Khorajismism

Continuing discussion from the last post leads to new neologisms. I have such fun with this stuff. Balder replied to one of Bryant's posts (comment 26) and Bryant replied (comment 27).

theurj: I see his point. It seems you're using the AQAL assumption about matter being a 3rd person outside. Edwards has aptly pointed out that kennilingus is itself reductionist with this view of matter, objects, artifacts, etc. In the blog post and comments Bryant was careful to define what he means by materialism, which bears little resemblance to the kennilingual reduction of matter while also having similarities to the overall integral project with its emergent levels of scale.

I also liked Philip's comment "we just don’t need idealism any more," akin to my "death to the transcendent!"


Oh my, this Bryant post is quite rich. It deals with one of my focuses lately, what to include and what to exclude in going to the next level of scale. He talks about the advances of social constructivism while also its limitations, what to keep from it as well as reject from it. Also how this might be an effect of the focus of different paradigms, how we might need to gain a meta-perspective and relate and/or integrate the different paradigms. (I put this in kennilingus, he didn't). I especially like this:

"Integration doesn’t entail sublation of all elements of a theoretical edifice.  Theoretical changes, even where they don’t reject all elements of the previous theoretical edifice, do not leave that previous theoretical edifice unchanged.  Things need to be reworked in light of the new additions.  Other claims need to be abandoned.  New elements need to be introduced into the previous theory. The previous theory, while not rejected, is not the same as it was before."

And this:

"To recognize the limits of a theory is also to recognize the limitations of a theory or the domain to which it is limited....the domain where it 'works,' but also being open to the domain beyond this where other theoretical tools are needed."


Balder: No, I wasn't arguing for matter as mere surface (flatland) or as lacking in developmental depth, causal agency, etc.  I fully support Bryant's (and Edwards') proper acknowledgement of the "depth" of matter and their rehabilitation of its tarnished image.  But to the extent that matter is the focus of an -ism, I have concerns about a privileging of some languages over others.  There are lots of ways to talk about reality, not all of which can be adequately plumbed or expressed by a focus on material processes, even if that language remains indispensable.

Thus, when Bryant says, "To recognize the limits of a theory is also to recognize the limitations of a theory or the domain to which it is limited....the domain where it 'works,' but also being open to the domain beyond this where other theoretical tools are needed," I can only say, "I agree.  That's my point."


theurj: But it seems to me that Bryant is re-defining materialism beyond a limitation to the domain previously occupied, i.e., a new meta-domain that contextualizes that former domain, and other domains as well. Granted your and others' concern is that by keeping the word materialism it might confuse such a project. My guess is that he'll come up with a neologism for it, perhaps a derivation of objectile like objectilism?

Given my sexually perverse wont, I suggest jismism. A very creative and again messy substance that literally provides the seed for an emergent process.* Emerge itself coming from the primordial root urge, generative of the universe. As in, of course, theurj. See, it's true, I am narcissistic, though not nihilistic.

* Granted jism needs the womb of khora to germinate. Maybe khorajismism as the new ism?