More on recovery

“I think we should be skeptical of wedding the essential building blocks of argument to a value level” – [TuffGhost](http://vomitingconfetti.blogspot.com/2006/10/regression-and-recovery.html)

Hell, yeah. In this discussion, there’s at least the skills and techniques that become available to you as you develop and there’s the aspects of life you get fascinated with (notice me wiggling around trying not say “Levels and Lines!”).

I recall my first real awakening happening when I discovered critical reasoning and formal logic around 15 or 16. I recall a sensation of “waking up” from having been “asleep”. I had the great privilege to go to a high school that offered Logic as a class to seniors – and I scored a great logic teacher (Mrs Jell).

Around the time my mind was really ripe for logic and symbolism (broadly construed) I had a very Platonic education. I stole “[The Republic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_%28Plato%29)” over the Christmas break to read it (returned it too, I was a good child).

Then later at Uni, I discovered the deconstructionists and post-structuralism and [Korzybski](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korzybski) and woke up again, started to get a lot more strict with how I used language and lot more perspectival.

Come to think of it, prior to all that, I had a gentle but structured upbringing in a compassionate bit of the Anglican church, so I probably lucked out in the traditionalist, rulesNroles stage as well.

But that early territorial stuff? Nope. That I’ve had to recover… and a deal of what’s before that too, I think.

This way of looking at it I’m finding, largely thanks to [you](http://vomitingconfetti.blogspot.com/) [guys](http://until.joe-perez.com/) [in](http://integral-options.blogspot.com) [the](http://www.matthewdallman.com/blog.html) [integral](http://indistinctunion.blogspot.com/) [blogosphere](http://www.c4chaos.com/) – threads of posts weaving together, performed perspectives – makes it satisfyingly hard to call someone else on their altitude (satisfying because it *should* be hard). Between the different lines of development and the fascinations people adopt during this process of recovery, you’ve got no business trying to label anyone with colours.

(an earlier version of this appears at [TuffGhost’s blog as a comment](http://vomitingconfetti.blogspot.com/2006/10/regression-and-recovery.html))

4 responses to “More on recovery

  1. Hi TimBomb!

    If you are THIS ADVERSE to tagging people’s arguments and ideas with an altitude level, then you’re not going to go very far in integral post-metaphysics (where KW makes it clear that the essential prerequisite to making sense is tagging every component of discourse with the appropriae altitude and perspective (quadrant). I’d be interested in learning more about WHY you are so adverse, rather than simply saying that it’s difficult. e.g., is it because you attach a value judgment that higher is better and you don’t want to judge things? is it because you think identifying the altitude people’s arguments is the same as judging their intelligence, morality, etc., thus making them good or bad people, smart or dumb? I’d like to hear more when you get a chance. Thx 🙂

  2. Hi TimBomb!

    If you are THIS ADVERSE to tagging people’s arguments and ideas with an altitude level, then you’re not going to go very far in integral post-metaphysics (where KW makes it clear that the essential prerequisite to making sense is tagging every component of discourse with the appropriae altitude and perspective (quadrant). I’d be interested in learning more about WHY you are so adverse, rather than simply saying that it’s difficult. e.g., is it because you attach a value judgment that higher is better and you don’t want to judge things? is it because you think identifying the altitude people’s arguments is the same as judging their intelligence, morality, etc., thus making them good or bad people, smart or dumb? I’d like to hear more when you get a chance. Thx 🙂

  3. Hey Joe,

    Thanks for dropping in!

    Hmm. Can you track down a textual reference for the assertion that “… KW makes it clear that the essential prerequisite to making sense is tagging every component of discourse with the appropriate altitude…”? I don’t really disagree with the assertion, but I’d like to read more around it.

    Having said that, I don’t have much of a problem with characterising the altitude of arguments or ideas or statements or communicative acts or artworks – seems both feasible (at least in broad terms) and possibly useful.

    I guess I am adverse, as I said, to trying to characterise the altitude of a person because I don’t think it’s feasible (as you suggest, at least not quickly or without access to several methodologies of inquiry) or even helpful. I suppose I’ve knee-jerk colour-labelled people myself and done it as a value judgement and I’ve also watched people around do the same, and particularly used it as a means of diminishment or dismissal.

    As far as I can see, most of us do a kind of fast double-talk about later stages being “more adequate” and… well… basically better and then quickly adding that wherever a person is at is “just fine”.

    In myself, I think colour labelling people is a form of egoic self-grasping that I do as a way to make myself feel better about my inability to reach or communicate with someone. I think it’s a poor practice for me to indulge in – at least for the moment.

    [You may detect my thinking shifting as I write – if you do, congratulations on your sharp perceptions!]

    So my last sentence in that entry should read:

    Between the different lines of development and the fascinations people adopt during this process of recovery, I‘ve got no business trying to label anyone with colours.

  4. Hey Joe,

    Thanks for dropping in!

    Hmm. Can you track down a textual reference for the assertion that “… KW makes it clear that the essential prerequisite to making sense is tagging every component of discourse with the appropriate altitude…”? I don’t really disagree with the assertion, but I’d like to read more around it.

    Having said that, I don’t have much of a problem with characterising the altitude of arguments or ideas or statements or communicative acts or artworks – seems both feasible (at least in broad terms) and possibly useful.

    I guess I am adverse, as I said, to trying to characterise the altitude of a person because I don’t think it’s feasible (as you suggest, at least not quickly or without access to several methodologies of inquiry) or even helpful. I suppose I’ve knee-jerk colour-labelled people myself and done it as a value judgement and I’ve also watched people around do the same, and particularly used it as a means of diminishment or dismissal.

    As far as I can see, most of us do a kind of fast double-talk about later stages being “more adequate” and… well… basically better and then quickly adding that wherever a person is at is “just fine”.

    In myself, I think colour labelling people is a form of egoic self-grasping that I do as a way to make myself feel better about my inability to reach or communicate with someone. I think it’s a poor practice for me to indulge in – at least for the moment.

    [You may detect my thinking shifting as I write – if you do, congratulations on your sharp perceptions!]

    So my last sentence in that entry should read:

    >Between the different lines of development and the fascinations people adopt during this process of recovery, I‘ve got no business trying to label anyone with colours.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s