{"id":4325,"date":"2011-05-30T07:30:45","date_gmt":"2011-05-30T12:30:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/?p=4325"},"modified":"2011-05-30T09:55:01","modified_gmt":"2011-05-30T14:55:01","slug":"what-a-bodymind-can-do-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2011\/05\/30\/what-a-bodymind-can-do-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"What a bodymind can do – Part 3"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is the concluding part of a three-part article. Part 1 can be found here<\/a>, Part 2 here<\/a>. They should be read in the sequence in which they were published.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n


\n<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The True, the Good, and the Beautiful<\/strong><\/p>\n

All of this can be related to the triad of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful — or, in their Peircian sequence, aesthetics, ethics, and logic. Aesthetics, as Peirce conceived it, is most directly concerned with firstness; ethics, with secondness; and logic, with thirdness.<\/p>\n

I’ve elsewhere<\/a> suggested that “logic” may not be an adequate term for the kind of understanding that thirdness implies, and that “eco-logic” may be better, since logic suggests a process for understanding (in general), whereas “ecology” specifically suggests a process for understanding relation, wholeness, and “patterns that connect.”<\/p>\n

It may also be appropriate to use Ken Wilber’s term “vision-logic” here, even though my use of it would be somewhat different than his. Wilber characterizes “vision-logic” as a historical stage of development that emerges only with the transcendence<\/em> of a postmodern “green” stage (in his color-coded Spiral Dynamics lingo). I would posit it instead, for the purposes of the model being developed here, as attainable, in some specific way, by any bodymind from within its own particular situatedness.<\/p>\n

A few definitions, then:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n