"Objet a is therefore close to the Kantian transcendental object, since it stands for the unknown x, the noumenal core of the object beyond appearances, for what...can thus be defined as a pure parallax object.... More precisely, the object a is the very CAUSE of the parallax gap, that unfathomable X which forever eludes the symbolic grasp and thus causes the multiplicity of symbolic perspectives. The paradox is here a very precise one: it is at the very point at which a pure difference emerges—a difference which is no longer a difference between two positively existing objects, but a minimal difference which divides one and the same object from itself—that this difference 'as such' immediately coincides with an unfathomable object: in contrast to a mere difference between objects."
Balder replied: I agree with your reading of the 'a' in Bryant's map; I think it is intended to represent the excess that is not included in the map. Which feature I really like about his meta-map, since it puts a black hole right at the center -- a reminder that would benefit its Integral cousin's 'theory of everything.'
In this post from the previous page I noted Bryant’s levels in the 3 domains. I was later mistaken that he doesn’t include holarchy per se, but it seems he is unaware of the finer distinctions as in the MHC, for example. I think the cross (paradigmatic?) pollination between them would do both good, but that job is apparently up to us since they don’t appear on talking terms.
The MHC needs a black hole and onticology needs levels refinement. The former would change its Platonic assumptions and refine its postformal levels. The latter would allow for human correlational teleos and more explicit postformal levels exposition, thereby possibly opening to the evolutionary advance of P2P socio-economic models like Rifkin, as but one example. And both would benefit from some form of contemplative practice, which gives at least some partial 1st-person access to the withdrawn,* thereby also promoting an interative observation of the observer up and down (and round and round) the spiral staircase.
It's a dirty job but someone has to do it. And for free apparently."
* Recall what L&J said in PF, from this post:
“There is much to be said for traditional philosophical reflection and phenomenological analysis. They can makes us aware of many aspects of consciousness and, to a limited extent, can enlarge our capacities for conscious awareness. Phenomenological reflection even allows us to examine many of the background prereflective structures that lie beneath our conscious experience. But neither method can adequately explore the cognitive unconscious—the realm of thought that is completely and irrevocably inaccessible to direct conscious introspection” (12).
We can get to know our black holes a bit better and admit the limitation.
As to a kennilingual black hole--in stark distinction from the Kennilingam--I at least give him credit for trying to include the notion of the Causal in this thread. And to those from whom he got it. It too though just needs a postmeta de/re lubrication per above and it will functionally fit--slip and slide--quite nicely into said hole of dark and foreboding origin.