Archive for April, 2007

« Older Entries

Sri Aurobindo on Integral Realisation

Sunday, April 29th, 2007

The following passage from The Life Divine pretty aptly sums up the distinction between the relative and the divine consciousness:

We, human beings, are phenomenally a particular form of consciousness, subject to Time and Space, and can only be, in our surface consciousness which is all we know of ourselves, one thing at a time, one formation, one poise of being, one aggregate of experience; and that one thing is for us the truth of ourselves which we acknowledge; all the rest is either not true or no longer true, because it has disappeared into the past out of our ken, or not yet true, because it is waiting in the future and not yet in our ken. But the Divine Consciousness is not so particularised, nor so limited; it can be many things at a time and take more than one enduring poise even for all time.

Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, ch.16, “The Treiple Status of Supermind” p.145 

How then can the relative mind and the surface consciousness, which sees and can be only one thing at a time, arrive at an understanding of the Absolute, which is all things at all times?

Thus the three schools of Vedanta – Nondualism, Qualified Dualism, and Dualism, can be seen as equally true, but also equally partial and limited, because each is based on a mental interpretation of only one particular spiritual experience:

It is indeed only when our human mentality lays an exclusive emphasis on one side of spiritual experience, affirms that to be the sole eternal truth and states it in the terms of our alldividing mental logic that the necessity for mutually destructive schools of philosophy arises.  Thus, emphasising the sole truth of the unitarian consciousness, we observe the play of the divine unity, erroneously rendered by our mentality into the terms of real difference, but, not satisfied with correcting this error of the mind by the truth of a higher principle, we assert that the play itself is an illusion. Or, emphasising the play of the One in the Many, we declare a qualified unity and regard the individual soul as a soul-form of the Supreme, but would assert the eternity of this qualified existence and deny altogether the experience of a pure consciousness in an unqualified oneness. Or, again, emphasising the play of difference, we assert that the Supreme and the human soul are eternally different and reject the validity of an experience which exceeds and seems to abolish that difference. But the position that we have now firmly taken absolves us from the necessity of these negations and exclusions: we see that there is a truth behind all these affirmations, but at the same time an excess which leads to an ill-founded negation. Affirming, as we have done, the absolute absoluteness of That, not limited by our ideas of unity, not limited by our ideas of multiplicity, affirming the unity as a basis for the manifestation of the multiplicity and the multiplicity as the basis for the return to oneness and the enjoyment of unity in the divine manifestation, we need not burden our present statement with these discussions or undertake the vain labour of enslaving to our mental distinctions and definitions the absolute freedom of the Divine Infinite.

 

(ibid p.149)

Similarily, I would assert that Buddhist shunyavada (if this is indeed distinct from Shankaran Advaita) is another partial perspective, and so on again with any philosophy and any spiritual experience that human consciousness can conceive or attain.

Nor should we just follow Sri Aurobindo in a literalist sense, saying atht every word and punctuation mark is true for all time.  To me, that is bad as following a religion.  Rather, the above words – or any other that is inspirational – can be used as the impetus for gnosis, which means going beyond the limited mental perspective to direct appreciation of the Supreme.
 

Posted in Integral Metatheory | 55 Comments »

Hypersexuality and moral confusion

Saturday, April 28th, 2007

Came across an interesting report whilst researching the effects of Ice (methamphetamine) on sexual urges. It was an unexpected result of my search because it was a discussion of the incidence of hypersexuality in children with bipolar disorder. The link between hypersexuality and forms of mania are well known, but in children?

The report was revealing because one of the first things it said was that adults and parents find it difficult to talk about hypersexuality in children. The reason I think is simple. We have developed the completely false idea that children are (and ought to be) asexual.

Around 45% of children with bipolar disorder exhibit hypersexuality. This causes a number of behaviours, masturbation (not necessarily compulsive), disinhibition, interest in sex, use of sexualised language, seeking sexual contact with other children and adults.

The article also mentioned that parents with hypersexual children do not report it because they fear they will be accused of sexual abuse. Hypersexuality can be misdiagnosed as ‘overstimulation’ due to exposure to sexual activity. However, studies have shown that only 1% of the 45% diagnosed with hypersexuality have been sexually abused.

The biggest problem however, is parent’s moral shock at the behaviour of their child. One parent reported disbelief and couldn’t understand where their child got their behaviour from. She said they had been very careful about not exposing their child to any sexual imagery or information. This is the type of ignorance I’d expect in a society that has trouble admitting child sexuality.

Here’s the deal – a good deal of sexual response is hardwired. The mania is caused by the overstimulation of part of the brain. A side effect is often the overstimulation of the sexual centre in adults and children. The hypersexual child is acting out instinctive behaviour. The problem is the parent’s naive belief that children are naturally asexual.

But the reality of child hypersexuality raises another interesting issue. It suggests that there is a range of sexual responses in children as a result of their particular mindscape. Bipolar disorder is clearly an exceptional circumstance but there are children who exhibit natural sexual precocity (and conservatism). This begs the question – what is normal behaviour?

Unfortunately our idea of ‘normal’ is constrained by the moral assumptions of the Judeo-Christian tradition which is sex negative. A cross-cultural study would indicate that sex positive societies accept sexual behaviour from children that ‘we’ would not. In short, we condemn sexually precocious children for moral reasons and not because of any objective undrstanding of normal behaviour.

Of course hypersexuality is a problem, especially if the behaviour prevents socialization and functionality – but how much of it is unnecessarily problematized because of moral concerns? In our sex negative society no wonder hypersexuality in children is embarrasing. When will we grow up?

Posted in Ray's Integral Blog, Sexology | 2 Comments »

Siddhis, scepticism and hard evidence

Saturday, April 28th, 2007

Writing the replies to the ‘Correct view’ thread got me thinking about the objective evidence for a metaphysical reality. Now I know this will immediately create some angst about reductionism, but I’m not the one making the claim of miracles and special powers.

Most of us have heard of the ’siddhis’, the special powers that realised people are supposed to exhibit. But how many of you have actually witnessed a clear and unambiguous example of a reality bending special power? How many of you have witnessed it with other people present who observed the same thing?

I may have witnessed an authentic miracle (and I may be repeating myself). It involves Sai Baba. I knew of a Sai Baba devotee who owns a general store in a suburb of Melbourne (Moorabbin). He had wanted to go to India to celebrate Sai Baba’s birthday but needed to stay back to keep the store open. His wife went instead. One night he prayed intensely to Sai Baba’s puja. In the morning the portrait of Sai Baba began to produce vibhooti (sacred ash), a siddhi often associated with Sai Baba. The devotee didn’t make a big deal of it and only told a few people, one of whom I knew. I went to his shop on two occassions and can testify that the portrait was coated in ash. The portrait was kept high so that if he was placing the ash on the portrait he’d have to climb up on a ladder to get to it. The ash was inside the portrait and outside and it formed what seemed to me to be an un-natural pattern. It didn’t look like he had put the ash there. But the most convincing thing was that he did not publicise the miracle and took it simply as a personal affirmation of his faith. In other words he had no other motivation to create a hoax. The miracle did not attract followers to his shop or create increased sales. An article did appear in a local Hindu newspaper, but again, it was treated as normal.

But I am still troubled by this experience. I have heard of many miracles and I’ve heard some powerful first hand accounts, but none of them can be proved objectively and all can be doubted.

My question is this. Why can’t a siddha perform a siddhi in completely unambiguous circumstances? Muktananda used to dismiss Sai Baba’s siddhis as ‘tricks’ and claim that one should never misuse siddhis (yes, even Muktananda claimed that other gurus weren’t as realised as he was). Sai Baba has never agreed to perform a siddhi in controlled circumstances. The sceptics have scoffed that this proves he is a charlatan. Why won’t he settle the matter once and for all? Surely such a demonstration will revolutionize our understanding of the world?

Jesus said that unless he performed miracles people would not believe. But where are the unambiguous miracles today? The Catholic Church has a whole section devoted to studying reported miracles and very few are unambiguously authenticated. The sceptics have a point when they say, ‘let’s see a miracle in front of thousands of people and on international television, let’s see the miracle in closely monitored scientific circumstances so we can remove any doubt.’ This ought to be a simple matter, but it hasn’t ever happened to my knowledge.

Why?

The Indian sceptics society spend a great deal of their time exposing the frauds of fakirs and gurus. They’ve had considerable success. No one has taken up Randi’s challenge.

My point is this. If siddhis exist then it ought to be a simple matter to prove beyond a doubt that they exist. If siddhis prove a supernatural reality then why isn’t anyone offering the definitive proof?

Am I missing something? Btw, I have heard all the arguments as to why not. Muktananda used to warn of the karmic consequences of misusing siddhis, but apparently Jesus and Sai Baba don’t/didn’t have the same reservations.

But the one thing I don’t understand is the good that could be done by proving siddhis once and for all. The first benefit would be to convert millions/billions to authentic spirituality. The second would be to end the argument. The third would be a paradigm shift that could have untold benefits.

At the moment there is no hard, unambiguous evidence of a supernatural reality – and it would be so easy for a fully realised Siddha to settle the issue.

Posted in Ray's Integral Blog | 13 Comments »

2007 AUM Conference

Thursday, April 26th, 2007

CIIS will be sponsering this and it will be held at IONS in Petaluma CA, a mere 35-minute drive for me. Yes, it’s an advertisement but there will be a lot of “integral” presentations and workshops ranging from the Aurobindian to the Wilberian to the SDi. Perhaps I’ll bring Derrida and Nagarjuna along with me to speak out during one of the above?

AUM 2007 CONFERENCE
“Integral Yoga in Dialogue with the World”
June 20–24, 2007

Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS)
Petaluma, California

ABOUT THE AUM 2007 CONFERENCE

In keeping with the evolutionary need and challenge of these times, the theme of this year’s AUM Conference is “Integral Yoga in Dialogue with the World.”

In the spirit of modeling this collaborative dialogue with the world, California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) is hosting and co-organizing the event.

Integral Yoga in Dialogue with the World

What is the 21st-century relationship between Sri Aurobindo’s evolutionary vision and the evolving fields of human knowledge and experience? With the enormous research opening up in the fields of consciousness and spirituality, with a quantum leap in emergent knowledge happening simultaneously across disciplines—from the hard and soft sciences of physics, biology, and psychology to the applied researches in ecology, integral healing, whole systems behavior, and collective intelligence—what does the Integral Yoga Community have to share with and learn from its evolutionary allies in the world, particularly in view of the evolutionary crises that presently threaten the very sustainability of our terrestrial existence?

Posted in Administrative | 3 Comments »

Blog rules?

Thursday, April 26th, 2007

This question arises from some previous comments in another thread, enclosed below. This whole rules idea has opened my own can of worms, which by virtue of my being an author here you now get to suffer through. Eww, worms? Yep, dirty, smelly, wriggling and disgusting worms. Without which of course our entire eco-system would collapse along with our highfalutin ideas and philosophies.

Anyway…part of why I like the blog format is because it is more open and allows for a variety of types of expression. I am by training a scholar so you’d think I prefer the academic process within a more orderly structure of reasoned debate. And to a degree I do. But what of my emotional and gut responses, my bad moods, my outbursts, my being human? In other words, what about the integral picture of the author of a piece? What about the process of his thinking, not just the finished product is some structure essay or book? What about the dialogic process on interacting with the author, with questioning and critiquing him, and all of it being open and in print in real-time? I even recall Ray saying previously something to the effect of how blogs allow him the freedom to express in a way not ordinarily found in academy. All of this is to me what blogs are, and it seems a tough one to “corner” with road rules. Any ideas?

ray harris Says:

April 24th, 2007 at 7:40 pm e

There’s something frustrating about all this. Most of it is assertion. There is no agreed system of arbitration and no agreed arbiters. Of course any system is going to assert it is superior – it must, otherwise it makes itself redundant. Of course Wilber, Aurobindo, etc are the highest because if they are not as a follower you are admitting you are following the second-best.

Furthermore, no-one judges ‘correct views’ by the same standards. A fundamentalist Abrahamist regards their belief to be the ‘correct view’ by their rules and they simply reject other rules.

So rather than ask is this the ‘correct view’ we need to agree on the ‘correct rules’.

Tusar N. Mohapatra Says:

April 25th, 2007 at 12:23 am e

Happy to see Ray Harris uttering the hated name, Aurobindo!
Can we remember The Mother also?

jose Says:

April 25th, 2007 at 4:03 pm e

Of course Wilber, Aurobindo, etc are the highest Sri Aurobindo of course, but Wilber? I am amazed you can even compare them as if they were “equals”. Has Wilber any realization? Does he has the Divine Consciousnes?

ray harris Says:

April 25th, 2007 at 6:14 pm e

These last two posts merely illustrate my point. Who decides and by what rules?

Edward Berge Says:

April 25th, 2007 at 6:58 pm e

Almost makes one want to use cognitive “altitude” as the rule huh?

Matthew Newsham Says:

April 25th, 2007 at 8:05 pm e

Turn, turn to the dark side Edward!

I just can’t go along with Ray in agreeing that there should be set rules to evaluate with- that would imply an authority badass enough to not only lay down rules, but lay down a set that will always be true. Even Ken doesn’t claim that one.

I would say that anyone taking on one position to the point at which they can no longer address all the others meaningfully and in nuance is demonstrating a potential deficinecy of their system. Is there really much of a difference between a system that says that such and such a “model” is absolutely the best for such and such a reason, and a system that can point for point refute it? Sure different systems frame and draw out different experiences, but it seems that if you can have a conversation about such differences then you have enough experience in common that the issue being addressed is roughly clear. I would view this as both parties having roughly the same cognitive altitude- and whats more- that this level is necessary for the individuals involved to further develop ANY system. Are some systems perfect already? I say no for any number of reasons, mainly relating to the limitations of humanity itself.

The rules, for the good of us all, are up for grabs.

Edward Berge Says:

April 26th, 2007 at 8:43 am e

Actually some guidelines might be helpful. Perhaps Robert’s Rules of Order? (http://www.robertsrules.com) Or Ken’s Road Rules for Transformation? (http://pods.zaadz.com/ii/discussions/view/79531)

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Call for contributors

Thursday, April 26th, 2007

If you are interested in authoring a main post at OI and willing to carry the conversation forward please contact James Burke. His email address can be found in the “About” page. Much as I like hearing the sound of my own writing this site is about multiple perspectives hopefully shedding light on each other. And we need more perspectives. Please take the plunge and contribute to the worthy cause of expanding the theory and practice of this burgeoning movement. Thanks.

Posted in Administrative | 1 Comment »

Derrida and nonduality by Desilet

Tuesday, April 24th, 2007

The above is the title of a new essay at Integral World. I’ve provided some key excerpts below, while editing Desilet’s comments about the Open Integral discussion on the topic to the end. Desilet’s characterization is interesting in light of my posts making several of the same points. It is also interesting that he does not make one reference to anything specific said in our dialogs on the topic.

In this article Desilet compares Derrida with Sankara’s monist Vedanta. I have done the same at OI and also introduced the “nondual” of Nagarjuna. The latter would most certainly agree with Desilet that even the nondual itself is “neither dual nor nondual or both dual and nondual.” So I’d like to invite Desilet to a dialog here on these points of similarity and difference (and differance) in the comments. I will add my comments also in that section forthcoming. For now the excerpts, from the Integral World essay:

For Derrida, the difference between any oppositional pair derives from différance and he uses this new term to suggest a new way of understanding not only the relationship between opposites but also the ground of being from which oppositional tensions spring.

The “trace” is that which both marks and erases itself in the same stroke.

Derrida finds the trace structure as not only applicable to understanding language but also consciousness and every form of being and presence.

The ultimate purpose of the via negativa of neti, neti resides in removing blocks in the path toward attainment of the “pure consciousness” of Atman-Brahman, also called the Witness.

…for Sankara the only way out is to transcend language altogether, so that all the opposites, and indeed all conceptualizing, are canceled by the direct intuition (anubhava) of the real.

By contrast, Derrida thinks this trap may be escaped by staying within language but on the middle path between the pairs of opposites. When the opposites of language are maintained in dynamic tension, through a continual deconstruction of first one opposite and then the other, the real is experienced. For the moment the real is spoken, it is tending to swing the pendulum of language toward either one or the other of the opposites. Only by a continual deconstructing and reversing of each pendulum swing may we experience the real.

For Derrida, the constant change and challenge that this deconstruction requires is not a cause for lament—it is rather the recognition that such a process, with its ongoing need for deconstruction, is itself the real . . . . Thus the impossibility of the everpresent desire to experience the real as pure presence.

Both language and consciousness share the structure of the trace as the effect of différance. The two are always and everywhere woven together such that one never occurs without the other and both open upon and reflect the structure of the real. Language and ordinary consciousness cannot be essentially separated from the real.

This reference to spiritual realization transitions into a discussion of themes relevant to the question of nonduality where Coward goes on to say that for Derrida “the dynamic tension in the becoming of language is itself the whole. . . . The language we are deconstructing is our own thinking and speaking—our own consciousness. We ourselves are the text we are deconstructing. This is why, for Derrida, there is nothing outside of texts. Deconstruction is the process of becoming self-aware, of self-realization” (216).

The transcendentalism implicit in monist metaphysical positions induces a focus on various programs of self perfection as improved self-awareness, higher consciousness, self-actualization, and ultimately self-transcendence into the ultimate oneness of pure consciousness or pure being.

By contrast the deconstructive approach advocated by Derrida moves the emphasis away from becoming a pure or highest self or consciousness toward becoming a better partner. For Derrida, the self/other relation, regarded as irreducible and inescapable, is already a divided or shared quest. Each side remains essential to the other—not as an ethical imperative but as an ontological condition. This view structures life ontologically as relation (tension) exposed to rupture and everpresent mystery or difference. In this approach to life, every state of being involves relation (to the other) and life thereby becomes relation: on the upside, as the art of love (cooperation) and, on the downside, as the art of negotiation.

Although evoking the strategy of negative theology, this approach is neither dual nor nondual or both dual and nondual, but in a way that differs importantly from the qualities and implications of the tradition of negative theology.

When adding this information to the mix of recent postings on the topic of nonduality on Open Integral (under the heading “Integral Metatheory” and dated around March 20th and forward), many may want to throw up their hands in exasperation. How do such subtle theoretical discussions differ from the famous theological problem of determining how many angels fit on the head of a pin? How or why does it matter in deciding what nuances of nonduality or duality may lie at the core of “reality”?

Posted in Integral Metatheory, Philosophy | 41 Comments »

Correct view?

Saturday, April 21st, 2007

“It is only after having understood the view correctly that correct Buddhist mediation can take place.”

Below are excerpts from an interesting article on the differences between Hindu and Buddhist “enlightenment.” It starts with the differences of how they conceptualize the nondual and seems to indicate that to properly do “Buddhist” meditation one must have the “correct view.” It also emphasizes that this correct view is not a mish-mash of intermixed Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist views with a “common core.” It seems the latter attempt arises more from one’s “personal ideas” or agendas. Such might also be the agenda, of which Ken partakes, to find the “common ground” of all the “spiritual traditions,” aka the “perennial philosophy.” So again I must ask: Is Ken’s mixing and matching of nondual language and tradition more of his own creation and in effect watering down each mis-matched tradition? Or are the “traditions” so ethnocentric as to not see how “it all comes together?” Or what?

Also note that this “correct” Buddhist view is stated in the first excerpted paragraph.

Enlightenment: Buddhism Vis-à-Vis Hinduism
Ācārya Dharma Vajra (Sridhar SJB Rana)
Published: Buddhist Himalaya, 1996

…in the Buddhist context, illusion is not removed but rather seen as knowledge itself – or is transformed into knowledge. And this knowledge is not something that is the support or base of Samsara. It is the knowledge of the true mode of existence of Samsara itself.

There are two traditions of explaining ‘advaya’ in Buddhism. One is called the Vast Lineage (skt. Vaipulay parampara) of Asanga-Vasubandyhu based on the ‘Five Works’ of Maitreya which emphasizes subject-object (skt. grahaka-grahya) duality. But unlike the various forms of Vedanta, they neither merge into one whole nor does the grasper (subject) vanishes the illusion and only the eternal grasper remains. Here they are found to be untenable from the very beginning. What remains is emptiness. This system had many great teachers like Dingnaga-Dharmakirti.

The second lineage called the Profound Lineage (skt. gambhira parampara) started with Nagarajuna and was passed down through famous teachers such as Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Bhavaviveka, Chandrakirti, Shantideva and Atisha. There were many other famous teachers like Shantarakshita and Kamakashila who also gave synthetic interpretations of ‘advaya’ using both traditions.

Any Buddhist hermeneutics must be based on one of these hermeneutics or their various branches like ‘Sakara Yogachara’, ‘Nirakara Yogachara’, ‘Yogachara’ ‘Sautrantic Madhyamik’, ‘Prasangic Madhyamika’, and ‘Svatantric Madhyamika’ etc. Just because one understands Sanskrit or Tibetan, one cannot interpret the ‘Sastras’ (texts) as one likes, giving straightforward meanings to them. Any interpretation must belong to one of these hermeneutical methodologies. Otherwise it becomes one’s own private idea of what these texts are teaching….Such interpretations are personal ideas and not true Buddhist hermeneutics and if analyzed, one will find many contradiction and inconsistencies.

It is only after having understood the view correctly that correct Buddhist mediation can take place. Otherwise, there would be no difference between Hindu, Sufi, Christian, Tao and Buddhist meditations.

Notice, I say valid study, valid study means study with valid lineage teachers (not just somebody who knows Sanskrit or Tibetan and happens to be a lama or Vajracharya by caste as is found among Tamangs and Newars respectively). Valid lineage Masters teach according to historically accepted Buddhist hermeneutics and do not give their own personal self-contradictory interpretations. Such a Master had studied with someone who belonged to one or more of these hermeneutical lineages. Such a study is not merely intellectual entertainment but a proper base for acquiring wisdom gained through listening and contemplation and creates an understanding of the correct view, which itself would be the proper foundation for proper Buddhist meditation i.e. the third wisdom gained through meditation. Simply doing ‘nadi-vayu-tilak yoga’ without such a base is the same as doing Hindu meditation even if it is part of Hevajra or Cakrasamvara or Vajrabhairava or Kalacakra practice.

Posted in Buddhism | 21 Comments »

Temenos, sub-phases and integral

Tuesday, April 17th, 2007

So Ray, I have a question about Temenos. I am going by memory here, as I don’t have time this morning to go back to the essay for accuracy but I wanted to get this party started.

 Like Ken has the fusion-differentiation-integration phases at each level of development, you have a more detailed and expansive series of sub-phases or processes that each stage of development goes through. In SD terms, each colered stage has all of the rainbow spiral within it as sub-harmonics. For example, there is a red, blue, orange, green, yellow etc. phase of the orange stage. You use other, more specific terms, but I just wanted to get the main idea across.

So within this sub-phase harmonic, one could say be at the yellow (integration) phase of the orange wave, so it might seem “integral.” And it seems that a large portion of the so-called integral movement is exactly in this sub-phase and think they’ve achieved the “real deal” on integral-apersepctivalism. Could you elaborate on this aspect of Temenos and apply it to the various conceptions of integral going around?

Posted in Integral Metatheory | 3 Comments »

States, stages, perspectives and nonduality

Sunday, April 15th, 2007

Forgive me for going on about this, but here is yet another example of how I’m not understanding Ken’s usages. And of course this is all related to several other topics I’ve begun but with its own twist.We have the Wilber-Combs lattice. Across the top are the state-stages, up the side are the structure-stages. Structure stages develop via the 1-2-3 process of identification-differentiating-integration. State stages do not. And the nondual is technially not a state-stage but the “ground” of all states and stages. Still, according to Ken even the nondual is “interpreted” by the structure-stage level of development where one resides.

Now according to David Loy, among others, emptiness is not other than form in that form, like thought and language, can indeed express emptiness by non-reification and non-attachment. In other words, emptiness is itself empty of a perspective while able to take any perspective depending on the context. I’ll let Loy speak for himself here:

“We don’t realize our emptiness apart from form, we realize it in form, as non-attached form….To put it in another way, the idea isn’t to get rid of all language, it’s to be free within language, so that one is non-attached to any particular kind of conceptual system, realizing that there are many possible ways of thinking and expressing oneself. The freedom from conceptualizing that we seek does not happen when we wipe away all thoughts; instead, it happens when we’re not clinging to, or stuck in, any particular thought system.”

If I’m getting this, stable nondual realization does not identify with any particular perspective, even a reified perspective called “the nondual.” So when Ken says that even the nondual is interpreted by the strucuture stage, and such a stage requires an identification process, we have what appears to be another “performative contradiction.” A nondual realizer does not identify with any structure-stage or state-stage, for that matter. They have done away with the ladder, so to speak. Any help here on how this is so using Ken’s defintions? 

Posted in Integral Metatheory | 13 Comments »

« Older Entries