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]> 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=DwIFaQ&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=DwIFaQ&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=DwIFaQ&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]> *On Behalf Of *paul marshall
> *Sent:* Friday, August 21, 2020 3:12 PM
> *To:* [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]> 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]> *On Behalf Of *Greg Thomas
> *Sent:* Friday, August 21, 2020 11:30 AM
> *To:* [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]>
> 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]> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.toksociety.org_home&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=m-8hCvnDVLRQQDJXeGkHUwq1hkFk_Ou_uZEKM1cU_rM&s=lgwDHL3KCN2i4YBEqtCwZba3meMgiBP5ca-vYIhyl7o&e=
> <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] 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
>
> ############################
>
> 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
>
> ############################
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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] 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
>
--
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=DwIFaQ&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=DwIFaQ&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]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
