Saturday, December 23, 2006

What Must We Integrate to Be Integral?

I’m trying to figure out why Integralist is so angry with us and why he thinks I’m a dangerous cult leader with a flock of flying monkeys at my back, when I am a benign vice-overlord of a secret lodge with a gang of merry raccoons at my side. I mean, I try my best to be integral. Apparently, I must be integrating something he thinks should be excluded, or excluding something he thinks must be integrated. Still, no reason to get all huffyngton about it. Why can’t he just ridicule me and be done with it, as I do with my many adversaries, both visible and invisible?

A moment’s reflection will reveal that everyone is always an integralist, or at least trying to be. In other words, no one sets out saying to himself, “I shall spend my life formulating a partial philosophy based upon misunderstanding one small portion of the cosmos.” No, we are always integrating, synthesizing, trying to account for everything. That is what our minds do. Or it’s one thing minds do. As Piaget pointed out, our minds constantly assimilate or accommodate -- they either incorporate new information into an existing framework, or else they alter the framework based upon the new information. In the latter case, a new paradigm is required to account for the novelty.

Now, early in life, we are constantly accommodating -- that is, reorganizing our mental structures in order to incorporate new information or novel aspects of the environment. But it seems that -- at least based upon my experience -- most people simply stop accommodating at a certain arbitrary point and settle on a cognitive schema that they will inhabit for the rest of their lives. Obviously, it’s not just rank and file humans that do this. If anything, it is much more common for intellectuals to do so, since they take their ideas (way too ) seriously, and use thought for all kinds of defensive purposes that normal people don’t. Remember, most of the problems in the world are caused by bad ideas of intellectuals -- including, of course Islamism. Think of all the bad leftist intellectual ideas of the 1960’s for which we will be paying for the rest of our lives.

It is a mistake to think of narcissism as only involving physical beauty. Rather, narcissism is an underlying pathology that will attach itself to whatever the narcissist’s “gift” happens to be, whether it is beauty, intelligence, athleticism, political charisma, cochranesque courtroom treachery, anything. Narcissism will manifest one way in a stupid but attractive Hollywood celebrity, another way in clever lawyer or a brilliant but homely academic. In the case of the latter -- which happens much, much more often than you might realize -- their ideas are not really in the service of truth, but their narcissistic grandiosity. I could name names, but there are just too many. Strutting and preening intellectual popinjays, all of them.

But as I said, a truly open-minded thinker is constantly integrating and synthesizing, or engaging in what Bion called PS<-->D (which we discussed a few weeks ago -- I’ll find the link later). Look at the early Christian fathers, who attempted to integrate Christian revelation with Judaism and neo-Platonic thought, or Aquinas, who did the same with Aristotle. These were men of formidable intellect, much deeper and wider than the typical frivolous wackademic of the sort we discussed yesterday.

Piaget’s theories apply to individual cognitive development, as we move from infancy to adulthood. But what if we apply them to man as such? Obviously, human beings are constantly making new discoveries that must be accommodated or assimilated. For example, a contemporary Aquinas would have to integrate quantum physics -- which, as a matter of fact, Alfred North Whitehead did as early as the mid-1920’s. Or we have to integrate the findings of natural selection, which people like Bergson, Hans Jonas, and Errol Harris have already done.

Now, although I do not identify myself with any “integral movement” as such, my book -- and by extension, this blog -- is obviously my attempt to synthesize all the truth I could find into one big existentialada. The operative word is “truth,” for it can obviously be no part of any integral theory to knowingly integrate lies and truth. That would be a non-starter. For example, there is no need to try to integrate deconstruction, since deconstruction is a philosophy that a priori excludes the existence of objective truth.

Nor is it integral to integrate something on the same level as that which clearly transcends it. Thus, it would be foolish to integrate atheism with theism, or racism and non-racism. Atheism is a philosophy that a priori excludes all of the ontologically real dimensions that transcend the senses, so we needn’t take it seriously, much less try to integrate it. Nor is there any place in my theory to integrate leftist racism -- as far as I am concerned, one cannot integrate the self-evident truth that all men are created equal with the leftist obsession with racial categorization and government-enforced racial discrimination.

In my view, in order to be truly integral, one must first integrate the different modes or expressions of reality, which, at the very least, include matter, life, mind and spirit (hence the subtitle of my book). Any philosophy that ignores one of these modes or tries to collapse or reduce one into another will be hopelessly incomplete.

Each of these modes of existence has a different aspect, which I call objective and subjective, or exterior and interior. For example, as I mentioned the other day, matter has an obvious subjective aspect that we know of as beauty. Matter has a metaphysical transparency that can never be reduced to its mere physicality. To do so is absurd, not to mention non-integral. This is why we needn’t waste any time trying to integrate any philosophy of materialism with ours, because materialism is simply the philosophy of the objective aspect of matter. It cannot even account for the subjective aspect of matter, much less the other modes -- life, mind and spirit.

Nor could we ever elevate natural selection to an all-encompassing integral philosophy. Certainly we take note of whatever truth it contains, but in so doing, we are clearly dealing with a category -- truth -- that cannot be reduced to genetics. At risk of pointing out the obvious, the human ability to know truth is not dependent upon genes. If it were, it wouldn’t be truth.

I’m trying to imagine all of the angry letters they will be receiving at What is Enlightenment? magazine as a result of my interview. What is it about my version of integralism that they will be objecting to? While it’s no excuse to be so pissed off at me, I must be excluding something they think should be included, or including something they think should be excluded. What is it?

Perhaps Integralist provides a hint. In my theory, I find no place for leftism, that is, for any ideas that can trace their squalid genealogy back to Karl Marx. Marx, like every other philosopher, was an ingegralist. In his case, he was trying to integrate Hegel and materialism, or Falsehood with falsehood. In so doing he created many seductive intellectual pathologies that continue to infect the mind of man -- the ideas of class struggle, oppression, exploitation, and collectivism, which have morphed into critical theory, deconstruction, victimology, political correctness, radical environmentalism, gender theory, feminism, afro-centrism, multicultrualism, cultural relativism, queer theory, the designated hitter, etc. There is no place for any of these things in my theory. If that makes me “non-integral” in the minds of some, that’s fine with me. I’m only trying to integrate truth, not lies.

I have much more to say about this, but I'll have to get to it in a later post.

One more quick point: do not confuse our philosophy with a political party. Rather, we simply identify with the party on which our philosophy might have more influence. In the present political mindscape, it just so happens that there is absolutely no place in the Democratic party for people who hold certain foundational truths, such as that the Constitution means what it says, or that racial discrimination is wrong, or that competition would cure the ills of our sick educational system, or that the Judeo-Christian tradition is fundamental to America's identity and character.


Anonymous said...

Yes, you've identified your failure to address class struggle, collectivism, and oppression in your philosophy.

As you have pointed out, the left HAS failed at solving these issues and morphed their "solutions" into destructive entities.

But, that doesn't mean the problems went away. No, that means YOU have a crack at 'em and stop acting like they don't exist.

You can start with class struggle. If not unions, collective bargaining and the like, you tell us.

If not environmentalism, how are we going to get off of the petroleum? You tell us.

If not immigration control, how are we going to get cheap illegal labor off of our collective backs?
You tell us.

That's what your detractors are trying to tell you: you're theory is short on practical applications. Get your hands dirty, get political, and get specific.

Tell us how the destruction of the Left is going to salvage these problems?

The question is, you got anything better, and if so, speak up.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe in class struggle. I believe in self-improvement. Oil will be replaced by a new technology when economic incentives dictate it. We cannot solve the immigration problem so long as the Democratic party requires an influx of barely literate voters to remain viable.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and I am a strong conservationist, as are most conservatives. This has little in common with the anti-Western and illiberal ideology of radical environmentalism.

Anonymous said...

Interlocutor: The real issue is what is behind the defining the issues the way you have.... ie. your worldview/philosophy/etc. Your definition of issues presupposes the answer (and eliminates the possibility of seeing the worldview that Bob discusses).

You just don't understand what Bob (and the other great contributors here) are saying.

Anonymous said...

In Spanish the word, "integral" and its latin roots I suppose- means, whole, or non-reduced, intact. It is where we get "integrity" and other synonyms for "true" and "upright" and "whole wheat" (pan integral). Heh.

As long as a missing bit of the truth is being folded into other truths we have gathered along the way, then we are following the recipe. But in a sense, we are looking to re-integrate what was whole before we wholly adulterated it.

(Aside: an old preacher used to gripe about enriched bread. "Hah! That's like someone robbing you of everything and throwing you a sawbuck as he walks aways and says, 'here ya go. You're enriched.'")

By not seeking out the missing parts of what is Absolutely true, we may embrace many half-truth orphans of thought, thinking we've achieved "integration".

Oh! Re-integrating makes me think of those theories which say that the universe is expanding up to a point, at which it will once again contract, back into the Moment that it began. All of a sudden, I like that idea as being "integral". Where all truth reassembles itself into a Bright Whole (not a Black Hole).

Anonymous said...

>>class struggle, collectivism, and oppression<<

The Left failed at solving these problems? Holy Re-education Camps, amigo, the Left virtually created/invented these problems.

You go a long way in solving any political, social, cultural problem by removing the Leftist agenda, period.

Anonymous said...

One of the nice things about your daily posts is that they evoke lots of "integration" out here, on the receiving end. Quotes, ideas, and considerable pondering arise in response to them. For instance, in the writings of Chuang-tzu it is said, "Great understanding is broad, and unhurried; small understanding is cramped, and busy." This quote came to mind after reading today's post, and then the first of the Comments.

Anonymous said...

>>the universe is expanding up to a point, at which it will once again contract, back into the Moment that it began<<

I think that theory has been sidelined in favor of the constantly, forever expanding universe, based on fairly recent astrophysic data.

Actually, I thought of the expanding-then-retracting universe as being a bit more cyclical than integral. The eternally expanding universe appeals to me as being consistent with the idea that Creation, the act of, continues, now, forever. As it does so, it "integrates", at least on one level.

Personally, I think there will come a time when matter/space/time as they are presently constituted will have served their purpose for us and all higher sentient beings, and will undergo some kind of transformation - that will be an interesting integration.

Anonymous said...


The most practical thing in the world is to seek Truth first. All else, all other solutions flow from it.

Anonymous said...


I don't think I was thinking of contraction as a lessening of the Whole in terms of universal real-estate, just a marvelous re-assembly into a sweetly concentrated reality, like C.S.Lewis' idea of Heaven of being bigger on the inside the further in and higher up you go.

Anonymous said...

Integral also implies oneness. There is only one Oneness. See John 17

Gagdad Bob said...

added to the end of the post:

One more quick point: do not confuse our philosophy with a political party. Rather, we simply identify with the party on which our philosophy might have more influence. In the present political mindscape, it just so happens that there is absolutely no place in the Democratic party for people who hold certain foundational truths, such as that the Constitution means what it says, or that racial discrimination is wrong, or that competition would cure the ills of our sick educational system, or that the Judeo-Christian tradition is fundamental to America's identity and character. None of these integral ideas can be integrated into the Democratic party.

Anonymous said...

Social "soft landings" should be supplied by one's family. When the State gets into the business of shielding people from their own personal problems, struggles, and choices, it does a great disservice to the individual and to the family that should be looking after its own---even when that is inconvenient.

Instead, we rely on the State to determine life and death for innocents so that we can be shielded from that pain and responsibility. That's the real truth behind the proponents of abortion-on-demand: another soft landing.

Which brings to mind another counterfeit: PETA. Instead of nurturing children, and all the work and heartache that entails, we now have pets and pretend it proves our "humanity".

We cry for bloated whales on the beach, and plucky spotted owls who don't need our pity, but can feel okay about aborting a beating heart within us because the mob tells us it's a Sacred Choice. Our activist judges sanction it, further assuaging our guilt. But it's not enough anymore. We must save innocent lives! We must save dolphins! We must save snail-darters! And so, we have a counterfeit sense of humaneness, but little humanity.

Anonymous said...

YRH, P-Princess,

The more you write, the more enamored I become...

In response to your questions:

1) Am I a True Christian? Well, if by True Christian, you mean a contemplative practioner of my religious and mystical tradition, then yes, I am a True Christian. Although the tradition I was given by birth does not happen to be Christianity.

2) Do I Submit self, Practice Accountability, inner and outer Knightly Virtues of my own volition? Yes, I do. A lot of the time it comes naturally. A lot of the time it is hard work. And occasionally I forget. But through even the most mundane aspects of my every day life, I try to make my life a reflection of the Divine Will.

3) What do I think of G-Bobs Verticality Principles and Integralism? I think Bob puts my own thoughts into words more clearly than I think them. Bob's writing contains Truth, and I enjoy basking in that Light.

4) Do I have any fondness for Christian Psych, Theological Studies, Luther and LOTR? Metaphysics and Theological Studies are two of my greatest passions. Although specifically, I have not studied Christian Psych or Luther in any significant depths.

As far as LOTR is concerned, suffice it to say that I have read such classics as "The Silmarillion" and "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil."

4a) Do I cherish the reading of Books & discussing Kingdom matters? Yes I do. But I consider myself equally a man of action and contemplation. I've found that life becomes joyless when I emphasize one of these poles to a far-greater extreme than the other.

5) Will I send Samoa Girl Scout Cookie Shipments on a regular basis, in Tribute to The Princess? Thin Mints or those Windmill Cookies, maybe. Samoas, I believe, are contingent on a date.

6) Thy Purpose in the One Cosmos Kingdom is...? I won't know that until I draw my last breath. My purpose will be clear only once I have acheived it.

Now, P-Princess, if my ramblings have caught your attention, might we continue this dance elsewhere? I will gladly provide an email address.

I hate to clog up the blogwaves so generously provided by the Gagdad.

ximeze said...

Bob said:
"most people simply stop accommodating at a certain arbitrary point and settle on a cognitive schema that they will inhabit for the rest of their lives."

Too True, Oh Great & Fearless Leader.

It can be seen to play out in the material world as:

most women-of-a-certain-age simply stop accommodating fashion at a certain arbitrary make-over point and settle on a hair-style & makeup schema that they will inhabit for the rest of their lives.

Just look around, can't you place in time the epoch which must have elicited the right compliments?

I gets to say this 'cause I fits the profile.

Now, gotta go touch-up my roots.

Anonymous said...

Rather than lacking "integrality," I think that what what One Cosmos lacks is "conciseness." There is a fuzziness around what Bob is doing here.

Bob writes "do not confuse our philosophy with a political party."
Yet, Bob is a philosopher who has undeniably entered the arena of politics; and once you go to that prom there's no standing on the sidelines; you've got to get out there and dance.

And, Bob is a politician who has entered the arena of philosophy. The two are inextricably interwtined, because a philosophy that has no impact on policy is completely useless. The only choice the philospher/politician has is deciding how deep to get in, and Bob already neck deep in philosophy but just barely dabbling his toes in policy. And that reticence to jump in is why he gets panned. He talks smack but won't get down to cases.

Bob's "firm" platform so far is this:


Affirmative Action
Democratic Party
Radical Environmentalists
Hate groups
Leftist commentators
Gay Marriage

Privatized Education
Privatized Medicine

Bob seems to have softer positions on these:


Illegal Immigration (believes that it is required to supply voters to the Democratic party, which I thought he opposed. Puzzling...)

Oil. He says use it all up as long as it's cost-effective. Alternatives will arise when they are needed.


Class struggle (he does not believe in it, but declines to give yay or nay on unions).

Since I am a troll, I have to find the weak chink in all this, and I believe its the oil.

The oil, which he likes, finances the Jihadists, whom he hates.

The oil energizes and unifies the radical environmentalists, whom he hates.

The oil provides a high standard of living for Americans, which exacerbates materialism and Leftism, which Bob hates.

I'm going to go out on a limb and declare that oil is Bob's main problem, and suggest he change his tune about getting rid of it.

Anonymous said...

It's all about the oil, bob. Didn't you see Syriana?

Anonymous said...

What a maroon.

Anonymous said...

Excellent post Bob.

I believe you destroyed the illusion, Will.

The Left did indeed create the very problems that Interlocutor is concerned about.

Although...when I was in Boot Camp, I was appointed the task of making our class (company) smarter.

Alas! That was an epic (and tragic) class struggle.

Unfortunately, as I later learned, one cannot educate rocks.

Smaller class sizes and more money would not have changed the results, although I always appreciate more money.

Damnit Jim, I'm a Sailor not a miracle worker!

Sorry, bit of a flashback there.

karrde said...

Well, I could be mistaken, but...

I think the best integration that can be tried is the solution of a definite integral, where we use Newton's famous method of producing the anti-derivative, and evaluating the anti-derivative at the endpoints of the domain in question to give the area between the functional curve and the x-axis., pardon me, you are speaking of the integration of ideas and not of functions.

It is an interesting question how the various problems (class struggle, collectivism, oppression, etc) came about. However, if the leftist approach to them is riddled with fundamental errors, then the best solution would begin by reversing the attempted solutions which are erroneous.

To return to (a much simpler piece of) mathematics, a wrong calculation involving addition, multiplication, and exponentiation can only be put right by finding the error, and reworking the process from there.

What is the class struggle? Are unions a help or a hindrance to the lower class? Can they have permuted from a help to a hindrance if their struggle threatens the very existence of the business the arbitrate with?

How can we deal with petroleum? What about the vast ecological change introduced by human agriculture? We are stuck with some sort of ecological influence by humans, unless we all revert to the technology (and numbers) that Cro-Magnons enjoyed. The trick is to support our numbers in a way that neither destroys the rest of nature nor destroys fellow humans for daring to exist. At the moment, petroleum-based energy is the most useful. Other forms of energy may be found, when inventiveness, science, and economic need coincide.

If cheap illegal labor is a problem for someone, it is a problem for those who fail to enforce the law--and for those whose taxes pay to support any baby born to a single mother in the nation, and for those whose lives and liberty are threatened by transients with little respect for neighbor and a facility for evading the law.

Perhaps we should help our law enforcement enforce the law, while at the same time providing legal pathways for foreigners to work inside the country. As long as those who are currently flout the law must pay the fines (and other consequences) of doing so.

ximeze said...

Real Troll said:.......

Oh never mind, not much meat there anyway.

I repeat my request from yesterday:

Can't we have more variety in our diet?

Gagdad Bob said...

Real Troll--

Honestly, I cannot respond to you because I've simply forgotten how to be so stupid.

Anonymous said...

Joan, right, the concentrated reality of a collapsed universe would reverse everything, including the higher dimensions, back into a near-primal fiery state - it would resemble something close to what was before Creation, that is, nothing but Potentiality, not "existence" per se. For me at least, Creation equates with an eternal actualization of Potentiality. The more space created, the more room for actualization. Come to think of it, the space being created is itself an actualization.

Re CS Lewis - I think the mind-staggering dimensions of "physical space" mirror, in a sense, the 'eternal non-physical dimensions' of Lewis's heaven, which I don't doubt actually exists. You know, heaven being the dimension where space folds it on itself and the center is everywhere.

Anonymous said...

">>However, if the leftist approach to them is riddled with fundamental errors, then the best solution would begin by reversing the attempted solutions which are erroneous."<<

How about stopping with the meddling and "solutions" and reversing the mindset which causes people to go about trying to find solutions to non-existant problems, i.e. victimology.
In the western world, people can get as far as they wish when they apply themselves. Social engineering, at this point in our history only serves to weaken a culture with the mindset of entitlement. Government turns into the capricious "parent" and the various interest groups become the "children" vying in whatever way works (manipulation) for the attention and dispensation of those parents. It gets disfunctional pretty quickly.
The government needs to get out of the civil rights movement. Their involvement was needed at one point in our history but it has served its purpose and it is now time to move on.

Anonymous said...

OK, it's back by my own popular demand. What, you ask? Why my poetic tribute to trolls. Actually, I posted it back in June, but I don't think anybody read it because I, in my delirium, posted it in the wee AM.

And now . . .


trolls come and go
like days of sun and days of snow -

one pictures them as tiny things
with crooked backs and insect wings -

and eyes that roll like a drunkard's moon,
and florid breath, aye, one could swoon -

from whence they come? well, no one knows,
but a school of thought says: from Black Holes!

with their clamminess and dark thought ramble-ly,
some think they're of the mushroom family,

that they grow in forests where the sun is nil
and sprout small legs eventually, but still

others think that their rife debasement
means they were conjured in some voodoo basement -

each theory has merits I must entertain
for as we have noticed, as they appear yet again,

all of them, down to the last nutter
is as though designed by cookie-cutter:

the garbling, the syntax, the fever of brain . . .
the notions themselves - they're all the same!

what if - no, it cannot be -
yet they bend the mind towards conspiracy

most foul and thoughts all undone
for what if there's not many a troll . . but one!

Aye, one massive troll, always in flux,
the size of one of those Monster Rally Trucks -

let's say it lives in the death valley gloom,
because, c'mon, who's going to rent it a room?

it's got glowing red eyes and giggles a lot
as it squats huge over its cowering lap top

as it posts its dribble and nonsensical spume
under one of many a nom d' plume,

be it "Copi" or "Benedict", the dithering fuss
(when the troll is drunk, it's default "anonymous")

and when the troll shifts buttocks on the dried up rivers,
somewhere a Richter needle shivers -

all right, OK, this is only a guess -
perhaps I need an aspirin and a good eve of rest -

but when the hour is wee and the lights dim,
and your thoughts begin to churn grim,

you'll wonder if the fluttering leaves
aren't really fat massive fingers working the keys -

but enough! you all have your own memes -
goodnite, sleep well - and oh yes - sweet dreams!

Anonymous said...

Bob, I do not think you have "forgotten how to be so stupid" at all.

I'm not calling you stupid, but I am calling you a chronic avoider of your own power.

Given your tendencies, this small blog will not grow in power or influence. You need to take some chances, and that means making some firm committments to something specific and solid.

How about abortion? What's your postition there?

And don't waffle, dude. That's not an option anymore.

Anonymous said...


Don't forget the documented tendency of businesses to abuse their workforce (unless prevented by some mechanism).

Anonymous said...

">>Reminder said...

Don't forget the documented tendency of businesses to abuse their workforce (unless prevented by some mechanism)."<<

That mechanism would be called capitalism or the free market. Don't like how you're being treated? Move on to another job. Too much of a lazy loser? Too bad, don't expect the government to bail you out.
You missed the most important part of the post I.E. drop the victimhood. There's no power in it.

Anonymous said...


You must have posted Ode to Troll in the wee hours because I would have rememberd something so well composed.

Anonymous said...

Real Troll

Dude, when you understand the underlying concept, the "solution" or lack thereof becomes self evident.
"Get" the theory and you won't feel compelled to have Bob treat you like you're in elementary school by spelling everything out.

Anonymous said...

Gracias, Hoars -

Yes, those visions of trolliana kept me up past the dawn . . .

Gagdad Bob said...

As a 12 year member of UFCW local 1442, I can tell you that any tendency of businesses to abuse their workforce is easily matched by the tendency of union members to float, coast, skate, lollygag, dawdle, doodle, diddle-daddle, and dillydally at the expense of their employer.

My internship was at Camarillo State Mental Hospital, where I have never seen such breathtaking economic inefficiency in action. It's the same with any labor force that is shielded from market realities. As someone said, you can't increase a man's value by paying him more than he's worth, or something like that.

Unions may have once served a purpose, but economists can tell you that increased wages for union members results in a net decrease in overall wages for everyone else. In economics, there really is no free lunch -- except free markets and free trade, which create increased wealth for everyone.

Nova said...

Real Troll:

You ARE stupid. You may have a high IQ, but don't confuse that with intelligence.

You need to shut up and absorb the ideas here for a few months. At that point you will either begin to grasp some of it (and the nature of your posts will reflect that) or else you are simply not cut out for anything but what Bob calls the horizontal plane.

If you are an irredeembable flatlander then your presence here is without purpose and serves only to irritate those of us who are open to learning as much as we can from a man who essentially offers for free what no amount of money could buy.

Nova said...

Real Troll:

By the way, do you really think ANYONE here is not familiar with the sad litany of leftist ideas? Do you think we haven't studied Marxism, desconstruction and the rest and found it sorely wanting?

Do you know that many of us were once leftists ourselves, but grew weary of the stultifying emptiness and ultimate dishonesty of that Weltanschauung, and came here (and similar places) looking for something greater and more noble than the pabulum spilling from the typical leftist mouth?

1. You are telling us nothing we haven't already heard and rejected;

2. You are still in thrall to bankrupt and illogical ideas;

3. You need to shut up and listen. Your life could change for the better in ways you currently can't understand.

Just stop with the inane trollfoolery and LISTEN.

Anonymous said...

Troll apologizes for his tomfoolery and will indeed shut up and listen.

I am changing my handle to Pupa in the hope that a butterfly might emerge after I incubate here for awhile.

dicentra63 said...

I have never seen such breathtaking economic inefficiency in action.

Ditto that. I was a contractor on an Air Force base, in a program that integrated contractors and government civilians. Although there were a few govt. workers who pulled their weight, there were still more who arrived in the morning, switched on their computers, and vanished for the rest of the day. Or sat there all day and downloaded porn. Or chatted with their friends all day. Or if they were in any kind of management position, spent all their time building petty little empires and making sure nothing got done.

I'm not kidding. The culture that festered there actually punished people for doing well, because if you did a good job, you made everyone else look bad, so they'd take you down one way or another.

We contractors could be fired at will, but the govt. workers could putz around all day and not suffer so much as a raised eyebrow.

It's no wonder the Soviet Union collapsed: the "workers' paradise" consisted of everyone doing everything but work.

By the way, do you really think ANYONE here is not familiar with the sad litany of leftist ideas?

Ditto here, too. For some reason, Leftists think that conservatives just haven't been exposed to the right ideas yet. But we get your junk, people. It permeates the culture, the universities, the media. We'd have to grow up in Outer Mongolia without electricity to not have a thorough, intimate, insiders' understanding of your ideas.

We're just lucky enough to have found other ways of thinking that we found more satisfying and embraced them. When people like interlocutor and integralist come over here and spout the same tired old lines, it's as if we were being offered bread and water while sitting at a sumptuous feast.

I guess that would make us blandophobes. I'll cop to that...

Anonymous said...

That was a superb poem!
Thanks for sharing!

Leftists never seem to comprehend capitalism and free markets.

Every union I have heard of, becomes corrupt at virtually every level.

Big businesses such as GM, eventually reach a tipping point of lost profits and bankruptcy looms, because of the ever increasing demands of Unions.

Union leaders and politicians are surprised that the big corporations and fat cats don't have an endless supply of money.

They go into denial, that familiar refuge they are so good at embracing.

The end result is lost jobs, bankruptcy, and the loss of the business.

Maybe they'll be lucky enough to be bought out by another company, but even then the damage is done.

Or maybe the fat cats will point out the truth, and cut the free lunches.

Are some fat cats greedy? Of Course. But most are not as callous as leftists presume.

Union leaders and politicians have done more to "oppress" the masses, by trying to steal from the business that that the fat cats created, and run it their way.

The unions and politicians don't risk their money to improve the business.

The leftists consume the golden goose and the eggs she hatches.

Classic liberals protect the golden goose, and encourage her to lay more eggs.

Anonymous said...

Good post, Bob.

Let's get (most of) the personal stuff out of the way first. I am not "angry" with you; "irked," perhaps, but not angry. Nor do I think you are a "dangerous cult leader"--that is an exagerration of what I said, which was that there are some signs of cultish thinking going on here (more on that in a moment).

Furthermore, you say that I am getting "all huffyngton about it"--without, seemingly, noticing the way your "flying monkeys" treat me and any who question the party line. In other words, there is some spinning going on: projecting anger onto me, over-exagerrating what I am saying, and accusing me of stuff that in fact your readers are "guilty" of.

But I'm willing to let that all go and address the issues and the issues only. I would take notice, though, of how this blog tends to have an "You're either with us or against us" mentality. This could be exemplified by Smoov's assertion to Real Troll: Shut up and listen. This is where I see cultish thinking occuring.

Onto the other stuff...

You make some good points in your post, not least of which is that we are all trying to be "integralists." But of course I've been using the term in a relatively specific, even technical, way, along the lines of Ken Wilber's usage. Thus as a serious, if not utterly orthodox, student of Wilber's work, I strongly agree with you that to be integral we must at least recognize the different "modes of reality" (Wilber would add Soul to your four). The subjective and objective aspects basically equate with Wilber's left and right hand quadrants--again, important stuff.

Where I start to disagree with you, and call it "not integral," is when you talk about what you refuse to integrate. Your post has helped clarify in my own mind what I take issue with, which I will try to express as concisely as possible.

What I see you and others doing here is over-simplifying and consolidating ideologies, taking them wholesale so to speak, and outright writing them off if any of its parts you disagree with. It is as if you refuse to, or cannot, see ideologies as composed of different aspects, as dynamic even, but rather as static entities that are utterly unmalleable.

So when you talk about Marx's legacy via the supposedly "seductive intellectual pathologies that continue to infect the mind of man," you refuse to recognize how all of these have some veracity to them, are "true from a certain angle." Not absolutely true--just as your ideology is not Absolute Truth (no matter what Psycho Princess claims).

Another example is when you say that atheism and theism are incompatible. Strictly speaking, I agree. But what if we look less at the surface structures and more at the deeper, subtler dimensions of both? Atheism questions the belief in God, or anything that cannot be experienced with the senses. Theism posits a Power within and/or beyond the sensory world. "Mature" atheism is agnosticism, which is not anti-theistic, it just doesn't settle for belief. "Mature" theism is mysticism: it is not based in belief, but in experience.

What I'm doing here is, as Ken Wilber likes to say (perhaps ad nauseum), not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The bathwater of atheism is its refusal to be open to anything other than the sensory; the bathwater of theism is its reliance upon belief. The baby of atheism is its adherence to experience, to what one can verify personally; the baby of theism is its recognition of a deeper order or energy or power.

I would even say there is a relatively natural sequence, an evolution of consciousness: From theism to atheism to agnosticism to mysticism, which is roughly synonymous with premodern to modern to postmodern to post-postmodern (or integral). In my opinion, everyone must let go of their belief in God to actually experience the Divine (this is somewhat related to the notion of Grace, where all we can do is surrender--we cannot "grab" the Divine). Thus the synthesis of the thesis (theism) and antithesis (atheism) is agnostic mysticism.

Another thing that I see you and others here doing is a simple fallacy of elevating one's personal relative and contextual worldview with some kind of Absolute Truth. This is where the "good news" of postmodernism--recognizing context and cultural situation, as well as personal interpretation--is utterly missing from this blog. It is as if no one here recognizes that their views are at least to some degree shaped by their culture, their personality, and their personal beliefs. This is why any codified ideology is not, cannot be, "absolute"--only Absolute Truth is absolute.

When you discuss Marx and other Leftists and speak of how their views are based on total falsehood, it sounds to me as if you are projecting your own shadow onto them. I get the sense that you believe that you are without blindspots, without any degree of falsehood. In other words, you believe you have found THE Truth against which everything else is Lies, instead of what you may have actually found: a clearer vision (and interpretation) of Truth than you previously had.

In other words, we're all deluded, we're all prone to falsehoods--and none of us truly, fully gets it! We're all works in progress.

p.s. You really should get a linked forum going; this format makes conversations pretty difficult.

Gagdad Bob said...


I don't agree with much of what you said aside from what most anyone would agree with, but I will stipulate that it takes all kinds to make a world. I do not go out of my way to publicize my ideas, and it would be thoroughly inappropriate, to say the least, to try to convert others to my way of thinking (if they are attracted to it, that's obviously a different matter). So long as you are at peace with God, who am I to argue?

Anonymous said...


Have you read any more of the entries besides the last week or two? There are over a years worth of entries which may clear up some of your questions.

Also, this statement:

"I would even say there is a relatively natural sequence, an evolution of consciousness: From theism to atheism to agnosticism to mysticism, which is roughly synonymous with premodern to modern to postmodern to post-postmodern (or integral)."

is very telling as to the mindset you are coming from. You might want to look at your own blindspots, and as a suggestion, attach the prefix mono to theism and shoehorn it in between agnosticism and mysticism. See how the world appears from that perspective.
Just try it as a thought experiment.

Anonymous said...

Integralist, you are such a wannabe psuedo-integralist, it's starting to piss me off.

You choose to live in Plato's cave even after those of us who escaped have come back to rescue you.

If anyone is harsh towards you, it is clearly merited by your ignorance and refusal to listen. You are like a brick wall, or a rock.

Of course our views are "at least to some degree shaped by their culture, their personality, and their personal beliefs."

Do you honestly think there is one person here who doesn't know that?

All hail Messiah Bob. More kool-aid please.

Anonymous said...


The way I see the cause and effect fruits of your progression is thus:

From theism (God) to atheism (Ego) to agnosticism (a little less Ego) to mysticism (New Age Cult Leader)

The world is full of these examples where people threw the religion of their childhood (which they never completely understood, how could they, they were children) out the window and then slid over into the drivers seat.
To see the progression in the way I described earlier will take a measure of humility.

Anonymous said...

I thought it went from animism to paganism to poly/henotheism to atheism to monotheism to mysticism? Give or take a few isms.

Gagdad Bob said...


I didn't intend to jump back in, but "fed up with the troll" makes an excellent point. You are an "orthodox Wilberian." In point of fact, there can be no "Gagdaddians," orthodox or otherwise. If you had read my book, you would understand this. The point of most of my writing -- both in substance and in style -- is to facilitate a personal experience (O) in the reader of whatever it is I am writing about. The experience is theirs, not mine, even if I may have provoked it. I could say more, but those who get it, get it, those who don't, don't. And anyone who thinks I am presenting a dogmatic intellectual system (k-->O) that someone can follow, a la Wilber, doesn't get my approach. And please, I am not criticizing Wilber. If he speaks to your soul, again, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to argue with you.

ximeze said...


Thou art displaying the beginnings of wisdom by heeding Smoov's sage advice.

Smoov has traveled far & wide,
is the builder of a great empire and has thy interest at heart.

We'll take care not to disturb thy chrysalis while metamorphosis takes place.

Will a dusty moth emerge? Or a Monarch or Glasswing or a glorious iridescent Blue Morpho?

Only time will tell. We'll save a place for thee till then.

Happy Pupating

Anonymous said...

Yes, good luck on caterpulting your buddhafly out of its present cocoonsciousnsess.

Anonymous said...

When the pupa is ready the teacher appears!

Anonymous said...

Another Bob here, longtime reader of the blog and owner of the One Cosmos book.

As a huge fan of Wilber's work, I would not strictly qualify the content of this blog to be integral (as defined by Wilber's work), which is supposed to be the leading edge of the evolution of consciousness. But I don't read this blog to get more integral perspectives. I read this blog to get a different and illuminating perspective on the world, both relative and absolute.

I have been immensely helped by Mr. Godwin's writing, in that I see the hidden value and importance of Christianity and traditional liberal perspective and how messed up Leftist values are. I see now why only certain White people are so concerned by multiculturalism, whereas the Asian parents are busy educating their children in the modern, traditional liberal values.

Anyway, just writing to express my gratitude, and I await eagerly for the next book!

ximeze said...

Just found this on Tammy Bruce's blog. I've never seen it til now, but thought some here would like it.

Kinda long, so if your not interested, feel free to hit pagedown. That's what I do with uninteresting stuff.

Merry Christmas! Happy Hanukkah!
to all my Theist friends.

"The Twelve Days Of Christmas

There is one Christmas Carol that has always baffled me.

What in the world do leaping lords, French hens, swimming swans, and especially the partridge who won't come out of the pear tree have to do with Christmas?

Today I found out, thanks to the Internet.

From 1558 until 1829, Roman Catholics in England were not permitted to practice their faith openly. Someone during that era wrote this carol as a catechism song for young Catholics.

It has two levels of meaning: the surface meaning plus a hidden meaning known only to members of their church.

Each element in the carol has a code word for a religious reality which the children could remember.

The partridge in a pear tree was Jesus Christ.

Two turtle doves were the Old and New Testaments.

Three French hens stood for faith, hope and love.

The four calling birds were the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John.

The five golden rings recalled the Torah or Law,the first five books of the Old Testament.
The six geese a-laying stood for the six days of creation.

Seven swans a-swimming represented the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit: Prophesy, Serving, Teaching, Exhortation, Contribution, Leadership and Mercy.

The eight maids a-milking were the eight beatitudes.

Nine ladies dancing were the nine fruits of the Holy Spirit: Love,Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness and Self Control.

The ten lords a-leaping were the ten commandments.

The eleven pipers piping stood for the eleven faithful disciples.

The twelve drummers drumming symbolized the twelve points of belief in the Apostles' Creed.

So there is your history for today. This knowledge was shared with me and I found it interesting and enlightening and now I know how that strange song became a Christmas Carol..."

Anonymous said...

FED UP WITH THE TROLL: "All Hail Messiah Bob. More Kool-Aid, please." FUWTT: YOU CRACKED me up! TX :D

USS.BEN: "Unfortunately, as I later learned, one cannot educate rocks." - AHHHHHH - GOOD ONE! Actually I think most of us learn the hard way also, just not in Formal Bootcamp. We learn it by other less formalized methodologies which trains us for "Global Domination & World-Warfare: MoronCamp and BoobCamp."

More Power to you, Brother! What a credit & compliment that you learned to think with the right head early on! :D Thats why You wear White, cuz you're one of the Good Guys (definitely not a "rockhead.")

You learned early of the necessity to sink their Battleship, eh USS.Ben? Thats why you are on Patrol for our us back here. We're on patrol here too just in a different application.

G-BOB: Great point on this Being a Philosophy not a Political Ideology, a Phil that supercedes the Horizontal Aspects it also includes, of which Politics is but one aspect on the H Axis - the H aspects are somewhat "subordinate" to the V aspects (positionally) although its most accurate to say both relate dynamically together.

KeyWords: "Dynamic Relationship." In any Dynamic Relationship, there is always a bit of "fuzzy dancing" going on - called Ambivalence - which definitely makes less matured people antsy-ad-nauseum until they learn to "abide it well." Hence they keep demanding that G-BOB make this philosophy more static, less dynamic, less "nebulous" - so they are comforted & feel more "in control."

I hope this info is helpful to Trolls and Newbies (Pupa):

THE PROBLEM OF SYSTEMIC EVIL 101: from individual to national Systemic Evil: (and why Integralism is the "opposite")

Self-defense mechs cater to Ambivalence (which is FEAR) and they are (usually) an incorrect unhealthy response to Ambivalence & Fears you feel.

Correct response to handling Fear are healthy self-development mechs which aid in development of Spiritual Maturity, which transforms Ambivalence into Tolerable Ambiguity i.e., Maturity & higher Spiritual Skills.

> To confuse Ambivalence & Ambiguity, to not know Which is Which, leads Trolls to think both are negative or mistake one for the other, i.e., no discernment or chronic mistaken overidentification as Fear of both.

Trolls: please try to understand it like this: The closer one gets to God, the more "Realism & Mysticism blend."

Or said another way: "The closer one dynamically relates with God/Truth, the more Solid Reality Becomes AND ALSO the More Mysticism One Experiences." Its a Dynamic "balance" or relating, not a static linear relationship between the Vertical & Horizontal.

Integralism at once manifests (1) The Solidness of Reality AND (2) The Ambiguity of Mysticism, both, in dynamism, closest thing we call it usually is Dynamic Balance, Spirit Dance, Spiritual Maturity process, Harmony, Growth, Oneness of Being with the Divine, etc.

What makes many Trolls constantly antsy w/unresolved anxiety is the inclusion of the Mystical / Mysticism component - the nebulous ambiguous areas inherent in Mysticism. But thats the beauty of this Philosophy, since Mysticism keeps things balanced.

Ok, Peeps/Trolls, instead of objecting to Mysticism try experiencing it to understand it - so YOU are able to integrate some of it instead of just pedantically objecting to it.

Try to not fear it so much, turn your fear (ambivalence) into courage (ambiguity which says "feel the fear but stick to the Absolute Truth anyway.) This "Ambivalence->to->Ambiguity" ability & skill development WILL increase your Spiritual Maturity by leaps & bounds the more you enter & experience it.

When ambivalence is fear, we tend to want to avoid it/escape it. Try to Face It instead. Do Battle. Fear, when successfully handled becomes Courage. Fears can be faced instead of avoided, and indeed must be faced if one hopes to move into any Spiritual Maturity.

Its worse to stay stuck in chronic double-mindedness/ambivalence which spawns nearly all negative unproductive dysfunctional defense mechanisms which limit Spiritual Maturity but encourage chronic Spiritual Immaturity.

Feel the Fear AND Choose God/Truth anyway. Thats how you "conquer it." Get rid of ego's demandingness in the process thru patiently "hushing it" as Pupa is doing.


> AMBIGUITY = "Solidness in Motion." EquiPoise. "Balance." Matured Fear Coping Skills w/o using abusive & destructive self-defense mechs. "Healthy Ego Development" = Anti-Narcissism. Spiritual Maturity.

> AMBIVALENCE: Fears + self-preoccupations, phobias, anxieties. Can lead to myopia, chronic immaturity, ego-overdefensiveness, chronic Narcissism, psychoemotional illnesses, neuroses, psychoses, etc. not only of an individual but of a nation.

> DOUBLE & HARDHEADED / DBL-HEARTED / DLB-WILLED: "Teeter-Tottering" Stuck in Fears. Confusion. Refusal to change. Becomes Rebellion. Can become Narcissistic focus instead of Spirit-Focus.

Ambiguous Skill Dev. (Trust & Faith in Spirit / God / Absolute Truth) helps lead You Out of double-mindedness & lies into Spiritual Maturity.

> ARROGANCE: Stuck in Ambivalence but covering it up w/Denial, Counterfeits & Lies. Unreality. Dysfunction. Evil.

> EVIL: Counterfeit Proliferation of Lies & Defenses layered in Bondages & Structural patterns which spawn -ISMS that build & morph into each other.

Systemic Infection happens at this point and you develop a chronic parasitic relationship between self-Arrogance & Rebellion, a Refusal to change perspectives or be integrative of new info.

NOTE: This is a VERY Elementary Basic Structure of how Evil develops within a person, then in the World, and continues to develop called "SYSTEMIC EVIL." This delineation of System Evil is a combo of the V axis & H, but on the negative downside of the Cross, you could say Structural Satansism & Spiritual ill-health.

In RPGs (role playing games) they typically characterize Evil Character as "Base Evil, Legal Evil, Chaotic Evil" - which basically outlines Evil Moral Character Alignment, specific combinations of V & H modes on Evils side.

Now *THINK* APPLY: Are WE HERE following this pattern of evil? While we may "appear arrogant" to you, look closer: We arent ambivalent, we have a staunch courage to defend well our perspective, its a philosophy (and more), we dont stay stuck in Evil but reach for Spiritual Transcendence, we arent making counterfeit truths...Contrastingly: We are quite transparent, authentic, real, open, forthcoming, not cultish (altho we joke about it) - not politically power grabbing, no converts, etc.

Which reminds me: Have to Hare-Krishna-ize Bobs Book(s) into a Marketing Strategy the Left understands! (Heh)

This is why G-BOB says this is a Philosophy & if YOU feel inclined to agree with it, so be it; but he's not out to recruit anyone to join the Army of Gagdad. OBVIOUSLY, thats precisely WHY so many here JOKE about it! :D

If G-BOB (or any of us) do not wish to enter formal Politics, Fine, its not needed nor correct for Trolls to DEMAND Bob do so. TROLLS & others may think to do so themselves, given Integralism as Philosophy is within Their Grasp - but to demand G-BOB do it when he's said he's not interested seeks to override his boundaries & reveal its a personal issue for Trolls.

Don't get me wrong - I Still Support Gagdad Bob Fer Prezident, though! :D

K U D O S GOES OUT TO -> PUPA: Troll who Graduated to PUPA!! Way to Go!!

PUPA: Have you ever seen the Episode of Babylon-5 TV series where Delenn enters a cocoon-state in order to "integrate" & transform her Minbari & Human aspects called "Chrysalis?" I thought of it instantly as I read your decision to heed our loving advice! WISE Move! :D

Now more of us here will be more willing to talk w/you. Choosing to put ones ego into self-control-mode & Spirit-control mode is one of the first necessary skills to learn in this Philosophy. Submission into cocooning protects one against Arrogance by developing Humility.

Later, you will gain a unique combination of Humility & Bold Strength (which many Trolls also mistake for Arrogance) which is actually called COURAGE.

Thank You & Bless You, PUPA - You are showing other Trolls how to "enter within." Jesus illustrated same concept when He says: "Harken...Listen...How is it that...?" as indicators to be ye quiet to absorb & chew - chewing aids digestion and meditation on Truth & truths nourishes one to become Spiritually Integrative & also eliminative - both appropriately in "balance" - dynamic relationship.

Dont look now, but thats Mysticism!

Good Job to our Fearless Leader and all the Bobbleheads who helped patiently in Pupas developmental process!

I am not G-BOBs Disciple nor supplicant (except in humorous ways); and he is not our Messiah; I think its better to say I am a Disciple of the Integralism Philosophy, becuz at the heart of True Christianity, THIS IS what its all about.

If it werent, you bet Princess wouldnt be here and feel at home at long last.

Its true I despise the Wilderness-of-the-World, but I'd Rather Go Back Into It for a Century than Be in a place or support a cause or Philosophy that does not resonate as fully as possible with my entire Being in Christ!

Readers must decide for yourselves, and follow your own path to Truth.

Choose the Road Less Traveled if the one you're on hasnt lead you much of anywhere, or has lead you only along the Horizontal Axis but never much into The Vertical Axis.

YOU GOTTA EXPERIENCE THE VIEW FROM THE VERTICAL! I guarantee you it will blow your mind and re-assemble your psyche & Spirit more solid than you ever experienced or dreamed possible!

- PsychoPrincess -

PS: Thanks for the space, G-Bob, just wanted to encourage Pupa/others forward.

PUPA: I encourage you to get G-Bobs book NOW & study it as you continue to visit here. My website is coming but not up & running yet, but I build it for others in your position. We're here to encourage You.

Anonymous said...

Oh, my heavens, Beaglehole, is that YOU?

Colonel J.C. Beaglehole, late of Sussix On The Meadow? The Royal Crest of Fighting Swallow?

I tingle, I must tell you, because this is precisely what Madame Knowles, or rather the spirit that spoke through her, told me would happen, when I attended her seance at Brighton last month. If I remember correctly - and as you know, Beaglehole, my memory is not in the habit of failing me - the spirit, nee Madame Knowles, said, "You will soon again encounter an individual with whom you have considerable deposits of karma".

At the time, I was inclined to dismiss this etheric missive as being more or less a "throat clearing" tactic by the spirit in question. Now, however . . .

My God, Beaglehole, what are you doing here, of all places! I haven't seen you since that wild cab ride in Switzerland with Leary and Eldridge Cleaver in '72.

If that is indeed you, Colonel Beaglehole. I shan't allow myself undue excitement absent proper confirmation.

Anonymous said...

WILL: IF that had been You in the Cab yesterday, the outcome would've been FAR more interesting!

Thanks for offering...we'd have gone for a coffee-klatsch at a Bookstore-restaurant I know thats cozy & a bit on the darkened side - heheh - in the Shadows & Dark is where The Light shines best, yes?

Thanks for the lovely thought, WISH it had been You, as I've NEVER actually talked to physical people in person who really "get" this topic/theme. Have mostly only discussed w/Holy Spirit, Books/letters, and w/friends on phone/chat. People at Church either followed me as groupies dumbstruck in awe of the Princess (ugh) or they angrily threw pieces of the Bible at me attacking my "arrogance." I tried to valiantly keep telling them "LOOK its IN Scripture! Its NOT PRINCESS Philosophy! LEARN IT for yourselves!" to no avail.

Jealousy is such an Arrogant Evil. Makes for a bad social companion, too.

Now, I have the distinct pleasure of knowing and meeting You and G-Bob and the mighty fine folks here.

- Grateful Princess -

Anonymous said...

XIMEZE: Thank you much for the 12 Days post - many of my friends have asked about it for sometime now but most of us didnt find the info. They'll be delighted when I mail them your excerpt and/or invite them to view G-Bobs Blog. :D

- P2 -

Anonymous said...

INTERLOCUTOR: We ae not here to "fix" the Left. The Left is quite destroying itself, its not our job to save the Left.

Integralism is an altenative to the Left & other negative -ISMs, it offers what it offers, and all that it offers is not yet seen or known or experienced.

Try to get outta the linear thinking box. It will keep you a Flat Thinker w/Tunnel Perception if you dont grasp to gain Vertical thinking skills.

Rather than Bob or Integralist Philosophy being short on practical application, it needs people to apply it to the fullest - not one person alone doing all the work like a Messiah or Dictator or slave.

What are YOU doing to "fix" the Left?

All I see you doing is being demanding and blaming of Bob...done perhaps to hide & deflect your own inadequacies? I'm asking, not assuming...

Integralism, as its "integrated" and developmentally understood and applied among its adherents, will accomplish all the work within its mastey & scope it can achieve. Surely not all at once; demanding Bob do it all is childish, myopic, immature & allows no room for others to contribute.

The Philosophy IS the Figurehead - not the philosopher!

- PsychoPrincess -

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Princess (P-Deuce)

So, does my TROLL PRIMEVAL poem meta-sum it up for you? Capture the essence of troll? Hah?

Anonymous said...


Why, I'd know that cackle from three counties away!

Small consolation to the hounds, however.

You will forgive me if I am temporarily rendered bereft of speech -- this is a public forum, not a private seance in Madame Flipoutsky's parlor, so I would appreciate some discretion on your part... plus ça change, no?

Malcolm has brought me the toddy, so you will forgive me if I shall be bowing before Hypnos momentarily. Unless I am already embarked upon an unexpectedly turbulent -- not to say, dyspeptic -- night sea journey -- which, of course, would be my preference, for come morning, I would realize that this was but a bizarre dream.

Memo to Edith: The Moodies were correct: Tomothy Leary is dead -- but not before he was a senile and goatish old lush. Ring a bell?

Good night old thing, and go easy on the hounds. Not to mention the pool man.

Anonymous said...

INTEGRALIST: I wrote especially for you yesterday. But in light of your coercive projective (again!!) post of today, I've decided its best to drop the "discussion" with you.

You simply arent ready. We dont keep you outta the clubhouse - YOU keeps you outta the clubhouse.

I'm not going to take space anymore w/you since you already clearly dont respond nor integrate the food being offered.

Take a cue from Pupa. Cocoon Thyself.

You are really hung up on rejecting Absolute Truth, and I can only think that its becuz you have NO spiritual relationship w/God - only a Gnostic one. Flat relating. Theists get it better than you do. You appear quite phobic about Absolute Truth.

Which leads me to speculate you could be an Atheist at heart, despite the fact you claim to believe in God.I know you can "believe" in God yet not have an actual relationship w/Him (Agnosticism) but your hardhead & chronic recalcitrancy seems to manifest your overcontrol issues, i.e., constant projections from your own woundedness, woundedness from once feeling the sting of powerlessness which you hated and cover up now.

Narcissists classically attempt to overcontrol others way past the point of respectable boundaries or even casual mistakes. I suspect you are one from your repeated pattern of actions. You fail to respond to MANY things we've offered you these last 2 weeks.

You are not in touch with your Fears, hence you operate from Arrogance, not Courage. See my post today on SYSTEMIC EVIL 101 as your actions are in there.

You are abusively seeking to overcontrol us here. You do not even know how to act properly around people and/or establish friendships & trust on this Forum. You've gone too far and many are out of patience with you, though I maintain my Compassion for you.

This isnt a boxing match - so duke out your issues appropriately elsewhere. We are not here to argue-ad-nauseum with you.

We already know what we believe and you are not adding anything really important or impactful to our thoughts.

Bob has called you out on this repeatedly. Put up or shut up. Its tiresome and unnecessary. If however you'd like to demonstrate some Wisdom, DO as Pupa is doing.

Work on your Spiritual Development of self if you hope to understand what we are saying. Clean your house. Otherwise, you will not be matured enuf to go where we go. Its your choice.

And we are going there, with you or without you. We are not about what you are about, so respect our boundaries and stop trying to force yours on us.

We Dont Want Them. Clear? Capiche?

G-Bob basically had to "spank" you in his column, not to be "mean," but to help you see broader TRUTH not just your own truth, which blinds you apparently to seeing Absolute Truth.

If you ask me that a Schizoid-way to live, and thats why I pity you - but only so much.

- PsychoPrincess -

Anonymous said...

WILL: ITs perfect!! I LOVE it!! How appropos! I can see you channel your frustrations into productive outlets and you let your words do the talking for you.

I would've given my right hand to have met anyone remotely like you in these years gone prayers were what held me to my course as my compass sure wasnt based on evidence, my course survived sheerly on Faith. And He carried me so many times when I didnt have Faith or despaired of it temporarily...

Theres something infinitely healing about coming to this blog and meeting fine people like yourself. And I think that impact is getting around too on the cyberwaves, not just the lie that we're "cultish" but also we "got sumfink heah."

The middle of controversy was where Jesus and the Disciples lived. Few were the places they were welcomed and many the places they were abused and run out. I didnt know at the time my wilderness sojourn was participating in the sufferings of the persecutions of Christ - heck I was too busy just trying to keep on His track and not get derailed, LOL!

I shall not soon forget the pain of it; "soldier-sickness." But being here, meeting & interacting w/you all, reading your fine words and wonderful poems coolest water...and something else...Safety for once. Shelter of a sort. It feels so odd to experience it now after so long without it.

But you guys help heal the wounds and validate the Truth I've clung to all this time with each post and every comment you make. You all make me laff and cry and rejoice. I cant type here now w/o my Puffs-PLUS (Industrial strength tissues) beside me.

I admire your skill to write well and express succinctly as well as prosaically. I'm a fan of the Arts, Poetry, Film, Music,..I learn much from studying You, Van, Hoarhey, what you all say and how you say it. I feel honored to vicariously experience your thought processes as I read them here and meditate on them, getting to know your unique characters beneath each. That never happened in Chats!! I searched and searched for an intellectual or mature Christian chat and came up w/bascially zero.

And...its nice to RECEIVE validation for once instead of give give give only to get rejected and abused, thats for sure! Makes one a Happy Princess.

Thank you for all you Give here. Its very appreciated. Keep up the good work! Your fans want more!! :D

~ PsychoPrincess ~

Anonymous said...

Ah, oui, my dear Beaglehole, it truly is you. I find myself hovering between severe disappointment and retch-inducing horror, which I reflect most accurately, was my common reaction to your blathering.

A toddy? A mere trifling of a toddy? And what has become of your favored axiom "absinth makes the heart grow fonder"? Or that Yank shibboleth, "A friend with weed is a friend indeed"? Tell me Col., are you still being photographed with your collection of friends from Synanon?

You beg discretion and yet deign to mention that unmentionable rumor - I say RUMOR - concerning Dame Edith and Mr. Diaz, our pool attendant. Let me correct myself: MY pool attendant, as you were financially bereft at the time and enjoying a lodging by virtue of MY charity. Never, to paraphrase Sir Winston, has so few done so much for so less a character.

Again, you dismiss the spirits. How utterly twee of you, Jerome. And yet, per Mrs. Knowles's seance, HERE YOU ARE as predicted by Chief Trembling Elk.

As for Leary, well, perhaps I shall contact him in Summerland, more likely a colder place, and ask him if you share a bit of his Irish blood, the "new age" vintage brimming with all the psycho-tropic additives you always favored.

I must say, I always did find those times we shared oddly titillating. I shall NOT go so far as to say it is a pleasure to see you again, Beaglehole.

We shall continue this, you cur, you guru-infatuated Falstaff.

Anonymous said...

Skully's catch 'O the day is rockin' and rollin'.

Click USS Ben to get a gander.

Anonymous said...

I Think I'm In Love (ITIIL):

You answered well, and honest. I enjoyed reading & learning about you. I see you've learned the value & necessity of Applied Balance. My compliments. And...Re: The Samoas answer...AH.,.Touche! Well done! :D

The LOTR answer: Great! You're familiar with the Silmarillion! I like it even more than LOTR. Nice! :D

You were a bit weak on the answer for what is your purpose here. Would like to see you have a more clearcut idea of how to channel your love for Metaphysics and Theology - the practical application part?

Your love for Metaphysics and Theology - I share it, so much so that I will more than likely soon move from the East Coast to elsewhere in order to "feed my need" and walk my path well. Yet, I have not completely chosen where I'll attend, though am decidedly leaning towards Fuller & Biola in CA.

God has prepared me for leaving here for about 2 yrs now, but I've been loathe to do so out of the love I have for the landscape. I particularly love Upstate NY, Lake George district, Adirondacks, Ticonderoga, etc. I've come to love it here and cant imagine the same familiarity elsewhere. I love visiting other places/states, but I havent wanted to move anywhere I've traveled to yet, except Upstate NY.

Yet if I do not leave...other important events will not occur. So out of the nest I must soon fly. At least I've learned now how to take my "global community" & move my Castle with me, LOL!

Don't let this news discourage you - other things are in motion that will require me to travel between the two coasts equally, and must occur first in the short term so I can afford Seminary and not go into whopping debt as I rack up more MAs and a PhD or two. I like learning, but I also love practical application - as you said you've also learned.

I would indeed like to hear more about you and your journey, so please send your Carrier Pidgeon to my Castle with your address when you can. I'm loathe to post my own here just for the sheer volume of hatemail it would engender, but I think if you clik on my nic it will take you to my "under construction blog page." Theres a new Email addy attached to it. From there I can give you my private email address..

Looking forward to hearing from you soon, Brother!

(Princess Whispers: "Ahem...Will Negotiate for the Samoas?!?) :D

~ PsychoPrincess ~

PrincessSpirit said...

USS-BEN: I'm up late, finished wrapping presents, so I will go read your Scullys Catch O the Morn! Hope you sleep well - BTW where are you guys now? (Kinda like "Wheres Waldo?)

Where be Gilligan & crew, now? :D

Blessings & Sweet Dreams!
- PsychoPrincess -

Anonymous said...


I believe the full quote is,

"What a Maroon, what a Cad, what a Ta-ra-ra Goon de aye"

-Bugs Bunny

Everyone seems to have sewed this up nicely. Unions were heavily driven by the COMINTERN as most of you know. They had their place, but now tie all our hands.

As for class warfare, Pblfffffttttt! Get a job and do what you can, in this country thats saying more than ever.

I used to work for a large healthcare organisation, known internally as, "The Borg" and to the world, the name begins with K.

Same for same. Too many people, making too much money, taking flights to and fro to meetings they could have on the phone, or over existing video conferencing systems.

WAY too much waste of money being self important by going to meetings and other such things with people of your own tier in the "silo". Barf me out maaan!

Too much incompetance, moved about from department to silo, thinking it is important by sheer duration of employment.

One big happy healthcare family.


Liberals struggle because they are victims of their own creation. The problem the rest of us have, is they want to legislate misery all around.

And while we are on the subject of Unions a bit, did you know some of them have their wages tied to the minimum wage?

And I bet you thought all the hubub about raising it has to do with helping the little guy, right? It does not at all.

Prices go up, people get fired, and the Unions get their percent increase over the minimum wage, and drop the bucks back to the faithful and true politicians.

More Bleah.

As for the rest of you, Merry Christmas, Happy festival of Lights.

And by the way, I did not understand a term here today, what is a "friend" ?


Anonymous said...

I am retired these days, however, if you have any pull with Navy brass, I would jump at the chance to return to the Persian Gulf. :^)

Anonymous said...

Bob, I did read your book--as I said (although it was about a year ago, maybe a bit more). I enjoyed it but perhaps didn't get from it what you intended, this "experience" you speak of. Care to elucidate? What is this experience? A conversion? A mystical experience? Realization? Intellectual eureka moment?

Sure, it takes all kinds to make the world what it is--and thank God for that! No? Like you, I am not interested in trying to convince others of my perspective, however I am interested in dialogue. Are you? What about inter-ideological discussion? Or are you only interested in preaching to the choir? Because that is what One Cosmos is, as I see it. Again, let me quote Smoov: "Shut up and listen."

Orthodox Wilberian, moi? At one point yes, but no longer. I still hold him as one of my primary ideological influences.

Anonymous said...

Psycho Princess, I don't know what you are referring to when you say that you wrote especially for me yesterday. Where? If so, I'll read it.

I can say that you are not talking to me, not relating to me, but a phantom of your own creation. A projection, in other words. Ironic, considering the party line here is that Leftists live in a fantasy world...

p.s. On another note, the Silmarillion is one of my all-time favorite books. At least we have that in common? ;)

Anonymous said...


You strike me as the type who is formulating his own response, not hearing a word, while the other person is explaining their version.
In that state there is no dialog.

Bob has basically laid it all out on the table through his book and over one years worth of posts, everyday. There is where you'll find the context and the hints as to where he is comming from. If you still don't get it, then maybe it's time to move on.
One thing you can't deny is his ability to elucidate his position on a subject in a couple of hours in the morning before going off to work. I know you see him as unable to defend those positions but his getting caught up in the semantics would take all his time and produce no tangible results. It either rings true or it doesn't
The one question that has to be nagging you though is, how is he able to write so succinctly and so prolifically in such a short space of time? Where does that come from? Might there be something in you perhaps a little envious? There is a part of you that realizes he is on to something.
You'd be well served to take Smoovs sage advice and find out the secret for yourself, Glasshoppah.
If only to advance your ascension to New Age INTEGURU. ;)

Anonymous said...

Jorge, I can appreciate where you're coming from. I mean, if I'm not into it, what am I doing here? Well, I am just passing through--so don't worry!

Formulating a response without listening? Funny, I would have thought the same thing of most folks here. Even Bob: notice how he writes posts that refer TO me (or a straw man version of me), then doesn't really engage in dialogue WITH me.

Of course it is his blog, which is essentially a monologue.

Anyway, no harm no foul, as they say...

Anonymous said...

No worries here.

Van Harvey said...

Integralist said..."But I'm willing to let that all go and address the issues and the issues only. I would take notice, though, of how this blog tends to have an "You're either with us or against us" mentality. "

Part of that may come from the idea that when you agree with someone, you agree with them, if you don't - you don't. The way to get past that is to begin searching for some more fundamental information to discuss - perhaps you can reach a lower point on the philosophical tree trunk that you do agree on, before your two positions diverged. I've been up and down the tree several times and don't see how it can be accomplished, but I'm interested in what you see as the potential integration point between the main current of thought running through One Cosmos, and something such as Postmodernism... Marx... or Hegel....

With that in mind, I've got to say again you've told us that we're verging on cultism, and how we aren't opening up properly to other ideas... but you haven't given any fundamentals of what those other ideas are that you think can be integrated into the current here?

You say we're "simplifying and consolidating ideologies, taking them wholesale so to speak, and outright writing them off if any of its parts you disagree with."

You seem to be saying that we're accepting or rejecting ideas on a basis of personal compatibility - as if "no that set of ideas was rude to my friend, I'm not accepting them" - personally I don't reject ideas because I don't like them, I reject them because I've examined them and either found them either to be lacking or downright wrong, not agreeing with the facts, shot through with equivocations, evasions, error or in other ways just plain foolish.

The only way such judgments can be made, is by first having come to an understanding of what merits the term "Truth"Which brings us around to your idea of Truth. I'd be very interested in what you see as a middle ground between truth and absolute truth, and where?

"This is where the "good news" of postmodernism--recognizing context and cultural situation, as well as personal interpretation--is utterly missing from this blog".

Context is king when it comes to any discussion of what is and is not true, but "cultural situation, as well as personal interpretation" are useful in a clash of manners and whether proper mourning colors are Black (Western) or White (Eastern) - but that is something those are non-essential issues, far removed from epistimological issues of Truth. It is at that level where you first define whether Truth is attainable, by what criteria ideas attain to certainty or to being questionable.

"It is as if you refuse to, or cannot, see ideologies as composed of different aspects, as dynamic even, but rather as static entities that are utterly unmalleable."

That is the thinking that I suspect is at the root of your thinking, and which I think can be shown to be erroneous. Postmodernism, though it makes much show about being flexible, of taking into accout context and cultural situations, in actual fact by rejecting principle, it itself becomes a set of static entities that are utterly unmalleable.

Anyone who thinks they are without blindspots are probably correct - they don't have blind spots, their blind period, and I understand that it can be wrong to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but not always - if that baby is a pirahna, I'm heaving the water, the baby and probably the tub too, out the window.

I also am a fan of The Silmarillion - so there's one part of the branch we can meet on - lets see if theres somewhere lower with a bit more substance.

Anonymous said...

INTEGRALIST: Are you too lazy to do your own homework? Certainly thou art able to Look up "Absolute Truth" & "Relativism" on Google - plenty of reading material there for you!

Get to know the person behind your masks instead of being enamored with your masks.

If your truth is yours, and Bobs is his, then YOU as a postmodernist are quite able to allow Bob to have his, as he allows you to have yours, no dialogue is actually necessary.

So, you do this for some other ego-need, not becuz you believe what you profess.

Precisely becuz you dont experience the Mysticism part of Spirituality and you feel that hole inside, but fill it with self instead of with God.

You dont know the meaning of Projection at all, evidenced by your clumsy attempt to fling your neg feelings back on me. How childish and predictable of you. You still project from your wounded material inside.

The more you write, the more these Truths are revealed about you. Go ahead soldiering on "bravely" denying it all. Its your Sickness & you are responsible to address it, just as the Left is responsible to address self - they dont do it, either, just like you dont do it. Such is not mature adulthood for either. Thats why you appear to be so like a Leftie.

You DO NOT actually wish to dialogue - thats just a guise you use to continue engagement. What you really want is the engagement & attention.

To wit: You wrote: "You forgot the most important one here - ME!" I forgot nothing. Sorry to break Reality to you, Inty: You were left out of the Nick List on purpose since you are not one of "us." That post was only for regular posters here. Of course, your Victimology screams to be noticed and equated equal status with others when you have not earned it. WHY? is the question.

You strike me as the temporary type whos Boarding Pass has Expired.

You've shown precious little good faith here whatsoever & you chronically Spin things in your "Relativisick" way you've honed.

NewFlash: Thats the mark of Double-Speakers & Chronically immature people thruout history. If the shoe fits, wear it well. Wont be wasting any more time on you.

At LEAST educate yourself on Absolute Truth as an ideology/principle since neither G-BOB nor I own it & its free for anyone to grasp who will work to understand it.

If you're such a genius, you would have figured that out by now. The true Geniuses here already have, so I suggest you "ketchup."

- PsychoPrincess -

Anonymous said...

INTY: Besides: If "absolute truth" is my personal version of "truth" - who are YOU to object given your postmodernist, Relativist principles you "espouse?" If I'm a relativist, my truth is just as good as your truth - so again, what are you truly doing here?

You cant prove there ISNT Absolute Truth.

You dont even follow the very ideology you "profess!" You're not a steady Postmodernist, but one who "dabbles, ditches & dumps," ie,, self-as-god ie, Narcissism..

All this "dialogue" is code of yours for wanting to engage us to see things your way. Your "truth" Is Really All about You - nothing about the theme being discussed. It isnt about Post-modernism or Relativism or Integralism. Thats just your clever-cover-up.

Its clear Narcissism & Relativism is your conundrum & your "truth" to face & resolve - Cocoon Thyself! Or dont, and remain a worm that never Spiritually Transforms. Your "truth" is your choice.

"Self-love is often rather arrogant than blind. It does not hide our faults from ourselves; but tries to persuade us that our faults escape the notice of others." -S. Johnson.

In other words, Denial and con game.

I dont play against babies or feeble-minded peeps like yourself - to do so is to take total advantage of them, and I'm not cruel. So "I fold," and leave you to the Trolls on the field to play with.

- PsychoPrincess -

Anonymous said...

VAN: More power to you, but you're in for "argumentum ad ignorantiam."

- PsychoPrincess -

Anonymous said...

Psycho Princess, I'm all ears: what is Absolute Truth? Pray tell.

Van Harvey said...

PsychoPrincess said... "VAN: More power to you, but you're in for "argumentum ad ignorantiam."

Likely. Been there, done that, been berated for it before, but what can I say... I am a (very embarrased at all my 2:00a.m. typos) Flogger.

Van Harvey said...

Integralist, not fair. My prior question to you, is what do you see as the difference between truth and absolute truth? Or are you just confusing demonstrable proof and favored opinion?

Anonymous said...

Hi Van.

Part of that may come from the idea that when you agree with someone, you agree with them, if you don't - you don't.

See, that is how my approach seems to differ, for I can find something to agree with from almost anybody (I say "almost" because the world can produce some pretty radical lunatics ;).

But in some ways you are saying the same thing, when you ask me to find a "a lower point on the philosophical tree trunk that you do agree on." Which I did with Bob, namely the importance of levels/modes (matter, life, mind, spirit) and interior and exterior.

How to integrate postmodernism and One Cosmos? OK, I'll try. Postmodernism's greatest contribution to consciousness, imo, is its emphasis on--even discovery of--hermeneutics and contextualism. We can throw out the nihilistic materialism for all I care. A problem I see with (the ideas presented on) One Cosmos is that it seems fused with a particular worldview and interpretation, thus bypassing hermeneutical contextualism. Psycho Princess is a case in point; she may very well have a living connection with God, which I won't argue (for who am I to judge?); what I take issue with is how she interprets that connection and formulates it into a worldview, one that is overall quite mythic, even fundamentalist. The problem then becomes if you don't agree with the worldview, you must be wrong, without connection to Spirit, misguided, etc.

Perhaps the most important component of integralism is that it holds that everybody is (to some degree) right. "Right or wrong" becomes secondary to truthfulness and authenticity.

There are a lot of things I like about the views expressed on One Cosmos (including Psycho Princess, who has a certain unique quality and passion that is appealing). What I don't like is the exclusivity: No, I don't feel that I need or want to be part of the "club," but the problem becomes the signal gets lost in the noise.

I read and greatly enjoyed Bob's book, and more recently the interview in WIE. When I came to this blog I was surprised and disappointed; not with the critique of Leftism itself, but the outright castigation and demonization that bespoke of a rather narrow viewpoint, not to mention projection that veered towards fundamentalism. In other words, what I see here is a strange mixture of authentic integral cognition and mythic/concrete thinking.

I didn't--and don't--expect or want to convert or convince anyone that I am Right and they are Wrong. What my intention was and is for my perspective to be considered. This entails surrendering one's own personal worldview, if only for a moment, and trying to "enter into" another's viewpoint. The degree to which one can do this is the degree to which this quality of "everybody is right" emerges, as as the degree to which one is liberated from mental-verbal thought structures and thus the ego.

The way I see it, anyone can be consciously attuned to Spirit (God), because Spirit is immanent within (and as) all things. Where the evolution of consciousness comes in is the adaptability and integrality of perspectives; the greater the adaptibility, dynamism, and the capacity to hold and integrate multiple viewpoints, the more evolved the consciousness structures--which means the greater the capacity to express Absolute Truth within a relative form or voice.

That is the thinking that I suspect is at the root of your thinking, and which I think can be shown to be erroneous. Postmodernism, though it makes much show about being flexible, of taking into accout context and cultural situations, in actual fact by rejecting principle, it itself becomes a set of static entities that are utterly unmalleable.

Let me say it again: I do not identify myself with postmodernism. What I am saying is that we should include the "good news" of postmodernism, not reject it outright (throw the baby out with the bathwater). Postmodernism represents a revolution in consciousness, a critique and update on modernism; what we see in most of Academia--extreme cultural relativism, nihilistic materialism, political correctness, etc--is pathological. It is postmodernism "gone too far," past the point of usefulness and, as you say, concretized into a static ideology.

Anyone who thinks they are without blindspots are probably correct - they don't have blind spots, their blind period.

Amen to that!

Anonymous said...

Van, did I answer your question in that post? Let me know. But here's a bit more:

Absolute Truth is that which is Eternal; it is unchanging and ineffable; it is the Great Mystery.

Relative truth is any form of embodied expression. We can only ever speak about Absolute Truth in a relative form; even the words used by Jesus and other great sages are relative forms, contextual to culture, time, and the individual's mental-verbal structures.

Or to put it another way, Absolute Truth is Light; relative truth is the color spectrum. We cannot "see" light except by what it reflects off of, and in the form of color.

Van Harvey said...


That's more like what I was looking for, thanks.

My problem with Contextualism is that in my judgment it is an unnecessary elevation and complex-ification of a simple common sense notion that’s been around since the Greeks (“… if horses had Gods, they’d undoubtedly be very Horse-like…”). At its front door is the “different cultures are different, so when in Rome do as the Romans do… “ with the understanding that people may develop different non-essential beliefs and customs (such as proper clothes for mourning), but you just have to be adult about it, and find acceptable ways of interacting with different representations of equivalent ideas and truths, the “year of the Dog” and the year of 2006, are both referencing the same year, however ideas such as the individual is expendable and the emperor is Divine, have to go.

The problem is that by the time you make it through the house of hermeneutics and come out the back door, you wind up with “different cultures are all equally valid in their own way, and when in Rome, spit on them!”

Recognizing different labeling of the same facts and truths only goes so far, and here is where Context is King. If I say that today is December 24th, 2006, and you say today is December 24th, 2006 – that doesn’t establish a worthwhile agreement if by your calendar tomorrow is June 16, 8004 here in the land of lunaria 6th planet from the center of the twin star system of Floogia. The agreement on the name of today’s date is no proper agreement at all, it is so accidental and non-essential, that there can be no claim to have established any meaningful agreement.

To establish meaningful understanding, the blending of views must proceed along the lines of meaningful, essential understandings of central facts and truths. The problem with the school of hermeneutics and contextualism, is that from my understanding of its proponents, that they claim to base their ‘integrations’ and ‘validations’ upon misleading equivocations and assertions. My understanding and experience of such attempts at elevating convoluted complexities to systems of thought, is that they are done for the purposes of introducing an unfounded notion as fact by way of mental sleight of hand (hello Kant, Hegel and Marx). And although I understand your wanting to separate what you see as valid within it from its nihilistic and materialist aspects, I think the uglier fact is that those aspects are not simply non-essential attributes, but the very core and purpose of the school.

Postmodernism, hermeneutics and contextualism, etc, really gained their footing through the Frankfurt school of Marxist thought, descending from Mars, Hegel, Kant, Rousseau, Godwin (great, great, great uncle(?)) and finally Descartes, through his revival of the ‘Cogito ergo Sum’ (You can see the core of how I’m tracking of this trail in these posts (parts 4-7) on my site'The Trees That Bare The Barren Fruit', 'Would you trust a liar who told you he was going to lie to you?', 'Spreading The Flames' , and What never was and never will be - Modern Madness)

After much study and thought, I think that is ultimately the root of the branch you are attempting to place your other foot upon, which is quite an uncomfortable stretch from ours. And since its development of the (I think central and unavoidable)‘idea’ that reality is not real… I don’t know that I’d feel all that comfortable putting a lot of weight on it.

“Absolute Truth is Light; relative truth is the color spectrum. We cannot "see" light except by what it reflects off of, and in the form of color.” This can be taken is a couple of ways. One way is that which I use to look for, and find, the deeper truths inherent in Religion, Myth and Drama from Homer to the Bible and Aeschylus to Shakespeare. My intuition however, is that this statement will ultimately find it’s root not in an attempt to find fact and truth behind varied labels and images, but in Kant’s (“I have found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith”) attempt to split the mind into accepting that thought bears little or no relation to reality, facts are not really factual, for the ultimate purpose of being able to assert any particular whim as (somehow ) a fact.

I do believe that the idea that if I drop this stapler on my bare toe it will hurt (ulmph… proven factual and true) is every bit as valid, and grounded in reality as the idea that all men are created equal, and that Property Rights are a necessity of Freedom. I’ve spent a lot of time, couple of decades, seeing if that is in fact, fact – and my conclusion, in no way formed prior to the hunt, is that it is True – contextually and absolutely.

There are few things that are more fun to me than rattling my thoughts with someone who disagrees with me (hence the ‘Flogger’ label)– the worse that could happen is that I could be proved (…wouldn’t that actually validate my ideas?) wrong, which would leave me in a better position that believing a falsehood, so if your interested, I’m willing – keep in mind though when I argue, I do tend to get Loud (always smiling, but loud all the same).


(By the way, I agree that having a Forum format behind the Gagdad's posts would be wundabar! So many interesting threads are left to fade away after a few days, whereas a forum brings them back into visibility as new comments are attached. I don't know if Blogger has that possibility though)

Anonymous said...

Nice post, Van. I will get back to you later tonight (I'm leaving for Christmas Eve celebrations and such).

Anonymous said...

Gagdad, You stated waaay back in the comments...

I do not go out of my way to publicize my ideas, and it would be thoroughly inappropriate, to say the least, to try to convert others to my way of thinking (if they are attracted to it, that's obviously a different matter).

You mean, aside from writing & publishing a book and devoting what, two hours a day to your blog post?

Now you're starting to clearly sound like Bobba O'Reilly. Who?

Anonymous said...

OK, so let's drop the formal, historical postmodern schools of contextualism and hermeneutics and go back to that basic Greek idea (“… if horses had Gods, they’d undoubtedly be very Horse-like…”). That's much simpler and I prefer simplicity, especially when my understanding of hermeneutics is more of the "gist" rather than the ins and outs.

This highlights an important aspect of the relationship between absolute and relative truth. Any vision we have Absolute Truth is "Me-like." Who am I? I am composed of at least two aspects: everything that I have ever experienced, said and done--my personality that has been shaped by genetics, karma, upbringing, and everything that has happened within my life; the other aspect is the "I-ness," or pure consciousness itself. The I-ness, as I see it, is Absolute Truth: it is the only aspect of experience that is without a doubt: I am. Everything else is disputable, or at least subject to...well, interpretation.

We cannot speak Absolute Truth. We can only speak our highest vision of Absolute Truth, which is--and forever will be--relative. Relative to who we are at the time we experience and express it. Our relationship to Absolute Truth, to God or Spirit or the Mystery or simply Life, changes. Just as everyone revers some kind or aspect of God, they just have a different name and conception for it.

With hermeneutics I don't think we need to go as far as extreme postmodernism does: there is no reality, only interpretations; all cultures and ideas are equal because all are based on nothing. To say this is to not understand that every situation has a context, so that at the very least we can determine what culture or idea is "best" for that specific situation. We may be able to go further, but I don't think we need to in order to negate extreme postmodernism.

I do believe that the idea that if I drop this stapler on my bare toe it will hurt (ulmph… proven factual and true) is every bit as valid, and grounded in reality as the idea that all men are created equal, and that Property Rights are a necessity of Freedom. I’ve spent a lot of time, couple of decades, seeing if that is in fact, fact – and my conclusion, in no way formed prior to the hunt, is that it is True – contextually and absolutely.

But are either ideas--that the stapler dropped on your toe hurts or that property rights are a necessity of freedom--truly absolute? That is, are the true in any time, any place? (For would that not define absolute truth: that which is true always and everywhere?). I would say no. It is easy to think of situations where neither is true. Of course that doesn't take away their contextual validity.

Merry Christmas!

Anonymous said...

Not My Uncle:

What can I say? Bob did not seek you out, nor does he believe you are appropriate for his message. Do you have any suggestions on how to keep you away?

River Cocytus said...

Integralist-- The process:

There is.
There is me.
There is an other.
There are others.
There are many others.
There are many others I know not of.
There are many others unknowable.
There is a principle of the unknowable.
There are principles of the unknowable.
There is an Unknowable.
There is the Knowable One.
There is the One that I know.
There is the One and I.
There is the One.
There is.

That's not an attempt to k-->O myself, but an attempt to make an O-->k description. In other words, to strip away the excress and show the preinciple of the thing. Such is the freshod of discern-mint. I would assert that if my descernsion was showficcient, you would be able to plug in a way of thinkling into that framework and come away with an inkling of where someone stands spirity'ally.

Or something.

(Bought Finnegan's Wake last Saturday...)

Gagdad Bob said...

Memo to River Cocytus: Don't (!) try to read Finnegans Wake without simultaneously reading Joseph Campbell's Skeleton Key:

River Cocytus said...

Integralist: The context is as important to anything-- for the 'context' is the 'conditions of the text' or more fully, the 'conditions of the truth in their textual reality' .

Capital-T truth and lower case-t truth cheapen the idea of truth, I think. Keep in mind that while a different context might make the stapler dropped on the toe not hurt-- like wearing steel toed boot for instance, but nonetheless the stapler still hits with the same force no matter how hard your boot is. But to argue details about the context to derive truth does not an argument or the truth make. You can't derive truth, you have to integrate it.

Now, I know you declare yourself the integralist, or an integralist at least, which as stated is as descriptive as 'breathing creature' or 'sentient being'-- you would say, 'well duh, that is what I am saying'.

Looking at it mathematically, if you Derive (dx) a function, for instance, y=x^2 becomes y=2x.

Two things: one - the derivative is defined and regular.
two - the equation of the derivative in most cases is flatter. Or, it is set into an infinite loop like e^x or the sin/cos groups.

Now, to integrate y=2x, we get y=x^2 + c. NOT y=x^2. Now, if we knew beforehand that this particular y=2x was derived from y=x^2, then we would already know that c=0.

But as you said, real faith is built with experience (though it is CERTAINLY founded on belief.) you must do some work to find out what c is.

But if you want to keep growing-- which if you hear the One you cannot cease to do-- you must continue to integrate. But EACH and every integration will involve that pesky c!

And also take note: if we are correct, both the man with the y=2x and the man who derived all the way down from y=(1/3)x^3 will get the same answer.

So the problem you might have is that you are insisting that c is not what it is, and are coming up with a different equation. But from a higher 'integration' it is clear what that c is and what it isn't.

What I'm trying to do is figure out what 'piece' of the equation is missing for you.

For instance, 'c' is conveniently the same letter which 'Christ' begins with.

or 'Christianity' (a derived term.)

or 'church' even-- a further derived thing, perhaps?

Sometimes it is necessary, like an mp3 player that can't hold any more songs-- to unlearn a few things.

According to my 'process' you need to 'unknow' before you can 'Know'.

As to whether that puts the Spirit first and speaks through Him, I don't quite know myself. That will be revealed by trying to integrate it back up and see if there exists any c for which the equation holds.


River Cocytus said...

I read a bit of it, Bob, and I think such a thing might be helpful. Even in my studies of the Bible I find a 'help' or two to be illuminating at times. But many of them are 'paperings' instead of 'preparings'. Even in the fairly-good Bible I have.

I guess I will have to take the Skeleton Key itself with a grain of salt as well?

Gagdad Bob said...

It's just that Joyce died before he could explain what it was about, so it was virtually unread until Campbell came out with the Skeleton Key five years later. It's just too hard.

River Cocytus said...

Sweet. Thanks, Bob! I did note that when I read the foreword (that Joyce had died with its completion.)

I'll get the key, and then read the book. Right now I've got a few things to get through first.

Metamagical Themas, Logic by Kant, Prayer of Jabez/Secrets of the Vine, Paine, Aristotle (not -all- of it) and so forth.

Should be a jolly good time!

Van Harvey said...

integralist said...
“OK, so let's drop the formal, historical postmodern schools of contextualism and hermeneutics and go back to that basic Greek idea (“… if horses had Gods, they’d undoubtedly be very Horse-like…”). That's much simpler and I prefer simplicity, especially when my understanding of hermeneutics is more of the "gist" rather than the ins and outs.”

[In deference to Glasr (“the words… the words…!”), this is a whittled down response to Integralist, the full content grew into it’s own post on my site here.]

I’m with you on wanting to keep it simple, but attempting to separate a discussion such as this is to cut yourself off from the lessons available in the history of ideas, and condemn yourself to repeating them. And I gotta warn you, that the intellectual path you’ve put yourself on is in my judgment repeating a doozy, it guarantees increasing complexity by way of an increasing separation from reality, and a resulting need to paper over, or overlook ‘details’ in order to preserve appearances. This is so, because the implications inherent in “Absolute Truth vs relative truth” (similar to what Kant put across as necessary and contingent truth), foretells a course doomed towards making particular assertions over principled applications.

I read your comment “We cannot speak Absolute Truth. We can only speak our highest vision of Absolute Truth, which is--and forever will be--relative. Relative to who we are at the time we experience and express it. Our relationship to Absolute Truth, to God or Spirit or the Mystery or simply Life, changes. Just as everyone reveres some kind or aspect of God, they just have a different name and conception for it.”, This idea of Absolute Truth, and relative truth – is what raises my alarm bells right from the start. To my mind it mistakes the nature of truth. While I think I understand the intent behind it, intention is not enough, application and action are necessary, and there you must shall fall short. What I think that you don’t realize is, that by the very nature of accepting the idea of an “Absolute Truth”, that is in itself an assertion of the existence of static unchanging, and ultimately disintegrated truths.

To say something is true is to say it is true in relation to a multitude of attributes.

“The I-ness, as I see it, is Absolute Truth: it is the only aspect of experience that is without a doubt: I am.” That was the starting point of Descartes as well, the Cogito Ergo Sum, “I think, therefore I Am”. What he didn’t see, was that a mind that held itself to be the root of reality, in actuality pulled its very roots out of reality, and set them floating about in a haze of its own creation. You can’t get to “I Think…” you can’t even get to “I”, to the idea of Identity – something unique and differentiated from other Stuff, without first having had experience of a larger reality from which to begin differentiating entities, and yourself, from. To do otherwise is to make your thought cut free from and wholly unmoored from reality.

All of which is to say that by starting with your own thinking as the foundation for all of your thoughts, is to disconnect your thoughts from the Reality you are seeking.

Because you are then disconnected from the context of reality, which is the only proper starting point, until you grasp that the world does not begin with you, but you with the world – until you realize (“make real” in your mind) this – all of your thought will be cut off from reality. I do realize that the intent of your statements is not this, but it reaches no further than intent, and intent isn’t enough – it needs to manifest itself in the actual action of your thoughts, in order to be… well, true.

Notions of Absolute Truth can’t cover even a simple situation such as a stapler falling on my toe, because they would need to incorporate every detail down to the subatomic structure, to cover every conceivable detail, but even so, it is always alterable, and so invalidated, by adding or subtracting just one detail – that is the brittleness of such a concept as Absolute Truth, at best it can be no more than a detailed description of one partial & isolated incident.

This is not the stuff our minds are designed to work with. What our minds are designed to do – is to operate by reference to concept and principle primarily, adorned with as many perceptual details are necessary to the present purpose. Any seeking after, or even worse, attaining to “Absolute Truth” would not be a blessing to the human mind, but a hindrance.

Anonymous said...

Van, I'll reply on your blog.

Anonymous said...

River C, my knowledge of mathematics is too limited to really know what you are trying to get at. Could you rephrase in non-mathematical terms?

And yes, I agree: we need to unknow before we can Know, which includes unknowing beliefs. Unknowing involves exploring awareness itself, not continually recycling and "learning" new forms (of awareness).

Anonymous said...

Unknowing is BEING in God & Absolute Truth.

So if you know it mentally, move past the "knowing" of mind into the BEING of Spirit...

"See" through His Eyes (inward & outward), and then You will BE."

Ditto what you said River-C! Mythemagics, gotta love that! Love Geomythomagics too!

The Best Artists, IMHO, integrate Logic (mind) & Spirit (with capital S, not small s) - the Divine Relationship. How He resonates in/thru each is the expression of His Art / Music and Love.

Truly, He gives us Sight & Hearing beyond our selves - The Light of His Being we contain touches one another, while we are rooted & contained & expressed in / from / with / by / to Him. If this not be (aspects of) Love & Beauty & Oneness, what is?

Near the Christmas tree, today, I noticed an ornament had fallen off; I bent down to pick it up and reconnect it onto the Christmas Tree. As I was doing so, I was reminded of how each Ornament resembles my Friends here at OneC - Beautiful, Sparkling, Radiant, Subtle, Some Hidden, Others Twinkling softly, some Intricate, others Plain, Wooden, some Sophisticated, some Playful, Colorful as Childrens ornaments...some were even fuzzy! (flocked) ... All held lovingly ON the horizontal branches of The Tree; yet also able to be placed in different heights on the Tree (verticality) if an outside force impacts them to move around and upward.

Ones relationship to the Outside Force acting upon the Orphaned Ornament is what makes the difference between staying Stuck on a Flat Floor vs Being Up On the Tree w/the other Ornaments.

Top Down relationship - its God who first reaches out to us, the orphans, so we are orphaned Ornaments no longer but grafted into the Vine. A Christmas Tree to me reflects a reminder of Godly & Brotherhood Relationships in Him.Belonging & Being in Christ & the Godhead individually but also as a group of Ornaments.

Delighted my perception the rest of the day! :D

MERRY CHRISTMAS To All You Ornaments! Thanks heaps for His Light you Reflect.

~ PsychoPrincess ~

PS: Now, yunno what comes next: (Princess makes note to self): Must make Raccoon Lodge & Bobblehead Ornaments to donate to Petey, Count Dupree & Gagdads Trees for next year! :D

Gives new twist: The True Bobblehead doesnt fall far from the Tree?!

River Cocytus said...

Integralist said: And yes, I agree: we need to unknow before we can Know, which includes unknowing beliefs. Unknowing involves exploring awareness itself, not continually recycling and "learning" new forms (of awareness).

Not exactly what I meant. How to describe it? Beliefs are only discarded for a reason. You don't just unknow things for no purpose, unless you are doing so to practice unknowing. But that can become like throwing baseballs at windows to practice pitching.

When you say 'exploring awareness' it has a sense of sensuality to it-- a trap of the world is this: To try to explore all of the feelings it offers. But Solomon already said, "This is vanity". Do it if you wish, but it profits you nothing but to come to the conclusion (for yourself) that it is meaningless.

Throwing away beliefs to create new feelings is like tearing up the side of your boat to make new floatings. While in the water.

There are some things that do not matter to know in and of themselves but will become known in searching for the correct thing. This principle is called 'Serendipity'. Or, related, Christ says "Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven, and all of these things shall be added unto you."

To me it seems like you are exploring things in details and examining each thing-- exploring awareness itself is meaningless unless it helps you move towards the Truth. Instead, it may be more fruitful to indeed 'recycle'-- who cares if you are going in a circle, as long as you are spiraling upward.

The 'unknowing' is more or less the comprehension of mystery, and the shedding of unnecessary ideas, strongholds, values, etc. As you integrate up towards the truth what values are necessary and what are just collected because they look nice-- become apparent.

For instance-- how did the creation happen? A mystery. Only God himself knows exactly how it worked.

My goal is to be made perfect. That is, complete in my work for God. That is the essence of perfection, for we are made perfect in our weakness.

This is in itself a mystery, how exactly I got the purpose that I may have-- but it does not help me fulfill it knowing why.

But I might find out along the way. All things being added and all.

Do NOT throw away beliefs thoughtlessly-- for a good idea is worth a million bad ones-- unknowing is not a virtue in and of itself other than to be used in pursuit of the truth.

What I am saying is-- do not 'unknow' for the sake of unknowing-- just as you wouldn't collect thousands of meaningless facts for the sake of collection!

Like I said, the essence of unknowing is the grasping of a mystery. It is this which allows one to see what is worth knowing and what must be un-known.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I can agree with you--and I think you are mistaking what I said. I am not saying "unknowing for the sake of knowing" but unknowing:

A) Because if we truly question what we know, we realize that we don't actually know.

B) To clear space for deeper, even more spiritual, knowledge.

Van Harvey said...

Integralist said..." I am not saying "unknowing for the sake of knowing" but unknowing:

A) Because if we truly question what we know, we realize that we don't actually know.
B) To clear space for deeper, even more spiritual, knowledge."

Slightly off.

A)If we truly question what we know, we realize that there is much more to know - a huge difference, and a consequence of having one integrated reality supportive of Truth - as opposed to imagining Absolute Truths, relative truths, and their disintegrated multiple realities.

B) You don't need to clear space to make room for spiritual knowledge, just honestly integrating what is already there with what you already know with a willingness to learn more still, will reveal Truths ready, willing and able to draw you up into the Vertical.

Anonymous said...


A) It isn't a "huge difference," just the flip-side of what I'm saying. Yes, by questioning what we know we realize that that there is so much more to know, but also that anything we ever know is not "it," not final.

B) Good point--what is known doesn't need to be "cleared away" as much as seen as transparent, as not final. If we see it as final (as I think One Cosmos does of its own worldview) we forever translate the Vertical into a static worldview. We reduce it, in other words, to a mental formulation.

What I am saying is that we must recognize that any and all thoughts, beliefs, ideas--and "Truths"--are fragments of a Greater Reality.

What you say here in (B) doesn't lead to true Verticality, imo, but to further philosophy, further belief masquerading as Truth.

On the other hand, what are these Truths that will draw one up to the Vertical?

River Cocytus said...

Int: This only works to a certain extent. Certain parts of what puports to be knowledge or part of 'greater truth' are mutually exclusive. The best way I can think of to describe this dichotomy is this:

Light and shadow (the physical) are complements in the horizontal sense; they are all part of the world and both must be understood/taken in to grasp reality.

Everlasting Light and Eternal Darkness are not so. Good and Evil are vertical things, and oppose each other at all turns. If you try to integrate them together, wherever you add one, like the game reversi, it 'abrogates' the other. It would be like trying to see the shadow more closely by shining light on it-- in doing so the shadow leaves.

There is no 'integral' board in reversi, squares are either blank (unknown) or white, or black. Black and white cannot integrate, they can only drive out the other. The question that may be asked in that regard is, which shall dominate?

But do not misapply this idea to the horizontal (flipping the axes.)

People tend to believe that life is like Reversi, where a gain for one is always a loss for another, if not directly, by the loss of opportunity.

They think, well, there is a limited number of squares, so, what, my color should dominate as many as possible!

So Reversi is a vertical game, with its limited space (the mind) and its lights and darks (goods and evils.) You will be caught indefinitely in flux and in consternation if you are trying to integrate the two colors. For eventually you run out of 'room', and so, you throw out some pieces. But if you make no distinction between the good and evil, you will throw out good as oft as evil, and replace good with evil as oft as the reverse.

Go is a little more like the world, though in truth the world is only limited by the conceptions of it and the will to tame it.

For when you said 'we see not the world as it is but as we are' it is not a permanent thing; instead it is a default position (like the PS position) that we leave in being exposed to it. The D position is an understanding of how the world really is-- and the T an understanding that we can change it (though limited in various ways.)

You are also correct in noting that many people have bits of the truth-- and to seek them is often important. However, there is no equality among these bits, and there is often evidence of their coming and going. For those who are successful know something, and are not only so through lying and cheating. For to consider success only like the game of Reversi is to permanently keep oneself in the PS position. For if the Mind is like Reversi, saying the world is like Reversi is projecting the mind into the world.

Herein, I have extracted some of the truth that is in the game Reversi. But that truth was not necessarily planned by its creator, but by the Creator of Him.

And so truth is found.