A few comments on the new Integral Review

I linked to it in this post. I tried to read 4 of the articles but go so bored that I ended up skimming and decided this stuff really doesn't hold much interest for me anymore. Even authors I previously prized like Edwards, Gidley, Hampson and Torbert. This stuff is just getting too academic and dry, like having sex without any lubrication. It's just more irritating than informative. Whereas journals like Speculations and O-Zone are for me where the action on the real cutting edge of philosophy resides.

I realized that part of my distaste is from the blatant hubris and superiority complex in these articles, highly reminiscent of kennilingus. Meta this or meta that is the key to the salvation of mankind, and we hold the key to that knowledge. Whereas I'm starting to think of meta more as in meta-data, like with the NSA. It's just organizing records, or in this case paradigms, and in no way has any relevant content.* We're all fascinated by something that is more like a macro in computer science, useful shortcuts but in themselves not much more than that, like meta whatever.


* Which reminds me of Edwards' statement from this source:

"Integral metatheory building is based on the analysis of extant theory and does not deal with empirical data. Consequently, it cannot validly make conclusions about empirical data based on its metatheorising. If it does so, it is stepping outside its realm of authority. To put this in another way, metatheory is primarily about other theory and not about the prediction or evaluation of first-order empirical data."