I’m not going to go into a lot of detail about this, but I want to warn theorists against conceiving of thought structures for Integral Theory that are overly abstract, perhaps in a dangerous way, at least for those of us who are aware of subtle aspects to thought.

In the course of developing Lingua-U, I tried many things that didn’t work over an extensive period of years. For a long time, I put “values” — i.e., “words” at very fundamental levels of the Tai Hsuan Ching structure — and in putting it into practice as a spiritual vision of the real, it wrecked havoc with my emotional and spiritual health. As I felt into the paradigm, it seemed as though the entire cosmos was collapsing into a singularity that was misshapen and destructive.

Since I was “using” Lingua-U and feeling into it deeply at the highest reaches of my spirit, this was bad. In my mental processing, my thinking was comprised of spiritual light (to use the expression of Sri Aurobindo) and attempting to put “garbage-thought” in there was painful on many levels. In fact, my mental health deteriorated to the point where I began to lose my sanity and had to be hospitalized for a week or two.

Long story short, I survived this brutal mistake. After taking a break from work on Lingua-U, eventually I reflected upon my experience and concluded that substantive values ought not be described with such fundamental units of a holistic model, period. I changed my model accordingly and the whole thing felt much better and I was able to continue working on it. Within a year, I had the approach that I am presenting on this blog along with The Kalendar.

You mileage may vary, but if you’re actually feeling and living with your models and not just abstractly throwing words around you might want to check into your gut on this point. I wouldn’t want anyone to go through the emotional and spiritual hell that I suffered.

I abandoned that particular (dangerously bad) draft of Lingua-U. Now, the fundamental units of Lingua-U are strictly energies / letters. Those energies have names, yes, but names are just names, not essence. And people instinctively understand something about the flexibility and relativity of names and so are not likely to mistake them for the Real. No one could pay me enough to go back to a model which ascribed actual thought-values to such fundamental levels of a holistic model — for instance, by accepting a holistic model that claimed human values like truth, beauty, goodness, justice, or leverage (for instance) ought to be “located” at the core as essential distinctions.

Such distinctions may have been fine a couple of thousand years ago in the time of Plato but these days it’s basically intellectual masturbation so far as I’m concerned. Worse even. One might be better off using vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, and pistachio as the core elements of one’s philosophy — it’s arbitrary too, but tastier, potentially fattening but less likely to be hazardous to your soul and spirit. If you ignore this advice, don’t say I didn’t try to warn you.

Let me say it in bold type: thought has subtle energetic coordinates that need to be respected. If a thought can’t be embodied in a way that’s consistent with reality, then it’s worse than useless. At this point in the wisdom brought by my life experience, old notions of a Big Three values are useless because they can’t be embodied in anything like a holistic manner. At such primordial levels of subtlety, we need to be talking only about energies, forces, gunas, principles, or divine personas, NOT thought-values.

The Sephirot of the Integral Tree of Life, on the other hand, can be embodied in a way that is harmonious and consistent with health and happiness, so far as I know. While it’s just a proposed alchemical artwork and needs to be vetted by a “community of the adequate” over time, it is also my best effort to date to locate a replacement for the Big Three. It’s a Big Nine (or Ten) that actually resonates at a subtle energetic level for me as part of a whole consistent with my spirituality. Try it out instead of the Big Three or Big Four next time you’re shopping for a way of looking at value, and you might find yourself pleasantly surpised.

Facebook Comments

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here