as planned, i will begin publishing 'cliffnote' outlines to some of the chapters i've read that seem especially pertinent to the Path. today's is from Intimacy or Integrity by thomas p. kasulis. i have only read about four-and-a-half out of its six chapters -- but i think its introduction gives a helpful account of what inhibiting obstacles the intercultural philosopher is having to overcome: remnants of the hardcore rationalists, positivists and underdeveloped pragmatists.
here, kasulis distinguishes the universalists from the differentialists (in their extreme forms) and what can we do to avoid making the same sweeping errors of logic.
as one can likely guess, outlines like this can never substitute for the original material -- the purpose to my positing these is to illumine the direction i'm going (and the nature of the wind that blows me), provide relevant and professional input to this weblog endeavor, and perhaps, possibly, ignite a spark of interest in a subject in a reader (and become, in that way, one with the wind).
Intimacy or Integrity (2002), T. Kasulis
introduction
- (extremist) universalists - inappreciative of cultural differences
- (extremist) differentialists - often "ignore that communication and understanding often cross the boundaries of otherness" (6) (that translation is possible); also, "the very claim about the impossibility of universalizing is itself a universalization" (7)
- both approaches universalize
- there should instead be recognized a difference between understanding and persuasion (we can understand but not necessarily be sympathetic towards x)
- further, there's a difference between a different language and a different potential-sympathetic composition (one undermines understanding; the other, trust)
- 2 problems with the holistic comparison (e.g., all americans vs. all japanese)
- 1 - it can't do justice to the complexity and diversity of a culture
- generalizations are always distortions -- but all articulations are generalizations of some sort (K: thus, in part, a linguistic demonstration of memetic evolution)
- without generalizations, people "cannot proceed in their quest for understanding" (8)
- generalizaton is not equivalent to universal qualifier (generalizations can't be "refuted by a simple counterexample"; 8)
- generalizations always have exceptions
- only way to refute a generalization is to find a better one
- 2 - analysis of either whole would seem to be infinite
- "superficial similarity, upon closer analysis, dissolves into incomparables and difference
- reiterative components compose different patters of consistency
- cultural recursivity -- "a repetitive pattern out of which the whole is constructed" (10)
- "If we can isolate a reiterative factor in different kinds of cultures, perhaps we can also talk holistically about their similarities and differences" (11); the recursive cultural patters are the 'intimacy' and 'integrity orientations
"The role of the philosopher is not just to analyze but also to give us better tools for analysis." the purpose: that "communication and understanding across cultures will be assisted." (11)
( 'K:' = personal relevant contribution
i am aware that my bullet-form is probably unorthodox. forgive me, but this is the way that makes sense to me.)
国際化のため、いろいろな理論に全国用され、結果を伝えるべき。
a tribute to some worthwhile links (thanks to fellow bloggers)...
some of these entries are in fact older journal entries. in trying to establish a manageable grounds for explanation, i feel that i need to share a few past thoughts, mostly for clarifying's sake.
as with any 'new' science, meme theory needs time. the Metameme (Grant 2005) reveals the circular nature of the theory: if meme theory is honestly viable, the character of the meme of meme theory must as well be accepted into the system and understood to be itself included in the evolutionary process it denotes. note that while we weren't even sure for a while if the proper location of a gene was on a DNA molecule or a protein, it is safe to assume by science that the location didn't change before nor after our discovery that it is/was DNA. however, memes have a very different nature by comparison in that -- even if there is a location to be found, and we can assume is the same in pre- and post-discovery (at least relatively) -- our very means of analyzing are in fact of the same sort that is the object of study. the 'gene-meme' for instance might best be described from a memetical perspective as the meme/memeplex that is our knowledge database of genes and genetics. a Metameme however must try to include in every facet data of itself and its kind (memes). thus, we cannot expect our study of it to too well resemble our naturalistic study via the science we've developed up to this time -- at least, the study cannot be exclusive of its 'physical' expressions (its objective memetic phenotype, or sociotype) to its entire subjective and intersubjective criteria (Heylighen 2001) as well.
so, on top of the effort of possible scientific experimentation, we must expect even more concerning how to experiment, regarding all aspects of the theory. and this will take time. let's be patient.
when humans first caught glimpses of themselves on the pond surface, they marvelled. now we have the clearest, most advanced reflecting mirrors, in abundant supply -- and we still wonder who we are ~ what we are.
let's not mistake the face for a mask. the only thing hidden is the tree in the forest -- and now, even that isn't so.
such be the journey -- and the illusion of returning.
moderation resists the necessity of intention. does to drink, for example, serve a situational social function for you? does this outweigh its disfunction to your general health and well-being? without full intention in every facet of life, one disclaims his responsibility and selfishly abuses the maternal security of the universe to take care of him.
this morning, despite my usual abhorence to refined sugar, i took a cookie that was offered to me by a yet unknown retired professor at a college on-campus meeting -- with the intention of giving a friendly first impression with gratitude and cheerfulness at the offer. an hour later my stomach had already gotten over the discomfit and the meeting seemed to have gone well. my health was not exactly 'sacrificed' for it, i'd taken the opportunity when it came to mention the benefits of better eating (without egocentric self-referral), and could be sure that what i would say would be received in the same context of friendliness i accepted the cookie rather than default skeptical listening. considering the meeting's cause, i felt (without having to rationalize over it) the 'right thing' to do and did it.
full intention is the mentality of one who doesn't believe in backtracking -- there is really only stepping forward, and at times this calls for walking forward backwards. but even in walking this way, one does not lose one's momentum, nor altogether their direction. moderation is, to me, an excuse to step backwards, the opposite direction, detrimental as that may be to the journey. as such, i admire the smoker who says she lights one with full intention and awareness of why and its effects, over someone who even remotely confesses that she "knows she should stop, but..."
i think that responsibility plays the ultimate role in this mentality (-- something i've had to confront directly with myself in the past week concerning several irresponsible and 'mal-intentional' acts). a recent line that has played itself several times over in my head comes from bruce feiler's Learning to Bow: "those who are strongest individually must work even harder to preserve the health of the larger -- and stronger -- fold" (286). if we care to be individuals, as we american's most typically do, we should take this responsibility in being individualistic for the good of things beyond ourselves. individualism ≠ egocentrism.
so long as moderation is for the sake of self-satisfaction, even at a low scale, it is something immoral for me, let alone selfish. i choose to live my life for the All, which includes -- but is not confined to -- myself.
アメリカ人
かなり高くても
深さはなし
it's time to address some personalized terms of mine...
the manner and significance of our being cannot be handled by pure positivist science nor by pure religious dogma. to use a physicist analogy in example, examine the complementarity of the Existence:
our lives each viewed individually, perceivably disparate by cognitive operation of a first (thought not necessarily primary) order of sensation, leads us to the pluralistic nature of their totality. an immanence of God subtracts anything beyond ourselves, but speaks of the God as She is within each life -- as the infinite depth of our personality despite our finite understandings and apparent limitations. we each pursue (or deny) our divinity (or what some call our [re]uniting with the divine), and progress daily through the experiential reality of our humanity.
in this approach, we tend to choose from the following how to deal with our plurality. by a reductionist methodology, we undervalue the meaningfulness of a pluralistic nature and attempt to ground the novel by the conventional or dogmatic. that which is other is subvented as another part to the whole, explained by an assumed blueprint of the Absolute (despite that it is determined and conditioned by parts).
by a premature-inclusivist methodology (or novice pluralism), we again presume each one as part to the whole, only instead of eliminating substantive phenomenology to each other-one to fit that of the experienced (as the reductionist does), the approach naively accepts a periphery of foreign phenomonogies that remains tentatively unexperienced yet also unquestioned. in both these cases, homogeneity of experience dominates and induces negative feedback to homeostasis of the Spirit.
by an integrationist methodology, the world of intercultural (and inter-subcultural) philosophy opens wide, and a person can recognize the opportunity for a deepening of the understanding into holistic understanding of the Self. the significance of Jung's hermeneutical methodology blooms and feeds into the roots of (the event that is) sincere compassion. the realm of God transgresses in and through the heart -- Her power radiates through the ends of one's fingertips, into the extensions of one's becoming. integration depicts diversity and change, featuring the unhindered, gliding stream through deviation-amplifying, positive feedback. the shift to the other approach (from which one might begin or at which one might end -- or through which one might pass again and again and again) actualizes.
this second (though certainly not secondary) order of sensationality entails perception of the holism of Existence. (thus, in complementarity, we see one to the other as atomistic apprehension is to holistic -- that is, as particles are to waves.) generally experienced, it seems, in mystic revelation (and so, in a way, in the 'Return to Childness'), it conforms to neither the rationalist modes of the first two prior mentioned methodologies nor the more empiricist one in the beginning of the integrationist method -- yet it links to them through the latter metaphysical stages of this third one, and so it is not unreachable by the first order approach (by those determined and capable of finding it). from here, there is no preconditioned self of which a person seeks to become 'selfless.' from here, there are no niches to be filled. all is water.
the methodologies of approach:
- reductionism -- the themes and ideals of one field are explained (or explained away) entirely by the terms and conditions of another;
- premature-inclusivism/novice pluralism -- the mere act of blending or generally including (thus generalizing) the themes and ideas of a few or many disparate fields with little altered or completely unaltered terms and conditions (with tolerance or ignorance of all the emerging contradictions and impracticability);
- integrationism -- examining and adopting (i.e., adapting to) themes and ideas of disparate fields through (1) re-examination and (primarily objective, at least in the public domain) alteration of the fields' (not just one field's ) terms and conditions with the potential of discovering accommodation and compatibility between them; and (2) reflection and (primarily subjective) alteration of the phenomenological aspects of these terms and conditions for the same purpose.
こんなにお互いを分かり始めかもしれないんね。
"Outer travel at best only reflects the inner journey, and at worst substitutes for it. The world you perceive only provides symbols for what you seek. The sacred journey is inside you; before you can find what you're looking for in the world, you have to find it within. Otherwise, a master may greet you, but you'll walk right past without hearing."
-- Mama Chia (from Sacred Journey of the Peaceful Warrior, Millman 1991)
something feels fundamentally wrong with my universe. i'm not even sure where it begins, if it has a beginning. i am surrounded by warm, loving people -- yet i am lonely. i continue to select the healthiest of food and drink available, making apparent my disdain for the rest -- and yet i feel unclean from the inside out, impure. it doesn't matter if i wash: this dirt won't wash away with soap and water. my books overload the sheves and comprise more that half of what i own -- yet words and concepts leak out the sides of my head, and i feel no smarter nor wiser than i did through secondary education: in fact, i have dulled since then, it seems.
western psychology, eastern religion: their realms are limitless. yet, no matter where i go, i reek of karma and i murder with thoughts. the eyes weren't made to look inside the observer, but neither can the introspective heart -- god blessed inner eye -- recall how to see. for the universe cannot possibly be wayward if i myself am not straying from the path. so, where to go? perhaps nowhere. it feels incomplete to simplify it all to an emphasis on the manner of the journey over the destination (though that does seem the less often acknowledged of the two in our american culture). the question seems to be, why the hell am i walking at all?
purpose can only accompany its perceiver. if it goes unwitnessed, it is not there. i'm not lacking its discovery -- i am procrastinating in its creation. the heart participates -- must participate -- in the forming of meaning, and where the world shows impurities i can more surely expect to find the reasons for them in myself, present by nature of the interaction.
this is why the inner journey takes first priority, at least for those of us who are relearning the sixth sense of our inner vision.
last night, a friend i don't usually see (and have only really known through my brother) came to my room, saying she wanted to hear about someone else's issues. i didn't really like labeling them 'issues' (in a sense, all we ever really work with are issues, and the negativity behind that idea isn't attractive to me), but i talked about what's been most persistently on my mind for the past week. we shared family and romantic intimacy stories, about expectations, overcoming habits, and understanding ourselves through our relationships. it wasn't for very long (maybe about an hour), but it clarified a few things for me.
first, i want to point out the obvious that, despite the apparent seriousness of topics in what i blog about, there's a certain sense of professionalism that i'm not concerned with reaching through writing here. my reasons for blogging are to share exactly what i shared last night: what's on my mind. there are a great number of professionalesque blogs that i've been looking through that leave personal matters aside and address the issue :) that is the blog's purpose (politics, religion, food, etc.). obviously there are somewhat definite categories of blog types regarding what's more professional and what's more personal to talk about. for me, they come down to much the same thing. there is no aspect of my emerging professional life that does not incorporate as well what is most personal for me. i don't necessarily encourage that distinction in our culture as we usually do (though i might condone it in some other cultures for various reasons) with consideration to where and when we are in america. i believe we've been in the heat of desegregation and 're'integration for the past century or so for excellent reasons, and that if nothing else is what i encourage, as well as it is how i choose to live and present my life while here in the u.s. so, forgive me if the distinction between my passions and my professions is difficult to find -- the reason it is, is because it's virtually nonexistent.
_______
for my age, i think the number of romantic partners i've had is pretty high. i've counted (hopefully without mistake) over fifteen. this is due partly, i'm sure, to not one of those relationships having ever had 'romance status' for anything more than ten months. most of them have been far shorter. i'm glad to have had many of them -- they've allotted me great lessons to carry with me. many of them have not, it seems. i've grown positive that the trick is not in the number but in the depth of intimacy one undertakes in the other person, that is, how far i've gotten to know and explore someone (which undoubtedly counts just as well for meaningful friendships).
so, at this point, one of my common responses to the assertion, "i really wish to experience more relationships before i decide who to become fully engaged with," is, "don't get your hopes up." i merely mean that not a single one of those relationships is important, i think, if they are not explored as far as one can stand to dive. which would mean that to go into a relationship with the intention of being only temporarily bound to her/him -- that is, without the presence of spiritual desire for unhindered influence and immersion into that person -- is to sacrifice the lesson you would bring out of it for just the experience (the story, really) of having had it. to me (and perhaps only to me), it is a 'waste': of time, of energy, of emotion, of the opportunity for self-discovery through and of the other person. as far as spirituality goes, it is (without insinuating a presiding religious motif over any other) a missed encounter with God. and, as i briefly mentioned, it's importance carries into every relationship i'm engaged to, with only i being able to choose the degree of intimacy to which i take it.
i was rereading the first post i made yesterday, "you," and realized that, though i had been writing to one person in particular, the material all applied crucially to another as well, whose unblurring presence is what has been contributing to my confusion in what to do since the beginning. one i am physically (even sexually) attracted to; the other is an essential part to my person. i don't mean to make the first seem shallow: our lives have grown closer together, and i can't replace the enjoyment i've had in collaborating and reconciling each other's oddities and personalities within ourselves. it is yet another facet of love that i don't recall feeling to this extent (-- seems like i've been exploring so many different facets in the past few years). there's still so much i look forward to learning about (and from) her. but i've held back from acting on impulses of tactile desire for reasons i wasn't sure of until this morning. attraction is a natural segway to integration, but attraction of premature forces is easily dangerous -- like the hasty forces of air, underdevoloped and unaccommodated for each other, that precipitate lightening throughout the sky.
i continue to experience, each day, a phenomenal depth in myself in regards to the other. i suppose it's to say that i'm still 'in love' with her; but this seems almost crude and unreasonable, since it is only when i admit that the depth is still present in me thanks to her being that i feel enlightened and even happy. despite that i know that i can't begin (or, as it often feels, continue) a romance with her, i feel relieved and 'balanced' to remember how i feel about her, which i imagine one assuming i was merely in love wouldn't be able to understand. maybe it is a stage for me to transgress, experiencing this depth through someone with whom i often go days without any contact -- but i feel more that it is a sort of initiation rather than a transition. i have experienced the depth outside of 'in-love'; i now know that i can experience it within it too -- and that is in part why i am happy to admit it.
attraction presents the doorway, and i decide whether or not to walk through it. but if the way shows itself at present to be doorless, it is only right for me to follow its path. yet another case of faith in action. don't treat any event as insignificant; don't take any small happening for granted. there is no 'less meaningful' thing when you are in the presence of All.
i can't remember the last time i was truly bored.
bertalanffy's General System Theory is going slowly. i have yet to make proper notes on it to share. and i decided to postpone the Intro. to Cybernetics until i had the more general system theories down first. this is all in collaboration toward a better understanding of memetic behavior and evolution -- and i'm now discovering what greater application this has in the practically underground war that is the Transhumanism movement. the movement itself doesn't appear harmful -- but i'm convinced it's in the wrong hands. a snippet of physics says that quantum mechanics research shows human evolution to be neither at a standstill (as some misinterpreters of evolutionary theory might think) nor still in the middle of a dynamic transformation, which is to say that there's no higher niche to fulfill for humans; in which case, our evolution is more of 'form' than of 'substance' (F. A. Wolf, Space-Time and Beyond 1982). i plan to look further into that matter to decide for myself, but as of yet i'm still operating under the assumption that evolution is a never-ending process of form and substance (which can never really be separated from the get-go anyway). in mind of it being a dynamic process, transhumanism serves to utilize technological benefits (which only the rich and opportune can afford, as it is) in the transition to another stage of human evolution. our reputation for a sharp separation among economics, environment, and ethics, is what most concerns me; i don't think that we can function without an integration of these fields -- nor can we take another step without addressing the presently persisting science-spirituality dichotomy. if religion is falling wayward (although buddhism and fundamentalist christianity hardly seems as such), that which religion is meant to be a catalyst to must not, and so we mustn't ignore it.
anyway, that's where i'm headed (as far as i can see right now). my lifestyle has slowly over the past couple of months started to reflect this deeper intention -- i am discovering a whole new respect for the taoist, the samurai, and the mystic. it is not for me to become any one of these, but to integrate, where i can, their heterophenomenological meanings in this strict science of healthy living. in my case, the way of the warrior will always presume over the way of the scholar.
もしみんなは一生懸命に頑張ってれば大丈夫になるかもしれないんだ。