More on developmental framing and enactment

Continuing from this post, here are some more comments from that thread.

Another take on what is included or replaced in transcendence is in the IPS fold thread. As to a so-called integral view requiring an explicit developmental framing, I'm reminded of this IPS post quoting Gidley:

"Gidley talks about the difference between research that identifies postformal operations (PFO) from examples of those that enact PFO. And that much of the research identifying PFO has itself 'been framed and presented from a formal, mental-rational mode' (109). Plus those enacting PFO don’t 'necessarilty conceptualize it as such' (104), meaning the way those that identify it do, i.e., from a formal operational (FO) mode. Which is of course one of my key inquiries: Is the way PFO is identified through FO really just a FO worldview interpretation of what PFO might be? Especially since those enacting PFO disagree with the very premises of the FO worldview and its 'formally' dressed PFO?"


Also the above thread goes into the difference between real and false reason. The latter is typical of metaphysical dichotomy, e.g. between the abstract and concrete. As I've noted in many places, it's the same kind of abstract rationality that drives capitalism. And why Lakoff et al. call it false versus the real, embodied and emotional form of reason inherent to the neo-Commons and its concomitant ecological integration. Or what I'm now calling pararationality.