Recently in the Ning IPS thread on the topic Ambo had some questions and musings here and following posts. DavidM joined the discussion a few comments down. My responses to both follow.
Ambo: To answer briefly here, false reason is not a binary to real
reason. Think of it in terms of kennilngus. E.g., each stage goes
through fusion, differentiation and integration. So the formal rational
stage, which differentiates from the mythical stage (concrete
conventional), can go into dissociation instead of integration. I agree
with Wilber on this. Formal reasoning, when integrated per this thread,
is real reason which can then move into postformal reasoning.
This thread explores what that integration means, which is where I
depart from Wilber and the model of hierarchical complexity crowd.
As to Big Mind, and general Buddhist methodology, of not indentifying
with self, that too can end in a disembodied, metaphysical premise. The Batchelor thread
shows two very different approaches to the topic within Buddhism,
rangtong and shentong. It is roughly analogous to real and false reason.
Evan Thompson's work in this and this thread gives a strong rangtong Buddhist version using modern neuroscience and embodied realism.
David: I'm not sure I'm understanding your quotes. If it implies that we must
always grow bigger or more complex to make progress then I don't agree.
Or that we must shoot for "ideas of largest generality," that also seems
to miss the point. The largest generality and its opposite, the
smallest particular, are both part of the false reasoning based on an
abstract, formal logic and its hierarchical category theories. In the
above, basic categories shaped by image schema are seen in the middle of
such hierarchies. Real reason then extends 'down' to the particulars
and 'up' to the generalities ad infinitum. There are no lowest and
highest linear points, as both 'ends' loop around back to, and originate
from, the middle of things. If that's what the quote means by "mystery
and the mystery of its meaning," or "Charles Hartshorne’s necessarily
existing God," then I'd agree. But I'm not sure it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.