Reasoning on the Nature of The One Infinite Creator: Erotic Emergence and Nondual Being
Transformative (idealist), Emergent (naturalist), and Aperspective (dialecticist)
Idealism is a primary intuition, and as such, its transformative potential informs, upregulates and downregulates and empowers formative actuality. Materialism is also a fact, which upregulates and, sub-articulates the meaning of LL and UL, with its transformative dialectic of emergentism. Technically Materialism is a tertiary intuition, so it is three points removed away from the circle. The third dialectic is called aperspectivism (LL), which creates the basis for energy as such to enter into any formative agreement within its own nature.
Each of these laws or distortions of the One Infinite Creator, or Godhead, suffers upon the perspectival weight of its own emergentism. The point within the triangle of becoming is the dialectical resolution point of the three faces of spirit (transformative, emergent, and aperspective), through which non-dual emergentism (as it were) takes place within the evolutive Erotic transcendelia of each Being in Time.
We need a participatory commons of body/mind/spirit healing (ie wholing). The main agenda should not be the constant churning of meta-theoretical cognition which has seem to become the basis of most people’s theorizing (see Bawen and Post-Wilberians Theoretics). The participatory commons I’m speaking of is not a superficial supercomputer, network, “teal cognition”, or gnosis — in fact it’s the complete opposite. The participatory commons should not instruct cognitive participation, but it should reward cognitive embodiment, based and verified through the grammar of healing. A true Post-Integral participatory commons beyond simply mere meta-secularization, meta-modernism, or any such rarefied process. It will be the participation in a “Republic of the Heart” to take a quote from Terry Patton. Building the commons requires group participatory spiritual action, heretic-ally whole individuals, developmental ontologists, and those willing to do the spiritual work of ascension, and full yogic now-embodiment, in service of the Divine Life – the post-secularizing truth.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- It promotes scale orientation within science, postmodernism, as well as translating into the archetypal uniqueness of Christian Monasticism.
- Finally, an Integral Buddhist vision, will have to be a universal meta-hierarchical theology.
- 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.