Van: "Integral World" Aan: Onderwerp: Wilber or Truth? Datum: dinsdag 13 mei 2014 21:21 INTEGRAL WORLD MAILING LIST =========================== http://www.integralworld.net Newsletter Nr. 504 Amsterdam, May 13th, 2014 WILBER OR TRUTH? - How to Get Rid of Your Wilber Complex - Paper prepared for the 1st Integral European Conference, Budapest, 2014 - FRANK VISSER In past Integral Conferences the question was posed: DOES WILBER = INTEGRAL? Most participants chose the (politically correct) answer: NO. Integral is bigger than Wilber. I have always been content with YES as an answer, since Wilber is the biggest voice in the integral field. For all practical purposes, Wilber = Integral (look at this IEC conference program). But I consider this a secondary question. The primary question should be: DOES WILBER = TRUTH? And where does our loyalty lie: Wilber or Truth? That's an entirely different question. Much more difficult to answer. But much more rewarding. This question has not been posed and answered enough in the integral community. My answer would be: probably yes, probably not and NO – depending on the field we are talking about (I, WE, IT). Read more: http://www.integralworld.net/visser62.html THE "REVENGE" OF THE MYSTERIANS - Reply to Frank Visser - DAVID LANE Frank Visser in a recent email communication with me raises several pertinent points concerning the study of consciousness: “I can't help but feeling that no amount of string theory will throw any light on emotions, thoughts etc. Perhaps it's not so much that the mysterians declare consciousness to be a mystery, but only if you look for it in the wrong location. You can't find an inside thing such as consciousness on the outside, only outside correlates of the inside. What would you say?" I agree that string theory, as a fundamental theory which gives rise to the four forces of the universe (and perhaps more)—gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force—doesn't shed the clearest light on emotions or thoughts. But if we move up the materialist scaffolding project (Wilson's consilience hierarchy) there are emergent physical properties that do indeed illuminate how emotions and thoughts arise and how they function. Read more: http://www.integralworld.net/lane75.html AN ANTI-SCIENTIFIC WAY OF VIEWING - A Response to David Lane's Latest Posting - DON SALMON I thought it might be interesting to respond to David Lane’s latest posting, a reply to Frank Visser (The “Revenge” of the Mysterians). David’s postings on integral world were among those I was referring to (in “Shaving Science”—part 2) when I pointed out an interesting pattern among Integral World authors—starting with a particular view, then finding that view no longer sufficed, and switching to a “view” which is associated with science, but without recognizing that they have actually retained the very same particular view. Actually, the word “view” is somewhat misleading. I’m not so much talking about a set of ideas, a worldview, or worse, a particular “metaphysic”. It would be more accurate to speak of a ‘way’ of viewing—a “way” which remained essentially unchanged in spite of the seemingly radical shift in “view.” Read more: http://www.integralworld.net/salmon17.html THE GRAVITY OF SCIENCE - Understanding Grounded Transparencies - DAVID LANE I enjoyed Don Salmon's recent essay and its somewhat cryptic prose. In some ways I took it to be a kind of Rorschach prompt, designed to underline Salmon's judicious citation of Wallace's quote, “The perceived exists in relationship to perceiving and the conceived in relationship to conceiving.” Of course, Salmon's essay, like his earlier piece entitled Shaving Science, is also kind of a muddle and, like certain political speeches, believes it is saying something important and profound but never quite gets around to saying it so clearly that nothing gets lost in translation. Salmon hints at this when he explains why his more recent salvo is “deliberately . . . obscure . . . because of the misunderstandings apparent in subsequent integral world essays commenting on the Shaving Science essay.” Salmon's Delphic approach is ironic, especially if he truly wants his readers not to end up confused and misread his overall intention. I am tempted to indulge him and respond in a similarly oracular fashion, but I thought it might be more useful if I took a more practical approach. Read more: http://www.integralworld.net/lane76.html To SUBSCRIBE to this Integral World Newsletter or change your email address, click here: http://www.integralworld.net/pommo/user/subscribe.php To UNSUBSCRIBE, update your account by logging in. For explanation, see: http://www.integralworld.net/nl_faq.html