Although metaphysics is generally defined as a field of Western philosophy, which goes back to Aristotle, I use it in the Neo-Sufi Traditionalist sense to refer to theoretical gnosis. The traditionalist philosopher Sayyed Hossein Nasr has written a very informative essay on this (which also sheds light on a little known aspect of Ayotollah Khomeiny, the Iranian theocrat), called Theoretical Gnosis and Doctrinal Sufism.
For me therefore metaphysics is not a rational endeavour, but a gnostic one. While metaphysics requires reason, that reason has to be guided and informed by gnosis, and thus becomes insight or jnana yoga.
I use the term "Integral Gnostic Metaphysics" here to distinguish my own integral philosophy and integral theory from Ken Wilber's Integral Post-Metaphysics. The main and primary methodological difference is that I arrive at an integral synthesis from a gnostic, occult, esoteric, transformative, metaphysical and Aurobindonian perspective, whereas Wilber does from a rational modern, postmodern, post-postmodern, and Eastern and Daist nonduality perspective.
Like Wilber's Integral theory, Integral Gnostic Metaphysics usues a strongly visual or diagrammatic presentation to provide an evolutionary, transformative worldview that includes all perspectives and realities, and rejects the idea of a single fixed reality in favour of a series of stages of transformation.
However, Integral Gnostic Metaphysics has no value in itself; it is only of value as a conceptual framework in which gnosis, empathy, and individual and collective transformation and evolution to Divinization can be understood within their yogic and cosmic context.
images not loading? | error messages? | broken links? | suggestions? | criticism?