tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post116654458121002785..comments2024-03-28T20:04:20.286-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: The Loving Integral Embrace of Lies and Truth (12.13.08)Gagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166847962183713282006-12-22T20:26:00.000-08:002006-12-22T20:26:00.000-08:00Integralist said:..."We can know truths - but not ...Integralist said:..."We can know truths - but not Truth - with our minds."<BR/><BR/>AGAIN, You make the same repeated mistake in "seeing" too narrowly:<BR/><BR/>We can know truths, sure anybody can - but we can also know Truth - which IS Gods Absolute Truth. But you must have HIM to get the knowledge/experience of Truth. Ok??<BR/><BR/>Gnostic truth, any truth with small t is not what we seek - thats easy. Big T Truth is what we seek - thats harder but not impossible! God came here to give us Christ to give us the Holy Spirit (Believers) so that we can relate to Him UP the Vertical and not just stay living and existing flat along the horizontal YOU speak of.<BR/><BR/>We are here to find & experience & share the Verticality & Truth of God. Either You will do what it takes to get it, or you wont. Either you will do what it takes to know it, ort you wont know it.<BR/><BR/>The choice is yours, Integral. As we have chosen. And we do have something that you seem not to know/have. Why else are you here if your claims are correct? And what about the fact we prove your claims are not correct, that there IS a Higher Truth UP the Vertical??<BR/><BR/>You really must consider that possibility that you come here not to seek what you already know (you could go to other blogs for that), but to seek & find & experience that which is foreign to you - that being the Absolute Truth/God we speak of that you apparently do not believe exists.<BR/><BR/>~ PsychoPrincess ~Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166769042020295812006-12-21T22:30:00.000-08:002006-12-21T22:30:00.000-08:00Mikez, that was a wondeful post--and I'm not just ...Mikez, that was a wondeful post--and I'm not just saying that because of your "plea for civility", but mainly because of your exceptional differentiation of (relative) truth and (Absolute) Truth.<BR/><BR/>What happens, as i see it, and what is largely happening here, is people tend to believe that their own (relative) truth is (Absolute) Truth. Van's exposition fits right into that category: he actually seems to believe that Truth is a more complex version of truth. <BR/><BR/>When you say that Truth is something far more elusive (than truth), I agree--which relates to what I've been saying here. We can know truths--but not Truth--with our minds. <BR/><BR/>Ximeze, nice bit of condescension there. If Mikez is really 17, then I'm pretty damn impressed. Maybe we should be taking notes from "dem damn kids." ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166745276213616062006-12-21T15:54:00.000-08:002006-12-21T15:54:00.000-08:00Mikez said... "In short, a plea for a little more ...Mikez said... <BR/>"In short, a plea for a little more civility."<BR/><BR/>While I understand the sentiment, it is sometimes misplaced, there being a lesser application of the idea that "all evil needs is for good men to stand by and say nothing" that it is important to recognize(And as Ximeze said, within reason there is an element of fun to it. Pretending to an artificial sereneness is, well, artificial).<BR/><BR/>"I'd say that little-t-truth is what we know from experience and observation. Which is to say, most of physics. That kind of truth changes from year to year."<BR/><BR/>Again, neither that kind of truth, nor any other changes from year to year - our understanding of the details surrounding a given situation may change, but truth doesn't.<BR/><BR/>It may seem like a small, even picky point, but I assure you it is not - it holds the widest number of ramifications and impact for you life.<BR/><BR/>"I really think that big-T-Truth may be more elusive. The Truth you meet along the road may not be the Truth. I also somehow doubt that Truth can be captured in a 25-words or less bumper sticker."<BR/><BR/>Ultimately big T Truth (Humanities & Philosophy) does come down to the same nuts and bolts of reality - but it involves far more nuts and bolts. In a sense, physics has it easy - it only has to isolate and identify a physical thing.<BR/><BR/>Philosophy and the humanities deal with far more variables - though each can and should be traceable down to some physical existent in reality - beware those who tell you they don't - that's a tip off that something is attempting to be hidden. <BR/><BR/>Imagine the difference between a simple pair of dice, six surfaces each numerous combinations, but graspable. Now imagine a pair of Rubic's Cubes - still six sides each, but as with concepts, the content of each side can vary massively with just the slightest twist.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166732969077565882006-12-21T12:29:00.000-08:002006-12-21T12:29:00.000-08:00MikeZ, my dear, did'nt you say you were 17yrs old?...MikeZ, my dear, did'nt you say you were 17yrs old?<BR/><BR/>You still have a whole life ahead of you & have time to be nice about BS & think that is worthwhile to do so.<BR/><BR/>What happens, over is time, is that one's patience wears thin, it becomes more important, relative to the time left one, to be clear about spotting BS & doing what one can to nip it in the bud. And, it's a lot more fun than being nice.<BR/><BR/>Tell you what, if I'm still alive 3 decades from now, we'll have a chat about how differently you see it then. I prefict that you'll also enjoy the clarity that comes with age.ximezehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09969724903834433405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166729116575701562006-12-21T11:25:00.000-08:002006-12-21T11:25:00.000-08:00Seems like there is a bit of projection going on o...Seems like there is a bit of projection going on on the part of some of us, with Mr A telling Mr B what he said. And I'm not impressed with some of the "cute" repsonses to integralist. Do we really need to sidetrack into a course on Protagoras-style rhetoric, and on the varieties of logical fallacy?<BR/><BR/>Let's see if we can work out what Truth is, and what truth is.<BR/><BR/>I'd say that little-t-truth is what we know from experience and observation. Which is to say, most of physics. That kind of truth changes from year to year. The value of "c" gets more digits pinned down, same with Hubble's constant. Another kind of truth is that if you annoy the schoolyard bully, he'll probably clean your clock.<BR/><BR/>One thing common to those truths is that they seem to be dependent on the environment. We get better instruments, we go to a particular school, in a particular country.<BR/><BR/>I really think that big-T-Truth may be more elusive. The Truth you meet along the road may not be the Truth. I also somehow doubt that Truth can be captured in a 25-words or less bumper sticker. After all, it took Russell 3 volumes to talk about one of the Truths - mathematics - and at that, only a part of it.<BR/><BR/>True, the "left" (big or little "L"?) has much to answer for. But which left? The activist environmentalists like ELF? The socialists who would be overjoyed to have us all living under Communist principles? The lockstep PC crowd, who would control our thinking by imposing a speech morality?<BR/><BR/>In the original post, Dr Bob points out their counterfeit nature. I hadn't thought of it that way - but it is appropriate. They hold out a lemon and want us to call it an apple.<BR/><BR/>Now if integralist did come in with "vitriol and non-integralism", he has certainly toned down in recent posts. We all come into a new room with our pre-suppositions, our variously-rose-colored glasses, and we probably see what we've been taught to see, rather than what's really there. When I first read the OneCosmos blog, I thought, "wow, there's a really clever writer. I wonder if there's any substance behind that cleverness."<BR/><BR/>I was impressed enough to get the book, where I found even more cleverness, which might be hiding a glimpse at the (or a) Truth. But I plod on, marking time with one hand clapping.<BR/><BR/>In short, a plea for a little more civility.<BR/><BR/>I just found DiCentra's blog - well done! And she and he seem to have left the arena and entered the front parlor for civil discourse.<BR/><BR/>Sigh. Another blog to add to a growing list.MikeZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13856948417775902893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166726345906982352006-12-21T10:39:00.000-08:002006-12-21T10:39:00.000-08:00Van said:"If Sophocles were around he'd pen a new ...Van said:<BR/>"If Sophocles were around he'd pen a new play, Integralist Rex."<BR/><BR/>Luuuuv you Van!<BR/><BR/>Ummm... ahhh, you did mention the little problem of wife & kids? errr...your devotion to them....?<BR/><BR/>Stop It Xi! Now you're sounding like that trollop Beaky!ximezehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09969724903834433405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166723470038044042006-12-21T09:51:00.000-08:002006-12-21T09:51:00.000-08:00sigh.Integralist said... "Are you kidding?" Nope."...sigh.<BR/>Integralist said... "Are you kidding?" <BR/><BR/>Nope.<BR/><BR/>"What sort of immature aggression is this?"<BR/><BR/>Nothing to do with aggression, just the weary realization, having gone down this road before with your spiritual brothers many many times before, and realizing what will be coming (and does a few lines further)<BR/><BR/>"This is the sort of thing that is a red flag"<BR/><BR/>Yes, it is.<BR/><BR/>"that points more to your own psychology"<BR/><BR/>Yep.<BR/><BR/>"(and projections)"<BR/><BR/>Nope. Projection is for those who believe that they can alter reality to suit their whims. I just get tired of trying to argue reality with people who don't believe that reality really exists.<BR/><BR/>"As for your reply, it seems that you erroneously believe that there is a given and static world "out there"".<BR/><BR/>And there we have it.<BR/><BR/>"Age of Enlightenment and no more. What is that, 300 years old?"<BR/><BR/>More like 400, but who's counting.<BR/><BR/>"No wonder you are so fused to a 300-year old political ideology."<BR/><BR/>Nah, just fused to our little corner of reality here on planet Earth, what is that, 4 billion years old?<BR/><BR/>"Or to put it another way, we see the world as we are, not as it is."<BR/><BR/>No. You cling to a world you want to exist, but never has, and never will, and that is the core of leftist ideology, hence our earlier, and correct identification of you as a Leftist with a capital "L". THe desire to pretend that through the magical incantations and complex weaving of words, the Truth can be defeated, papered over, hidden from Others, so that, at least in the view of Others, you will be able to be thought of being as you wish you were.<BR/><BR/>"To claim otherwise is the ultimate hubris and egoity."<BR/><BR/>Lets see, you and your ilk claim to reinvent the entire universe, not update previous incomplete or erroneous identifications (ala Aristotle & Galileo), but reinvent reality as it fits your latest "PostModernist" (By the way, what a thoroughly stupid name) whim.<BR/><BR/>If Sophocles were around he'd pen a new play, Integralist Rex.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166719750249346302006-12-21T08:49:00.000-08:002006-12-21T08:49:00.000-08:00VAN SAID: "On the other hand, had I seen your repl...VAN SAID: "On the other hand, had I seen your reply to Ximeze, I wouldn't have bothered."<BR/><BR/>Are you kidding? What sort of immature aggression is this? This is the sort of thing that is a red flag that points more to your own psychology (and projections) than anything I actually say.<BR/><BR/>I mean come on...get a little self awareness.<BR/><BR/>As for your reply, it seems that you erroneously believe that there is a given and static world "out there" that we merely need to see more and more of.<BR/><BR/>The enormous fallacy here--that postmodernism largely addressed (see Sellars's Myth of the Given)--is that as far as perception goes, there is always "somebody"--a subject--present. There is always intepretation. So it isn't simply a static Me perceiving a static World, but a dynamic Me perceiving a World that may be static or dynamic.<BR/><BR/>In other words, your worldview is strictly Age of Enlightenment and no more. What is that, 300 years old? No wonder you are so fused to a 300-year old political ideology.<BR/><BR/>Or to put it another way, we see the world as we are, not as it is. To claim otherwise is the ultimate hubris and egoity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166698349412218432006-12-21T02:52:00.000-08:002006-12-21T02:52:00.000-08:00RIVERC said..."...,when he (Luther) had the choice...RIVERC said..."...,when he (Luther) had the choice of giving back the church to the laity or continue elevating the clergy."<BR/><BR/>and "NOTE: For various reasons, Luther declined to give the church back to the laity--and thus doomed the Reformation to being a step rather than a leap towards Truth."<BR/><BR/>I agree RC, he hesitated to give it back to the laity becuz in those days the laity were more prone to development of heresies and as yet were not mature enuf to handle the new-found freedoms well. Luther understood the necessity of being the Shepherd; and he also intended to train the laity to be able to progressively handle certain aspects of church function more and more in order to decentralize the power from concentrating same as in the Catholic Church. <BR/><BR/>Luther of course has his subjects where he was not on target (transubstantiation, Jews, Copernicus/Gallileo) and some are even understandable given certain contexts of his day & limited knowledge of the 1500s compared to now. Its still no reason to denigrate Luthers great accomplishments or throw them out like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.<BR/><BR/>I certainly would not say The Father of The Reformation was a "tragic figure" as Sal says. Thats a bit uncharitable considering all that Luther accomplished so that we Protestants have the liberty today to worship as we do no longer under the yoke of CatholicISM.<BR/><BR/>Jim Jones, in contrast, was a "tragic figure" not to mention being a murderer.<BR/><BR/>~ PsychoPrincess ~Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166687268160552402006-12-20T23:47:00.000-08:002006-12-20T23:47:00.000-08:00On the other hand, had I seen your reply to Ximeze...On the other hand, had I seen your reply to Ximeze, I wouldn't have bothered.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166685720020589122006-12-20T23:22:00.000-08:002006-12-20T23:22:00.000-08:00integralist,"There are no distinctions made, anyth...integralist,<BR/>"There are no distinctions made, anything at all leftish becomes Leftist."<BR/><BR/>This is typical of the source view behind leftists, seizing on perceptuals such as "leftish" "leftist", and missing the core meaning behind both, it is the tendency, even motus operandi of mistaking surface appearances, for the philosophical methods underlying them.<BR/><BR/>You get so wrapped up in the surface features of "\" and "/" and saying that we are confusing them, that you not only don't see the "|" beneath them which unites them and from which they both grow out from, but you also completely miss the fact that not only are the left "\" and "/" affixed to the top of a "|", but that they form a "Y", which is a single letter in an alphabet, which can be used with others to form words.<BR/><BR/>I've heard many ways of attempting to diferentiate between Leftists and Conservatives (and if you do just a little investigation at this site, you'll find enormous amounts of thoughtful discussion about what lays behind the two), but I think the key may be that the leftist (a quick shorthand reference might be rabidly secular - but even more fundamental to that is the rejection of principle - see John Dewey for a hint of an example) separates information, arranging it spreadout upon a table, whereas a Conservative will tend to want to combine and integrate information. <BR/><BR/>"This is the big problem with advocating Absolute Truth, and equating it with objective truth (facts). " The problem here is not understanding the relationship between fact and Truth. Truth can be seen as an ever expanding and widening set of contextual integrations, which display different appearances as more or less contextual information is available. The Truth doesn't change, only the amount of it you can see (see my comment above re: Aristotle & Galileo). The Leftist refuses to see that what Aristotle saw about the sun & earth's relational movements was the same as Galileo saw, but that Galileo saw more and so more was revealed to him.<BR/><BR/>The extremes of both will tend to different sides of the coin of error - the leftist sees all as separate, the extreme conservative refuses to see that Truth is ever revealing. These types can be seen in the rabidly secular leftist, and the fundamentalis literalist conservative. Neither survive here long.<BR/><BR/>Here's a visual image of this conceptual process.<BR/><BR/>Picture the common childs toys of numerous discs ranging from tiny to large, each with a hole through the center, half being circular, half square, and numerous round & squared posts.<BR/><BR/>The extreme leftist will tend to want to arrange them flat, perhaps by color & central hole style - the extreme conservative will want to stack them, large on the bottom ranging up to the top, with the axle through the center.<BR/><BR/>The leftist sees that stacking as rigid and dogmatic, the conservative sees the arranging as random and chaotic. Both styles are subject to problems, perhaps the conservative overstacks his discs, but he retains a central meaning, a closeness between discs, and pyramidal shapes formed from their stacks that the leftist will never see. The leftist is able to perhaps see more of the discs surfaces, more color, more shape, but he loses nearly relational meaning between the discs - all is separate, unintegrated.<BR/><BR/>I'll take the stack & integrated over the scattered and laid bare, anyday.<BR/><BR/>By the way, note that with Mikez comment earlier, which I disagreed with, and see as a fundamental trait of leftist thought (relativism, etc), there was no "attack", it was an idea, to be fleshed out, and he may develop it further in relation to othe posts and I'll do the same, back and forth - productive and interesting. There are many regular commetors here with whom I disagree on many fundamental points, but do so happily (Hey Joseph! Vittles!), and look forward to the exchanges. <BR/><BR/>But their comments, as with Mikez's above have a style, manners & intent which your earlier comments (and the beginning of this last of yours) lack, or are overlaid by. See RC's earlier comment about overall style of content, and how they are perceived quite differently because of it. And by the way, as I've mentioned is several earlier comments to posts, I don't know much about Wilber's material, I couldn't get past the content of his promo .pdf - I see no value in assigning arbitrary color coding in place of developing the actual conceptual content adequately available in history & philosophy. Perhaps this is my loss. <BR/><BR/>However, casually tossing about such terms in a setting where it is unlikely that the participants are at all familiar lacks a certain savy, and borders on rudeness. <BR/><BR/>If I walk up to a group of people who are perhaps discussing blogs and websites, and begin blathering on about XML, PHP, HTTP, info packets and IIS Server configurations - even though there are reams of valuable data and meaning behind each of those acronyms, it would be meaningless to them, not because of their intelligence, but their contextual understanding. It would also be foolish of me, and no doubt I'd soon get the cold shoulder from those people, and rightly so for my (perhaps unconcsious) rudeness.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166682891792199102006-12-20T22:34:00.000-08:002006-12-20T22:34:00.000-08:00Ximene, do you believe that thinking is contrary t...Ximene, do you believe that thinking is contrary to freedom? Are the two mutually exclusive? <BR/><BR/>Nice attempt at pseudo-Zen condescension, though ;)<BR/><BR/>The truth of the matter is that <I>freedom is the space in which all the swirlings occur</I>.<BR/><BR/>"Stopping" is not <I>necessarily</I> stopping the swirling (of thought); it is recognizing that who one is most primarily (and primordially), is the vast emptiness in which the swirling occurs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166681588912875852006-12-20T22:13:00.000-08:002006-12-20T22:13:00.000-08:00Integr:You poor dear, you just don't get it, do yo...Integr:<BR/><BR/>You poor dear, you just don't get it, do you.<BR/><BR/>You've got a swirling mess in your head, everything always moving around, with no stops & starts anywhere and call it not inhibiting further development.<BR/><BR/>Likely you mistake this for freedom, but you're actually trapped within your arbitrary preset construct, where all must keep moving. To stop is to die.<BR/><BR/>Being finished with an idea does not mean death, it means settled, a place where you can stand, a solid reference point.<BR/><BR/>All the color-coding systems in the world won't help you make sense of any of it, just more stuff to swirl round.<BR/><BR/>Just stop, take a breather & calmly look around in there. Bet you'll find some things worth standing on. Then you can start.ximezehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09969724903834433405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166677765588695542006-12-20T21:09:00.000-08:002006-12-20T21:09:00.000-08:00MikeZ, you bring up a good point which relates to ...MikeZ, you bring up a good point which relates to my problem with how "Leftism" is being used on this blog, as a catchall phrase and charicature of everything that Godwinian classical liberalism despises.<BR/><BR/>There are no distinctions made, anything at all left<I>ish</I> becomes Left<I>ist</I>.<BR/><BR/>You also make a very important point that truth is largely transient, that the only thing that we can say with absolute assurity is that "God is"--or as I would say, "something is going on." Everything else is, at the least, subject to interpretation.<BR/><BR/>This is the big problem with advocating Absolute Truth, and equating it with objective truth (facts). How often does one equate one's own viewpoint with Absolute Truth? Not only is this the height of hubris, but it inhibits further development (i.e. if we think we are finished we cannot grow further).<BR/><BR/>I will also add that come at this discussion from more of a "spiritual philosophical" approach than a political one; my experience is more with integral spiritual study and practice than with political systems, so I will be the first to point out that I am out of my depth when we get into the intricacies of different political philosophies. But at the core, we are talking about two aspects of being--left/liberal and right/conservative--that are polar and ultimately <I>complementary</I>. What I see Robert Godwin doing--and others on this board--is compare the "healthy" aspects of one (the conservative in the form of classical liberalism) with a "pathological" extreme charicature of liberalism (the Left).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166667845860483122006-12-20T18:24:00.000-08:002006-12-20T18:24:00.000-08:00Integralista--Here's a koan for you. Solve it and...Integralista--<BR/><BR/>Here's a koan for you. Solve it and you are cured:<BR/><BR/>What is the compromise between what the Constitution says and what a leftist wants it to say?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166664833056894112006-12-20T17:33:00.000-08:002006-12-20T17:33:00.000-08:00Van, believe what you will of me, but it seems you...Van, believe what you will of me, but it seems you are wildly projecting. You accuse me of not "not personally strong enough to engage in a back and forth over your ideas, but instead jumped from directly to the typical leftist-I'm-an-Offended-Victim! mode of 'response'". <BR/><BR/>Come on, this is ludicrous. I am engaging in a back and forth as time allows--but I am not engaging in the more trollish posts, because there is no point.<BR/><BR/>One of the things I look for in conversation is the degree to which the other has a kind of fluidity and openness; I have not seen that here, at least not to a large degree. <BR/><BR/>As for "leftist victim" crap, am I really playing the victim? I am merely pointing out the obvious: that this blog is more a place to preach to the choir and for the choir to agree among themselves, then it is for different views to be entertained and thus inclusive of an evolutionary dynamic to consciousness.<BR/><BR/>I do admit to being a bit catty with some of my remarks, but not anywhere equal to what I've received in kind. Am I being a victim by saying that or merely expressing what I think is truth?<BR/><BR/>Or is truth something only classical liberals own stock in? <BR/><BR/>One of the reasons I am not, at least in your mind, "arguing my position," is that I just don't think that way. I will argue a position in a specific context, but for the most part my views are ever-changing, evolving, and fluid. This does not mean I am wishy-washy in a postmodern sense, but that I have included the "good news" of postmodernism: relative knowledge, contextualism, etc.<BR/><BR/><I>Now you drop your color coded gobbledygook as if it had actual content and meaning outside your integral clique...</I><BR/><BR/>I'm curious: have you read Wilber? Do you have first-hand experience with the "color coded gobbledygook" or are you just bashing what you don't understand? <BR/><BR/><I>Ok, here's a suggestion, take your "I'm offended"-seeking blue turquoise integralism and stick it where the 'fuller expression' don't shine.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you serious? Is this the kind of maturity that Robert Godwin says classical liberalism embodies?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166654871658463162006-12-20T14:47:00.000-08:002006-12-20T14:47:00.000-08:00mikez said..."Clearly, there are transient truths ...mikez said..."Clearly, there are transient truths - we see tham all the time: "eating X causes disorder Y" - no, wait, that was two years ago; now you can eat all the X you want. "Nothing travels faster than light" - no, wait, that was last year, today we know of quantum entanglement. "<BR/><BR/>Them thar's dangerous waters you're heading down Mikez. <BR/><BR/>No, there are not any "transient truths". Period.<BR/><BR/>THere ARE situations and contexts where due to a changing set of circumstances, we find that what we expected to be true is no longer so, but that is only because the context changed - not the Truth.<BR/><BR/>A quick toss-off (while I'm debugging c# code aka "the context this applies to may vary greatly") definition of the Truth, at least to the horizontal application, might be:<BR/> "A factual identification of things as they are, within a given context" (with the implied "in Reality").<BR/><BR/>It is not true to say that because Aristotle said that the sun revolves around the earth, and Galileo said that the earth revolves around the sun, that the Truth changed. Not at all.<BR/><BR/>Galileo would have agreed with Aristotle completely, if he were able to go back in time and have a chat.<BR/><BR/>How can I say that? Because in conversation they would have understood that within the context of the knowledge Aristotle had:<BR/><BR/>Unaided Visual perceptions of the Sun rising in the East, traversing the sky, and setting in the West, with no other corroborating or conflicting data, they would have been able to agree that, yes it appears that the Sun IS moving across the sky in a circular fashion, and by extension, most likely continues a full circuit around the earth - no idea of parking in Apollo's stables here.<BR/><BR/>If you object to that, go outside and tell me what it looks like to you, and what you think it would have looked like if the Sun actually DID revolve around the earth?<BR/><BR/>With Galileo's additional information, tools and backing data, Aristotle would have excitedly agreed that within the expanded context of information, amazingly it is the Earth that revolves around the Sun. Then they both would have fallen into excited conversation about what it might be that caused the earth to stay in such an orbit, and why did things stay put on the earth's surface. With those two brains together, they might have been able to do the further research needed to discover the law of Gravity centuries before Issac Newton. <BR/><BR/>Maybe.<BR/><BR/>The results we expect from a given context may appear to change as situations develop, and our knowledge deepens, but that's ony because there is some contextual piece of data which we are not aware of, which is changing without our knowledge.<BR/><BR/>At best you could say that we tend to continue using the same Label for different contexts, which gives the appearance of the Truth changing, but the Truth itself is sturdy stuff, it doesn't change.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166642143560409262006-12-20T11:15:00.000-08:002006-12-20T11:15:00.000-08:00Integralist--Bob does not have "followers." The p...Integralist--<BR/><BR/>Bob does not have "followers." The people who enjoy the blog arrived at the identical conclusions without his influence.<BR/><BR/>But do continue in your quest to integrate ice cream and cow dung. Just don't be surprised that the resultant concoction will always taste more like the latter than the former.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166641743429094092006-12-20T11:09:00.000-08:002006-12-20T11:09:00.000-08:00Integralist: I believe that what we should be doi...Integralist: I believe that what we should be doing here is to understand why we disagree, rather than hammer out an agreement. 'Hammering out' usually does violence to the ideas.<BR/><BR/>You're assuming that Bob holds that there is nothing of any value in the Left. (That is certainly a tempting proposition.) One question might be, is there any overlap between the Left and the Right? (I hesitate to use those simplistic labels, because those labels carry different meanings to different people. Not only Left and Right, but Liberal and Conservative. L and C seem to lie on different axes than L and R - maybe it's because they describe different things.<BR/><BR/>Can we even come up with a set of beliefs that encapsulates "left", or "right"? <BR/><BR/>(Reading assignment - test next Friday: read Russell Kirk (any book) and the Federalist Papers. Compare and contrast. For extra credit, read Marx (probably "Capital") - someone else can suggest a significant writer from that side.)<BR/><BR/>I should start by asking everyone to define their terms - but even that leads down a winding path. Dr Bob makes an important point in noting the difference between the Founding Fathers' Classical Liberalism and the strange beast it's been transformed into today - very possibly by its mating, along the years, with Marx, Gramsci, Deleuze, and a host of others.<BR/><BR/>For openers, what do you understand by "the left"? (I think we know what Bob understands). And where does it fit in among "liberal/conservative", "Democrat/Republican" (to cite a few)?<BR/><BR/>For everyone, here's a "Koan for the Day": What is Truth? It may be a case of "the Truth you meet along the road is not the Truth".<BR/><BR/>Clearly, there are transient truths - we see tham all the time: "eating X causes disorder Y" - no, wait, that was two years ago; now you can eat all the X you want. "Nothing travels faster than light" - no, wait, that was last year, today we know of quantum entanglement. There seem to be very few Absolute Truths (by "absolute", I mean, something that is true here and everywhere in the universe, true now, then, and always. I'm not sure I want to go any further than "God is".MikeZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13856948417775902893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166640274978789702006-12-20T10:44:00.000-08:002006-12-20T10:44:00.000-08:00Jealousy is uglyJealousy is uglyJealousy is uglyPr...Jealousy is ugly<BR/>Jealousy is ugly<BR/>Jealousy is ugly<BR/><BR/>Proper envy, proper envy.....ximezehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09969724903834433405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166639931205592592006-12-20T10:38:00.000-08:002006-12-20T10:38:00.000-08:00integralist said..."What I am saying is that this ...integralist said...<BR/>"What I am saying is that this extreme polarization and castigation of leftism produces a perhaps crippling blindspot..."<BR/><BR/>Listen, you put forth an opinion/observation the other day that many here disagreed with ("gasp! Horror!"), and who then identified what they found distasteful in it. You are apparently not personally strong enough to engage in a back and forth over your ideas, but instead jumped from directly to the typical leftist-I'm-an-Offended-Victim! mode of 'response', that is really too tiresom to tolerate. <BR/><BR/>If you want to argue your position, then argue it, but don't expect others who not only disagree with the surface of your position, but have thoroughly investigated the philosophical reasons for that dissagreement (See the One Cosmos archive, or even the archive at my site - it's not as long) and see in it not just the typical leftist knee-jerk reaction (again not name calling, but a description of a thoroughly understood manifestation - again, see archives), but see the real harm and dangers that those views ultimately pose - don't expect them, us, me, to pretend to your holier than thou faux intellectual detachment.<BR/><BR/>"That is why I said "black and white," which equates more with the fundamentalism of the Blue vmeme of Spiral Dynamics than the integral Yellow and Turquoise vmemes (or perhaps more accurately a combination of Yellow and Blue--but little or no Turquoise, the holistic, embracing, fuller expression of integralism)."<BR/><BR/>gesundheit. <BR/>Now you drop your color coded gobbledygook as if it had actual content and meaning outside your integral clique...<BR/><BR/>Ok, here's a suggestion, take your "I'm offended"-seeking blue turquoise integralism and stick it where the 'fuller expression' don't shine.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166639580502528782006-12-20T10:33:00.000-08:002006-12-20T10:33:00.000-08:00Will said: yeah, I guess the Left does purvey some...<I>Will said: yeah, I guess the Left does purvey some truth. As William James once said, every religion has some truth to it. Even the Nation of Islam has some truth to it. Trouble is, as with the Left, it invariably inverts that truth, ie., counterfeits it. The issue of eco-conservation, which certainly involves a "truth" - the Left has generally inverted it, made it grotesque.<BR/><BR/>It's not the issues themselves - it's the inverted spin the Left always manages to inflict on them.<BR/><BR/>Can't integrate that sort of spin.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I agree (although perhaps not with your specific example of eco-conservation, at least to the same degree).<BR/><BR/>This points out how we have to be more precise. There are many facets, sub-groups, and differing ideologies within what you are calling The Left. A lot of the mistake being made here, as I see it, is more along the lines of not differentiating this. <BR/><BR/>I mean, we call all make a charicature of something and easily demolish it. The so-called Left likes to charicature the Religious Right--and to a large degree rightly so. But that doesn't mean that all Christians are fundamentalists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166637695888916552006-12-20T10:01:00.000-08:002006-12-20T10:01:00.000-08:00Again, wow: what a hostile environment for any sor...Again, wow: what a hostile environment for any sort of opposing views. This place is too partisan and biased to really get any interesting conversation going, as far as I can tell, not to mention <I>integral understanding.</I> <BR/><BR/>Let me re-iterate: it is not the specific criticisms of "leftism" that I am disagreeing with--at least not all of them--but the extreme and total castigation of it, the conflation of all "leftist" views under one purview, like some kind of diabolical ideology, and thus the inability to include any truthful aspects of it within an integral embrace. Again, I am NOT trying to include truths and lies, but different degrees and layers/levels of relative truths. <BR/><BR/>I may have sounded rather harsh with words such as "goons" and "mob" and "raving lunatic," and if I hurt any feelings I apologize. But what can I say? That is what I observe--you want truth and honesty, right?--and yes, from just a relatively brief glance (although Wayne Dyer seems to hold similar, if more extreme, views, from what I just read). <BR/><BR/>I am <I>not</I> saying that is all that is going on here, or that Mr. Godwin--and his followers here--have nothing interesting or intelligent to say; not at all. What I <I>am</I> saying is that this extreme polarization and castigation of leftism produces a perhaps crippling blindspot that taints this blog. It sounds like a lot of you have added everything that you dislike/don't understand/fear and given it a name: Leftism. And in the process, lost any capacity to differentiate subtleties. That is why I said "black and white," which equates more with the fundamentalism of the Blue vmeme of Spiral Dynamics than the integral Yellow and Turquoise vmemes (or perhaps more accurately a combination of Yellow and Blue--but little or no Turquoise, the holistic, embracing, fuller expression of integralism).<BR/><BR/>All that said, we all have blindspots and none of us can make claim to perfect, absolute Truth--for Absolute Truth is something that cannot be codified, contained, or defined. It is that which allows everything to arise, including our opposing views...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166637254187086612006-12-20T09:54:00.000-08:002006-12-20T09:54:00.000-08:00From VanDerLeun: "They watched it all revolve abo...From VanDerLeun: "They watched it all revolve above them. Remembered. Kept records."<BR/><BR/>Some kept records. An early comet was described in detail over several months by ancient Chinese astronomers. All we have of Roman accounts is "there was a hairy star".<BR/><BR/>And when he writes "they", he refers to the minute class of what would today be called "scientists", that is, observers and recorders. I doubt the common man ever wondered about such things. Not then, not now. Some things don't change.<BR/><BR/>I think the term you're looking for ("I’ll bet the French have a word for it...") is "je ne sais quoi".MikeZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13856948417775902893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1166636220823311422006-12-20T09:37:00.000-08:002006-12-20T09:37:00.000-08:00PschoPrincess,If you could manage to wangle a meth...PschoPrincess,<BR/>If you could manage to wangle a method of being paid for the letter... you'd be veeerrrryyyyy Rich!<BR/><BR/>;-)Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.com