Eros In Action

What Is Biodiversity?

Humanity must indeed care about biodiversity, if it is to survive in any true and meaningful sense.

We must attempt to truly respect our planet as much as we can.

Biodiversity is estimated to be more than 30 times the worth of the global GDP every year.

If we lose biodiversity we lose a molecular individual unit of ourselves.

In many senses, biodiversity is the very reason we exist, if we think about it.

The Stakes of This Game

If we act NOW basically we will have a chance.

On many levels, including cultural, spiritual, medicinal, scientific, and economic, this is the greatest tragedy of an era.

What’s at stake is not only our cultural legacy (which is sad enough), but the genetic legacy of millions or so years that has an impact on all of the external dimensions of our lives.

Moving The Needle

When we lose biodiversity we do lose a precious renewable part of our own molecular anatomy.

When humans reduce invasive species, introducing occasional key predators where necessary, we can revitalize depleted and dead ecologies, as exhibited in Yellow Stone National Park!

Ecology In The Needle

Currently we are pillaging these vital services provided by our planet, and endangering our cultural and our deep biological heritage.

We must love the planet.

Economy = Ecology = Self

This unique vision entails enacting state-phenomenology as a means to create top-down semiotics. It is neither Christian, nor Buddhist, rather it is quasi-archetypal. You can’t create meaning through chaos, unless you follow left-hand paths. I recommend creating meaning through chaos, and chaos through meaning. 

There are two main visions attacking a complacency in Integralism.

Old School. 1. Divide reality into the two truths theory and then realize the absolute truth and 2. admit epistemic uncertainty. And that is just strictly from an absolute perspective WITHIN Buddhist interiors.

Yet an Integral Buddhist absolute perspective would be absolutely nuanced.

1. Primarily it would visualize epistemic certainty possible through vertical (stage transformation) and horizontal (state translation) dimensions, unlike previous visions of Buddhism, which invalidate horizontal translation.
2. Integral Buddhism says there are three particles of absolute knowledge, Self unity, other unity, and all unity (Tao), unlike previous Buddhisms which could not translate the absolute at variance, much less prove its absolute truths.
3. It promotes scale orientation within science, postmodernism, as well as translating into the archetypal uniqueness of Christian Monasticism.
4. Finally, an Integral Buddhist vision, will have to be a universal meta-hierarchical theology.
5. Last, but not least, this unity of self, other, and all creates a new moral outlook which is archetypally unique remarkably integral and yet gratifyingly Buddhist.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LQH0HurXBXAfJqcVUiAGNAaOBCGwaqdUra0lqX0tPgg/edit?fbclid=IwAR1tvIh38JC6pA9MbmAwEqc8fByto5FSwrZ7LQyAdx6e5PFilvPdApxscTw#

1. The Monastic Intranet

My vision is to become trans-disciplinary in a sense not normally meant by Integralists, however I will define that more later.

I want to start by noticing that the monastic vision is something that all of the visions have in common.

However, for the sake of integration, we are actually leaving out another independent variable.

Will these monasteries represent the vision of the East or the vision of the West or both?

What we call Tibetan Buddhism (Padmasambhava) and Advaita Vedanta (Adi Shankaracharya), and other schools – both integrated with timeless esoteric Tao – contributed to the brilliant Eastern monastic monistic vision. And yet these – these traditions are virtually free of the theological confusions of the Western thinking, and the trappings that go along with Western deism, and reificationism.

We will need to parse out the Western vision and the Eastern vision in order to have a New Esoteric Vision (NEV). Without a NEV, most forms of integral hubism, community building, and information synthesis (MAY) be vitally shuttered without some form of monastic unity.  

2. The Monastic Extranet

The Extranet will be either multiplication or division of the most extreme technology in the external reality (Upper Right and Lower Right quadrants, that is). In others words, this variable uses the external idea of Phil’s internet which is for inter-government, and then implements new scalable metrics for regulating and co-creating AI machine learning (Infotech) and the creative surging into novelty of Biotech. This monastic sector also needs to include the cognitive and neuropsychiatric health of monks, nonexclusion (or inclusion of new monestaries), future-stress adaptation, and complex and emergent regeneration narratives. Bouncing off of Layman, the Lower Right institutions can also function as powerful scale-variant democratic/educational meta-hubs for channeling the “scale metanarratives” of Mario Spassov, intensifying the unity in diversity of internets, creating a bridge for society and culture, and therefore liberating the transdisciplinary monastic narrative.

3. Hypernetica

Hypernetica is the New Esoteric Vision which bridges the Intranet and the Extranet. The Hypernet is the realization that cultural and individual spiritual realization are not separate. In other words, the monastic renaissance of the future will create a form of unity in diversity not only in external culture, or the unity of east and west outlined in point one, but it will have to include the realization that spirituality is a sufficient orienting generalization for any and all future integral maps-as-territory. This orienting realization acts as a simultaneous map for all monk institutions, and also as the check for external “differentiation upon differentiation”, or the tragedy of the commons, as noted by some of our authors.

My vision is to become trans-disciplinary in a sense not normally meant by Integralists, however I will define that more later.
I want to start by noticing that the monastic vision is something that all of the visions have in common. 
However, for the sake of integration, we are actually leaving out another independent variable.
Will these monestaries represent the vision of the East or the vision of the West or both?
What we call Tibetan Buddhism (Padmasambhava) and Advaita Vedanta (Adi Shankaracharya), and other schools – both integrated with timeless esoteric Tao – contributed to the brilliant Eastern monastic monistic vision. And yet these – these traditions are virtually free of the theological confusions of the Western thinking, and the trappings that go along with Western deism, and reificationism.
We will need to parse out the Western vision and the Eastern vision in order to have a New Esoteric Vision (NEV). Without a NEV, most forms of integral hubism, community building, and information synthesis (MAY) be vitally shuttered without some form of monastic unity.