Wonderful discussion, and very fitting for its integral nature. I really liked how you played on the polarities of the diagram. I think Rick’s reflection was a natural follow-up to what the two of you were building in the presentation, that each one of us, as non-dogmatic, integrating vessels assimilate and blend certain amounts of each of these views. Even for a non-dogmatic individual, who strongly identifies as one of these, it is not hard to suggest the appellation of one of these other worldview categories, visible in their thought.
I am very much drawn to Robert’s thought that idealism is the real(ism). I’ve been going back and force on this, as I read Whitehead’s “Process and Reality.” “Substance” is no longer a category that is required for Whitehead’s philosophical framework, so I’ve been going back and forth: is it really worthwhile to talk about the “Urstoff” nature of things’ composition? I don’t remember you having mentioned a particular affinity toward idealism, but you have discussed “holographic enfolding” in an advanced seminar lecture on Whitehead, which possibly implies the informatic nature of everything. “Informatic” is maybe a different way to say that we live in an idealistic world, though removing the priority of Plato’s ideality of the forms. So this is what I’m caught between, in reading Whitehead: no substance or is the world informatic/idea-laden.
I really appreciate your work to make this content accessible. It’s really beautiful and amazingly interesting content. Many thanks.