Re: “updating Gebser” (which I put in quotes to deflect presumption), here’s a possible research question: What would be the form, shape, or features of a ‘grammatical mirror’ for a transintegral hypersphere?
I know, I know—I swore off the prefixual excesses—it is a loathesome pseudo-philosophical term. But here’s what I would mean by it:
Let’s presume, there are various “lineages” (or irruptions) of integral thought that all are basically pointing to the same “thing”—i.e., an evolving spiritual reality infusing all being-in-the-world—which (lineages) include Sri Aurobindo, Jean Gebser, Teilhard de Chardin, Ken Wilber, and various other exponents of a “new structure of consciousness” distinct from the modern AND post-modern—definitely “beyond” yet simultaneously inclusive of what came before.
To not ‘commit’ to any one particular school or framework or conception (especially one which would claim to be THE all-inclusive model), but to integrate the integralisms in an open frame, this would be the “trans” or “meta” or “super” or integral integral.
We also know, per Sloterdijk, that the 3-dimensional sphere (total encompassing orb) model for representing the whole doesn’t work. But, as we’ve posited, a 4-dimensional sphere (or hypersphere, or donut, or Klein bottle) could work—not for ‘representation’ per se, since what we’re talking about is matter of ‘origin and presence,’ while re-presentation presumes a perspective removed from the presently given, since in order to re- present, I must be separate from and operate upon a thing, and show you not the ‘thing itself’ but a stand-in pseudo-object, as it were, for that thing, i.e., a sign or symbol)—but for being itself, inasmuch as a hypersphere (which includes consciousness) must be the thing itself in order to know it.
To me or my mind, the best grammar is one which disappears, lets the ‘thing itself’ (let’s say, the integral) speak. If we are noticing our language too much, perhaps we are missing what the language is about? Perhaps our mirrors are too murky, smudged by insidioius metaphors and sneaky parts of speech? Warped by premature cognitive commitments? On the other hand, perhaps by carefully attending to our living language, we polish the mirror? By reiterating recursive loops and deconstructing diabolical dialectics, we learn to transcend them?
@Geoffreyjen_Edwards: Here’s an essay I’ve been meaning to read which could be helpful (to all of us) for contextualizing the ‘integral’ within an array of intellectual lineages:
Toward a Genealogy and Topology of Western Integrative Thinking
by Gary P. Hampson
vol_9_no_2_hampson_toward_a_geneaology_and_topology_of_western_integrative_thinking.pdf (149.2 KB)
See Abstract & Intro
Abstract: Contemporary integrative thinking such as meta-theorising, integral approaches and transdisciplinarity can be productively contextualised by identifying both a broad genealogy of Western integrative thinking, and also a topology regarding facets of such thought. This paper offers one such genealogical and topological reading. The genealogy involves the historical orientations or moments of Hermetism; Neoplatonism; Renaissancism; the nexus of German classicism, romanticism and idealism; and reconstructive postmodernism. Arising from this, an indication of a general topology of Western integrative thinking is offered (with case studies), one involving objects of integration (such as philosophy and spirituality), macro-integrative entities (such as syncretism), micro-integrative entities (such as creativity and love), integrative “shapes” (such as organicism), and processes of integration (such as intuition).
Key terms: Creativity, Hermeticism, intuition, integral, integrative, love, Neoplatonism, organicism, panosophy, reconstructive postmodernism, Renaissance, spirituality, syncretism.
Introduction
This paper offers indications toward a topology and genealogy of Western integrative thinking. “Integration” here is taken to mean complex integration – somewhat analogous to Kelly’s (2008) notion of “complex holism” – rather than reductive integration (such as that offered by mathematics in physics). Topology points to such aspects as objects of integration, “shapes” of integration and processes of integration, as well as to integrative entities. Genealogy4 connotes a broad thread inclusive of relatively similar thought pertinent to the context-in-hand. In the current instance, this involves five philosophico-historical attractors, orientations, contexts or moments, namely, Hermetism; Neoplatonism; Renaissancism; the nexus of German classicism, romanticism and idealism; and reconstructive postmodernism. Across these five orientations, the paper explores six topological cases, namely: creativity, intuition, love, organicism, intimate relations between philosophy and spirituality, and syncretism, respectively.
The paper can be understood as an example of “research across boundaries” in that it addresses integrative entities. By their very nature, integrative entities are boundary-crossing through cohering what might be regarded as disparate parts. The paper’s generation of a topology further adds to boundary-crossing in that the topological nodes link various domains. Touching upon a variety of disciplines, the paper also crosses historical time and connects various past perspectives with the present. Of specific note, perhaps, and in line with integral studies generally, is its interest in connections between philosophy and spirituality. Whilst many integral approaches emphasise Eastern spiritualities – including Aurobindo’s yogic context and Wilber’s emphasis on Buddhism – the paper contributes to a rebalancing in this regard by including focus on aspects of Western spirituality. (As it happens, due to the default divorce in Western religion between the exoteric and the mystical, the label “esoteric” is often ascribed to Western mystical spirituality by conventional perspectives). […]
[via @hfester, who recommended another of Gary Hampson’s essays to me, also worth a read: issue_4_hampson_integral_re-views_postmodernism.pdf (501.1 KB) ]
I am also quite interested in Quantum Poetics and the other essays shared above. Perhaps we are sketching out a research program for ‘season 2’ of the Café?