Q&A on The Four Quadrants

[Dialectic]

An email from Evil_Fux, quoted with permission:

Hey D,
I'm listening to Ken Wilber's A Brief History of Everything. So far he has an inriguing theory. There are some points that he seems to gloss over that I have a problem with. I figure I'll need to listen it again to ponder on them some more. As of right now though, I'm having a hard time understanding his establishment of the four quadrants. I'm wondering if you could possibly shed some info on the topic. For example, I'm puzzled as to the foundation of the four quandrants. When Wilber describes them or at least names them his reasoning for their existence still sounds unsound. Any info would be great. Thanks.

I've never read/ listened to A Brief History, so I'm not sure what the structure of presentations is like. As I understand it, it's a collection of quotes or a Q&A of some sort, so you may not be getting a totally coherent story.

The Four Quadrant concept is not too tricky once you're in an analytical frame of mind. It's saying that EVERYTHING in the universe has four correlated aspects: it has its own "point of view" or (co-)enacted worldspace, it has a purely physical component, it has a cultural or shared worldspace component, and it has a systems component.

In simple, i.e. non-living holons, the subjective side is not too significant, in that it can be left out of most analyses. As you go up in complexity, however, it becomes more and more important (and actually makes the objective side, particularly the individual-objective, very insignificant. In other threads, I've already used a human as an example of a holon. I'll take a simpler one: a chocolate bar.

Subjective-Individual Quadrant:

Arguably the hardest to understand for non-sentient holons. A chocolate bar enacts a "worldspace" in that it has a "world" or "point of view": mouths and teeth and sugars and wrapping and trucks exist in its world. Appreciation of music and love and mathematics do not.

Subjective-Collective Quadrant:

Again, this just means the shared "culture" it has with other holons, which is of course more difficult to grasp in non-living holons. But basically, we're talking about the shared worldspace it co-enacts with other holons and the environment. It can respond to/ be affected by/ participate in chemical reactions, physical reactions, etc., but psychoanalysis and color theory are not part of its shared culture.

Objective-Individual Quadrant:

The easiest to understand. A chocolate bar is composed of sugars, proteins, molecules, atoms, electrons, etc.

Objective-Collective Quadrant:

The chocolate bar participates in a variety of systems: physical systems, chemical systems, economic systems, social systems, political systems, etc.

Does this clear things up a little more?

[evil_FUX]

Actually, I understood what Wilber was stating in the examples he gave, and I get what you're trying to say too. The point of problem I have though is how is it that he can necessarily pin it down to four quadrants? I mean by all means when he gives the examples the four quadrants make sense, but to me only within the framework of his theory. Who's to say that there doesn't exist more than four quandrants? I'm just trying to find out how he specifically came down to four/three instead of say, six.

I mean sure I can understand if maybe he did it to simplify the number, i.e. maybe there are 20 but he just put it down to 4 in a broad sense. But still it just seems some what difficult to accept that there are just four/three when there's a possibility/probability of more or less.

[Dialectic]

I don't really see this as a weakness or a fault.

The tool specifically looks at two features of existence: Objective and Subjective (or interior and exterior) and Individual and Collective (or singular and plural). Since we are examining two features, we can only have four quadrants.

Just like SDi (the levels/ colors), the number is a somewhat arbitrary divide; many older cultural practices divide the quadrants into three by lumping all of objective together: this is fine too.

Now with regard to something that does not "fit" (i.e. cannot be integrated) into this model (and this would have to be something to which objectivity/ subjectivity and individuality/ collectiveness does not apply), nothing in manifest existence has yet been found. This model is an attempt to bring together all the ways we can describe and perceive anything. And it seems to be pretty effective.

As a matter of fact, the only thing/ non-thing I can think of is what Integral (and mysticism and insightful religious practitioners) refer to as the Witness or God or the Nondual ground, etc. Now, the concept of it (and this is very important) can be described by the four quadrants (as all concepts can). The Witness itself is the Ground in which all manifest things arise. I'll discuss this more later, though I won't go into length or detail, as my knowledge/ experential data here is somewhat limited.

[evil_FUX]

I don't really see this as a weakness or a fault.

The tool specifically looks at two features of existence: Objective and Subjective (or interior and exterior) and Individual and Collective (or singular and plural). Since we are examining two features, we can only have four quadrants.

Just like SDi (the levels/ colors), the number is a somewhat arbitrary divide; many older cultural practices divide the quadrants into three by lumping all of objective together: this is fine too.

Hmm, ok you're right. I suppose I was looking at it the wrong way. As long as it gets to the same idea or concept then it shouldn't matter.

[Dialectic]

Exactly; if it does the job of describing everything it seeks to describe (which is pretty much everything), and it does so clearly, then that bypasses the issue you were having.

[Sothy]

Do the tapes come with diagrams/charts?

[evil_FUX]

I have no idea. I downloaded the mp3 rips off of emule.

[Dialectic]

"Audio books" are another thing I wanted to address. Fux, you sent me a couple other emails which I'll discuss soon, but for now, a couple of points:

1) An audio format is not the ideal way to "read" or absorb a book. Presumably, when one is listening to an audio text, one is also attending to other activities: driving, eating, cooking, web-surfing, exercising, etc. While some forms of writing may be absorbed in this way without much loss of understanding (humor, self-help, light fiction), deeper or more complex texts (such as Wilber's) cannot be read this way. When reading a text of this magnitude, one should have the freedom of reading a passage, re-reading, contemplating, absorbing, flipping backwards to see what led to it, etc. It's doubtful listening to a tape/ CD/ MP3 is quite so interactive, unless one is constantly pausing, rewinding, etc.

2) I'm not certain whether this is a habit or whether it was just because you were in email contact with me, but it's best to save questions on content until the end of the book. This way I won't necessarily have to spend time addressing things that will be cleared up later. Also, before asking questions on basics (like the nature of the four quadrants, the structure of the Spiral, the definition of a holon), read the appropriate threads in the Declarations in Integral Slanted first.

[evil_FUX]

Actually I didn't do much else except listen to what he had to say on those mp3s. He did it in a pretty good manner, he made it into a dialogue between him and some random speaker he hired. Pluse I intend to listen to them again when I have the time to spend. As for the basic definitions those were pretty much covered in the mp3s. I didn't have a hard time understanding the basic definitions, those were easy to grasp and whatever you wrote pretty much is what Wilber explained in the mp3s except for the Spiral Dynamics. So there's no issue there.

I suppose I should've phrased my questions more clearly. As for asking questions before I've finished I don't see anything necessarily wrong with that. I mean either I'll get the answers from you or I'll discover it myself. It's not like my train of thought is resting solely on your answers.

[Dialectic]

I suppose I should've phrased my questions more clearly. As for asking questions before I've finished I don't see anything necessarily wrong with that. I mean either I'll get the answers from you or I'll discover it myself. It's not like my train of thought is resting solely on your answers.

I wasn't trying to imply there was something necessarily wrong with it, or that your thoughts would rest solely on my responses. It's more of a practical thing: I would prefer not to spend 30 min. of my time addressing something which may be addressed later in the work (like, for example, the email you sent me concerning God, which you then later built upon with your questioning of the nature of the Witness).