Lesson 2: Quadratic View

[Dialectic]

Now that we understand that everything is simultaneously a whole in itself and a part of something greater (or many things greater), we can now talk about the best way to analyze and appreciate those "somethings."

(Also, I know that many of you reading this have already begun your own reading of Wilber, so if I'm going too slowly or basically, simply let me know and we'll accelerate the discussion to the appropriate level. I'm taking my time with this simply because some of these very simple ideas go very deep.)

We can view any given holon from four broad dimensions, or "quadrants." We do this by stating that everything has an "inside" and "outside," and everything comes in ones and manys. So everything can be described in terms of its interior and exterior, and in terms of its individual and collective characeristics.

The four dimensions, then, are individual-subjective ("I"), individual-objective ("it"), collective-subjective ("we" and by extension "you" in relation to all the other "yous") and collective-objective ("its").

(I also recognize that setting four dimensinos is somewhat arbitrary, and we can set two, six, 8, 10, etc. Four simply seems to work rather well.)

Next, we will pick a holon and analyze it from the four quadrant perspective. This holon will be a chimpanzee.

I know it's rather early in this discussion, but are there any questions so far?

[B the student]

The four dimensions, then, are individual-subjective ("I"), individual-objective ("it"), collective-subjective ("we" and by extension "you" in relation to all the other "yous") and collective-objective ("its").

(I also recognize that setting four dimensinos is somewhat arbitrary, and we can set two, six, 8, 10, etc. Four simply seems to work rather well.)...

I know it's rather early in this discussion, but are there any questions so far?

I'm curious if the dimensions were set to eight, what would the other four dimensions cover? I guess I'm having trouble thinking out of the parameters set because I can't see how one would go beyond individual-subjective, individual-objective, collective-subjective, and collective-objective without other dimensions being redundant.

[Dialectic]

[This is a bit of a side discussion, but it's an interesting topic.]

One way we can view the manifest world (or what materialists, scientists, and most people on the planet would understandably call "everything"), is that it's made up of boundaries. A boundary is something that simply separates something from something else. Once a boundary is a established, that establishes the intrinsic properties of existence that we're all familiar with: objects (and therefore subjects), an "other" (and therefore a "non-other" or self), plurality (and therefore singularity). And once we have subjects and objects, we have a couple ways to view those subjects and objects: from the subjective point of view (the inside: the exploration of meaning, interpretation, "worldspaces," and qualitative analysis), and the objective point of view (the outside: the examination of facts, observable phenomena, and quantitative analysis).

So these two boundaries, inside/outside (as a result of subject/object) and single/plural are pretty fundamental to manifest existence, and using these two alone, it looks as though we can generate every known perspective and form of knowledge. As a result of this, more dimensions and boundaries are not necessary to the model, though more certainly exist. I assume that if one were to use a six or eight or ten (etc.) dimension model, one would simply be more specific/exclusive in what each dimension addresses.

Wilber himself, for example, sometimes refers to "eight indigenous perspectives." From Wikipedia (which is actually quite good about maintaining objectivity in its information):

In Wilber's recent work (after 2004), he sometimes refers to "eight indigenous perspectives", rather than the four quadrants outlined above. One can offer separate interior and exterior accounts of, for example, the interior individual dimension. He offers Buddhist accounts of meditative states as an example of the former, and Spiral Dynamics (a theory of human development) as an example of the latter. These interior and exterior accounts apply to all four quadrants, resuting in eight indigenous perspectives.

And even here, it still comes down to the basic four: he's just talking about different ways to approach the four. For the purpose of fostering a wider, more inclusive, more integrated perspective, the four will do :D

Next: quadratic analysis of the chimp.

[Dialectic]

I was originally going to paraphrase Wilber's tongue-in-cheek chimp analysis which I'd read a few days ago, but it's so clear and down-to-earth that I've decided to simply quote it, with edits/ adjustments, as it's originally a character's dialogue. The Shambhala link is here: http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/boomeritis/cook/index.cfm/

Let's say I am studying a chimpanzee. Why on earth I would want to is another question. Okay, I can look at the chimp both as an individual and as a member of a group. And both the individual and the group have an inside and an outside. Thus, for the exterior of the individual, I can simply describe the chimp's observable, empirical behavior as he goes on about his day's activities. But to understand his interiors, I have to try to figure out what is motivating the chimp, what his desires are, what rudimentary feelings he might be having, what proto-value systems he has constructed, and so on. As many of you know, chimps can use a quite complicated system of symbols and signs, which suggests that there is some sort of interior understanding of those symbols--there is some sort of consciousness, meaning, and intentionality.

So, the observable behavior of the chimp we call the Upper-Right quadrant, and the interior consciousness (along with its symbols, meanings, values, and motivations) we call the Upper-Left quadrant. That gives us two very different approaches to understanding the chimp: one is behaviorism, the other is hermeneutics; the former merely describes what an entity does, the latter attempts to understand what it means.

[D: study of the chimp's biology/ chemistry is also Upper-Right.]

Go one step further. No chimp is an island unto himself. No individual evolves, or therefore exists, on its own. A chimp must therefore also be studied, not just as a whole entity itself, but as a part of other wholes, such as a member of a group (which in turn is a part of even larger wholes, ad infinitum). And the group, like the individual, can be looked at from the outside and from the inside.

Studying it from the outside, you simply describe the behavior of the group as carefully as you can (just as when studying an individual using an exterior approach, you simply describe the individual's behavior as carefully as possible). You might note the group's reproduction patterns, its eating habits, its daily activities, its seasonal migration routes, the number of births and deaths, and so on. But you can also attempt to understand the group from within . That is, if an individual chimp has some sort of proto-meaning and value system (and nobody doubts that it does), then that chimp certainly shares that meaning with its cohorts, and, in fact, it developed its meaning and values only through a mutual development with others in the group.

So, once again, when you study the exteriors of the collective, you ask, ' What does it do? ' When you study the interiors, you ask, ' What does it mean? '

Now obviously attempting to interpret the values of a group of chimps is hard, but interpreting the values of any 'Other' is hard! That is what the culture wars are all about, especially when it comes to history! How to understand the Other! The researchers that we admire in the field of primate study--researchers such as Jane Goodall--are precisely those who carefully and meticulously applied all four quadrants to the sentient beings they were studying: they described the exterior behavior of the individual and the group, but they also attempted to find and share some of the interior meanings and values of the individual and the group.

Obviously, you don't want to anthropomorphize chimp interiors [D: this means you don't want to give them human thoughts, emotions, and attributes, like a Disney cartoon]; but at the same time, you don't want to anthropocentrically deny that other animals have interiors! [D: this means you don't want say only humans have thoughts and emotions]

So if you want an integral approach to any sentient being, including humans and their history, then you want to include all four quadrants: the interior and exterior of the individual and the collective.

[Dialectic]

Finally, I'd like to point out that each quadrant is irreducible to any of the others. What this means is that each has something unique to say about the nature of any holon (this becomes very clear when we get to sentient holons) which cannot be explained by another quadrant (though they are of course interrelated, and changes in one effect changes in all).

Let me know when you've read my last two posts, guys, and we'll discuss from there!

(Eventually, there's going to be a 44-related AQAL exercise, which we'll then summarize and possibly post to the Declarations.)

[Dialectic]

All right you bastards, I see that there has been no response here for quite some time. I take it, then, that you are all comfortable with the four quadrants.

So here's an exercise that we can relate right back to 44s, after which we'll distill our conclusions into another one of the Declarations.

Give me your best stab at an AQAL analysis of the CCB phenomenon.

[Dialectic]

Discussion continues here:

http://www.thefighting44s.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=6105