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=xHDNmCNBzyQVioiN18f7Wm48g9JEgWRUdA2HQSuJIkU&s=Kd1gpG7wHCr4vRsw0oAYnmuIlgVBi6mMm8D74-gUXXo&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=DwIFaQ&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=DwIFaQ&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