My online activities are associated with an evolving online scene. Names for this scene include sensemaking web, metatribe, liminal web, wisdom web, or what some call "the space." I do not identify with these scenes nor necessarily feel deep philosophical alignment. However, I view them and all the people within as fellow travelers.
Aha, this was great! It was fun contemplating B Roy’s definitions. In particular, her definitions for The Good, The True, and The Beautiful evoked some smiles and giggles in me 🤭
I see Bonnie's definitions as a very reasonable, as you say, starting point. But a starting point for what, is an important question to me. I don't see this as a starting point for us to all come together on a single set of definitions, albeit evolving ones (I guess you don't either, but just to be clear). I do see this as one stake in the ground for a process, that I call “ontological commoning”, whereby each one of us can get to explore and share our own set of meanings — our personal constructs, to use the language of George Kelly — and to develop an underlying shared language and culture in which we can meaningfully relate across our variety, our diversity, of meanings. There is something so affirming about having someone else really see one's own meaning system, one's meaning structure, whatever that is, and this is not a space for competition, but of openness: because to really see another person's conceptual map necessarily involves opening up one's own map to potential change, to growth, or maybe to decay, in some cases! Letting go; letting come (to echo Otto Scharmer). This, to me, is what stage transitions are all about. There is not one given set of stages. There is not one “correct” model: neither of Kegan, nor Wilber, nor yet Roy! And again I'm guessing you agree here; there is no argument, just expression. To me, all so-called “stage transitions” are unique and personal. Every time someone says, in their heart, something like “now I see things new, differently, my life will not be the same again in the future” — that is the moment of new life. It is that movement, that ever-renewed life, that I love.
Archetypes are tricky, there are so many ways we speak about it that it is sometimes difficult to get a clear signal. Although Bonnitta is correct in that they are psychological structures, they are not necessarily adopted in early childhood, although certain archetypes can rise in prominence and influence at that time (or anytime in our lives). Here's a quote from Jung I reference in a post I wrote on archetypes, it sums things up nicely:
“Archetypes are systems of readiness for action, and at the same time images and emotions. They are inherited with the brain structure, indeed they are its psychic aspect.” - C.G. Jung, "Mind and Earth," CW 10 (from https://alyssapolizzi.substack.com/p/hiking-with-artemis)
There's much more to say on this topic, but I'll leave it there for now. Appreciate this offering, Bonnitta and Peter.
I always assumed archetypes were deep memes, aka intergenerational memes passed down from time immemorial. And like you say, one bumps into them throughout their life, especially during their imaginal adventures.
Archetypes are the "invisible structures" that anchor psychological life. They are the primordial frameworks and instincts of the psyche. They are analogous to biological instincts (one might perceive them as existing on a shared continuum that grounds and defines the human experience). Jung's theory of archetypes is an exploration of human nature.
Archetypes are, at their core, unknowable. But we can discern their effects by tracing patterns of images, typical behaviors, expectations, etc. There's a force of gravity that attracts certain dynamics to it, creating a pattern, but it's center is not something we can fully grasp (like a black hole at the center of a galaxy).
So the intergenerational meme is not the archetype itself. But the archetype preconditions this memetic expression, and as it rises into consciousness, it has an impact on us, to such a degree, that it continues to influence and manifest through our thoughts, actions, and culture across generations.
She defines both "Daemon" and "Eros" as "excess ______ energy". Excess in relation to what? Excess within an individual or an assemblage point? Excess within the manifold of reality?
Good point. What is "excess" anyway? To me, yes it could be norms, but equally it could be defined in terms of an outcome that is seen as undesirable. But not to define what that undesirable outcome is seems to me ducking the question. Better to spell it out, so that others can see if they also think it is undesirable, for themselves. If not, then it's not excess to them...
In the video, Bonnitta makes a claim that (paraphrasing) predictive processing doesn't come online until age of 3 or so. Does she mean that the world model isn't sophisticated enough to make sense of things yet by that point? Because the process of world model formation surely starts earlier.
I'm also curious about the causal directions on her 3d-model of self. I guess depth is prior to expression and identification (paraphrasing here again, hope I'm clear).
I get inspired to do my own take on these terms. Let's see what the future holds.
When I think about it, my radical honesty has allowed for increasing depth of self, as has my community engagements. So I'm not sure about my causality claim, maybe the three developmental directions are more like the virtues - interlinked and mutually reinforcing.
What I find interesting is whether it's possible to be fully embodied and in touch with one's animal nature, and still limit the domain of "we" to a smaller subset of living beings. I'm constantly surprised how uncommon veganism is in spiritual circles (even if it's over-represented vs the norm).
Now I had the idea that maybe some directions can lag behind, but that they then hinder development in the others. But I don't know, that seems like taking the model a bit too seriously - maybe it's just about illustrating different areas of development (even though the self expanding as a circle seemed to hint at some kind of co-development between the directions of development.
Sep 4, 2023·edited Sep 4, 2023Liked by Peter N Limberg
Nice set to consider.
Felt -sense is what I would called Daimonion - the felt sense of a message form one's Daimon..
Also is there a place for the super-ego ?- what I would call the inner sophist or demagogue - a part of the whole self that relates words only to other words most of the time, but has a keen sense of what is commonly acceptable...
Aha, this was great! It was fun contemplating B Roy’s definitions. In particular, her definitions for The Good, The True, and The Beautiful evoked some smiles and giggles in me 🤭
I see Bonnie's definitions as a very reasonable, as you say, starting point. But a starting point for what, is an important question to me. I don't see this as a starting point for us to all come together on a single set of definitions, albeit evolving ones (I guess you don't either, but just to be clear). I do see this as one stake in the ground for a process, that I call “ontological commoning”, whereby each one of us can get to explore and share our own set of meanings — our personal constructs, to use the language of George Kelly — and to develop an underlying shared language and culture in which we can meaningfully relate across our variety, our diversity, of meanings. There is something so affirming about having someone else really see one's own meaning system, one's meaning structure, whatever that is, and this is not a space for competition, but of openness: because to really see another person's conceptual map necessarily involves opening up one's own map to potential change, to growth, or maybe to decay, in some cases! Letting go; letting come (to echo Otto Scharmer). This, to me, is what stage transitions are all about. There is not one given set of stages. There is not one “correct” model: neither of Kegan, nor Wilber, nor yet Roy! And again I'm guessing you agree here; there is no argument, just expression. To me, all so-called “stage transitions” are unique and personal. Every time someone says, in their heart, something like “now I see things new, differently, my life will not be the same again in the future” — that is the moment of new life. It is that movement, that ever-renewed life, that I love.
Archetypes are tricky, there are so many ways we speak about it that it is sometimes difficult to get a clear signal. Although Bonnitta is correct in that they are psychological structures, they are not necessarily adopted in early childhood, although certain archetypes can rise in prominence and influence at that time (or anytime in our lives). Here's a quote from Jung I reference in a post I wrote on archetypes, it sums things up nicely:
“Archetypes are systems of readiness for action, and at the same time images and emotions. They are inherited with the brain structure, indeed they are its psychic aspect.” - C.G. Jung, "Mind and Earth," CW 10 (from https://alyssapolizzi.substack.com/p/hiking-with-artemis)
There's much more to say on this topic, but I'll leave it there for now. Appreciate this offering, Bonnitta and Peter.
I always assumed archetypes were deep memes, aka intergenerational memes passed down from time immemorial. And like you say, one bumps into them throughout their life, especially during their imaginal adventures.
Archetypes are the "invisible structures" that anchor psychological life. They are the primordial frameworks and instincts of the psyche. They are analogous to biological instincts (one might perceive them as existing on a shared continuum that grounds and defines the human experience). Jung's theory of archetypes is an exploration of human nature.
Archetypes are, at their core, unknowable. But we can discern their effects by tracing patterns of images, typical behaviors, expectations, etc. There's a force of gravity that attracts certain dynamics to it, creating a pattern, but it's center is not something we can fully grasp (like a black hole at the center of a galaxy).
So the intergenerational meme is not the archetype itself. But the archetype preconditions this memetic expression, and as it rises into consciousness, it has an impact on us, to such a degree, that it continues to influence and manifest through our thoughts, actions, and culture across generations.
"analogous to biological instincts" is a really cool framing.
She defines both "Daemon" and "Eros" as "excess ______ energy". Excess in relation to what? Excess within an individual or an assemblage point? Excess within the manifold of reality?
Excessive compared to normie levels of numinous/intimacy?
Good point. What is "excess" anyway? To me, yes it could be norms, but equally it could be defined in terms of an outcome that is seen as undesirable. But not to define what that undesirable outcome is seems to me ducking the question. Better to spell it out, so that others can see if they also think it is undesirable, for themselves. If not, then it's not excess to them...
In the video, Bonnitta makes a claim that (paraphrasing) predictive processing doesn't come online until age of 3 or so. Does she mean that the world model isn't sophisticated enough to make sense of things yet by that point? Because the process of world model formation surely starts earlier.
I'm also curious about the causal directions on her 3d-model of self. I guess depth is prior to expression and identification (paraphrasing here again, hope I'm clear).
I get inspired to do my own take on these terms. Let's see what the future holds.
When I think about it, my radical honesty has allowed for increasing depth of self, as has my community engagements. So I'm not sure about my causality claim, maybe the three developmental directions are more like the virtues - interlinked and mutually reinforcing.
What I find interesting is whether it's possible to be fully embodied and in touch with one's animal nature, and still limit the domain of "we" to a smaller subset of living beings. I'm constantly surprised how uncommon veganism is in spiritual circles (even if it's over-represented vs the norm).
Now I had the idea that maybe some directions can lag behind, but that they then hinder development in the others. But I don't know, that seems like taking the model a bit too seriously - maybe it's just about illustrating different areas of development (even though the self expanding as a circle seemed to hint at some kind of co-development between the directions of development.
Nice set to consider.
Felt -sense is what I would called Daimonion - the felt sense of a message form one's Daimon..
Also is there a place for the super-ego ?- what I would call the inner sophist or demagogue - a part of the whole self that relates words only to other words most of the time, but has a keen sense of what is commonly acceptable...
I like the word space but I prefer SPACE.