Be afraid, be VERY afraid.
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Monday, 29 October 2007
Why I am “Integral” « both/and
"Being truly integral means, among other things, developing intimacy with everything that constitutes us. A genuinely integral consciousness lives such intimacy both conceptually and nonconceptually."
Why I am “Integral” « both/and
Why I am “Integral” « both/and
Thursday, 18 October 2007
MySpace.com - Girl Talk - Pittsburgh, PA - Pop / Pop / Pop - www.myspace.com/girltalkmusic
MySpace.com - Girl Talk - Pittsburgh, PA - Pop / Pop / Pop - www.myspace.com/girltalkmusic
This guy ROCKS... and I so rarely say that about ANY music. I do like the new Radiohead album but this is just something else.
Thanks to RyanIsHungry - Hacking Everyday Life for the tipoff.
This guy ROCKS... and I so rarely say that about ANY music. I do like the new Radiohead album but this is just something else.
Thanks to RyanIsHungry - Hacking Everyday Life for the tipoff.
Wednesday, 19 September 2007
Ideas to die for « both/and
Crosspost from: Ideas to die for « both/and
Dan Dennett on Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of the meme.
Memes. Fit for their own survival. Not yours.
Sunday, 16 September 2007
Integral Options Cafe: The Failure of the Loud Atheists
Thank you Integral Options Cafe for not lumping Dan Dennett in with the fundamentalist, or Loud, athiests - a habit I've been very keen to dispell recently. Haidt's essay is a good example of where people are mis-understanding Dennett.
As you say in The Failure of the Loud Atheists the biggest flaw of the atheist fundamentalists "is their failure to distinguish between objective reality and subjective reality". Now Dennett, in both 'Breaking the Spell' and 'Consciousness Explained' is playing a completely different game and to roll him up into the angry atheist crowd is mis-reading him almost completely.
Dennett recognises interiors and exteriors. He recognises evolution and development. He recognises the difference between left and right-hand quadrants (although wouldn't use those terms). And he states clearly that 3rd person methodologies have a large part to play in understanding interiors. He's got at least Zone1 and Zone2 of the 8 Integral Methodological Pluralism zones covered and he spotted the blind spot that phenomenology has to structuralism and 3rd person methods. His hetrophenomenological method addressed the problem back in the 1980s.
This, from his latest TED talk, says it nicely.
As you say in The Failure of the Loud Atheists the biggest flaw of the atheist fundamentalists "is their failure to distinguish between objective reality and subjective reality". Now Dennett, in both 'Breaking the Spell' and 'Consciousness Explained' is playing a completely different game and to roll him up into the angry atheist crowd is mis-reading him almost completely.
Dennett recognises interiors and exteriors. He recognises evolution and development. He recognises the difference between left and right-hand quadrants (although wouldn't use those terms). And he states clearly that 3rd person methodologies have a large part to play in understanding interiors. He's got at least Zone1 and Zone2 of the 8 Integral Methodological Pluralism zones covered and he spotted the blind spot that phenomenology has to structuralism and 3rd person methods. His hetrophenomenological method addressed the problem back in the 1980s.
This, from his latest TED talk, says it nicely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
