Lesson 1: Everything In Holons

[Dialectic]

In an effort to make Integral Theory and Practice more approachable for the three people who might peruse this forum, I'm going to start posting a series of short lessons (which will hopefully develop into dialogues) to introduce and work at a leisurely pace through a beginner's Integral curriculum.

So Lesson 1 begins with the holon.

"Holon" is a term coined by Arthur Koestler for that which is simultaneously a whole in one context and a part in another.

A holon, then, is anything which is at once a whole in itself and a part of something greater. Essentially, everything is a holon.

Questions/ comments?

[evil_FUX]

That was a pretty small lesson. I understand how you don't want to have this stuff go over people's heads but I'm sure you can add a little more.

[Dialectic]

The whole dialogue here is supposed to be the lesson. I start with a tidbit, people make comments/ ask questions, and I expand. It ain't over yet: that's the intro to Lesson 1!

[The Ram]

So...I am a holon because I am a whole entity yet my entity is part
of a greater sum, Mankind?

is that an appropriate example?

[Dialectic]

Yes, as a whole, you are an individual.

As a part, you are a part of many things: the species, the country, the corporation, the economic system, the ethnicity, etc.

[B the student]

kinda like a tire is a tire, but it is also a part of car?

[Dialectic]

kinda like a tire is a tire, but it is also a part of car?

Exactly. An interesting thing about holons is that the whole, or the wider context, can determine the meaning and function of the part. Any given tire could be used for a lot of functions and mean a lot of different things: it could be the seat of a swing from your childhood, it could be used at the side of a dock to cushion boat impacts, it could be used for football training, it could be used on cars, trucks, planes, etc. But as soon as we know it's part of a car, that determines what the tire does, means, and is used for.

Following some of Wilber's examples, let's take the phrase "the bark of a dog." The word "bark" is a whole in that it's made of letters and is a word in itself; but it's a part with reference to the phrase. And you see here that the phrase (the whole or the context) is determining the meaning and function of the word (the part). "Bark" takes on an entirely different meaning in the phrase "the bark of a tree" than "the bark of a dog."

The whole, then, is more than the sum of its parts. Additional meaning and complexity is generated by bringing parts together into a whole. Just as the parts comprise and influence the whole, the whole can influence and determine the function and meaning of its parts (and that whole is, in turn, part of a greater whole).

Everyone good?

[The Ram]

Sensai,

it is all good, please continue with Lesson 1.

[B the student]

hmmm, one more question Master D. what about a thing's unknown potential uses/characteristics? is that too covered under a holon? for instance, say the dandelion has the ability to cure cancer, we just don't know it yet. is that unknown characterstic still a part of what it means to be a dandelion, or do we have to perceive or "discover" it?

[Dialectic]

Some unperceived/ unknown aspect of a holon is certainly still a part of a holon. Leptons and hadrons were still parts of atoms before we knew about them. Molecules were still parts of organelles before we knew about them. Cells were still part of organisms before we knew about them. The capacity to perceive images is a necessary building-block of forming concepts, whether we realize it or not.

While your question comes in a little out of left field from what we're talking about, it does point to an interesting aspect of holonic existence which is up for debate/ discussion. Wilber uses the following joke to illustrate:

A King asks a Wiseperson, "Tell me, how is it that the Earth doesn't fall down?"
The Wise person replies, "The Earth is resting on a lion."
"On what, then is the lion resting?"
"The lion is resting on an elephant."
"On what is the elephant resting?"
"The elephant is resting on a turtle."
"On what is the -"
"You can stop right there, your Majesty. It's turtles all the way down."

Holons all the way down. Talking physics, for example, the Greeks theorized that if you broke down matter enough, you'd come down to an indivisible piece of matter called an atom. A while later, we thought we'd found it. Then when we looked a little closer, we found that they were made of more little particles: electrons, protons, and neutrons. Then when we looked yet closer, we found that a physical, or renormalized particle, actually involves a bare particle and a huge tangle of virtual particles wound together recursively, meaning that every "real" particle's existence involves the existence of infinitely many other particles, contained in a virtual "cloud" which surrounds it as it propagates. Each of the virtual particles also has its own virtual cloud, etc.

Though this is not provable (or necessary in our definition/ understanding of holons) Wilber maintains that the more our consciousness/ insight deepens, the more levels we'll find, the further "down" we'll go, and that it won't ever end. There won't be a fundamental unit or set of units, it'll just get more and more crazy. I'm intuitively inclined to agree with this, though again, this is not necessary to understand/ define a holon; one does not have to agree with this at all, because either way, we can all still agree that a holon is a simultaneous whole/ part.

(Incidentally, it's also turtles all the way up. We'll talk more on that soon.)

Next, we're going to talk about the natural hierarchies (holarchies) in which holons arise, and some of the rules they follow.

[The Ram]

D, your past post reflects upon the story of Buddha who refused to
answer 14 questions regarding the universe, because these questions
would lead to another question, to another,etc, etc...

You may not be Buddhist, however I would suggest he could be
among the highest cognitively developed individuals ever to have lived.

[Dialectic]

I was a student of a Zen Buddhist monastery for three years and regularly sat zazen.

[The Ram]

I was a student of a Zen Buddhist monastery for three years and regularly sat zazen.

Oh shit. That is awesome!

[evil_FUX]

as a side note, I just want to say that today I actually shelled out the cash and bought Wilber's Theor Of Everything.

[Dialectic]

That's terrific. I hope you enjoy it!

Okay, so let's talk a little bit about hierarchies. "Hiero-" means sacred or holy, and "-arch" means governance or rule. This concept was originally introduced to to refer to the nine celestial orders from angels to Cherubim and Seraphim. These various orders also came to represent virtues and knowledge to be accessed by contemplation and expanding awareness, and they were ranked because each successive order was more inclusive and more encompassing, and so each was successive order was "higher."

As is often the case, these celestial, holy, contemplative orders were translated into orders of political power. You had deacons, priests, bishops, archbishops, and the pope, and now you can see how such a political hierarchy based on spiritual ascendancy can "easily become a despotism" (Martineau, 1851).

The term, as we use it today in psychology, evolutionary, and systems theory, means a ranking of orders according to their holistic capacity, or how inclusive they are. A hierarchy of a book, for example, might go letter, word, sentence, paragraph, chapter, book (or atom, molecule, complex carbon chain, paper, book, or any other order of inclusiveness you care to imagine). In the case of biology, you might go atom, molecule, organelle, cell, organ, organism, etc.

Hierarchies undoubtedly exist.

Now that we see this, we can see that a normal hierarchy is an order of increasing holons, representing an increase in wholeness and integrative capacity.

[B the student]

as a side note, I just want to say that today I actually shelled out the cash and bought Wilber's Theor Of Everything.

hehe bought it a few months back...still haven't cracked it open. :oops:

anyway, never really thought about the natural occurence of hiearchies before.

Now that we see this, we can see that a normal hierarchy is an order of increasing holons, representing an increase in wholeness and integrative capacity.

question: now does that apply to all hierarchies or are you specifically refering to the natural ones?

[The Ram]

Now that we see this, we can see that a normal hierarchy is an order of increasing holons, representing an increase in wholeness and integrative capacity.

question: now does that apply to all hierarchies or are you specifically refering to the natural ones?

I think D is suggesting ALL heirachies inherit the above mentioned properties.

[Dialectic]

What I did was summarize and define a normal, or natural hierarchy as "an order of increasing holons, representing an increase in wholeness and integrative capacity."

This is what a hierarchy is. Anything that does not exhibit that characteristic is not actually a hierarchy, though the word has been co-opted to apply to those. The quickest example I can think of is a military organizational "hierarchy": this has nothing to do with wholeness or integrative capacity: it's a ranking system that defines authority.

But precisely because the term hierarchy is so confused and loaded with negative and patriarchal connotations, we aren't going to use that term much anymore.

We're going to use the term holarchy.

[B the student]

ok, that cleared up the confusion for me. thanks.

[KeJia Sista]

So, a holon is like a wave in the ocean? Freckle on the face?
Ke Jia

[KeJia Sista]

What I did was summarize and define a normal, or natural hierarchy as "an order of increasing holons, representing an increase in wholeness and integrative capacity."

This is what a hierarchy is. Anything that does not exhibit that characteristic is not actually a hierarchy, though the word has been co-opted to apply to those. The quickest example I can think of is a military organizational "hierarchy": this has nothing to do with wholeness or integrative capacity: it's a ranking system that defines authority.

But precisely because the term hierarchy is so confused and loaded with negative and patriarchal connotations, we aren't going to use that term much anymore.

We're going to use the term holarchy.

Why can't we think holistic and envision the yin-yang circle?
Ke Jia

[Dialectic]

So, a holon is like a wave in the ocean? Freckle on the face?

Everything is a holon. A wave is its own entity, and is part of something greater, an ocean (or a ship's wake, etc.). An ocean is its own entity, and is part of something greater (a biosphere, for example). Same goes for freckles, faces, smiles, tears, nosehairs, and moles.

Why can't we think holistic and envision the yin-yang circle?

If by "holism" you mean thinking via a system which acknowledges interconnectivity, and at the same time acknowledges natural hierarchy and gradations of wholes (this is very, very important), then we are thinking holistically.

If by "holism" you mean thinking via a system which only acknowledges interconnectivity without acknowledging depth, complexity, or development (which is the common holistic approach), then the reason why we are not thinking "holistically" is quite simple: we are then using a system devoid of depth-values. We are also using a self-contradictory system, because it uses a depth-value ("holistic" is "better" than "non-holistic") to negate depth-values.

As for the yin-yang circle, its use is not entirely relevant here. While I (and Niels Bohr) deeply love and appreciate what it stands for, we are talking about something more complex and more encompassing. Even the yin-yang is more complex than what most people think it means.

The reason why the yin-yang is a circle is that it symbolizes the cyclical, balanced nature of harmonious existence. The reason why it is split in a symmetrical curve (as opposed to a straight line) is to symbolize dynamic, cyclical movement. The reason why two dots of opposite colour appear is to say that when one side has waxed to its extreme, or most prominetn state, in that waxing is the seed for the opposite side to begin to grow.

From here, we can get into all sorts of discussion of cyclical symbolism which should be addressed elsewhere. A brief note on why the yin-yang is inadequate for this discussion is that what appears to be purely cyclical is sometimes the opposite.

Take the example of a student. When a student begins any sort of learning, s/he does everything naturally, simply, innocently. When s/he learns techniques, philosophy, and proper form, then everything becomes quite unnatural, stiff, self-conscious, and full of effort. If the student continues and perseveres and becomes a master, everything "returns" to "beginner's-mind": things are once again natural, simple, innocent.

But is this a pure cycle? Is a master's mind equivalent to a beginner's mind? No, it isn't. Massive development and evolution has occurred: the Zen master who sees mountains and streams is not in the same place as the beginner who sees mountains and streams.

This sort of development, then, would be better symbolized by an upward moving, expanding spiral, then, wouldn't it? It would still show the cyclical nature of existence while at the same time illustrate ever-widening and encompassing views as well as "upward" movement, or evolution.

It would look like a holarchy.

[Dialectic]

So now that we know what holons are, we're going to learn a bit on how they're organized.

I realized shortly after starting this dialogue, that the best way to go about things would be really just to quote Wilber (as I've been paraphrasing him anyway) and then discuss questions/ comments in my own words. So from pages 26-27 of SES ....

Normal hierarchy, then, is simply an order of increasing holons, representing an increase in wholeness and integrative capacity - atoms to molecules to cells, for example. This is why hierarchy is indeed so central to systems theory, the theory of wholeness or holism ("wholism"). To be a part of a larger whole means that the whole supplies a principle (or some sort of glue) not found in the isolated parts alone, and this principle allows the parts to join, to link together, to have something in common, to be connected, in ways that they simply could not be on their own.

Hierarchy, then converts heaps to wholes, disjointed fragments into networks of mutual interaction. When it is said that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts," the "greater" means "hierarchy." It doesn't mean fascist domination; it means a higher (or deeper) commonality that joins isolated strands into an actual web, that joins molecules into a cell, or cells into an organism.

...

This is also why normal hierarchies are often drawn as a series of concentric circles or spheres or "nests within nests." As Goudge explains:

The general scheme of levels is not to be envisaged as akin to a succession of geological strata or to a series of rungs in a ladder. Such images fail to do justice to the complex interrelations that exist in the real world. These interrelations are much more like the ones found in a nest of Chinese boxes or in a set of concentric spheres, for according to emergent evolutionists, a given level can contain other levels within it [i.e., holons].

[Dialectic]

Okay guys, I do apologize for letter this thread lapse.

I had originally started this with the intention that it flow like a natural dialogue, based on the knowledge in my head and with minimal references.

As we continued, I sort of veered away from that and decided it might be best to refer to SES after all. I also thought that taking you through the twenty or so tenets on how holons behave would be useful, but I don't know them nearly well enough by heart, so again, that led me to want to go back to SES.

I've since decided that my original plan was best. Y'all don't necessarily need to know the 20 tenets, and if any relevant point comes up, we'll discuss it then. I suppose our next topic, then, is how every holon manifests in the "Four Quadrants" and the nature of the four quadrants themselves.

So I know I'm being repetitive, but is everyone sort of comfortable with the notion of a holon, and now they occur naturally in holarchies? (no matter the type: physical, social, psychological, etc.)

[evil_FUX]

I think it's fine. You covered the crucial points of the 20 tenets anyways. Btw A Brief History of Everything and A Theory of Everything are great complements to each other. I suggest people pick the two of them up.

[B the student]

I think I have a firm enough grasp on the holon concept to continue on with the discussion. BTW I am finally reading A Theory of Everything. Hopefully I'll finish while at the beach.

[Dialectic]

Thanks for sticking with me, guys! Also, I am grateful and impressed that y'all went out and got additional resources on your own.

e_F, as I understand things now, ToE was written as a sort of follow-up to criticisms of Boomeritis, which is why it focuses so much on the problems of the "mean green meme" whereas BHoE (which I haven't read) was meant as a condensed, simplified, and more accessible version of Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality. So I'm glad to hear that they are good complements to each other, as it makes sense that they might be!

I'll start "Lesson 2: Quadratic View" soon (I'm sick as a dog at the moment).

[Dialectic]

Update: it turns out the whole holon situation is more complex than I originally thought, and involves a discussion of different types of holarchies, interiority, and sentient holons, social holons, "heaps," and "artifacts." I'd known about these for a while, but hadn't read much on them, and didn't think they'd affect our fundamental discussion, but they actually might.

One of the few criticisms of mistakes/omissions in SES was made by a dude named Fred Kofman, a bit of a genius who's taught at MIT and consulted with a bunch of people, and who floored Wilber when he pointed out the omission he'd made concerning holons in the opening chapters, which thousands of other people had read by that point and had not pointed out. This omission has lead to countless misinterpretations of just what holons are, some of which may have occurred here.

I'll post more once I've had more time to process.