Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Bill O'Reilly's family values
He's right in line with Republican family values. That is, in their version of the family the husband is entitled to beat his wife and abuse his children if they get out of line. Getting out of line means, of course, whatever the husband/father says it means. King of the house and all that.
What happens when you don't vote in mid-terms
Samantha Bee shows how North Carolina became the bathroom police. If you don't like it, try voting.
Jon Stewart on Clinton's inauthenticity
He's right. Except when he notes that the delay in her responses indicates she's fighting an impulse to prevaricate. That delay is exactly her calculating how to best prevaricate spin specifically to pander votes.
Other syntegrities
Continuing from this post, for
you academics that can only accept as legitimate those certified in
that paradigm, I suggest Mark Edwards et al. on inter-bridging syntegrity. They are moving in the direction I discussed previously. E.g.:
"For a tensegrity-oriented approach the centre is a virtual one, rather than being occupied by some dominant body, individual, concept or value. [...] Therefore syn-integral bridging does not follow the ideas of a metaphysical harmony, nor an underlying unity-oriented ideal(ism)" (127-8).
Another (academic) one along these lines is David Michael Levin. From pp. 47-8 of The Opening of Vision:
"Development from stage 1 to 3 is normal and typically completed when the child becomes an adult. Stages 4 and 5, however, represent stages of individual development that require special effort, commitment, and maturity. Stages 1 and 2 are basically biological. Stage 3 is distinctively cultural.... The ego-logical body is the body shaped according to the ego's image of itself. But stages 4 and 5 go beyond what society requires. We might call them 'spiritual' stages.
"Normal development (stages 1-3) is always, more or less, a linear progression, but the progression beyond 3 is not; it is essentially hermeneutical, involving a return, a turning into the body of experience, to retrieve a present sense of the earlier stages. Beyond 3 it is necessary to go 'backwards' in order to go 'forwards.' Stage 3 is the moment when, for the first time, this return and retrieval is possible."
For a description of the stages see this post.
Here's Lakoff on real/false reason. The article explores why the professional liberals in the first post keeping making things worse instead of better. What I've shown in the interim posts is how this same false reasoning is carried into theories of complexity and integrality. In Levin's terms above, stage 3 just keeps getting more linearly logical. In Gebser's terms, deficiently rational.
"For a tensegrity-oriented approach the centre is a virtual one, rather than being occupied by some dominant body, individual, concept or value. [...] Therefore syn-integral bridging does not follow the ideas of a metaphysical harmony, nor an underlying unity-oriented ideal(ism)" (127-8).
Another (academic) one along these lines is David Michael Levin. From pp. 47-8 of The Opening of Vision:
"Development from stage 1 to 3 is normal and typically completed when the child becomes an adult. Stages 4 and 5, however, represent stages of individual development that require special effort, commitment, and maturity. Stages 1 and 2 are basically biological. Stage 3 is distinctively cultural.... The ego-logical body is the body shaped according to the ego's image of itself. But stages 4 and 5 go beyond what society requires. We might call them 'spiritual' stages.
"Normal development (stages 1-3) is always, more or less, a linear progression, but the progression beyond 3 is not; it is essentially hermeneutical, involving a return, a turning into the body of experience, to retrieve a present sense of the earlier stages. Beyond 3 it is necessary to go 'backwards' in order to go 'forwards.' Stage 3 is the moment when, for the first time, this return and retrieval is possible."
For a description of the stages see this post.
Here's Lakoff on real/false reason. The article explores why the professional liberals in the first post keeping making things worse instead of better. What I've shown in the interim posts is how this same false reasoning is carried into theories of complexity and integrality. In Levin's terms above, stage 3 just keeps getting more linearly logical. In Gebser's terms, deficiently rational.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Choose your verson of 'integral' carefully
Continuing from this post:
If there is fusion-differentiation-integration at every 'level,' the question becomes what an 'integral' level looks like if the formal rational level has been properly integrated. If it has gone into dissociation without said integration, and if that same dissociation has tainted every so-called postformal level thereafter, then are they actually postformal? Another question is if the same sort of formal, monofractal logic is used in constructing hierarchical models, are they really looking at postformal levels or just more complicated yet lateral formal extensions?
Now Wilber did indeed note the dignities of postmodernity, one of which was rightly questioning formal premises. Hence he tried to include and integrate its insights. Yet he also said his version of the integral transcended it. But he uses the same formal math and logic of the MHC's transcend-and-include Hegelian logic. The postmodernist version of complexity shows how that sort of logic is still caught in modern assumptions.
Paige & Mark
They only got 28 out of 30. It was great choreography with powerful emotional content, but there were a few very minor mistakes.
Denmark produced 140% of its electricity needs recently
Yes, it was a anomalously windy day and not the norm. They shared the surplus with Germany, Norway and Sweden. But at their current commitments to renewables they expect to achieve 50% of their power through them by 2020. American needs to get on the ball here, but they won't as long as we have a regressive Congress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)