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.
“It is a basic principle of false reason that every human being has the same reason governed by logic — and that if you just tell people the truth, they will reason to the right conclusion. […] But many liberals, assuming a false view of reason, think that such [an emotional] messaging system for ideas they believe in would be illegitimate — doing the things that the conservatives do that they consider underhanded. Appealing honestly to the way people really think is seen as emotional and hence irrational and immoral. Liberals, clinging to false reason, simply resist paying attention to real reason.”
“Real reason is embodied in two ways. It is physical, in our brain circuitry. And it is based on our bodies as the function in the everyday world, using thought that arises from embodied metaphors. And it is mostly unconscious. False reason sees reason as fully conscious, as literal, disembodied, yet somehow fitting the world directly, and working not via frame-based, metaphorical, narrative and emotional logic, but via the logic of logicians alone.”
“Real reason is inexplicably tied up with emotion; you cannot be rational without being emotional. False reason thinks that emotion is the enemy of reason, that it is unscrupulous to call on emotion. Yet people with brain damage who cannot feel emotion cannot make rational decisions because they do not know what to want, since like and not like mean nothing. ‘Rational’ decisions are based on a long history of emotional responses by oneself and others. Real reason requires emotion.”