![]() In IT’s neoWhiteheadian view, each new moment comes to be as a subject (with all 4 quadrants), and it prehends (tetra-prehends) its predecessor, which is now an object (in all 4 quadrants) for this new subject. Likewise, spiritual transcendence (Eros) reaches all the way down as well. To postulate the most fundamental level of reality as merely ontology-being without knowing or consciousness or creativity-is basically a 1st-tier move that shatters the Wholeness of this and every real occasion. Whitehead’s “ultimate category”-namely, “the creative advance into novelty”-is part of the prehension of each and every being in existence, and the creative-part cannot be ripped from the being‑part without severe violence. ![]() If, for the moment, we leave Quantum Mechanics out of the picture (see below), none of this depends on humans for its existence or being, and yet the atom’s prehension-feeling-knowing is an intrinsic part of this level of the “real.” Consciousness is not something that can be sucked out of being to leave an awareness-free “ontology” lying around waiting to be known by some other sentient being consciousness, rather, goes all the way down, and forms part of the intrinsic awareness and intrinsic creativity of each ontological being or holon. The atom’s prehension is part of its very ontology (and vice versa), and as each atom prehends its predecessor, it is instrumental in bringing it forth or enacting it, just as its own being will depend in part on being prehended/known/included by its own successor. The “prehension” aspect of atoms (proto-knowing, proto-feeling, proto-consciousness) helps to co-enact the being or ontology aspect of the atoms for each other-their own epistemology and ontology are thus inseparable and co-creative. Realism maintains that there are ontological realities that are not dependent upon humans or human theories-including much of the level of the “real”-including items such as atoms, molecules, cells, etc.-and IT agrees, with one important difference: IT is panpsychic (a term I’m not fond of, preferring “pan‑interiorist,” meaning all beings have interiors or proto-consciousness, a la Whitehead, Peirce, Leibnitz, etc.)-to wit, atoms do not depend upon being known by humans, but they do depend upon being known by each other. To begin with, Critical Realism separates epistemology and ontology, and makes ontology the level of the “real” whereas, for Integral Theory, epistemology and ontology cannot so be fragmented and fractured, but rather are two correlative dimensions of every Whole occasion (part of the tetra-dimension of every holon). Integral Theory (IT) and Critical Realism (CR) share many items in common, but there are some deep differences as well. –Ken WilberĬhapter “Individual and Social,” endnote 4: They were written, in part, in response to recent articles on Critical Theory and Integral Theory, and, while appreciating certain aspects of Critical Theory, come out strongly in favor of Integral Theory. ![]() The following are two long endnotes, and one excerpt, from my recently finished book, Sex, Karma, Creativity, which is volume 2 of the Kosmos Trilogy, whose first volume is Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. ![]()
0 Comments
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |