|
|
||||
|
Un caso de la prueba de un diario académico reciente Parte IV PRÉSTAMO En quizás la parte más embarazosa de su ataque contra mi trabajo, de Quincey me acusa subconsciente de plagiar su trabajo (aunque porqué él desearía demandar que el modelo que él ataca tan agresivamente es su modelo no se hace realmente claramente). Tanto como usted desea ver su torpeza de los críticos la bola cuando unfairly le están atacando, éste era apenas doloroso de mirar. En 1995 publiqué SES. La base de su argumento, como de Quincey reconoce, era una llamada para integrar " los tres grandes " -- los tres grandes de arte, de moralejas, y de ciencia; o el hermoso, el bueno, y el verdad; o I, nosotros, y él; o primero -, segundo -, y dimensiones de la tercero-persona. [ 7 ] Tres años más adelante, en 1998, de Quincey presentó un papel que llamó para integrar primero -, segundo -, y acercamientos de la tercero-persona. Él me envió este artículo en 1997. Le dije que conviniera con él, puesto que relanzó mi propio modelo y mis propias conclusiones. En su artículo de JCS, de Quincey sugiere que, la lectura de su papel, I unconsciously " pidiera prestada " su llamada para integrar los tres grandes. Él dice, " estuve satisfecho ver Wilber posteriormente acentuar para lo que llamaba: un 1r comprensivo , acercamiento de la persona del nd 2, y de 3 rd a los estudios del sentido (que Wilber ahora llama el 1-2-3 de estudios del sentido). " **time-out** pero, por supuesto, yo tener ser acentuar que Big-Three acercamiento comenzando con SES, como su mucho endnotes hacer perfecto claro, y este acercamiento ser relanzar -- incluyendo llamada para uno Big-Three acercamiento sentido estudio -- en ojo alcohol , escribir en 1996 y publicar en 1997 (ver recoger trabajo , volumen 7), que ver luz día antes de que de Quincey papel comenzar circular. **time-out** en uno endnote, de Quincey decir, " yo desear para indicar para expediente que llamada para uno comprensivo 1, 2, 3 sentido estudio ser primero presentar en mi tucson papel en 1998. " Qué evidencia él tiene para esto, y cómo él se ocupa del hecho torpe de que SES era hacia fuera en 1995? **time-out** De Quincey nunca contestar o aún direccionamiento que, pero él decir evidencia mi préstamo poder ser considerar en hecho de que yo utilizar dos frase en integral psicología que ser similar frase encontrar en su 1998 papel. Estas dos frases son " convienen con uno a " y " teoría comprensiva. " Esto, como I dicho, es simplemente doloroso. Aprecio profundamente que el cristiano desee hacer sus ideas reconocer, y estoy más que alegre señalar a él pues un camarada digno en el mecanismo impulsor para un acercamiento integral de Big-Three al sentido estudia. Tengo una reputación para escrupulosamente dar crédito donde está debido, mientras que los millares de notas al pie de la página atestiguan fácilmente, solamente la sugerencia el crédito que me conseguí esta idea de la izquierda justa de de Quincey totalmente sin habla (mientras que hizo a cada persona que hablé con alrededor su artículo). Pero de Quincey es cerca de una cosa absolutamente derecha: hay de hecho el cierto continuar que pide prestado extenso, inconsciente aquí. [ 8 ]
En mi propio sistema, el componente de " body/energy " es el cuadrante de Upper-Right, y el componente de " mind/consciousness " es el cuadrante de Upper-Left. El modelo integral que estoy sugiriendo que por lo tanto incluye explícitamente una energía sutil correspondiente a todos los niveles del sentido a través del espectro entero (gane en total a sutil a causal, o a la materia al cuerpo para importar al alma al alcohol). Los críticos han faltado a menudo este aspecto de mi modelo porque el diagrama típico del cuatro-cuadrante muestra solamente el cuerpo grueso en el cuadrante de Upper-Right, pero ése es solamente un resumen simplificado del modelo completo presentado en mi trabajo total. En las tradiciones, se dice a menudo que estos campos sutiles de la energía existen en esferas concéntricas del aumento abrazan. Por ejemplo, el campo etéreo se dice para ampliar algunas pulgadas del cuerpo físico, rodeándolo y envolviendo; el campo astral de la energía rodea y envuelve el campo etéreo y amplía un pie o tan; el campo del pensamiento (o el campo sutil de la energía del cuerpo) rodea y envuelve el astral y amplía incluso más futuro; y el campo causal de la energía extiende al infinito sin forma. **time-out** así, cada uno este sutil energía campo ser uno holon (uno conjunto que ser parte uno grande entero), y entero holonic energía espectro poder ser fácil representar en Upper-Right cuadrante como uno estándar serie cada vez más fino y ancho concéntrico esfera (con cada sutil energía campo superar y incluir su menor campo). Cada holon sutil de la energía es el exterior o el componente derecho de corresponder sentido interior o izquierdo. En cortocircuito, todos los holons tienen cuatro cuadrantes a través del espectro entero, grueso a sutil a causal, y éste incluye " mind/consciousness " y un componente de " body/energy ". De Quincey nos asegura que las " energías sutiles no caben en
cualesquiera de los cuadrantes. " En el contrario, esos expertos de la
sutil-energía que son más familiares con mi trabajo, incluyendo Larry
Dossey y Michael Murphy, nos tienen indicado que un acercamiento de AQAL a
estas energías pudo ser el acercamiento más cercano tienen que una teoría
integral del sentido y de las energías sutiles.
Hemos visto que, de los diez o de las ediciones tan principales que de Quincey trata en mi trabajo, él falsifica substancialmente cada de ellas. Tengo en cada uno de esos casos dados qué de Quincey dice, seguido por cotizaciones directas el míos que muestran lo que dije realmente, y los programas de lectura pueden ver para sí mismos las discrepancias que sacuden. Obviamente, la pregunta se presenta en cuanto a porqué sucede ésta. Pondré cualquier motivación a un lado personal o profesional de de Quincey (realmente no le conozco), y en lugar de otro me centro en qué se parece a mí la suficiente razón de tal malentendido extenso de mi trabajo: el volumen escarpado del material. También tengo una tendencia a escribir en dos niveles -- el texto principal y los endnotes voluminosos, y mi nuanced a menudo la posición se entierra en los endnotes. Hay también el hecho de que intento constantemente incorporar la crítica en mi trabajo y alterar mis ideas basadas en la crítica responsable -- por lo tanto las cuatro fases principales de mi trabajo, con otros seguramente a seguir (así, la idea que alguien me critica cada vez yo demanda que me están entendiendo mal es absurda; si ése fuera el caso, nunca habría presentado cualquier modelo más allá de wilber-1. Even de Quincey reconoce que " Wilber tiene una manera de asimilar y de acomodar las lengüetas de sus críticos " -- un elogio backhanded para el hecho de que aprecio grandemente la crítica responsable y hace lo que yo la lata para fijar cualquieres problemas con mi presentación.) **time-out** pero éste a menudo significar que alguien dar uno ampollar ataque en,por ejemplo, wilber-2, y que ataque conseguir relanzar por otro quien ser intentar nudge mí fuera cuadro, con resultado que, a medida que editor uno guía Ken Wilber concluir, concluído 80% publicar y fijar crítica mi trabajo ser basar en malo él. Keith Thompson ofrece lo que pienso soy dos críticas fuertes de la
manera que escribo como contribuyendo a este problema. Creo que él está
correcto en ambas cuentas. Teniendo dicho todo el eso, encuentro Wilber el maddening? Sí. Seguramente no en todos los respectos, sino mucho tan en alguno. **time-out** molesto problema que yo tener encontrar en procurar para criticar Wilber trabajo ser que él a menudo indicar su real, detallado posición en uno asunto en vario obscuro endnotes extender por vario libro (éste ser cierto verdadero con su tratamiento Whitehead; también su teoría de la semiótica, de su postura real en intersubjectivity, de la olografía, del etc.). **time-out** entonces, puesto que en principal texto su libro, él intentar para ser más popular, él a menudo dar simplificar, popularizar, y por lo tanto a veces leve engañar cuenta su verdadero posición. Si usted desea criticarlo, critiqúelo para eso! Ha conseguido a toneladas de revisores en apuro verdadero, porque toman sus declaraciones popularizadas en el valor de cara. Por supuesto, los defensores de Wilber entonces se vuelven con las cotizaciones reales sobre su posición verdadera, cavada para arriba de algunos endnotes obscuros, y el revisor parece un idiota. Esto puede ser muy exasperando, pero aún, no excusa a críticos que falsifican su posición real o más sofisticada.
Appendix A--My
Criticism of Whitehead as True But Partial: Although Alfred North Whitehead, according to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy , has had almost no impact on professional philosophy, he does have a small but loyal cult following, many of whom find in Whitehead a philosophy congenial to spiritual concerns. In many ways I am one of those fans. As I have often pointed out, I believe that when it comes to the microanalysis of moment-to-moment experience, Whitehead's notions are indispensable--notions such as prehension, concrescence, prehensive unification, "the many become one and are increased by one," the hierarchy of real occasions, the transcend and include nature of prehensions themselves, and so on. But I have also suggested that, especially when it comes to the nature of intersubjectivity, Whitehead's view has the lingering impressions (and limitations) of British empiricism from which it arose (as Whitehead once put it: "Spend your days and nights with David Hume." Now when it comes to any sort of truly integral or AQAL formulation, David Hume is the last gentleman you want to spend much time with). The paradigm of British empiricism is an analysis of immediate experience of an object by a subject. That is, it is an investigation of monological occasions presented to the sensorimotor awareness (using "sensorimotor" to mean both the cognitive and affective dimensions of that level). I see the rock, I see a patch of red, I see an object--those are the occasions that form the basis of most of empiricism. As usual, I am not saying that is wrong; I am suggesting it is very partial. The more I studied the positive aspects of postmodernism, the more I became convinced that in addition to the immediate and monological apprehension of an object by a subject, there were types of knowing and experiencing that, although never leaving a grounding in immediate experience, were so complex and sophisticated--and involved background cultural contexts that never entered awareness as an object that was once subject--that we needed to supplement immediate empirical knowing (or even immediate conceptual knowing) with interpretive, dialogical, paradoxical, ambiguous, intersubjective awareness, an intersubjectivity that is not just a result of the interaction between a prehending subject and other prehending subjects, but rather forms the priorly existing space or field in which both subject and object arise, after which , the subject then prehends the object in Whiteheadian process terms. I am not saying that you can't take a Whiteheadian approach and stretch it to cover strong intersubjectivity; I am saying that it is better to start with intersubjectivity and derive Whiteheadian process as a limited subset of that prior field. In other words, instead of starting with the paradigm of "I see the rock"--which is the apprehension of a Right-Hand object by a Left-Hand subject--let us start with a quadratic formulation--which means that not just subjects and objects (or interiors and exteriors) go all the way down, but all four quadrants go all the way down . In this case, the Lower-Left quadrant (of intersubjectivity) plays a constitutive role in the formation of both the subject and the object (which then act to inform and alter the intersubjectivity, so that all four quadrants are mutually co-creating). All four quadrants equally conspire to result in what appears to be the simple "I see the rock," but in fact, both the "I" and "the rock" exist in cultural contexts, preconscious backgrounds, and intersubjective structures that do not themselves enter awareness when "I see the rock," and yet shape and form that prehension without that prehension ever even knowing it. This is, of course, the standard critique of empiricism by hermeneutics, or the standard critique of Anglo-Saxon philosophy by Continental philosophy. The more I studied philosophers such as Heidegger, Nietzsche, Dilthey, Charles Taylor, Thomas Kuhn, Foucault, and a host of other interpretive philosophers, the more I became convinced that simple empirical knowing (the Left-Hand subject prehends a Right-Hand object) had to be supplemented by a four-quadrant analysis that gave equal emphasis to all four quadrants in the generation of immediate experience, and that the empiricists, by analyzing the picture only in its final stages, were missing several crucial ingredients. My suggestion, then, is that instead of taking "I prehend the rock" (or "I prehend the concept") and pushing that down into the atoms of experience, we instead take the four quadrants and push those all the way down to the atoms of experience. In other words, the paradigm of prehension is not "I see the red patch," but rather, "I and the red patch arise in the space created (in part) by intersubjectivity, and once I and the red patch have arisen, then I see the patch in an immediate prehension." And ultimately , that intersubjectivity itself can exist--that is, subjects can participate in each other's immediate presence--because the agency of each subject opens directly onto nondual Spirit or pure Emptiness, so that, as I often put it, the agency of each holon acts as an opening or clearing in which other holons can manifest to each other, and that opening or clearing itself is (in part) a product of the four quadrants, so that a holon's culture (LL quadrant) is always already an intrinsic part of the holon's prehension of any objects. This is my attempt to include, all the way down, the enduring insights of the great postmodern writers, writers that, in Whitehead's time, were really just becoming well-known and well-respected. Thus, I maintain (as explained in SES and elsewhere) that this four-quadrant space "goes all the way down" --because interiors and exteriors go all the way down, and so do singular and plural. This does not particularly contradict anything Whitehead said, but it is a richer, fuller, and more integral expression of the very nature of real occasions, which is not "Left-Hand subject prehends Right-Hand objects," but "All four quadrants arise mutually, the end result of which includes a subject prehending an object (physical, emotional, conceptual, etc.)." Thus, even in Whitehead's notions of concrescence and prehensive unification, I do not detect a vivid understanding of strong intersubjectivity. Rather, using a merely Whiteheadian process philosophy, one must construct intersubjectivity (and true dialogical experience) from a repeated application of prehensive unifications and concrescences, all of which are to some degree after the fact. I believe this hampers Whiteheadian process philosophy from becoming a truly integral philosophy. By adopting a quadratic, instead of limited dialogical, approach, I am not denying Whitehead but enriching him. (Interestingly, de Quincey himself maintains that Whitehead does not have a complete understanding of intersubjectivity. De Quincey mentions none of this in his attack on my work, presumably because he wants to use Whitehead--who "solved" the mind-body problem according to de Quincey--in order to beat me senseless, and thus it will not do for him to point out that Whitehead really doesn't understand intersubjectivity. The fact is, only a quadratic formulation can coherently push true or complete intersubjectivity all the way down, and therefore only a quadratic formulation can really handle the mind-body problem [#3a].) My second objection is that if Whitehead is not "all-quadrant," he is not "all-level" either--he does not have access to a full map of the spectrum of consciousness. This is uncontested by Whitehead scholars (including de Quincey), so I won't dwell on it. My point is simply that, according to even de Quincey, Whitehead is neither all-quadrant nor all-level, and thus an AQAL formulation can "transcend and include" the important contributions of Whitehead without repeating his acknowledged limitations. (Note also that because Whitehead does not write about the nondual wave of awareness, his writing does not have a solution to aspect #3b of the mind-body problem, either; and thus, once again, by moving to an AQAL formulation this final aspect of the mind-body problem can likewise be solved. I am aware of no other approach that offers plausible solutions to all four aspects of the mind-body problem.) David Ray Griffin and I had an email exchange on some of the limitations of Whitehead's process philosophy, which is printed with his permission (this conversation was first published in the Introduction to volume 8 of the Collected Works ):
I also discussed with Griffin my belief that both subjectivity and intersubjectivity arise ultimately from nondual Spirit as the real Self of all holons (see below). He again agreed that this could not be easily accommodated in a Whiteheadian system, and he again suggested I refer to Whitehead's view as "incomplete" and mine as "complete" in this regard. I think that is a good idea, and so I will repeat that I believe that enriching Whitehead's partial view with a more complete, quadratic view of experience allows us to move towards a much more integral framework for Kosmic occasions. Keith Thompson brings his own reflections on a more integral approach to these issues:
There is, finally, the "ultimate" meaning of the mind-body problem (#3b) and its relation to "ultimate intersubjectivity." I maintain that any sort of genuine and immediate intersubjectivity can only be derived from nondual consciousness or nondual Spirit. The reason is that, in the relative or manifest dimension, there is no simultaneous subject-to-subject presence , as Whitehead clearly explained. Whitehead pointed out that any actual occasion can only prehend its descendents, not its contemporaries. The reason is that every form of communication from one subject to another must enter the stream of time and travel to the other subject; by the time it reaches the other subject, the immediate present is gone, and thus the other subject prehends only the past (perception and memory being essentially synonymous). Thus, for Whitehead, there is no simultaneous Presence for any two subjects. (De Quincey does not answer this objection of Whitehead's; de Quincey merely asserts, without any argument or evidence, that he, de Quincey, has a strong form of simultaneous subject-to-subject presence. But without postulating some sort of faster-than-light information transfer, he cannot get around Whitehead's argument.) This is where the nondual traditions have much to offer. For these traditions, simultaneous subject-to-subject presence is possible because ultimately there is only one Subject (Atman, Buddhamind, Godhead). This means that each subject in the relative, manifest dimension, although prevented from having simultaneous presence in the relative realm (for precisely the reasons outlined by Whitehead), nonetheless possesses an immediate subject-to-subject simultaneous Presence in the ultimate or nondual dimension. Because there is ultimately only one Subject, then genuine intersubjectivity on the relative plane has an ultimate grounding. The reason is exactly as Erwin Schroedinger, cofounder of quantum mechanics, put it: "Consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown." Because there is only one "nondual Mind," then all relative minds can possess immediate "touching" or simultaneous Presence, something that Whitehead's view cannot explain or even allow. According to the nondual traditions, as this nondual Spirit or Mind "steps down" into the relative, manifest plane, each individual mind or subject remains nonlocally and immediately in touch with other minds or subjects (all the way down), which is why, among other things, knowledge of other minds is possible. Once on the manifest or relative dimension, then the relative forms of intersubjectivity arise (three of which were outlined by de Quincey, and four or five of which I outlined). But all of them can exist primarily because of the nondual ultimate nature of consciousness itself, which is "a singular the plural of which is unknown." This is the final and radical meaning of intersubjectivity (namely, grounded in nondual Spirit), and this is likewise the fourth and ultimate meaning of the mind-body problem and its "solution" (namely, awaking to the one Mind or nondual Spirit, which is "not-two, not-one"). My simple suggestion is that all four or five of these meanings and their solutions ought charitably to be included in any integral approach to these important issues. For further reflections on this issues, see Sean Hargens,
"Intersubjective Musings," posted at wilber.shambhala.com/html/watch/042301_intro.cfm
.
Appendix B: Intersubjective Nuances (by Sean Hargens) Figure 1: Intersubjectivity as (Cultural) Context
Figure 2: Intersubjectivity as Resonance
Figure 2.5: Dimensions of a Worldview
Figure 3: Intersubjectivity as
(Phenomenological) Space
Figure 4: Intersubjectivity as Relationships
Figure 5: Intersubjectivity as Spirit
|
|
© 2002 Shambhala Publications For More Information Send Email to: mailto:[email protected] Created and Maintained by Mandala Designs |