I brought up the notion of choice, emotional connection, and identity in all our ways of thinking

Others have taken up different avenues of criticism of Matthew. For those interested see comments section here. Chris Dierkes Indistinct Union

This is probably not the best place to get into here, but for what it's worth, as the issue of the Great Ideas arises in this argument (brought in by Matthew) then I'll just re-state something the two of us have already debated/argued over. Namely that the Great Ideas is one form of interpretation. It is one way to organize and give a sense of coherence to philosophy, history, etc. It is a loose, conversational approach that has much to offer for itself, no doubt. But it is, by my light, one way of so doing. Not the only way. As per my last post, as someone who points towards holons (not postmodernism per se), then the position I am out to criticize is "wholeness" alone. Wholeness that does not recognize its part-ness.

To be fair, in as I understand Matthew interpretation is already prejudicing the debate to my end, showing my own bias. It is not an interpretation but rather a conversation, exploration that has been ongoing for two millenia plus. It's not an interpretation but rather just a basic noting of what the themes running through classical texts are.Here I'm just trying to get the reader as best as I can get a sense of the over-arching positions we take.

To me the root of this argument between us is this. I think he is taking the Great Ideas/Artistry model as Wholeness, which does not recognize its own partiality. Its own contingency, context, and limitations. That is why he is so adamantly opposed to what he calls the "taxonomy" of premodern, modern, postmodern, among others. But this call for the recognition of its contextual nature is not inherently suspicious and skeptical. It need not be anyway.

For the readers reference my position is that such a taxonomy has a place in certain contexts and not others. The contexts where it does have value, I think, are in cosmologies, values, periods, political agendas, etc. Where they don't have much, if any, value is in situations of living life from the inside. Whether that is listening to a great piece of music, reading literature, art, whatever. I agree with Matthew on this point. I'm only saying that is not the only context. It has its place and there are places where it is not the best way of dealing with/looking at things.

This is why in our back and forth comments I brought up the notion of choice, emotional connection, and identity in all our ways of thinking. Peirce called these abductions. At the crux of our disagreements (which again we have many agreements as well, those just aren't sexy) are our two different abductions.

I argue that both have value in different contexts--it's more inclusive by nature. And moreover with my writings on post-integral (there's that post again), I have claimed integral itself is a holon. It is a whole, that is part of something larger.

No doubt I tend towards the taxonomy place, but partly that is due to the fact that Matthew is already doing the Canon aspect better than I ever could. Not wanting to reinvent the wheel and working on creating say a table is not the same as denying the wheel's reality. Also, although I don't specify this enough I realize now, my writings for school (which I don't post) are almost entirely of the more hermeneutics, close readings of texts. This is my only outlet for the other ways of reading, being.

I'm reading a book now called From Jesus to Christ by Paula Fredriksen. When it comes to (outside this particular text) church matters on women, homosexuality, politics she is typically liberal (or green in the color scheme). But I don't label her book therefore as "green." Nor would I dismiss it even if it were. It is a well thought out, well argued very good book. For those moments I'm reading it, I'm just with the flow of her argument. Hell, even Wilber does as much--see his use of Arthur Lovejoy's Great Chain of Being in Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality. It forms the backdrop to his entire narrative and argument. Wilber doesn't dismiss the work out of hand because its too modern. Or not post-modern enough or something.

I hope that sufficiently clarifies I am not against MD's (nor the Great Ideas/Classical Ed.) approach altogether. Just the point at which it won't recognize its own terminus. When it does not admit its own boundaries then it makes (to my mind) specious claims like that postmodernism is too vague to mean anything. posted by CJ Smith @ 3:42 PM