Hi List,
Thought I would share this note I posted on the metamodern list, following a post from TOK list member Paul Marshall…It is on why and how we should embrace the “soul/spirit” language and how I see doing that from a Unified Framework vantage
point.
Best,
Gregg
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 7:26 AM
To: paul marshall <[log in to unmask]>; Brent Cooper <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: Michael Wernstedt <[log in to unmask]>; New Metamodernism List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: New economic system
Let me strongly echo Paul on this sentiment.
I am a psychological scientist and was raised in the “new atheist” mold of a Dawkins version of reality. The words soul and spirit were banished from my vocabulary because I thought they had to be used only in reference to some supernatural
force or they were simply corrupted by such prominent usage. However, this was, in retrospect, naïve and foolish at multiple levels. One reason, as Paul correctly suggests, is that we humans need these terms. But more importantly, these terms can be placed
clearly within a scientific humanistic emergent naturalistic framework (which is how I would characterize the worldview espoused by Hanzi and is how I describe the worldview of the Unified Framework I developed).
Here is how I now understand these terms. First, the original meaning of soul lines up with psyche defined as the “functional form” of one’s life. Spirit, for me refers to the trans-egoic, ethical/moral striving of the soul. Second, the
terms reference something fundamentally “humanistic” that reside, in some ways, outside the language game of science. Let me elaborate, and since many metamodern folks are familiar with Wilber’s quadrants, let me draw that connection here.
Following Wilber, I consider science to be about a generalizable, inductive theoretical system for understanding “IT”. This translates into describing and explaining the unfolding energy-information wave of real-actual-empirical (to reference
Bhaskar) cause-effect events at the level of both part-whole individual entity relations and at the holistic developmental process systems view. In Wilberian terms, these are the Upper Right and Lower Right quadrants. My Unified Framework argues for a somewhat
different conception of the UR and LR from Wilber, but the lineup, IMO is clear. (See the attached for how I translate Wilber’s Quadrants into the language game of the Unified Framework. A key difference is that I embrace a behavioral rather than reductive
physicalist view of the Upper Right, which, as
this blog notes, is a very different conception of this quadrant. And the Tree of Knowledge System provides a more comprehensive developmental systems view of the Lower Right, but the correspondence is nevertheless strong and clear).
What that means is that the two left quadrants of UL and LL are different than the two scientific “it” quadrants of UR and LR. Soul/Spirit/Pathos and Ethics/Morality/Mythos line up with these humanistic quadrants. This sets the stage for
identifying soul/spirit with the UL, in a way that connects with the LL.).
Consider that each of us has a unique, idiographic, interior, first person empirical portal that is the witnessing portion of our subjective phenomenological essence. Because of the fundamental epistemological gap between first person phenomenology
and third person general, there is a fundamental gap between our subjective phenomenology and the language game of science. That is, we can scientifically frame and analyze subjective phenomenology in general terms, but we cannot do so at the unique particular.
There is no science of Gregg or Paul’s ideographic subjective unique real witnessing essence. Moreover, following Wilber, I think that we can define the soul in terms of one’s egoic, every day concerns. Thus, my soul is the functional form of my life, especially
viewed from my perspective. It is my first person lifeworld, lifequest and involves stuff like my relationship with my wife and work and dealing with emotional problems such as what comes up in psychotherapy. The spirit is the portion of the soul that seeks
to link the “I” with the trans-egoic “We” to develop a moral-ethical view of eudaimonia. The ultimate end good of universal flourishing; that which all other things are the instrumental means to move toward. It is more theological and deep philosophical than
the concerns of the soul.
The bottom line is that, IMO, we need a metamodern politics that is grounded in a scientific humanistic view that fully embraces the call to align our souls with the ultimate spiritual good.
In other words, AMEN to Paul’s comment!
Best,
Gregg
From:
[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of paul marshall
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 6:25 AM
To: Brent Cooper <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: Michael Wernstedt <[log in to unmask]>; New Metamodernism List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: New economic system
Thanks for the link Michael. Eric Beinhocker gives a nice overview of the thought system that brought us where we are today and the new thought system that could lead us out of the mess and towards a eudaimonic economy and eudaemonic society.
Both are rooted in a vision of human nature and behaviour, the former simplistic, utilitarian and evidence-free, the latter based on evidence and our complex reality.
The notion we hold of human nature is fundamental as it dictates to a considerable extent our economics, our ethics and our relations with others, our politics and vision of the good society, our relations with ourselves and with nature,
and so the construction of a new evidence-based conception or story about ourselves is crucial. Especially as every person necessarily holds some conception of human nature, be it implicit or explicit, unconscious or conscious. One element of human nature
that I feel is essential and is often overlooked in academic analyses - I don't know if Eric Beinhocker includes it in his overall work - is our spiritual core. This does not have to be just some otherworldly, transcendent, rarefied experience but can also
be something more everyday and based on both evidence and philosophical reflection. Recent psychotherapy provides the former and the philosophy of metaReality the latter. They both provide a vision of our essential nature that possesses qualities that are
always already there. Quite radically, they both claim that these essential qualities - including love, compassion, creativity, connectedness, spontaneous right action - do not need to be cultivated but rather be provided space so that they can freely emerge
and manifest. This is done by releasing or shedding constraints in all dimensions / planes / quadrants / fields of human being: psychological, emotional, economic, political, social, cultural etc. No easy task of course, and something that requires commitment
to a life practice on the personal level and constant political and social action on the collective level.
I know a spiritual focus can put many people off given the past history of religion and the current state of much spirituality, which is why it is often ignored (or taboo) in academia - and is perhaps why it seems to be tactically played
down somewhat in metamodernism (while it was/is perhaps overplayed - the transcendent, rarefied part - in integral theory). But a focus on a secular, immanent, everyday, non-rarefied spirituality as a core aspect of human nature can act a vital motivating
force in progressive politics (and one's own inner work). It has in the past, e.g. with Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and there are many progressive figures today, Cornel West for example, whose politics is rooted in a spiritual vision. And many on this list
as well, I believe.
My best,
Paul
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:15 AM Brent Cooper <[log in to unmask]> wrote: