p-m reference part 2

Following up on the previous post. I discussed some key elements of post-metaphysical language/communication modes.

1.Interiority is real by whatever can and is meant by individuals as real (real-s). Interior landscape (innerscape), worldspaces are employed as metaphors to drive home the "places", the "locations" within are real. Not physical of course, not biological-scapes (although always incarnated in/through such strata) but inner worlds. And those worlds, like the outer ones follow a pattern of increased layers of complexity, differentiation, and simplication/unification.

2.Truths are only available, as far as we can know, in/through such zones. And given the hierachical nature, certain truths are only available at certain moments, levels of awareness/development.

3. For truths to be established, then, the position of both the subject/object (both existing in chains of relations, horizontally and vertically).

4. To classify the address of the perceiver/perspectivizer (one perspectivizing) requires a realization and sharing of the praxis/injunction by which one reached said altitude and by what perspective(s) one is taking on that plane.

Point #4 ties this whole enterprise back to the three strands: injunction, empiricism (experientialism), and communal verification. [The injunction then made up of the three sub-points, helpful principles of nonexclusion/bracketing, enfoldment, and enactment].

In other words, recall that all this is (for now) the contentless, 3rd-person demi-abstraction made to light up/engender the practice and the experience from in self, nature, culture. Covering (at best) the true, leaving open (for the moment) questions of Good, Beautiful, and Ultimate Ground.

Of course one will never fully know the ways by which one has arrived at one's position. There are elements of grace/mystery steeped from beginning, middle, and end of this project. But to the degree possible, with multi-perspectivality held, language must be "injunctive" to be post-metaphysical.

To quote Wilber: "The meaning of an assertic or ontic [ed: as opposed to metaphoric or apophatic] statement is the means or injunction of its enactment." (IS, p.267)

Theology-spirituality (God-talk, Ground-talk) is in this limited sense no different than any other referent in its existence. It, from my pov, frees this subject up by limiting it. It gives spirituality greater power through greater humility. Again--note the context: assertic or ontic statements only. As in, what God is..... Not Beauty, Goodness, nor the inner experience itself (which like all experiences are trans-verbal, even eating an orange as well as having a vision of Christ).

It moves the whole issue of spirituality-God talk out of the clouds, out of a special place untouched by the same processes underlying other so-called mundane experiences. And isn't this deeply the siddhi-nondual vision? To no longer see anything arising as not sourced in and essence as Godhead? To therefore have no compunction, no separate holiness or lack of humor/seriousness around any topic? To not be put off by saying in a way, eating an orange and experiencing a vision of Christ (or fill in the blank for other religions-deities) are substantially the same. As in sub-stance (under-which the experience stands) the same. Essentially the same--essentia, essence.

In other words, how to we come to where we are at? And what are we doing? All the words likee 1-2-3 persons, quadrants, etc are demi-abstractions. It is not as simple as there is the map and the territory and the map isn't the territory.

The map is active. It is demi-abstracted (at best). Not fully abstracted and yet not fully the the experience (though it is itself another experience). Experience never arises without interpretation. All experience is interpreted experience (turtles up & down). Even up to the Subtle Archetypal Luminous Deity vision. [I mean, which Deity do you see? Likely the one you worship].

"Downloading" the map, as it were, changes the experiences you will have from then on. The territory, at the higher reaches certainly and in ways in the lower ones as well, is not just sitting out there like a mountain. The map is practice and practice that calls forth living beyond the demi-abstraction/experience of the mapped worlds.

And this practice needs naming and describing and specifically needs a manual-like outline. This practice as life that is. And aspect--taking up only this one of many yogas for now.

Meaning as means of enactment. Try for a moment or two in your day to turn just one sentence, one thought, or reflection to another into the language of injunction (!). To describe how you are, where u stand, and whence you arrived at such a place, so that you see what you see. And invite the other to the same/similar position.

It is often fascinating and sometimes quite difficult. Then all of this will not be arguments about paradigms, style, and all the rest. It gets incarnated and then the ground shifts from arguing about this/that to inquiry--what am I doing? What I am not doing? What am I actively seeking to prevent from arising/feeling? And why?