[Image Courtesy Flickr-er Andy Piper via Creative Commons]
For Part I see here. Part II basically continues uninterrupted from Part I.
What is driving this train of thought continues to notions like the following:
“Spirituality to survive in the present and future world, is and must be post-metaphysical.” (K. Wilber, Integral Spirituality, p.233)
Substitute blogging for spirituality in that quotation and you have a clue of what I am feeling my way towards. Post-metaphysical is revealed (in part) in the following statement: “the meaning of a statement is the means of its enactment (Wilber, IS, p.258).”
The means involve both a location (a Kosmic address in Wilber’s language) and an “enaction.” To take up a certain perspective–to enter the world in either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person modes of being. That is intrapersonal, interpersonal, and impersonal forms of being-in-the-world respectively. To inter-act with beings (including perhaps your-self). In Heidegger’s language, to have care for, to be existentially in communion with. Another way of thinking of 1-2-3 is as participant, conversant, and observer (respectively).
First take one of these perspectives. Then four-dimensions arise (the quadrants), so a specification of which quadrant(s), which dimension of any arising occasion needs to be communicated. Then, if I or you or whoever is discussing say spirituality, usually this will mean reference to a specific state of consciousness. Again location (description of place in Kosmos) AND action whereby one reaches said place. To all of these: so far perspective (1st, 2nd or 3rd person mode of being), quadrants (dimension of mode of being), state (space of/within the dimension of the mode of being).
[Wilber’s system also includes stages of process: relative to language he calls this “the development signified” (or developmental referent). That’s a controversial claim and it’s a whole other series of posts on that one. I’ll just that let that stand for now and say if you think levels has some truth then that too has to be included and Address Plus Enactment for that one as well. If not, then ignore it.]
Another Wilber quotation:
“The bright promise of spirituality as the core intelligence of ultimate concern…when it manages to make to integral, does so as nothing but metaphysical assertions with no addreses and no injunctions (and therefore no meaning whatsoever)…” p. 274 IS
I wouldn’t say no meaning whatsoever, but rather meaning for those who already happen–by whatever circumstances–to already be located (in however manner of enaction) in rougly the basic plane in which a statement (any statement) comes from. Again substitute or at least add blogging to spirituality for this quotation. My writing to date has had very little meaning to date whatsoever.
Once more Wilber:
“But those [the issues faced by a post-metaphysics] are merely extremely difficult issues; the issues faced by metaphysics are extremely impossible ones.” (p.273)
How then to deal with an extremely difficult issue? I have some ideas and am going to try to some different things. It’s all experimental at this point. There’s integral as integrating a bunch of stuff–as many points of view as possible and all the rest. At some point that wears out though. It can become a bit of a Frankenstein’s monster (or rather a Little Shop of Horrors “feed me Seymour” kinda thing). Integral sickness/mania in other words. Then there is something else which is to get close to the core of arising. The attempt to describe locations and enactments are just that attempts–to get a handle on the moment right before the moment. To approximate as best we can that prior movement. So that we can be together, we can become aware of (and concerned for) each other, ourselves, and begin to take responsbiility for our own arisings. [For those interested the kind of identity trying to form here is what Cook-Greuter calls construct aware, indigo in Wilber’s color scheme].