A Note on Yin-Yang-Yung, Integral Vowels, and Meta-Mind

71

In reply to “Nonexclusion or Enclusion?: A Subtle Distinction with a Clear Difference: A Proposed Revision to Ken Wilber’s Three Principles of Integral Thinking”, Bruce Alderman writes:

Joe, as a fellow language geek, I enjoyed this. I don’t understand (yet) the references to thrones and such, in terms of your overall model (or how it relates to I Ching or other ancient modalities), but more generally I appreciate your attention to the subtle dimensions of language, and the enticing feelings of parsimony and completeness in the final translation of these three terms. As you may know, I also proposed rendering nonexclusion as inclusion, as part of the prepositional reading of these three terms that I was exploring … and caught some grief for that from another integralist (that I won’t name here).

In regards to your model and Lingua-U, will your yin-yang-yung rendering of the terms still work if you stick with Wilber’s original term, unfoldment, rather than using enfoldment? Unfoldment and enfoldment are not synonyms, so switching to the latter changes the meaning as well as the subtle energetic signature. Similarly, is there a reason you are using the (obsolete) enclusion rather than inclusion? Does the ‘e’ play a necessary role in the subtle energetic tuning?

Thanks for the questions, Bruce. I don’t recall a previous debate about nonexclusion v. inclusion, but it’s interesting to note that a similar topic has come up before. I appreciate your thoughts about this subject.

(A) Use of Yin-Yang-Yung

My statement that “Enfoldment is the yang to the yin of Enclusion…”, etc., is metalinguistically precise term describing their common energetic pattern to five marks of subtlety. It only works as a true statement of aesthetics if the sounds are actually the same. Among other things, this means that the meta statement works for the English words only, and when these words are translated into other languages they no longer apply. The “e” at the start is necessary.

(B) Unfoldment v. Enfoldment

Ken’s ebook and article use “unfoldment” and “enfoldment” a bit inconsistently (a typo? an editorial change?). I don’t know why this is, but I can tell you that the two words are not only conceptually different but also describe different processes in my style of analysis. It’s the vowel (the first two marks of energy). “Uh” or schwa is linked to the 5th-person-perspective or “Turquoise”, whereas “eh” is linked to the 4th-person-perspective or “Green/Teal”. When you are “enning” something, you are bringing it very closely into the locus of agency (self/society), like letting an immigrant obtain citizenship. But when you are “unning” something, you are holding it at a distance, like in an annex to the locus of agency (the border crossing station). Remember, “a-” prefix may make a word into its opposite.

So with regard to the words we use to describe Integral thinking, I would like to suggest that we think of Enfoldment / Enclusion / Enactment as the late-4th-person-perspective form of Integral thinking specifically. Whether these terms are also the best terms for Integral thinking at 5th-person-perspective and so on ought to be an open question, from my standpoint. I am aesthetically attracted to the notion of creating another triad of Integral thinking words specifically for “Turquoise” as opposed to “Teal”: perhaps Unfolding, Unclusion, and Unactment. The first of these is already an extant word, but this move requires two neologisms. These words would appear at the Seat of Interiority for the late-5th-P.P., at the ArcheStation of The Umpire. The Umpire’s deliberations are not to exlude but to find a role for something outside of the box by “uncluding” it; similarly, the baseball umpire’s “You’re out!” eliminates one player/prototype to allow a more useful alternative to get a shot at bat.

Meta-Mind: Violet Altitude

(C) Meta-Mind Thinking

Why do the vowel sounds make such an important difference? Because the words, I think, are evolving into Sacred Words, usable as mantras to actually help the cognitive functions become more attuned to each other. Lingua-U suggests a framework for using different vowel sounds to describe thinking processes at different stations of consciousness so that the vowels chosen are harmonious within the entire artwork of Lingua-U/Kalendar. At meta-mind, I would suggest there are different words entirely. I haven’t written anything on this topic for publication though, but to give you a flavor of it… I would start by enquiring into the possibility of using the words Adding, At-ing, and As-ing (pronounced ædiŋ, ætiŋ, and æziŋ) to describe the Seat of Actualization, Seat of Outwardness, and Seat of Consciousness at the Throne of Magic at the Letter of Meta-Mind.

Thus, to take a meta-view of my earlier article, the “added” view is the Lingua-U description of the words; the “at-ing” is to situate the concepts in the body (its methods of producing sounds) and in the whole gamut of associations possible with the Lingua-U suite of artworks; the “as-ing” is to sublimate Integral thinking into a more subtle form, much as the Moon replaces the Sun at night, made visible by reflected Sunlight.

Facebook Comments

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here