|
 H.B. Augustine is a junior undergraduate student at Denison University studying Philosophy and Communication. He has started a publishing organization called "Integral Publishing House" - contact him at august_h@denison.edu if interested in publishing Integral material. A Refined
Quadrant System
Henry Augustine
Introduction
The current quadrant system consists of the seemingly ethereal “dual duality” between what is “individual” and “collective” and what is “interior” and “exterior.” Geometrically speaking, this particular model is quite necessary, but is also – as we will now see – rather insufficient. In this essay, first we will examine the notion of holons as far as what a holon is and why it is of the utmost import (and thus for the quadrant system). Next, we will consider a modification on the notions of individual and collective, and finally, we will do the same for the notions of interior and exterior, relative to the quadrant system.
Holons
To begin, we might ask ourselves just why the quadrant system is so significant. The quadrant system is of the same actual and symbolic significance for the Integral paradigm as the Cartesian model was for the Modern paradigm, because it seeks to represent the fundamental structure of the Kosmos. The Cartesian version, as the Wilberian model has effectively shown, merely captures the fundamental structure of the individual-exterior or “UL” “aspect” of the Kosmos. This time (and as always), the Wilberian model claims paradigmatic omnipotence. The Wilberian quadrant system is justified in claiming this intellectual capital, to put it rather “Orangely,” because it, in fact, has detected the fundamental constituent of all reality (holistically speaking, that is (which is what the Kosmos denotes)): the holon.
The philosophic outlook of atomism is partially True and partially false, in that the Kosmos does consist of discrete units forming all levels of complexity. Likewise, the philosophic outlook of holism is partially True and partially false, in that the Kosmos equally contains diverse networks of fluctuating systems. The holon, then, is the concept that stands for the holistic identity of any “particular” within the universal Whole. Let us define “particular,” in the latter statement, as “a form (of distinction).” We can simply say “form” as opposed to “form of distinction” since distinction is already contained in the concept of form. From Spirit comes form, all kinds of form – infinite form, to be sure.
With the intellect, we are able to recognize forms. We identify forms by comprehending the concepts that correspond to them – the Absolute Ideas contained in the Mind of God (or Spirit, for that matter) to which the soul has access via intuition. We can agree, then, that Certainly the order and connection of all such Ideas is in direct accordance with the order and connection of all such concepts or forms – or, as the quadrant system says, holons. Because a holon, according to Wilber and others, is the essence of this whole-part relationship, this means that such a relationship must be included in the structure of an all-encompassing Kosmic paradigm parallel to that of Descartes. Thus, in the quadrant system, we have the relationship between the individual and the collective. However, to assert that this relationship is necessarily and sufficiently simply that between the individual and the collective is fallacious. Put simply, the individual-collective component of the quadrant system is incomplete; let us now see why.
Individuality-Collectivity
Take any holon/form/concept – a human, for instance. According to the Wilberian quadrant system, we can regard the human as a whole unto itself and as a part to some greater system. We can see this holon individually and we can see it collectively. Thus, the human holon individually is simply a human, and collectively it is a family member (LL), (aesthetically speaking) a neuron animating the Soul of Earth or Gaia, and so forth. With this individual-collective distinction, we can regard the human as shown below.
etc.
(fifth group higher than human)
(fourth group higher than human)
(third group higher than human)
(second group higher than human)
(first group higher than human)
human
As we can agree, the “collective” in this case is only defined by what is above the human at the individual level. However, to embrace only what is above and to shun what is below simply is not Integral. If we are to have a more comprehensive view on just what a holon is, specifically in terms of its individual-collective dynamics, then we must embrace all the lesser systems comprising the human as such – as shown below.
etc.
(fifth group higher than human)
(fourth group higher than human)
(third group higher than human)
(second group higher than human)
(first group higher than human)
human
(first group lower than human)
(second group lower than human)
(third group lower than human)
(fourth group lower than human)
(fourth group lower than human)
etc.
As we should agree, then, we must add a third distinction on that particular half of the quadrant system, as indicated thusly.
collective-below individual collective-above
Now that we have clarified this first half of the quadrant system, let us do likewise for that concerning the relationship between so-called interiority and exteriority.
Interiority-Exteriority
Let us consider just what necessarily and sufficiently constitutes a holon from an ontological standpoint. A holon consists of matter, which constitutes a (gross) body, which produces sensations – no doubt. However, as the Wilberian quadrant system so insightfully acknowledges, exteriority – matter, the body, and sensation – is only “one half” of holistic ontological reality. We do not only experience sensations, since we also experience sentiments or feelings, reflections or thoughts, and intuitions or insights. As we may agree, though, we cannot simply group feelings, thoughts, and insights into the same category.
As we can agree with Certainty, sensation is different from sentiment, reflection, and intuition. However, sentiment is also different from sensation, reflection, and intuition. We can say the same for reflection and intuition. Each of these four experiential faculties is different from one another, unique unto itself. Wilber generalizes too much and says that “feeling-thought-insight” automatically equals “subtle energy,” just as matter alone equals “gross energy.” Yet before agreeing with the Wilberian quadrant system take on this particular quadrant system half, let us consider a Hindu-Jungian (to name only a few) map of our holistic identity as holons.
soul
core mind
body
We, as holons, consist of a body, core, mind, and soul, according to the above model. By “core,” we mean “heart,” or simply the collection of all our emotions and passions. Now, if we consider a holon not to be simply a “bodymind” consisting of a body/exterior and a core-mind-soul/interior, but instead as a “bodycoremindsoul,” then we would be insufficient in concluding that the most fundamental structure capturing our fullest holistic identity is simply that between an interior and exterior only. If we wish to be sufficient and more specific, however, then we must acknowledge that a holon is not merely a bodymind but really is what we mean by bodycoremindsoul, as awkward as the name may connote.
Based on all the above, then, the interior-exterior half of the quadrant system would be fourfold, instead. One part would refer to the body, to the physical ontological fourth. One part would refer to the core, to the “sentiral” ontological fourth. One part would refer to the mind, to the mental ontological fourth. Lastly, one part would refer to the soul, to the psychic ontological fourth.
Conclusion
According to the clarifications we have made regarding the Wilberian quadrant system as a whole, we can see that in order for it to be more complete, it would have to be as follows.
We can end by conceding for several things. First, we cannot be Certain as to whether this modified version is “completely necessary and sufficient,” as we can only be Certain that it is more sufficient than is its former. Perhaps in the future we will continue refining and deducing from the original Wilberian model in order to create something more complex and vision-logically grounded than what we have just done. Second, it is quite possible that the Wilberian model is yet the best we can visually devise. However, still, we cannot infer that just because it is the best we can visually devise it is therefore most comprehensive from a purely conceptual standpoint. We can end by agreeing that relative to a purely conceptual standpoint – at least – the modified system we have just examined and explicated is most comprehensive.
|
