“The point here is that, if we don't attend to the regime of attraction in which the autopoietic system develops, we fall prey to a tendency to treat local manifestations as strictly resulting from innate factors in the system, rather than seeing them as results of an interaction between both system-specific properties of the system and perturbations from the environment that are translated into information which then selects system-states. Here the conclusion seems to be that development does not have any one particular attractor in the teleological sense.”
The existence of an evolutionary drive -- an inherently creative impulse to improve, to grow and become better and better, or fuller and fuller -- is a view Cohen is promoting in his Evolutionary Spirituality. It seems lots of Integrally-related folks out there are agree with him. I don't expect you're suggesting something like this, though, so would you mind saying more...?
Now I agree with him that democracy is an advance over feudalism, but that's when we contextualize the parameters being human freedom. It's another thing though to say that human freedom is in-built into the fabric of the universe as some kind of involutionary given or even gradient. Or that humanity is moving therefore towards ultimate liberation. That it is on that trajectory is indeed an evolutionary path but said path is not inherent but rather man-made.
M is right that 'progress' was used by Enlightenment thinkers to rationalize colonialism and environmental degradation. Hence the rise of pomo to challenge progress. Per the usual kennilingus he says pomo only focuses on the disasters and threw out the dignities. The dignities he lists though sound more to me like the pomo movement's achievements, not modernism's. And to solve pomo he takes the usual Hegelian and kennilinguistic move of transcend-and-include.
It is exactly here that perhaps kennililnguists can learn from the OOO* instead of reducing them too into the camp of the green meme. But it seems unlikely to me because that would require them to give up the Hegelian dialectic so critical to their AQAL 'hyperobject.'
*Like Bryant above, who accepts "higher emergent order," yet not in the way McIntosh does.
Another thing strikes me about the telosiacs: they always place themselves on the leading edge of evolution. If there was no teleos they couldn't rationalize their special place in leading the way for the rest of us schmucks. This is another thing to learn from OOO, it's narcissism-reducing response to such not just anthoropomorphism but cream-of-the crop frothy egde-ism.
I also find it interesting that the kennilinguist evolutionists in general favor some version of capitalism while the likes of OOOers like Bryant favor democracy.
Also McIntosh (and kennilinguists generally) uses holonics to rationalize his dialectic. But as we've seen with Bryant, while he too accepts mereology is it of a different variety.
I have appreciated the observation by folks such as Sagan, Berry, Swimme, Primack, and others, that there is cause for wonder and awe, when we realize that we do represent a seemingly rare occasion where the universe has become aware of itself: where not only self-awareness has emerged, but more recently, a capacity to look back at the whole evolutionary sweep, from the scattering clouds of hydrogen atoms to the birth of galaxies to the emergence of life in all its forms, including us. This emergent view is nowhere near total or exhaustive -- likely still just a dim glimmer, and of course still open to revision -- but there nevertheless has been an explosion in empirical knowledge about the physical universe (its present scope, its distant origins, its evolutionary or developmental journey) in relation to which we can rightly stand in awe. These are momentous, possibly culture-defining discoveries (if folks like Swimme and Primack are right). To acknowledge and appreciate this, or even to wonderingly proclaim that we are an example of the universe "becoming aware of itself," is one thing; but to move from there to proclaiming that the evolution of the whole universe has therefore led, purposefully and intentionally, to one's present worldview, to one's present cultural and spiritual agenda, is quite another. That's going too far, in my view, and that's what I see a number of folks in the Integral and Evolutionary crowds doing.
Concerning using holonics to justify the Integral dialectic, yes, I agree -- that seems to be problematic, if only because the holonic (transcend-and-include) view is partial and incomplete. I agree that OOO is offering a new way to think about mereology. I'm not entirely on board with the OOO approach yet, but I appreciate the creative thinking they are doing in this area. And Bonnie's onto-logics looks like a good corrective, too, to Integral's over-reliance on holonics, with her emphasis on a range of different generative processes or 'mechanisms,' beyond the transcend-and-include variety (which is the Integral mainstay).
I say, "to some degree," because, as I understand the argument against correlationism, one of the problems of correlationism is apparently its insistence that a world without men, without humans, is unthinkable. OOO ontology, as Bryant says, wants to posit a world where humans are beings among beings, not the Monarchs of Being. An Integral, enactive, post-metaphysical approach, as I understand it, does not have an issue with imagining a "world without men." It is not species-centric*. But it does suggest that "worlds" (defined as fields of meaningful distinctions or possibilities for interaction) ex-ist only for sentient beings (here, imagining even atoms as sentient beings, to the extent that atoms are able in some way to register, respond to, and interact with objects and forces outside of themselves; the idea is not that atoms think about, or have emotional responses to, the world).
What do you think?
* Panikkar's cosmotheandric approach is more problematically correlationist than the Integral project