Multiplex: What's New | Site Map | Community | News My Multiplex Account | Sign In 
in Search

Comments on Integral Spirituality - Ch.1: Integral Methodological Pluralism

Last post 04-01-2007, 9:59 AM by gfjrbarr. 154 replies.
Page 11 of 11 (155 items)   « First ... < Previous 7 8 9 10 11
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  03-25-2007, 2:34 PM 21067 in reply to 5757

    • guydavis is not online. Last active: 09-25-2008, 8:30 AM guydavis
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on 06-19-2006
    • Asheville, NC
    • Posts 7
    • Points 215

    Re: Comments on Integral Spirituality - Ch.1: Integral Methodological Pluralism

    Ralph,

    Did you ever get an answer to this post. I'd like to see if someone could answer this and also answer a question that came up in our salon today.

    We are having trouble with Integral Math also.

    If Varela's perspective is a 3-p x 1-p x 3p then in what zone would a 1-p x 1-p x 3p? Is that even possible? Is that really just a 1-p x 3p?

    Also is there anyone out there that could give real life examples of the different zones and the perspectives for each of the different methodolgies? I think that would help us in our salon get a better grasp on this.

    Guy Davis
    guy@dancelovers.com
    http://www.dancelovers.com
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  03-27-2007, 1:53 AM 21109 in reply to 21067

    Re: Comments on Integral Spirituality - Ch.1: Integral Methodological Pluralism


    guy,

    you're the first person to reply to that post. i elaborated further on this in a question i submitted for the concall on the introduction to 'integral spirituality'. nomali informed me they would try to get an answer for me, but evidently they were never able to. my guess is that this is something still incubating in ken's mind that hasn't yet hatched in any stable form.

    the bare bones, as i presently understand them, are:

    zones 1 and 3: 3-p x 1-p x 1p
    zones 2 and 4: 3-p x 1p
    zones 5 and 7: 3-p x 1-p x 3p
    zones 6 and 8: 3-p x 3p

    my reasoning is that, in order to have a scientific methodology capable of validity claims, you've got to have a 3-p perspective of whatever is brought forth. in other words, i can engage in introspection, for example, which at its simplest would be 1-p x 1p(s), but any description i gave you, say, of that experience would automatically be at least a 3-p x 1-p x 1p(s). then, you could take either a 1-p or a 3-p perspective of my description, which i imagine would be a fourth perspective, although i'm not at all sure. you might just compare it with 1-p x 1p(s)'s you've had to see if they fit my 3-p description. if any of them do, then we would have the 'miracle of WE'. if not, we would be in horrible disagreement, perhaps because our kosmic addresses don't match up.

    which reminds me, it gets worse: have you looked at app.2? the good side to this is that it illuminates why, with the best of intentions, we can still have so many disagreements with others. but one thing i think we can all agree on: we don't yet know beans about integral math.

    happy salons,

    ralph



    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  03-27-2007, 12:46 PM 21130 in reply to 21109

    • guydavis is not online. Last active: 09-25-2008, 8:30 AM guydavis
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on 06-19-2006
    • Asheville, NC
    • Posts 7
    • Points 215

    Re: Comments on Integral Spirituality - Ch.1: Integral Methodological Pluralism

    Thanks for this Ralph. I still don't understand SO MUCH of this stuff but at least have one other person here in Podunk, NC to bounce things off of. He has been really helpful and we sort of support each other in trying to grok these things.

    I have another question you might be able to help with.

    After listenting to some of the ISC conference calls I understand conceptually that each developmental stage can also be thought of as being able to take another perspective.

    For example using II's rainbow to represent the stages... red is 1-p, amber is 2-p, orange is 3-p, green is 4-p, teal/turqoise is 5-p...

    What I don't understand is how orange/enlightenment/science is a 3-p. How in the heck is my being able to give a perspective on what I think you think that Ken thinks about me have to do with scientific methodologies?

    Is it that:

    1. You say it's raining outside.
    2. I create an experiment where I have 100 people take your perspective of it's raining outside and either verify or reject it.
    3. I take a perspective on the results of their perspectives of your perspective.

    Does that make sense?

    I'm not even sure it makes sense to me.

    Thanks.

    Guy

    Guy Davis
    guy@dancelovers.com
    http://www.dancelovers.com
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  03-27-2007, 5:34 PM 21137 in reply to 21130

    Re: Comments on Integral Spirituality - Ch.1: Integral Methodological Pluralism

    hey there guy!

    you know a funny thing about this is that it was a woman, jane loevinger i think, who introduced the notion of perspectival ranking.  and ever since men have been beating their heads in trying to make sense out of this.  it looks like ken intends to make perspectives the key notion in his philosophy (as prefigured in the excerpts), at least on the finite side of the street.  and he seems to be having some trouble with this as well.

    the concall you're referring to was a great introduction to this.  ken has also given another example of taking a 3rd perspective--when he asks his friend 'do you think sally loves me?'  in this case, sally becomes the 3rd person object of study, although it's not a scientific study.  for it to become that, he would have to ask a number of people, including, say, billy bob, who might say "i don't think so:  i've only seen her once at the local bar."  so the lowest common denominator, scientific study might actually be less reliable than asking a trusted friend.

    so, what about what you think i think ken thinks about you?  thinking is a way of taking a perspective, right?  so you're taking a perspective of my perspective of ken's perspective, i.e. a 3rd perspective appropriate for conducting a scientific investigation of ken's perspective on you.

    .i agree:  this can be very confusing, but it's fun to play with from time to time.  we could, for example, define ordinary, orange, lowest common denominator science to be what is possible with a 3rd perspective, and compare that with what is possible with a green, 4th perspective (required for zones 2 and 4, i suspect) science, and with a 2nd tier, 5th perspective science.

    in case i wasn't clear, my bare bones perspective is obviously in need of improvement.  the important thing for now, i feel, is to see how the 8 zones neatly classify the major methodologies practice by humanity in the past, and thereby suggests how we might progress to an integral meta-methodology.

     



    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  04-01-2007, 9:59 AM 21351 in reply to 307

    • gfjrbarr is not online. Last active: 02-03-2008, 7:35 PM gfjrbarr
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on 07-21-2006
    • Posts 1
    • Points 5

    Re: Comments on Integral Spirituality - Ch.1: Integral Methodological Pluralism

    How do I access it?
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
Page 11 of 11 (155 items)   « First ... < Previous 7 8 9 10 11
View as RSS news feed in XML
 © Integral Institute, 2006. all rights reserved - powered by enlight™ email this page del.icio.us | terms of service | privacy policy | suggestion box | help