Blog de AstroAfición » Actividades educativas y Astronomía. What are the commons? Eco-onto-politics 3: Wilber, Integralism, & Whitehead. This post continues from the previous in this series, which looked at integral ecophilosopher Sean Esbjorn-Hargens’s writing on the ontology of climate change. Here I examine the relationship between leading integral theorist Ken Wilber, integralist Esbjorn-Hargens, and process philosopher Alfred North Whitehead. It’s a little difficult to separate Wilber’s and Esbjorn-Hargens’s views on Whitehead. I will simply refer to “IT” (Integral Theory) in speaking of both their views, though these are generally ascribable to Wilber.
(And I should note that identification of the term “Integral Theory” with Wilber himself is not uncontested.) I will use “KW” (Wilber) or “EH” (Esbjorn-Hargens) when quoting from specific written sources. Unless otherwise noted, all quotes attributed to EH will be from his article “Integrating Whitehead: Towards an Environmental Ethic,” which is found online, undated and unpaginated, at the integralworld.net website. Starting Points: Wilber Pro and Contra Whitehead.
Interview With Myself 2: Whither Goes Integralism? Part 1 | Cybernoetic Man. Q: Can you tell us a little bit about integralism, and what it's about? Integral Theory was started by an American philosopher Ken Wilber. You can interpret it as an attempt to correct some of the misadventures of postmodernism and replace it as the philosophic framework of an Information Era.
Q: First, Let's be clear here, we've heard a lot about the word, but what is postmodernism? Postmodernism, as you know, is the leading edge of cultural critique in academia. I've seen a lot of grad students who come forward and declare themselves as postmodernists, and that postmodernism is the brand of their creeds. I understand that, because 4-5 years ago, I would say I was one. For example: Let me pull up an example from Dawkin's paper titled "Postmodernism Disrobed," where he points out the misuse of Scientific terminology by postmodernist critic: or this: {*style:<i> </i>*} I'll be frank I actually enjoy reading these passages, they are, shall we say, "very imaginative. " Ok. Continued in part 2. 2.000.000 DE PASOS. Historia de una promesa. Transhumanismo: humanidad 3.0. (Web 2.0) Conectar computadoras con páginas fue el primer paso de Internet.
Cibermitanios Argentina Después se conectaron páginas con otras páginas. Y luego con todo tipo de documentos. La gente comenzó a compartir. Hoy estamos en esa fase conocida como Web 2.0 o Web Social: con enciclopedias colectivas, noticias comunitarias, videos al alcance de todos y un nivel de interacción jamás visto en un televisor. Hoy miro una PC y no tengo idea de qué puede salir de ahí: noticias, películas, música, chat, video-conferencias, juegos, el clima, un ticket de avión, trabajo, amigos, mi ADN...
A nivel tecnológico, básicamente lo que está ocurriendo es que tenemos millones de pantallas para mirar dentro de una única máquina global: Internet. ¿Cuan lejos podes ir, cuánto podemos compartir? (Web 3.0) ...una Internet que "entiende" las cosas, no sólo que las conecta. Responder a estas preguntas sin dudas es un proceso complejo. (Singularidad) La ciencia está al tanto de esto; no son sólo delirios.