliefs of client. My point is to reveal WHAT IS without adding anything from myself.

[Layman Pascal]

Thank you, Oleg.  I am pretty great.  

In fact I'm sooooooooo great that I might have a little extra greatness... with which to say You are also super!   In fact I notice that you have no trouble telling what "most Buddhas" think of philosophy.  This represents a very impressive level of understanding :)

I am very happy with your ultra-philosophical, super-intellectual claim to distinguish between the existing of God & the experiencing of God.  Or tension/energy.  Or whatever.  I agree.  And if you want to say "5" are most basic and important -- maybe I don't agree -- but surely a few are very basic!

Yes, tensions exist at boundaries between interests.  And, yes, I have to be interested in both sides to experience this tension.  Otherwise there is no contradiction.  

Now, some boundaries are between things which can be rivals.  Competing interests.  Two different ways to go.  Other boundaries are not.  2+2=4 & 2+2=5 are not competing interests who both need to be taken into account.  One is correct.  One is incorrect.  One side reduces to the other.  There is really only A here.  But when I have to select between "individual" and "collective" there are definitely two valid interests.  

But I think it is silly when you say that you are not asking anyone to believe to this.  You are not "directly transmitting" you are communicating through the structures of language and you are saying what you think is the reality.  And that is great.  You are not doing this without support of your language.  It is not free from ontology.  It definitely IS an ontology.  

It doesn't get be to "free" just because you are willing drop any idea or terminology.  

Let us suppose that I am a human being.  Perhaps I am willing to let go of this English wording and use anyone's wording from any language.  This does not affect my thoughts or beliefs.  Thinking is not merely phrasing.  Feeling free to circulating the phrasing is just superficial.  It is very useful, very flexible.  It helps avoid conflicts.  It helps to be able to use a client's phrasing.  But none of that is freedom from ontology.  Your "statements" or "claims" are the things which you experience to be real and wish to communicate.  

That said, I think it is enormously useful to help people to experience the interest they have on both sides of every boundary.  Not only helpful -- but very important for humanity.

[Oleg Linetsky]

Ok, what essencial we have here to discriminate? Looks I found something.

For some reason you believe that what I suggest makes you free from ontology. Not correct. I don't offer to drop terminology, it's silly, indeed. I'm not free from that and don't assert anyone can be free from language, ontology or anything. So when you talk about philosophy it implies more correct way of definition of objects, improvement of ontology. And this is really great aim. You defend it fairly and it makes sence. It corresponds to the message that philosophy is a game for established people, right. So this is one aspect and it's more correlated with growth and development of our metaphors. 

Now what I talk about comes from original meaning of philosophy - "love of wisdom". By that I mean the very discriminative wisdom, ability to see tensions, to recognize them, to keep free from preferences and to take into account both side's interests. Other words to differentiate and integrate on any level of development, with any language, with any level of sensitivity and so on. 

It looks to me romantic view that "transmission" is something that transmits beyond words only. In Buddhist tradition there are 3 general types of transmissions: verbal, symbolic and immediate. And in waking state only 2 first forms are possible. So I didn't say I don't use language for that. What I transmit - are 5 discrimination abilities that you can use within your world of thoughts and beliefs. I don't transmit you my ideas or beliefs. Do you see difference?

Why this transmission is philosophy? - Because it explains you how to live wisely.

Why it's post-metaphysical? - Because I don't ask you to believe in my ideas/thoughts.

What are my personal beliefs and statesments? - Nobody's business. Because I don't impose them!

It's not me or you becomes post-metaphysical, it's this kind of philosophy formulation is.

I leave a human being in a same mental condition he had before but he became more wise anyway. So I show him that his mind is the same but he is not already. It's a glimpse a awakening as well.

So we can say that these 2 parts of work a like vertical and horisontal. You are more focused on getting more and more wise metaphors and language habbits. And I focus more on absolute wisdom available to us at any moment, even without changing metaphors of client (even though they change everytime people touch to wisdom). It's time now to admit that both parts of our concern are important at least, both are different aspects of philosophy.

[Layman Pascal]

Ole Oleg!

Yes, there are forms of transmission which occur outside of words.  AND forms which go through words.

You do both.  I think maybe you get carried away sometimes and mix them up a little.  I seem to blink when you sometimes speak "as if" you could speak-beyond-speaking.  There IS a beyond speaking.  But we cannot speak it.

>"What I transmit - are 5 discrimination abilities that you can use within your world of thoughts and beliefs. I don't transmit you my ideas or beliefs. Do you see difference?"  

Yes, certainly there is a difference.  But are you exaggerating a little?  Aren't you ALSO transmitting your ideas and beliefs -- both in your words and in the background of your words?  But this is not ALL you are transmitting...

>"Why this transmission is philosophy? - Because it explains you how to live wisely."

I agree.

>"Why it's post-metaphysical? - Because I don't ask you to believe in my ideas/thoughts.

What are my personal beliefs and statesments? - Nobody's business. Because I don't impose them!"

I don't agree.  

What are these except your ideas, beliefs & statements?  And you sending them through words for me to accept!  But maybe our problem is in the word "post-metaphysical" or "metaphysical".  

We don't know if we mean the same thing.  Probably we would agree more if we didn't use these words.  For me, ALL the things you are talking about are "metaphysics".  

Yes, philosophy has to focus both on language & on absolute wisdom.  Maybe it is not so true that I am doing one while you do the other.  Personally I am attending to absolute wisdom which tells me to respond freely to whatever appears -- and many issues about metaphors and speech are appearing before me from your messages.

How about this:

Philosophy has these 2 parts.  There is talk between philosophers & also therapeutic talk.  One is about improving the philosophy and expressing yourself.  The otheroOne is about using words in a practical, open-ended way for helping others (clients).  

I think a lot of what you are saying, the bits I find odd, are more true when dealing with clients than when we are dealing together.

[Oleg Linetsky]

>"Why it's post-metaphysical? - Because I don't ask you to believe in my ideas/thoughts.

What are my personal beliefs and statesments? - Nobody's business. Because I don't impose them!"

I don't agree. What are these except your ideas, beliefs & statements?  And you sending them through words for me to accept! 

Ok. I point people on their own types of tensions so that they recognize them in their experience.

It doesn't matter what kind of skillful means I use for that. They are temporary and not important!

Lets say I can hit on the head with sandal like Tilopa hit Naropa. Or scream something. Or write down.

Would you mind to give me couple examples of what "ideas, beliefs & statements" people are supposed to learn and remember in order to use this ability to discriminate in own life AFTER THAT?