Gagdad Bob said... One more quick point: do not confuse our philosophy with a political party. Rather, we simply identify with the party on which our philosophy might have more influence. In the present political mindscape, it just so happens that there is absolutely no place in the Democratic party for people who hold certain foundational truths, such as that the Constitution means what it says, or that racial discrimination is wrong, or that competition would cure the ills of our sick educational system, or that the Judeo-Christian tradition is fundamental to America's identity and character. 12/23/2006 10:47:14 AM Integralist said... You make some good points in your post, not least of which is that we are all trying to be "integralists." But of course I've been using the term in a relatively specific, even technical, way, along the lines of Ken Wilber's usage. Thus as a serious, if not utterly orthodox, student of Wilber's work, I strongly agree with you that to be integral we must at least recognize the different "modes of reality" (Wilber would add Soul to your four). The subjective and objective aspects basically equate with Wilber's left and right hand quadrants--again, important stuff.
Where I start to disagree with you, and call it "not integral," is when you talk about what you refuse to integrate. Your post has helped clarify in my own mind what I take issue with, which I will try to express as concisely as possible.
What I see you and others doing here is over-simplifying and consolidating ideologies, taking them wholesale so to speak, and outright writing them off if any of its parts you disagree with. It is as if you refuse to, or cannot, see ideologies as composed of different aspects, as dynamic even, but rather as static entities that are utterly unmalleable.
So when you talk about Marx's legacy via the supposedly "seductive intellectual pathologies that continue to infect the mind of man," you refuse to recognize how all of these have some veracity to them, are "true from a certain angle." Not absolutely true--just as your ideology is not Absolute Truth (no matter what Psycho Princess claims).
Another example is when you say that atheism and theism are incompatible. Strictly speaking, I agree. But what if we look less at the surface structures and more at the deeper, subtler dimensions of both? Atheism questions the belief in God, or anything that cannot be experienced with the senses. Theism posits a Power within and/or beyond the sensory world. "Mature" atheism is agnosticism, which is not anti-theistic, it just doesn't settle for belief. "Mature" theism is mysticism: it is not based in belief, but in experience.
What I'm doing here is, as Ken Wilber likes to say (perhaps ad nauseum), not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The bathwater of atheism is its refusal to be open to anything other than the sensory; the bathwater of theism is its reliance upon belief. The baby of atheism is its adherence to experience, to what one can verify personally; the baby of theism is its recognition of a deeper order or energy or power.
I would even say there is a relatively natural sequence, an evolution of consciousness: From theism to atheism to agnosticism to mysticism, which is roughly synonymous with premodern to modern to postmodern to post-postmodern (or integral). In my opinion, everyone must let go of their belief in God to actually experience the Divine (this is somewhat related to the notion of Grace, where all we can do is surrender--we cannot "grab" the Divine). Thus the synthesis of the thesis (theism) and antithesis (atheism) is agnostic mysticism.
Another thing that I see you and others here doing is a simple fallacy of elevating one's personal relative and contextual worldview with some kind of Absolute Truth. This is where the "good news" of postmodernism--recognizing context and cultural situation, as well as personal interpretation--is utterly missing from this blog. It is as if no one here recognizes that their views are at least to some degree shaped by their culture, their personality, and their personal beliefs. This is why any codified ideology is not, cannot be, "absolute"--only Absolute Truth is absolute.
When you discuss Marx and other Leftists and speak of how their views are based on total falsehood, it sounds to me as if you are projecting your own shadow onto them. I get the sense that you believe that you are without blindspots, without any degree of falsehood. In other words, you believe you have found THE Truth against which everything else is Lies, instead of what you may have actually found: a clearer vision (and interpretation) of Truth than you previously had. In other words, we're all deluded, we're all prone to falsehoods--and none of us truly, fully gets it! We're all works in progress. 12/23/2006 04:49:48 PM Gagdad Bob said... Integralist--I didn't intend to jump back in, but "fed up with the troll" makes an excellent point. You are an "orthodox Wilberian." In point of fact, there can be no "Gagdaddians," orthodox or otherwise. If you had read my book, you would understand this. The point of most of my writing -- both in substance and in style -- is to facilitate a personal experience (O) in the reader of whatever it is I am writing about. The experience is theirs, not mine, even if I may have provoked it. I could say more, but those who get it, get it, those who don't, don't. And anyone who thinks I am presenting a dogmatic intellectual system (k-->O) that someone can follow, a la Wilber, doesn't get my approach. And please, I am not criticizing Wilber. If he speaks to your soul, again, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to argue with you. 12/23/2006 05:58:56 PM
Where I start to disagree with you, and call it "not integral," is when you talk about what you refuse to integrate. Your post has helped clarify in my own mind what I take issue with, which I will try to express as concisely as possible.
What I see you and others doing here is over-simplifying and consolidating ideologies, taking them wholesale so to speak, and outright writing them off if any of its parts you disagree with. It is as if you refuse to, or cannot, see ideologies as composed of different aspects, as dynamic even, but rather as static entities that are utterly unmalleable.
So when you talk about Marx's legacy via the supposedly "seductive intellectual pathologies that continue to infect the mind of man," you refuse to recognize how all of these have some veracity to them, are "true from a certain angle." Not absolutely true--just as your ideology is not Absolute Truth (no matter what Psycho Princess claims).
Another example is when you say that atheism and theism are incompatible. Strictly speaking, I agree. But what if we look less at the surface structures and more at the deeper, subtler dimensions of both? Atheism questions the belief in God, or anything that cannot be experienced with the senses. Theism posits a Power within and/or beyond the sensory world. "Mature" atheism is agnosticism, which is not anti-theistic, it just doesn't settle for belief. "Mature" theism is mysticism: it is not based in belief, but in experience.
What I'm doing here is, as Ken Wilber likes to say (perhaps ad nauseum), not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The bathwater of atheism is its refusal to be open to anything other than the sensory; the bathwater of theism is its reliance upon belief. The baby of atheism is its adherence to experience, to what one can verify personally; the baby of theism is its recognition of a deeper order or energy or power.
I would even say there is a relatively natural sequence, an evolution of consciousness: From theism to atheism to agnosticism to mysticism, which is roughly synonymous with premodern to modern to postmodern to post-postmodern (or integral). In my opinion, everyone must let go of their belief in God to actually experience the Divine (this is somewhat related to the notion of Grace, where all we can do is surrender--we cannot "grab" the Divine). Thus the synthesis of the thesis (theism) and antithesis (atheism) is agnostic mysticism.
Another thing that I see you and others here doing is a simple fallacy of elevating one's personal relative and contextual worldview with some kind of Absolute Truth. This is where the "good news" of postmodernism--recognizing context and cultural situation, as well as personal interpretation--is utterly missing from this blog. It is as if no one here recognizes that their views are at least to some degree shaped by their culture, their personality, and their personal beliefs. This is why any codified ideology is not, cannot be, "absolute"--only Absolute Truth is absolute.
When you discuss Marx and other Leftists and speak of how their views are based on total falsehood, it sounds to me as if you are projecting your own shadow onto them. I get the sense that you believe that you are without blindspots, without any degree of falsehood. In other words, you believe you have found THE Truth against which everything else is Lies, instead of what you may have actually found: a clearer vision (and interpretation) of Truth than you previously had. In other words, we're all deluded, we're all prone to falsehoods--and none of us truly, fully gets it! We're all works in progress. 12/23/2006 04:49:48 PM Gagdad Bob said... Integralist--I didn't intend to jump back in, but "fed up with the troll" makes an excellent point. You are an "orthodox Wilberian." In point of fact, there can be no "Gagdaddians," orthodox or otherwise. If you had read my book, you would understand this. The point of most of my writing -- both in substance and in style -- is to facilitate a personal experience (O) in the reader of whatever it is I am writing about. The experience is theirs, not mine, even if I may have provoked it. I could say more, but those who get it, get it, those who don't, don't. And anyone who thinks I am presenting a dogmatic intellectual system (k-->O) that someone can follow, a la Wilber, doesn't get my approach. And please, I am not criticizing Wilber. If he speaks to your soul, again, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to argue with you. 12/23/2006 05:58:56 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment