I may be getting lost here...
Adventitious shoots, basal roots sprouting-- the arborescent as rhizomatic?
(But still a tree.)
Corinne
________________________________________
From: tree of knowledge system discussion [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 7:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Excellent Integral Stage Video with Greg Thomas
Fascinating, Tyler. Thanks for sharing.
It would be a great discovery. Of course, there are places to see other branches emerging. Indeed, maybe when it is all said and done, the number of branches will be such that a renaming will be necessary and it will become the “bush” of knowledge 😊…
G
PS Several people say “it doesn’t really look like a Tree”, to which the reply is…”Well, it is really a reference to a different “tree” (i.e., the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in Genesis), but also, if you flip it, you can indeed see a clear tree shape” 😊
[cid:image003.png@01D67C44.4AE28D70]
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of James Tyler Carpenter
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 5:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Excellent Integral Stage Video with Greg Thomas
Another branch on the tree, Gregg? Men in Black re-loaded: https://www.astrobio.net/retrospections/a-shadow-
Best regards,
Tyler
James Tyler Carpenter, PhD, FAACP
www.metispsych.com<http://www.metispsych.com>
http://www.experts.com/Expert-Witnesses/search?keyword=Clinical%20psychology&keywordsearchtype=All%20Words&category=Clinical%20forensic%20&categorysearchtype=Any%20Word&name=James%20tyler%20carpenter&namesearchtype=All%20Words&company=Metis&companysearchtype=All%20Words&address=%20&addresssearchtype=All%20Words&state=MA&statesearchtype=Any%20Word&country=ALL%20(or%20Choose%20a%20Country)&countrysearchtype=All%20Words&page=1&freshsearch=1
________________________________
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 4:58:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: Excellent Integral Stage Video with Greg Thomas
Thanks, Paul.
I think the consistency depends on if you are emphasizing fundamental ontological claims or ways of being. I think, if you look at the general pattern of insight that emerges across the Greek, Persian, East Asian, South Asian and Judeo-Christian-Islamic mythic traditions, the idea that the universe is an unfolding, nondual wave of Energy, Matter, Life, Mind, and Culture and that wise way to be and become is to cultivate a curious, accepting, loving-compassionate reflective attitude that is motivated toward enhancing dignity, well-being and integrity is at least fairly consistent with the ethos of those traditions.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of paul marshall
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 6:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Excellent Integral Stage Video with Greg Thomas
Thanks for the pdf, Gregg. I take note of your qualification.
I'm glad we have been able to gain greater mutual understanding. The fundamental difference - between a primarily materialist ontology and a spiritual ontology - still remains, of course. And because of that, I find your statement that the UTOK is 'highly consistent' with the wisdom traditions, which are deeply rooted in a spiritual ontology, rather difficult to see. That it is open to the possibility of a spiritual ontology, yes; but 'highly consistent', no, in my opinion. This is related to comments I made in an earlier dialogue we had re the great chain of being (in its updated integral version), which is also rooted in a thoroughly spiritual ontology.
The ideal, of course, would be for the scientific method to be prized apart from any dominant belief system and worldview or ontology, materialist or spiritual, and be allowed to explore reality freely and see where that leads us - which is what Sheldrake is pointing to. But that would involve the current scientific community loosening its materialist grip, a general society-wide awareness of worldviews and their deep influence on all activities, and a conscious societal and scientific-community decision to constantly monitor how different worldviews are unfairly interfering in the actual practice of science and the scientific method, as well as a willingness to take measures in order to prevent that. Which may well take some time!
My best,
Paul
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:30 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Thanks for this note, Paul.
Attached is the paper on the singularity.
I would offer one qualification. I would not say that “mine is the dominant worldview,” at least in some ways. The context in which you said it, yes, that makes sense. But I think it is crucial to say that mine is consistent with/aligned the dominant scientific worldview overall misses some of the key elements of the work I am doing.
Consider, for example, if you take Rupert Sheldrake’s critique of science (as summarized here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.sheldrake.org_files_pdfs_papers_Setting-2DScience-2DFree-2Dfrom-2DMaterialism.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Tb9vEPYj2CpOAlEX0OV1vUjX2cFSFg1alKmbLg5s3is&s=CNxoSeQp2rqJRxaFhYD6WjRw01Fn0Od04I_fanG9Cqk&e=>), you will see very clearly that the critiques he applies to the dominant scientific worldview are not critiques that apply to the ToK System and larger Unified Theory Of Knowledge (UTOK) framework.
The bottom line is that I think we can move naturalistic science out of a “Matter-in-Motion” framework and replace it with an Energy-Matter-Life-Mind-Culture-in-Motion framework that then allows us to “orient toward the transcendent”. That is the UTOK view, and although it is consistent with modern empirical natural science it now ALSO becomes highly consistent with the wisdom traditions such that we now all become part of an integrated pluralistic vision. And yes, such a shift, to my mind, would be of the Axial Age magnitude.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of paul marshall
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 4:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Excellent Integral Stage Video with Greg Thomas
Hi Gregg,
I see your notion of oneness is essentially an increase in consciousness, gradually 'expanding the circle' (Singer) of moral concern to include more beings. In IT terms, moving from ego to ethno to socio to world to planet to cosmocentric. It's the stages part of the Wilber-Combs Lattice. And it involves subjective states as well. But, as you say, the states the WC lattice talks about are fundamentally different from how you see states, which lack any kind of connection or union with a deeper spiritual ontology.
The key question is the nature of ultimate reality, which of course nobody knows. All the wisdom traditions point to an Absolute, whose transcendent nature is unknowable and without qualities (nirguna Brahman, literally 'Absolute without qualities', in Vedanta); and most also point to its immanent nature (saguna Brahman in Vedanta), which does have qualities and can to some degree be accessed and felt in meditation, certain forms of psychotherapy and other means. And there are many nuances in each tradition regarding this nature, and many paths to get there. I like Shankara's (Vedanta philosopher, 8th century ish) notion that all religions are different paths to the absolute. This is his 'higher truth', which he contrasts with 'ordinary truth', which is the fundamentalist belief that only our religion's understanding and path is the correct one.
Our key difference is on the question of transcendence. I am fine with a transcendent that is both immanent within nature and transcendent beyond it and that is spiritual, non-physical and supramental in nature (panentheism); whereas you prefer to stay firmly within nature and the web of life and avoid any spiritual ontology. Yours is the dominant scientific worldview, mine connects more with that of the great wisdom traditions and most of 21st century integrative metatheory.
With regards to a moral-ethical oneness, and your Elephant Sun God that represents the ultimate good/concern, it is great to hear that you are attracted to Roy's notion of Metareality and a nondual / supramental ground of being; but I also understand your allegiance to the language of science. From my perspective, however, in order to truly move beyond our current (post)modern mode of consciousness - which is clearly not doing us much good (! :) - in order to really and truly go metamodern, we need a corresponding radical shift in our vision of ourselves, others and the world - as big a shift as that which occurred during the Axial Age (which was bigger than that which occurred in the transition to modernity) - and to use the spiritual resources and insights that first properly emerged then and were later deepened by the axial-inspired wisdom traditions and 21st century metatheories.
I'll check that singularity graphic out. I think you sent me an article by a Russian mathematician some time ago on this - is the graph related to him?
I'm also glad that we are making progress on mutual understanding.
Warm wishes,
Paul
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 2:44 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
Good that we seem to be making progress understanding each other.
In response to “oneness,” there are several angles on this, but one of the main keys to understand from a Unified Theory perspective is our capacities for affiliation. Affiliation is one of the motivational poles on the Influence Matrix<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.toksociety.org_8-2Dkey-2Dideas_the-2Dinfluence-2Dmatrix&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=oR_bDRN_Kr6FBWxfVQYPgKVcwpN7eEPj8qkVuca8vu4&s=cT_eR_JMR9LX2HPQ9OZcKN1ndRRtlf1P16abkLVgi_U&e=>. It refers to the ability/capacity/perception/feeling/motive to join with the interests of another (importantly, the Matrix is pre-verbal, so I am talking about this from a phenomenological and not a propositional way). Thus, when we fall in romantic love or we love our children, what we are doing, in terms of our perspective on the world, is extending and blurring our lines of interest, so that we bring our loved ones into us (or extend ourselves into them) and “become one”. The transcendent state is a kind of falling in love with the cosmos.
The oneness emerges as a blend of the nature of the witnessing function as it goes through various states and also merges with the felt sense of peace and affiliation that extends into the cosmos. I see the WC lattice as a description of states and stages; I just have a different fundamental ontology regarding how it is explained.
Also, for me, there are many things that in fact do unite us. For example, I like to say that “energy is the ultimate common denominator”. So there are some ways we are all the same. Also, we can choose how we carve up the world. I can see you as very different and separate from me or I can see you and all of us as part of a systemic web of life and relation. Also, I believe that virtually all deeply moral people and the wisdom traditions agree on many things, such that I think there really is an integrative pluralistic vision of the ultimate good/ultimate concern. My placeholder for this concept is the “Elephant Sun God”. Below is a graphic depiction of how I make sense of this. My point here is that there is a sense of moral-ethical oneness as well.
Best.
Gregg
Note: For clarity in making sense out of the graphic below, the ToK System offers a map of modern, empirical, natural scientific knowledge. The iQuad coin and Garden represent a scientific humanistic spiritual wisdom philosophy for the 21st Century. The Elephant Sun God is a symbol of the ultimate good/concern. Another way of thinking about it is that it is a stand in for what Roy Bhaskar and everyone else who has “really seen it” discovers as the MetaReality or the supramental consciousness that is the ultimate ground of being. For me, it is a concept that I am drawn toward, but I can’t put it in the same descriptive metaphysical language as science. That said, I have also included the “singularity graphic” which shows an almost miraculous line that is empirically verified. Given that I am grounded in the exterior/logos, I do need that kind of data. But it does not take much nudging for me to be overwhelmed with awe seeing that graph and thinking, my god, maybe there is a God and we are on our way to a “singular” awakening 😊!
[cid:image004.png@01D67C43.D1AFF0F0]
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of paul marshall
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2020 4:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Excellent Integral Stage Video with Greg Thomas
Hi Gregg,
Ok, your approach to the transcendent is now almost clear; it's a question of transcending the ego and expanding one's consciousness. The almost involves me not understanding what you refer to by oneness. Oneness with what? What is it for you that unites everything? Or are just talking about a feeling of connection to everything? Or is it just an ultimate reality that you are agnostic about? Which I can fully understand. Though these last two sound pretty spiritual in nature.
And unless this unifying oneness you mention is spiritual in essence, then I can't see how that fits in with the Wilber-Combs lattice at all, since that has a highly explicit spiritual ontology. It is all about each level of consciousness having peak experiences of different types of mysticism, but interpreting them from that specific level of consciousness. I can see more easily your point regarding Confucius, who was definitely more ethically (and politically) oriented than other currents of Chinese philosophy, like Taoism, which was more mystical, but I believe he still had an essentially spiritual worldview, putting great emphasis on holiness and the sacred. He was one of the great Axial Age sages, along with Socrates, Buddha and Lao Tzu, who deeply transformed the world. An amazing figure.
Thanks for outlining your main focus and goals. Bridging science and the humanities and spirituality is a vital task, I believe. I know we see things somewhat differently, but we both know how important it is.
My own particular focus is as follows. I started off with integral theory, then added critical realism, philosophy of metareality and complex thought, trying to get a good overall metatheoretical big picture of things. I then combined these integrative metatheories into a complex integral realism<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.co.uk_Metatheory-2DTwenty-2DFirst-2DCentury-2DOntological-2DExplorations_dp_0415820006_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fdchild-3D1-26keywords-3Dmetatheory-2Bfor-2Bthe-2B21st-26qid-3D1598122709-26sr-3D8-2D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yyJe3YUczPQ-RPQBwiS258NeVEPiZRuVtfTG-OBNcRg&s=3jIG2Ekyzte2T8S_TeiHGiaac4DOPe0q9bpsz8k-4UU&e=>, and subsequently combined that with the Axial Age - which was concerned with both personal and social transformation, rooted in a spiritual ontology - and outlined the contours of a new axial vision<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.co.uk_Complex-2DIntegral-2DRealist-2DPerspective-2DExplorations_dp_1138803820_ref-3Dsr-5F1-5F1-3Fdchild-3D1-26keywords-3Dnew-2Baxial-2Bvision-26qid-3D1598122568-26quartzVehicle-3D20-2D283-26replacementKeywords-3Dnew-2Baxial-26sr-3D8-2D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yyJe3YUczPQ-RPQBwiS258NeVEPiZRuVtfTG-OBNcRg&s=RmwQBFEUP4e37zKLh_sCbf0EZLdN7xjAX3I2stLCO3I&e=>. Since then I have added metamodernism, internal family systems therapy, which I have recently trained in, and other resources, and am now focused on using all these resources together, with a main focus on the shift in consciousness and social structures that is required today. I am currently finishing my book chapter for Routledge's Metatheory Volume 2, which examines this possible 'Axial 2.0 shift' rooted in integrative metatheory, including metamodernism, and emphasises the need for a new progressive spiritual worldview and for left progressives to tap into the huge emancipatory energies of spirituality - as shown in figures like Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Abraham Joshua Heschel, and modern spiritual progressives like Cornel West and Michael Lerner. I hope to later expand that into a book.
So that's one reason why spirituality is so important for me. I see it as essentially a vehicle for social and political transformation and for providing a new vision of the world that leaves behind the disenchanted, alienating, and rather depressing worldview of scientific materialism - especially its mechanistic form (which I know you don't endorse), which is still dominant in our culture.
I quite agree that we should orient to the transcendent (that is also immanent, I would stress) - and I would add that we need to harness its energies to carry out the personal and social transformation needed today.
Warm regards,
Paul
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 2:13 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for this. For me, transcendent has a number of interrelated features. First, to my way of thinking, you are clearly “oriented toward the transcendent”. The theologian Karen Armstrong analyzed this point well. Here is how I summarized her views (see this blog<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201310_toward-2Dresolving-2Dour-2Dgod-2Dconflict&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yyJe3YUczPQ-RPQBwiS258NeVEPiZRuVtfTG-OBNcRg&s=sVViR4TCS3slGNjNLiK85cMwzsXdhc4Zar2nQgweJQ4&e=>):
This analysis gives rise to her case for God. The current conflicts between the atheistic and literal religious folks are deeply misguided because both attempt to concretize God. That is, the debate is framed as a question that either God is an entity that exists with certain attributes or does not. The atheists say no and use scientific logos to make the case. Believers say yes and use all sorts of arguments to make theirs. According to Armstrong, this is poorly framed, and not how most of the ancient theologians thought of God. She claims that the concept of God did not describe a concrete entity that either exits or does not. Instead, God is that which you approach as you engage in artful religious practices that enable a subjective sense of spiritual transcendence.
I would now consider this a “syntheist” position, which Alexander Bard introduced me to. I like to describe it as “believing in the concept of God” (sometimes called “the God we create”).
Second, as you suggested, for me transcendent is a moral-ethical reflection or attitude toward the ultimate concern or ultimate good. Here, one is transcending the ego or concern with the self and expanding into higher and higher levels of abstraction and oneness. I see this consistent with Wilber-Combs lattice notions and many other philosophies, like Confucianism as I understand it (which is not nearly as deep as I wish).
Third, I also consider it in terms of the actual structure, feature and practice of cultivating higher consciousness states. Here is a link to a two<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202002_the-2D11th-2Dproblem-2Dconsciousness-23-3A-7E-3Atext-3DAs-2520was-2520noted-2520in-2520Part-2Cthe-2520coincidental-2520fact-2520that-2520Dr.&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yyJe3YUczPQ-RPQBwiS258NeVEPiZRuVtfTG-OBNcRg&s=2X4Sx6Y0CYL-z8l_T81uvfmhKPKAEb664gLbATXpQxQ&e=> part blog series John V and I did on this. Clearly, people enter “witnessing states” that transform the “grip” they have on the self-world relationship.
Fourth, let me say I agree with you that worldviews are not really proven. I also want to say that I am not deeply developed in spiritual traditions, and my position is far from a new atheist position of trying to prove folks wrong.
Fifth, let me state what I am after. My focus and area of deep expertise is in the domain of American philosophy, psychology and science, and the concepts of science, mind, and behavior and how they coalesce to form the conceptual problem of psychology. My solution to that problem, “the Unified Theory Of Knowledge Metapsychology Framework” for the 21st Century posits that we can solve the problem and update our modernist, empirical, natural science views of “the mind”. Doing so will enable us to have a MUCH clearer, coherent understanding of the mind/human behavior from a naturalistic vantage point. And it bridges into humanistic and theological perspectives. It does have some relevance for Integral because it shows how Wilber was in error in some of the way he conceptualized science, at least that is the argument the Unified Theory makes.
If there is a way that folks can resolve the relationship between a supramental consciousness and the nature of energy and matter, say, at the Big Bang, I am all ears. For now, I am agnostic about the ultimate ontological claims, but fully embrace the idea that we should be oriented toward the transcendent.
Take care, friend.
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of paul marshall
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 5:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Excellent Integral Stage Video with Greg Thomas
Hi Gregg,
Still not quite sure what you understand by the transcendent. Do you mean a reaching beyond ourselves to embrace all beings. i.e. a kind of planet-centric consciousness that embraces all nature? Some form of pantheism, without the theism? I'd appreciate a bit more detail.
Broadly speaking, my current position is similar to the philosophy of metareality and the contemplative core of the wisdom traditions: that there is an absolute realm of nonduality that underpins and sustains the whole of relative reality. There is an essential or foundational level of being that is immanent in all subsequent emergent levels of reality and is ingredient in all beings as their ground-state, as Bhaskar calls it. This is thus a monism, but a differentiated monism. It is different from matter and energy, a supramental consciousness that has certain qualities: love. creativity, capacity for right action (philosophy of metareality); sat-chit-ananda (being-consciousness-bliss) (Hinduism); or compassion, connection, creativity, clarity etc (IFS);
I also take a panpsychist (some form of consciousness as a fundamental part of matter - and the cosmos) and panentheist position: God/Spirit/Being is both immanent in nature and transcendent, beyond nature (not pantheism, which is God = nature). Panentheism is thus not dualist, in the sense of a transcendent God completely outside the natural world. This is the basic mystical worldview, as opposed to the more theistic positions that tend to see a purely transcendent God.
I know that will not satisfy the criteria of science, but such a non-physical 'entity' never will. It is accessed by means other than science: experience and intuition and also philosophical deduction in the case of PMR. And again, scientific materialism and its materialist ontology also lacks scientific proof.
My best
Paul
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:53 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
First, I certainly was not trying to equate religion in general with fundamentalism. I think that is a bit of a misread (i.e., I am not being like Jim Rutt in his critique religion with Zak Stein on the Jim Rutt Show<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jimruttshow.blubrry.net_zak-2Dstein-2D1_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=m-8hCvnDVLRQQDJXeGkHUwq1hkFk_Ou_uZEKM1cU_rM&s=A9dmOmFzKPK8wGcsdHeXicbGT8Dy7CSMopGXxJINcFg&e=>). I was simply using it as an example of beliefs that are claimed that are scientifically wrong.
Second, I don’t know what you, or Wilber or anyone means when they say that the fundamental ontological reality is “spirit”. What is it made of? Is spirit something other than matter/energy? What is its relation to, say the fundamental forces of electromagnetic, gravitation and strong and weak nuclear? My basic critique is a descriptive metaphysical critique. I don’t know how to make a dual world (spirit and matter) or a nondual world with spirit as fundamental work via coherent logic. Maybe it is my own limitations, but I will say I have a lot of good company with modern philosophers (very few are dualists). But if Wilber or others are claiming they are right, then they will need to do a much better job offering a clear descriptive metaphysics to those of us who want these kinds of answers.
I see a very similar issue in parapsychology. On the one hand, parapsychology has lots of interesting stories, findings, history and potential. Certainly, there may be something there. As this American Psych article argues<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__psycnet.apa.org_record_2018-2D24699-2D001&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=m-8hCvnDVLRQQDJXeGkHUwq1hkFk_Ou_uZEKM1cU_rM&s=KjQJclaFq3nNLU4I0wT8w2jE4e2CuTCCmf-TSEQkUgU&e=>, I think there is enough evidence to be curious and open. But, as this recent American Psychologist article makes plain<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__skepticalinquirer.org_2019_07_why-2Dparapsychological-2Dclaims-2Dcannot-2Dbe-2Dtrue_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=m-8hCvnDVLRQQDJXeGkHUwq1hkFk_Ou_uZEKM1cU_rM&s=HV_H-me1QjtkHBsLe6k6GiLi5jl2ePsmImrtpls1foo&e=>, it is also the case that the descriptive metaphysics don’t really work. Or to put it differently there is a huge, unresolved problem. So, you can either say, well, it’s a problem, but I still believe it points to something real that we can make knowledge claims about (Like the authors of the first paper). Or you say “no” this is simply impossible based on the laws of physics (like the second authors). Or, like me, you say, well, maybe, I am agnostic in that I don’t have any real conceivable belief in the *thing*, but I am impressed by a number of the findings and can see why people believe, and I would not be completely surprised if there were underlying energy-information dimensional realities that one day we discover that allows things to come into view. And we should be clear that the confidence in them is not great because there remains huge conceptual problems that have not be solved.
I make the same basic conclusion for Wilber’s Spiritual claims and MetaReality. So, my resolution is to be agnostic about the ultimate reality, attempt to create a naturalism that is coherent and comprehensive as possible and be open to what folks say, but am also committed to coherent sense making.
In terms of the transcendent, that is basically the argument that, holistically, we can live on planet earth in a way that is closer to heaven or hell and that this or related reflections represent an ultimate concern, one that transcends the ego and stretches into all sentient beings. So, that is what I mean by transcendent.
So, Paul, my retort back is pretty basic: What kind of thing is the spiritual and how does it relate to the material dimension of existence? Do conceive of the spirit as violating the laws of physics, existing independently of them, giving them there features? I am particularly curious if you are a substance dualist or a monist.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of paul marshall
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 3:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Excellent Integral Stage Video with Greg Thomas
Gregg,
I'm interested as to how you conceptualise the transcendent in your naturalistic (and materialistic, I'm assuming) ontology.
Also, I think it's rather unfair to use fundamentalist religion (Bible is the literal truth) as an example re religion/spirituality. There are fundamentalist scientists (scientism) and fundamentalist religious/spiritual people, both of whom are wrong.
As to your statement that if Wilber - or anybody else who held a spiritual/mystical worldview or ontology, for example other 21st century integrative metatheories like Roy Bhaskar's, many of the founding fathers of modern physics who held a mystical or spiritual worldview (including Einstein, Sir Arthur Eddington, Erwin Schroedinger, Max Planck, Wolfgang Pauli, Sir James Jeans, Louis de Broglie, Werner Heisenger), virtually all indigeneous cultures, the ancient lineages of all the great wisdom traditions, those outside any religious tradition who have had spontaneous awakenings, many psychotherapists who practice internal family systems for example etc - claimed that the ultimate witnessing self was a spiritual entity that was scientifically true ... well, none of them would because it is beyond the realm of science. It is not an object and cannot be measured. Modern science wasn't designed to study deep interiority and consciousness. That's one reason why it has been so successful in the objective, exterior sphere. But it can be intuited, and strongly so; or experienced phenomenologically; and accessed by people who carry out the adequate phenomenological experiment - i.e. meditate; and deduced by philosophical reflection and transcendental argument - as Bhaskar has done; and observed and felt and seen in a clinical setting, as happens in IFS. A spiritual ontology has not been proven scientifically, and never will. And nor has a materialist ontology, which is as much a metaphysical/ideological belief system - which originated in the 19th century - as any religion. I can understand your scepticism about any scientifically unproven ontological claims; do you also apply that scepticism to the unscientifically proven ontological claims of materialism?
There is the scientific method (not the belief system of scientific materialism which is unfortunately inextricably linked with it, for the moment - but it is now being challenged) which I agree is the best way to gain certain knowledge and is one of the great jewels of modernity. But there are also other very valid means of apprehending truth and reality, some of which I mentioned above (philosophical deduction, phenomenology, intuition...). Not to mention the fact that some of the greatest minds in the history of humanity have held spiritual/mystical worldviews. Plus the additional current fact that mainstream philosophy of mind has now, during the last 5 or 10 years, started to adopt panpsychism, claiming that consciousness is a fundamental property of matter, all the way down to sub-atomic particles.
I just think science and scientists need to be a little more open to other non-scientific truth claims - and to do a bit of self-examination and reflection as to their own underlying and often unconscious belief system and paradigms and ontologies.
My best
Paul
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:40 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi Nik, Greg, and Others,
Thanks for these notes.
Nik, let me clarify my position. I appreciate why you might be confused, given what I said in our earlier exchanges about the difference between Wilber’s spiritual ontology and my own naturalistic ontology that simultaneously embraces the transcendent and is agnostic about ultimate reality.
I think the most helpful way to go is to differentiate scientific versus humanistic language games/justification systems. Naturalism (versus supernaturalism or a spiritual/mystic ontology) is the language game of science and where we can rest our best/most certain knowledge claims. I can say it is true that life on earth evolved over millions of years. My neighbors in Stuarts Draft VA who believe that the Bible is the real truth and that the earth is young (i.e., thousands but not millions of years) are wrong. This is all in the realm of “logos” or science.
That said, natural science/logos is not the only language game in town. There are, for example, pathos and mythos language games. Or, more generally, “humanistic” language systems. Consider, for example, if I say it is true that I love my kids, that is not really a scientific language game claim, but rather a claim in the domain of pathos—my unique experience of being.
Mythos refers to the artistic, religio, mythic conceptions of the world. It is the striving for the ultimate concern. It makes different kinds of claims; it is a different kind of justification system that plays by different rules. I heard the claim as stemming from a “mythic” context. It is a beautiful way to see the world and position ourselves in the story of the cosmos. Although it requires some exposition that I will not get into, I can say that the Tree of Knowledge (ToK) System is about logos, but the overall Unified Theory Of Knowledge (TOK) has holders for pathos and mythos. The attached ppt shows the ToK aligned with logos, the iQuad coin with pathos, and the Garden with mythos.
The debate/difference would be that if Wilber (or Greg or others) claimed that there was scientific knowledge about the claim that the unique witnessing self as a spiritual entity; if that was claimed as a scientific claim or a known truth like we know the age of the earth, then we would disagree. That is, I don’t think Wilber’s ultimate spiritual ontology has been discovered to be scientifically true and I am skeptical and agnostic about that deep/foundational ontological claim. However, when we switch over to mythos, I love the comment as placed in a mythic narrative of one’s self in the cosmos.
Hope this makes sense,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Greg Thomas
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 11:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Excellent Integral Stage Video with Greg Thomas
Thanks, Gregg, for inviting me to join the TOK-Society listserv and for sharing several interviews featuring me.
I'm digging more deeply into Gregg's elegant model, so I'll need to defer dialogue about how my allusion to infinity within the finite does or doesn't jibe with the TOK.
But the statement is grounded in the work of my friend and colleague Steve McIntosh, an Integral philosopher and author of Evolution's Purpose: An Integral Interpretation of the Scientific Story of Our Origins, The Presence of the Infinite: The Spiritual Experience of Beauty, Truth, and Goodness<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.stevemcintosh.com_books_the-2Dpresence-2Dof-2Dthe-2Dinfinite_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=upx6mbq9FjMEaavigzoIa0vr-AQTeuAKWeWJUfM4YU0&s=rYyFTrRrJyKL86WzLJnCKxKxlaofbSH0HgVCPjjIEjQ&e=>, and, most recently, Developmental Politics: How America Can Grow Into a Better Version of Itself.
I hyperlinked the second work because it most specifically undergirds my statement. Check there for more info.
All the best,
Greg
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:40 AM Nicholas Lattanzio <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Interesting, Gregg. I didn't think that you were in agreement with such a view of transcendentalism, based on our discourses regarding a spiritual ontology at least (I.e., the world itself is made of consciousness/awareness). I agree though that the statement you emphasized is certainly poignant and one who understands the essence of the content can indeed get the entirety of the message from that one statement on its own. Very cool!
Best,
Nicholas G. Lattanzio, PsyD
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 6:14 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi TOKers,
I wanted to share this 90 minute “improv” with Greg Thomas and Layman Pascal<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_uDJXJbH7KS4&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=OBzBEkBrIqi-hrra5oTebqfrS9zCDRnt3cjvYneQ9QU&s=ET22kntrXqV_dOkR5xU9DzO4qLl_Z4nu61JWSyn-yl0&e=> on Jazz, Shamanism, Integral and all that comes with such an intersection. I listened to it yesterday and it rocks.
I loved this line in minute 39 from Greg…
“We need folks to wake the heck up to reality. And I am not talking about reality just politically or economically. I am talking about reality--“big reality”--in terms of spiritual reality; our inheritance in our souls. Our inheritance as individual expressions of the infinite.”
Now that is music! A brilliant encapsulation of a transcendent awareness.
Peace,
Gregg
___________________________________________
Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)
Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.
Check out the Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
https://www.toksociety.org/home<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.toksociety.org_home&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=57e2I6uWglJ4JwStWjClCslCp37381OxvNIxockoINI&s=aRdOGoP0Bdt7IhOV8uIntjmwOR6o8wiDviSHJrpgpaM&e=>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
--
Paul Marshall, PhD, MITI<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iti.org.uk_index.php-3Foption-3Dcom-5Fitisearch-26task-3DdisplaymemberdetailInt-26memberkey-3D17862-26view-3Dmemberdetail-26to-5Flang-3DEnglish-26from-5Flang-3DCatalan-26specific-5Farea-3DPhilosophy-26subject-5Farea-3DHumanities-26other-5Fservices-3D-26keyword-3D-26random-3D1344925976077-2527&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=xHDNmCNBzyQVioiN18f7Wm48g9JEgWRUdA2HQSuJIkU&s=oWXX97zNELr9pV1Jb70pcHxll7eoPiVzYtgz7pwG_qo&e=>
Founder Academic English Services<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.academicenglishservices.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=xHDNmCNBzyQVioiN18f7Wm48g9JEgWRUdA2HQSuJIkU&s=KFm7VxLafifX_Yua6m9TwXOjVQtkGCnbdXvK_6XI1x4&e=>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
--
Paul Marshall, PhD, MITI<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iti.org.uk_index.php-3Foption-3Dcom-5Fitisearch-26task-3DdisplaymemberdetailInt-26memberkey-3D17862-26view-3Dmemberdetail-26to-5Flang-3DEnglish-26from-5Flang-3DCatalan-26specific-5Farea-3DPhilosophy-26subject-5Farea-3DHumanities-26other-5Fservices-3D-26keyword-3D-26random-3D1344925976077-2527&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=m-8hCvnDVLRQQDJXeGkHUwq1hkFk_Ou_uZEKM1cU_rM&s=iulVskdRxd3l7MKGuCBv3G2vgLfoe4vFg7Nt0R9ziNs&e=>
Founder Academic English Services<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.academicenglishservices.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=m-8hCvnDVLRQQDJXeGkHUwq1hkFk_Ou_uZEKM1cU_rM&s=vJ7mfy47EyrjscqCwApRs6trVxuHPuHD0rtK9ml1bk4&e=>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
--
Paul Marshall, PhD, MITI<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iti.org.uk_index.php-3Foption-3Dcom-5Fitisearch-26task-3DdisplaymemberdetailInt-26memberkey-3D17862-26view-3Dmemberdetail-26to-5Flang-3DEnglish-26from-5Flang-3DCatalan-26specific-5Farea-3DPhilosophy-26subject-5Farea-3DHumanities-26other-5Fservices-3D-26keyword-3D-26random-3D1344925976077-2527&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yyJe3YUczPQ-RPQBwiS258NeVEPiZRuVtfTG-OBNcRg&s=DUIuqMLHtWzUR0_Z5C79ndLLS3boNiRP_XzV1KT-Ygg&e=>
Founder Academic English Services<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.academicenglishservices.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yyJe3YUczPQ-RPQBwiS258NeVEPiZRuVtfTG-OBNcRg&s=By0F3AzHh_XxR4RgdYjhvUjbFquVC7wczj-p8_e2_BA&e=>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
--
Paul Marshall, PhD, MITI<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iti.org.uk_index.php-3Foption-3Dcom-5Fitisearch-26task-3DdisplaymemberdetailInt-26memberkey-3D17862-26view-3Dmemberdetail-26to-5Flang-3DEnglish-26from-5Flang-3DCatalan-26specific-5Farea-3DPhilosophy-26subject-5Farea-3DHumanities-26other-5Fservices-3D-26keyword-3D-26random-3D1344925976077-2527&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=oR_bDRN_Kr6FBWxfVQYPgKVcwpN7eEPj8qkVuca8vu4&s=ivLelWimB0J-8hMAHbHqovADvYu5qcbfAFQBJFpVmO4&e=>
Founder Academic English Services<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.academicenglishservices.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=oR_bDRN_Kr6FBWxfVQYPgKVcwpN7eEPj8qkVuca8vu4&s=2xysh8n0VWxArzd1pAC5U9PqinTwMIzKnFx-aqkmpgc&e=>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
--
Paul Marshall, PhD, MITI<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iti.org.uk_index.php-3Foption-3Dcom-5Fitisearch-26task-3DdisplaymemberdetailInt-26memberkey-3D17862-26view-3Dmemberdetail-26to-5Flang-3DEnglish-26from-5Flang-3DCatalan-26specific-5Farea-3DPhilosophy-26subject-5Farea-3DHumanities-26other-5Fservices-3D-26keyword-3D-26random-3D1344925976077-2527&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Tb9vEPYj2CpOAlEX0OV1vUjX2cFSFg1alKmbLg5s3is&s=3J6CyUHEvjCGHvYgnyfYxaWoI6E6TYCdlVvi4fCF9_A&e=>
Founder Academic English Services<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.academicenglishservices.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Tb9vEPYj2CpOAlEX0OV1vUjX2cFSFg1alKmbLg5s3is&s=j6bZ1y4qJ0SQJjqHQqDK7QxMbrXQZ22pRRwCZvpA4EQ&e=>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
