Balder and me on A/A

Continuing from this post, Balder and I have pursued a discussion at FB and Ning IPS that follows. Follow them for more discussion on it, if it happens:

Balder: I hope you can make a good philosophical critique of aperspectivism (other than that you are tired of it). Or maybe this is more an emotional reaction?

Me: What have I been doing at Ning IPS for several years? Btw, as I said in the post, it's kennilingus aperspectivism, not the entire field.

Balder: You've critiqued IT for its latent metaphysics of presence, but I wouldn't equate that with aperspectivism.

Me:  Wilber's version of it includes the aperspective of the metaphysics of presence, aka direct perception of the ultimate. As but one example, here's a post from our Ning discussion on Wilber's Supermind (and Superman) stuff.

Balder:  I was thrown, I suppose, because you made this remark in your conversation with Bryan, who did not appear (from what I read) to be invoking aperspectivism in this context.

Me: Sure he is when he invokes "the means must justify themsevles" from his version of what integral-aperspetivalism means. 


Balder: Did you ask him what he means by " the means must justify themselves"? It sounds like he might be arguing for a deontological ethics as opposed to a utilitarian one. An integral ethics arguably would be a situational one which involves both deontological and utilitarian moments or considerations.

Me:   I did not, as I've said I'm tired of debating integral theory/philosophy, particularly kennilingus but also in general. I have hundreds (by now thousands?) of pages of that in the forum if anyone wants to do the homework. But another admitted kennilinguist comes to town without such background homework and expects us to go over ground we've covered countless times. I know some kind and generous souls don't mind that but that's not my particular blessing.

And yes, when someone speaks kennilingus I do have an aversion now and make assumptions on that sort of theoretical framing. For example, Wilber's integral-aperspectival (IA) descriptions are a distinct evolutionary level and perspective, a perspective that takes into account other perspectives and provides a nice nested place for them in his scheme of things. But as we've explored over hundreds of hours in the forum, Gebser's IA is not another perspective among others, is not the next higher level of perspective. At least according to those not within the kennilingus bubble, this as but one example.

So yes, I made assumptions like the above given Bryan's kennilingus framing, which may or not, or partially be or not, the case. In any event, as I've told you both in forums and personally, I'm just not that much into philosophical debate or even dialog these days. And yes, I find it emotionally draining as well.