Pages

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Schelling and Hegel: the two branches

Edward Berge Says: June 3rd, 2007 at 3:52 pm In the current issue of Integral Review is an article by Gary P. Hampson called “Integral Re-views Postmodernism(www.integral-review.org/curent_issue). He also explores this edge between the cosmological and deconstructive postmodern. He says on pp. 119-20:
“One branch leads to the poststructuralists (“poststructuralist postmodernism”), the other to a high-order quest for coherence (“cosmological postmodernism”).
“In addition to the dialectical nature of the philosophy that lies at the root of the two branches, the branches themselves can be seen as a dialectic between Schelling’s alignment with Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel on the one hand, and his critique of Hegel, on the other.
“The branch that proceeds from Schelling’s critique of Hegel includes Friedrich Wilhelm Neitzsche, Martin Heidegger, Michel Foucault (largely influenced by Neitzsche), Jacques Derrida (largely influenced by Heidegger) and Gilles Deleuze (who retains more influence from Schelling than the others). Somewhat resonant with Roland Benedikter’s (2005) seminal work on postmodern spirituality, Gare proffers that, “poststructuralists require Schelling’s earlier philosophy or developments of it to sustain their arguments” (Gare, 2002).
“The branch which is more aligned to Hegel leads to Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead via Charles Peirce and also via Karl Ernst Von Baer’s evolutionary theory of nature. Gare identifies this thread as a high-order quest for coherence. Such a quest for coherence is surely central for any integral theory. But surely a greater integral quest would be to attempt to respectfully honour both branches? Although the branches may seem somewhat incommensurable from a formal perspective, a postformal perspective on integral might better facilitate such a quest. But what is integral? A postformal approach to answering that question might well address the conceptual ecology among different (connected and contested) uses and interpretations of the word.”
Regarding Derrida’s position on Cook-Greuter’s scale of ego development he says on p. 135:
“A plausible hypothesis, then, would be to consider that these comments from Derrida centre around the perspective of The Magician—a level beyond Wilber’s Teal / Integral / “post-postmodern” / Yellow vMeme. In short, this evidence supports the hypothesis that the above text from Derrida is operating from the construct-aware stage.
“Derrida rationally differentiates deconstruction from destruction and indicates that deconstruction is a constructive activity. He also explicitly reflexes upon its subtle dialectical quality. His writing demonstrates a high level of developmental maturity, in which deconstruction is recognised and reflexively enacted in a post-relativist, dialectical, construct-aware mode. Derrida and deconstruction are clearly something Other than that signified by Wilber in his use of the term, deconstructive postmodernism.”
He also explores Wilber’s agenda around placing Derrida as a mean green memer, as well as critiquing Wilber’s overall treatment and misdiagnosis of the green meme in general.
I’ll be using this reference a lot more, both here and probably starting a new thread on it soon. I also look forward to dialoging with the author should ARINA open one with him at their site.
Edward Berge Says: June 3rd, 2007 at 5:50 pm As an aside, the above article references both Ray and Alan. Homeboys do good!

No comments:

Post a Comment