I'm
with Balder on this one. AQAL is lacking and needs to not only be
compared with but integrated into (i.e. included and transcended) other
integral and meta models. I'm with Edwards that there is no one
meta-model that can handle it all and to presume such is part and parcel
of a metaphysical paradigm, hegemonic and inclusivist to boot. Edwards
has done extensive research into a host of other meta-models that take
into consideration things utterly missing from AQAL, yet he finds the
latter useful and includes it in the mix. Or to apply kennilingus to
AQAL, it is (somewhat) true but (definitely) partial.
And to try to give 5 more points for Wilber to kennilinguinize is fruitless, imo. I've been at this a long time, from the very beginning of I-I, and the Lingam has faced a lot of criticisms and suggestions. I've seen how he handles both over the years and by his responses and he's mostly sticking to his (Wyatt Earpy) guns and not about to change his mind. Which is ok, but I'm no longer much interested in his views or his model, particularly. I still include some of it but there are far more interesting things emerging in this field and his role is no longer significant. To the contrary, it often gets in the way of new developments.
And to try to give 5 more points for Wilber to kennilinguinize is fruitless, imo. I've been at this a long time, from the very beginning of I-I, and the Lingam has faced a lot of criticisms and suggestions. I've seen how he handles both over the years and by his responses and he's mostly sticking to his (Wyatt Earpy) guns and not about to change his mind. Which is ok, but I'm no longer much interested in his views or his model, particularly. I still include some of it but there are far more interesting things emerging in this field and his role is no longer significant. To the contrary, it often gets in the way of new developments.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.