Rorty Vs. Wilber

I would like to expand upon this whole post-modern vs integrity debate that I mentioned a little on web ct. It's really consuming my entire life right now, which is great because I love when all my classes overlap in subject matter. So I guess it started with Lit. Crit. and Robin DeRosa. She taught me all about social constructionism, the panopticon, the lack of an intrinsic self hood, the ability of language to construct truth, etc. There are some brilliant ideas in post modern/ post structuralism, however there are aspects which are akin to the pathologies of our age. The other side of this debate was added from taking Dr. Haight's Cosmology class this semester, wherein we are reading the magnificent Ken Wilber. Haight is a holarchist, and the exact opposite of a post modern. His seems to be more the language of love, and his is a hopeful view of the future. Whereas post modernism seems very dreary at times, and has many connections to the existential realms. For awhile the Language of (w)holism was prevailing in my worldview, however the post moderns experienced a revival in a big way when the editor of our philosophy magazine asked me to research and publish a paper on Human Rights and Richard Rorty's "Ethics without Principles"/Antifoundationalism. I am taking three lit. classes this semester, plus the heavy cosmology reading, so that is a lot of books a week. On top of all that I am reading numerous books and articles by Rorty and other pragmatists. I also read Michael Ignatieff's book on Human Rights, to get the other side of the spectrum. I am proud to have done this though because I think that I will be creating a good, new ethical perspective. I really feel like maybe I can create a work that will help solve the issues of seccession vs. stable soverignty, and when (if ever) it is ok to invade a defaulting regime, like the difficulties right now in the middle east. As Rorty would define it, I am being poetic, because I am creating some new metaphoric language. I may even try for the Elie Wiesel (sp?) prize in Ethics, although I don't really imagine I can win it. I am also submiting my essay on ecofeminism for the Sally Boland Award, which is a little less exciting, but still cool.

I don't know where I stand with everything, it's really hard to define. On the one hand their is absolute truth, on the other their is relativity. Where do I fall? Rorty would argue against both of them. He would probably say that we have to stop using that outdated language to guide our inquiry. Maybe it's more important to ask how this is beneficial to achieving some fixed desired end. But Rorty's God is Chance and I don't know if I can deal with that. I have to believe that there is something Essential about Ek-sistence, some telos to the cosmos like Haight preaches. So we have Rorty and Wilber both battling it out. Two very formidable minds, and myself caught up in the great, unfolding drama. Maybe I can examine the two, and then try and forge my own path like the Buddha says. It used to be that we worried about the Cartesian Problem of Other Minds. Now we worry about the problem of other universes, so we've gone macro in a big way this century. I guess I should just state that there is a lot of pleasure for me in the inquiry, in the not-knowing. It's probably one of the great beauties in this life.