Proposition 34 from the Book "First Principles and First Values: Forty-Two Propositions on CosmoErotic Humanism, the Meta-Crisis, and the World to Come" by David J. Temple
I'm glad to see evil being addressed by the Eros setting.
It does rather seem that the author(s) say 'nothing explains suffering' and then go on to say '(ontic) anti-value explains suffering'? As it happens (and for what it's worth) I too hold that a failure of intimacy (or relationship) is at the heart of suffering.
Nevertheless the claim of an anti-value dynamic as part of ontology seems to me to itself be a part of 'wrong Story', and derives from a simple mistake: essentially identifying (Dream) 'Universe' with (unsleeping) 'Cosmos'. Give that Universe as currently configured is both stage and mechanism *for* Dream, and that Dream (or better, Nightmare) is synonymous with suffering, if we take Universe to be Cosmos then we take suffering (or its dynamic origin, here 'anti-value') to be ontology. But this is actually a tragic misstep, because it denies Intelligent discernment (by misconstruing context) and denies Intelligent response (by overlooking resource).
Once again we can trace this to the overemphasis on the narrative of idealistic Ascent in a solely-Eros frame (e.g. Integral theory), and a curious disregard or under-analysis of the stories of (alleged) Fall (into a Dream/Nightmare). While addressing the problem of evil in Ascent-only frames *could* lead to a softening of the foundational narrative assumption ('it's all Eros'), here it has not: it seems to have just added on mistake (suffering as ontology) to another (Eros as sole mover).
I'm glad to see evil being addressed by the Eros setting.
It does rather seem that the author(s) say 'nothing explains suffering' and then go on to say '(ontic) anti-value explains suffering'? As it happens (and for what it's worth) I too hold that a failure of intimacy (or relationship) is at the heart of suffering.
Nevertheless the claim of an anti-value dynamic as part of ontology seems to me to itself be a part of 'wrong Story', and derives from a simple mistake: essentially identifying (Dream) 'Universe' with (unsleeping) 'Cosmos'. Give that Universe as currently configured is both stage and mechanism *for* Dream, and that Dream (or better, Nightmare) is synonymous with suffering, if we take Universe to be Cosmos then we take suffering (or its dynamic origin, here 'anti-value') to be ontology. But this is actually a tragic misstep, because it denies Intelligent discernment (by misconstruing context) and denies Intelligent response (by overlooking resource).
Once again we can trace this to the overemphasis on the narrative of idealistic Ascent in a solely-Eros frame (e.g. Integral theory), and a curious disregard or under-analysis of the stories of (alleged) Fall (into a Dream/Nightmare). While addressing the problem of evil in Ascent-only frames *could* lead to a softening of the foundational narrative assumption ('it's all Eros'), here it has not: it seems to have just added on mistake (suffering as ontology) to another (Eros as sole mover).