|
Re: Is Ken right on Derrida?
gary said Jul 2, 2007, 6:53 PM:
Kessels
Hi Peter. Thanks for critically engaging with my article and giving me the opportunity to respond in some detail!
CONTRASTING
You say, “what I don’t see is why the author thinks he has to position himself opposite to Wilber to reach it.†It is indeed true that I have chosen to focus on areas of disagreement with Wilber rather than areas of agreement. As it happens, I have, to some degree, addressed this in Appendix B, where I comment that, “the seduction of formal academic expectations may have led to…my foregrounding of difference to, or differentiation from, Wilber’s approach in this article. Whilst this has its merits, it may not sufficiently express the commonalities I might share, nor adequately convey my appreciation of Wilber’s panoramic vision and courage. If this is so, I apologise. It is work-in-progress (and, in my defence, the purpose of this article is not to comprehensively address Wilber’s work but rather to explore in detail a certain—problematic—territory within it). I look forward to pertinent community dialogue, analysis, deconstructionâ€â€”which you are now doing! So thanks for pointing this out. It is, no doubt, quite an art to strike the right balance in this regard.
WHICH POSTMODERN FEATURES?
Regarding your comment that “Wilber has already included lots of postmodern truths in his model, as MrT also pointed out,†please see my response to MrT above. If Wilber has already included “lots†of postmodern truths, I contend that he has not sufficiently explicated what these might be. My analysis, instead, indicates that he tends to reflexively focus on the one “postmodern truth†of pluralism-relativism. It indicates the way Wilber has not adequately addressed the “postmodern truths†of dialectics, complex-awareness, or linguistic-awareness, for example.
RESEARCH ON THE YELLOW AND GREEN vMEMES
I do not understand your point that “this” undercuts my claim that Yellow has less problems with Green than any other vMeme. Perhaps you could elaborate? You also seem to infer that such a claim is rather outrageous. If so, I might wish to suggest that you specifically engage with the research which leads to this conclusion (see Natasha Todorovic’s 2002 “The mean green hypothesis: Fact or fiction?†at www.spiraldynamics.org). Perhaps it is faulty in some way? or perhaps my interpretation of it is askew?
Wilber does indeed object to the extremes of postmodernism rather than to postmodernism per se, but his framing of AQAL nevertheless foregrounds difference to, or differentiation from, postmodernism-as-Green, and it is toward this particular emphasis that I am addressing my comments.
DECONSTRUCTION AND LINES
You comment that he embraces Nagarjuna’s version of deconstruction. Interestingly, this is the point I am making when I refer to the possibility of deconstruction as a developmental line. This idea that you and I are making—namely, finding some commonality between the deconstruction of the text and the deconstruction of the ego—is, however, one that Wilber is not apparently interested in acknowledging. It is thus somewhat ironic that you seem to have a problem with me raising the question of whether it might be useful to consider deconstruction as a line of development!
You comment that my article does not take lines into account properly. I have attempted in Appendix C to outline some of the relationships between my article and AQAL lines. My hunch is that, through theurj’s titling of this thread as “Is Ken right on Derrida?†you might have assumed that the intention of my article is in some way to AQAL-ly evaluate Derrida as a whole, a task which would indeed require the developmental evaluation of numerous lines. However, this is not one of the aims of my article (as I elaborate below). Other than this hunch, perhaps you would care to be more specific.
TERMINOLOGY REGARDING MEMES AND VMEMES
You say that I talk about “the ‘Wilberian vMemes’, which actually don’t exist.†My understanding of what you are pointing out is that I am not using Wilber’s terminology. This is indeed correct. This is because, as my article points out, it is in fact Wilber’s terminology which is confused. Wilber continually speaks of “memes†when he is talking about the coloured developmental levels. But according to Spiral Dynamics theory—the theory Wilber got this terminology from in the first place—“memes†are denoted as being like genes, except that they reside in the noosphere (and refer to the propagation of particular ideas) rather than in the biosphere (the propagation of genetic material). In contrast, “vMemes†(or vMEMEs) act like big complex-attractors to the small memes. It is vMemes which signify the coloured developmental levels. For a full discussion of the distinction between “memes†and “vMemes†see www.spiraldynamics.org
RED AND GREEN
You point out correctly that Wilber identifies MGM as a form of Red “infecting†Green. You also say that the MGM is “a combination of Green with Red in different lines,†and differentiates this from “a pairing of Red and Green vMemes.†Perhaps you could give me a reference regarding this differentiation: I am unclear what particular lines you are referring to. You might be making an important point, which critiques and furthers Todovic’s research when she concludes that “the data shows that when Green increases so does the rejection of Red.†You might therefore be in a good position to add a particular, important discernment to the MGM discussion. I look forward to your ideas here.
Whilst I acknowledge the potential usefulness of the above possibility, I find it difficult to see the validity in your general comment that “confusions like this abound throughout the article.†I can see, rather, that the article decisively steps beyond the comfort zone of default integral assumptions, and this may cause some initial startlement or confusion.
RE-PRESENCING RATHER THAN RE-PRESENTING
You comment that I don’t “represent Wilber correctly.†The potential truth I see in this statement is that both my terminology and theoretic constructs are not entirely equi-valent to Wilber’s. This is because I am not setting out simply to re-present Wilber’s point of view. I am rather seeking to indicate particular ways in which Wilber’s perspective may be problematised (and I am doing this with a view to deepening integral theory).
Let me now turn to your following comment: “To say that deconstruction is beyond integral by claiming that Derrida is at Magician (by considering just one of the many criteria) and comparing that to Yellow as “the level of AQAL†(as if that is the level Wilber himself is at) sounds heavily confused to me.†Let me attempt to unpack this a bit. Firstly, I’m unsure what you are referring to when you speak of “comparing that to Yellow as ‘the levels of AQAL’ (as if that is the level Wilber himself is at).†Perhaps you could clarify? I will address the rest of the comment in two stages: comments regarding the idea that “deconstruction is beyond integral†and comments regarding the idea that “Derrida is at Magician (by considering just one of the many criteria)â€
THAT “DECONSTRUCTION IS BEYOND INTEGRALâ€
It is a little unclear what you mean here, as my article does not state this. The term “integral†can signify many things. Even Wilber uses the term integral in a number of ways. I’ll follow two particular interpretations here. Firstly, one of the main threads of my article is that the concepts of deconstruction and (re)construction can be fruitfully regarded (in various contexts) as peers—a complementary pair in one dialectical unit. In this regard, deconstruction would not be beyond integral but beside it, perhaps like two friends together who hold different but paradoxically entwined perspectives. The second interpretation I will follow is that you might be pointing to a developmental evaluation, where the term integral is perhaps equivalent to Yellow, above which there are “post-integral†levels; and that I am claiming that deconstruction is operating at a higher level that Yellow. There are two points regarding this interpretation. Firstly, although this idea would perhaps differ from the current Wilberian perspective, why would such a claim be necessarily confusing? Deconstruction involves an acute awareness of the linguistic constructions we are using; Susanne Cook-Greuter’s construct-aware level addresses a similar phenomenon. Beyond such an intuition, though, is the evidence I have presented: particular analyses of Derrida’s text using Cook-Greuter’s framework. I would agree, though, that if such evidence is compelling, then this would cause quite a disruption (perhaps involving initial confusion) to default assumptions regarding deconstruction.
THAT “DERRIDA IS AT MAGICIAN (BY CONSIDERING JUST ONE OF THE MANY CRITERIA)â€
My article does not state that “Derrida is at Magician.†Instead, it makes the following indicative statement: “This evidence supports the hypothesis that the above text from Derrida is operating from the construct-aware stage.†(p. 135) Our statements are different in at least two significant ways. Firstly, I am referring to particular writing from Derrida, not Derrida as a person. Secondly, my claim is that the evidence I have presented supports a hypothesis. It could be said that hypotheses may stand as if true until other evidence counters or furthers them. The call here, then, would be for you to engage with the evidence I have presented and offer counter-evidence. It might well be, for instance, that other text from Derrida indicates something quite different—writings from less mature developmental levels, for example. If so, then the hypothesis can be appropriately problematised or refined. I would look forward to such evidence: I have no vested interest in claiming anything for Derrida beyond that which I have researched myself and presented to you.
EVIDENCING
A corresponding call would be for you or others to assess on what basis Wilber has come to the particular evaluation he has made with regard to Derrida’s deconstruction. I have presented my evidence for you to decide for yourselves. Beyond mere claims, what specific evidence has Wilber provided? What degree of transparency is there with regard to Wilber’s evaluation of Derrida? What type of data is he using? By reflecting on such questions, you improve your ability to make rational discernments.
DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN DERRIDA AND DECONSTRUCTION
As my intention was not to evaluate Derrida as a whole, but rather, particular texts of his, my use of only “one of the many criteria†(of ways to evaluate Derrida) is valid: there is actually only one criterion in question—Derrida’s languaging, as there is only one aspect of Derrida that the article concerns itself with—namely, deconstruction. This particular criterion is therefore highly significant in this particular context. And I am assessing this in relation to Wilber’s identification of the category of deconstructive postmodernism. And I am taking possible identifications of “Derrida’s languaging†and “Derrida’s deconstruction†to be sufficiently intertwined or synonymous for purposes of this article (i.e. at this level of reasoning)—to be left undifferentiated. Therefore the matter in hand—deconstruction—can be evidenced solely by reference to Derrida’s languaging: the text I am analyzing.
My article also says that “Derrida and deconstruction are clearly something Other than that signified by Wilber in his use of the term, deconstructive postmodernism.†Here, notwithstanding the above, I am referring in part to Derrida as a person as part of the compound, “Derrida and deconstruction.†This is framed as a “negative” rather than a “positive” identification in that I can claim that a particular totalizing view of Derrida is problematized by a particular analysis of “part” of Derrida (Such a statement requires far less evidence than a “positive” identification). The address of Derrida as a person is in reference here to Wilber mapping of “Derrida†within Green, which he does in A Theory Of Everything, as I indicate on p. 129. The inference here is the problematisation of Wilber’s placement of the signifier “Derrida†in this way—because evidence from a particular criterion—in this case, his languaging—points to a strongly significant divergence of assessment. In other words, I am suggesting that the specific evidence is sufficient to problematise Wilber’s totalizing placement, but I also attempt not to overstate my own position: I do not give an overall evaluation of Derrida (even if that were a valid or desirable quest). The intent and interest of my article is not to attempt an overarching evaluation Derrida or Wilber but to sufficiently problematise particular totalizing ideas and then to suggest a subtler, more nuanced way forward for integral theory. I suggest that this can be achieved by thinking postformally—such as appropriately embracing certain dialectical, complex-aware and linguistically-aware considerations.
To end, thanks Kessels, and to you all, for giving me this extended opportunity to elaborate on some of my ideas with regard to theurj’s particular interest in my article.
Gary
|
print
send
permalink
