Ralph & Schalk, hi

A quickie ... I'll try for a longer response later this week-end.

Schalk, I like your metaphor! Not sure though, from within a discursive logic what to make of your proposition that 'ideas inhabit holons'. Could you elaborate on this a bit more as I'm still stuck with the notion (from an interpretive perspective) that a holon is simply a useful idea for making sense of the world around us...

and Ralph, thanks for your lead re Crook-Greuter. 

Schalk,

To get back to my discomfort about your proposition that “ it is meaningless to talk of the substance of a holon until the holon has been inhabited by an idea”. Let me explain this discomfort by resorting to Ken’s distinction between images, symbols and concepts (SES, 119).  Ken is of course not alone in this making this distinction:  these are fundamental categories for any communication.  

I hope that you’ll agree that for Ken, the word ‘holon’ is clearly a concept. The word ‘idea’ is a loose synonym for concept. If this is the case, then your proposition becomes “… until a holon [which is a concept]  has been inhabited by a concept”. This is not a false statement but it does have a tautologous ring about it. Put in other words it lacks meaningful content. To give it content we need to fill (inhabit?) the concept ‘holon’ with other concepts, which need to be spelt out. And this is precisely what Ken does with his 20 tenets of holons. These 20 tenets differentiate the concept holon from other concepts

In my next posting I’ll get back to why I think that Ken is wrong about systems theory.

On Ken’s position with regard to systems theory

In chapters 1 & 2 of SES, Ken spells out his understanding of systems theory. This is essentially a very sympathetic assessment of systems theory; however, he does go on argue that systems theory is still trapped in the reductionist ‘paradigm’, albeit a ‘subtle reductionism’. For example, in Chapter 4 (The View from Within) he says the following:
Functional fit (“What does it do?”) is, of course, the major validity claim recognised by systems theory. And that is part of its subtle reductionism, Interpretive depth (sincerity and truthfulness) and cultural meaning (justness and moral appropriateness) are all reduced to functional fit in exterior surfaces: all are reduced to flatland holism. (p145).

This is an appropriate assessment of that category of systems theories, eg systems dynamics,  known as hard systems theories. There are others.

Interestingly, Otto Scharmer (MIT and Society for Open Learning) a colleague of Peter Senge (who popularized systems dynamics through his book, The Fifth Discipline) distinguishes between systems dynamics and what he calls systems thinking, and which is elsewhere referred to as soft systems thinking, in his book Theory U. (A very brief description of the various approaches to systems theories/thinking is given in my first posting in this thread)

(Incidentally Otto Scharmer refers very approvingly to much of Ken’s work in his Theory U. )

The problem, as I see it is that Ken is following Habermas in his depiction and assessment of systems. theory. There was a famous Habermas/Luhman debate on this.

If we follow Scharmer’s distinction, as well as that of many others based in the UK (eg Jackson, Midgley, Checkland), then Habermas', and consequently Ken’s understanding of systems becomes clearer.

In my next posting I'll summarize Scharmer’s position on Luhman and 'systems thinking' 

Sid Luckett

hi sidney,

a big problem i've been having with the direction you've been wanting to go with this thread is that you seem to assume that wilber would disagree with you, a very bad assumption and almost certainly false. if you were to talk to him, i don't think he would disagree with you so much as be apt, i imagine, to bring up a couple of things that, perhaps, you haven't thought about.

to begin with, you frequently seem to equate wilber with SES. while it was a seminal work, he has gone beyond it in any number of ways in the decade and a half since he wrote it. in particular, he has talked with otto scharmer about U theory, which he heartedly embraced, showing scharmer, to his delight, how it is very much in the spirit of what i-i is doing.

as you well know, the concept of systems has been used in a number of different ways by various theorists. wilber, in my view, is simply trying to get at the core of what most of them have had in mind when they employ this term. that doesn't mean he would be opposed to where you want to take the concept, but he would want to maintain a more stable terminology and employ new terms for what you have in mind, such as integral methodological pluralism, which, in fact, gives us some insight into what is happening.

---

Ralph, Sidney:

Greetings and a very nice discussion indeed!

Wilber has courageously voiced his reservations about a number of theories that are popular in a number of areas.

A central theme that Ken harps on is the truth of the 4 quadrants as equally valid lenses. And what he sees over and over is that thinkers will use one or maybe two of the lenses (quadrants), will describe the world, and will then proclaim that their description is exhaustive and accounts for everything worthy of being accounted for. Ken will then point out that it isn't exhaustive inasmuch as they have failed to account for other equally legitimate lenses which essentially represent valid aspects of our being and knowing.

The error in hard systems theory is that fails to account for anything in the left side quadrants (interior sincerity, cultural constructs lacking material manifestation, etc.).

A prerequisite to getting Wilber's acknowledgement of the value of one's work is to voice a recognition and develop the application of ones theory throughout the four quadrants.

And it occurs to me that one could undertake a massive exercise of dissecting every major theory in every field over the last 300 years and showing how it failed to even acknowledge the existence or validity of 2 or 3 other quadrants.

One feels very privileged to be aware of the functioning of the four quadrants. And one thinks about the intellectual contortions that have been required over the years to undertake a comprehensive accounting of the world in any field from the lens of a single quadrant, explaining the phenomena which are properly observable through other lenses.

Question: how did B.F. Skinner account for the fact that he loved his daughter? How do hard right quadrant scientists explain the fact that they are enormously proud to receive a Nobel Prize? I am sure they have explanations but they are massively contorted.

And yet, I think back to my Professor of Philosophy who announced at the beginning of the 1st class that 2+2=5. He repeated himself. And he left everyone to ponder the notion that anyone can posit a fundamental rule and then make everything twist to fit that rule.

schalk:

The error in hard systems theory is that fails to account for anything in the left side quadrants (interior sincerity, cultural constructs lacking material manifestation, etc.).

A prerequisite to getting Wilber's acknowledgement of the value of one's work is to voice a recognition and develop the application of ones theory throughout the four quadrants.

i agree with you about the need for the recognition of the limits of one's own perspective, e.g. of (hard) systems theory to the LR, but it's not necessary or even generally advisable that one develop an all-quadrants theory or apply it in an all-quadrants way. that's, as a matter of fact, more or less what amber has always done. isn't that a part of what's so frightening about bush? the almost automatic connections he seems to make, say, between religion and science, L and R?

by differentiating the quadrants and allowing for specialization, orange has allowed us to go much further in each individual quadrant. and green has gone even further, more or less, with methodological pluralism. the problem is not only that neither has integrated what they have differentiated, but they have tended to absolutize some favored methodology, such as RQ empiricism by orange.

this is the real value, i think, of what susanne cook-greuter is doing in her aqal journal article 'AQ as a scanning and mapping device'. she is showing specialists how they can locate what they are doing and what they might do, so that they can better see both the value and the limitations of what they are doing.

even in an integral age most of us will need to work as specialists of one sort or another, but, hopefully, there will also be integralists giving us the big picture and making our own work more meaningful without exaggerating and thereby falsifying it.

---

Hi Ralph, I will still get to my promised input on Scharmer's systems thinking and the Habermas/Luhman debate. But befor doin that a quickie in response to your posting.

A correction: I'm not assuming that Ken would disagree with the point that I'm making,  I'm responding to the only works of Ken's that I know about in which he has pronounced on systems theory, ie, the 2nd edition  of SES published in 2000 and A Brief History published in 2001.

However, I do take the main point that you're making, viz., that Ken might not disagree with me but is bound to bring up some things that I haven't thought about.

I'd really love to engage with Ken but since I live in South Africa that's not too easily done -- unless you know of a way to do this through the internet. If you do please let me have the relevant information

 

 

Schalk, thanks for your valuable contributions to this discussion. I agree completely with all that you said in your last posting, excepting possibly with the statement:
A prerequisite to getting Wilber's acknowledgement of the value of one's work is to voice a recognition and develop the application of ones theory throughout the four quadrants.

I say 'possibly' because I need to check with you that I'm understanding you correctly. If you mean that it's possible to develop useful theories that are only relevant to one of the four quadrants, but acknowledge that to be the case  then I'm with you. It seem to me that the danger that Ken is warning against is to develop a theory, such as in one of the versions of hard systems theory, which only addresses the right hand side quadrants and claim that it is all embracing.

I’m sure that Ken (and yourself) would agree that there are many useful theories (such as some economics, physics, psychological, etc. theories) which are appropriate to one of the four quadrants  

 

 

Hi Ralph, Please let me have the AQAL reference for the Susan Cook-Greuter article.

Sidney:

I believe we are in agreement.

There is an enormous difference between developing useful theory relevant to one quadrant and acknowledging the limited application of the same, and building a theory that "sees" through only one quadrant and claiming that the same is all-embracing. You put it very well!

Here is the bugaboo, however, in my opinion. There is a lot of theory that dominates our lives and the practitioners are careful not to claim that their theory is all-embracing. And yet, when you look closely at how they live and what they spend their time paying attention to and the assumptions that they seem to be making about the world, it would seem that they in fact are working within a belief system that takes their theory as all embracing.

This may be even more pernicious than making public claims about the Kosmos that can be addressed.

Take western medicine. Most traditional M.D.s see the body as an objective system. Interior subjectivity and inter-cultural meaning, in their view, provide almost no authentic knowledge relevant to their enterprise. They will not say that life is an objective physical system, but at the same time, they don't act in a way that acknowledges the critical role of the left-side quadrants in health.

Take western law. Most lawyers and judges see humans in society as trading and negotiating interests. Interior subjectivity and inter-cultural meaning provide very little relevant evidence in a court of law. We do of course try to assess intentions and the meaning of statements and contracts, etc. But, these are only relevant to the extent that they help provide lower right orderings of external systems of trading money and goods and shifting materials. Religious faith is often only relevant to establish that a person is a stable lower right participant in society. "Rights" are often recognized in law only when a massive lower right phenomenon forces the issue. When lawyers deal with clients, the only information that is useful and relevant to the enterprise is that which is externally verifiable. Lawyers immediately know when they are venturing into the world of priests and psychologists and they generally do not go down that road. They are making assumptions of a very limited Kosmic nature without telling us what they are doing.

Take education. Many departments in universities are led by intelligent people who are only concerned with developments in the right-side quadrants. They do not teach or even acknowledge the relevance and importance of left-side quadrants. They are careful not to make "all embracing statements about the Kosmos" based on their fields of expertise, but on close observation, it seems pretty clear that they in fact feel or believe their right-side view to "embrace the truth of the Kosmos."

This is a very fertile field I believe - teasing out the assumptions about the Kosmos held by people who are careful not to make all-embracing pronouncements.

 

hi sid,

thanks for responding to my concerns, which to some extent could very well be projections on my part.

as a member of i-i you have access to all issues of aqal journal, including the first one for 2008, which should become available shortly, if not already. just go to the aqal journal site, and you'll find it. cook-greuter's article appears in vol 1, issue 3, i believe.

looking forward to your further contributions to this thread, although i-i may be pulling the plug on the multiplex sometime soon,

ralph

p.s. for a more recent exposition of his philosophy, i and just about anyone who has read them would recommend the excerpts from vol. 2 of the kosmos trilogy, which can be found at kenwilber.com.

---

Ralph:

Hope all is well in Portland. We've had some nice sunny weather up her in PacNW the last couple of days. (Which is a big deal for us, right?)

You said: "i-i may be pulling the plug on the multiplex sometime soon."

Care to elaborate? Where are you getting this from?  

Yes Schalk we are in complete agreement. I like your 'bugaboos' and unfortunately many 'experts' depend on the gullability of ordinary, trusting 'lay' people. 

Sidney:

What roads are you traveling? What fields are you tilling?

And, what is dominating the consciousness in South Africa these days?

hi schalk,

i'm not completely sure about what's happening to the multiplex. it's simply my understanding. there's a history here, and since you're relatively new, you know even less than i do. arthur (adastra) probably knows as much as anyone, that is, anyone who's simply a member of i-i.

i can give you my perspective, for what it's worth. from this point of view, the multiplex is a product of the wild west days of i-i. we've had the road rules formulated by ken wilber to guide us, but pretty much no one with the time or authority to enforce them. it was left up to us, with sometimes less than desirable results, at least from the perspective of some members.

integrallife.com, as i understand it, will be in part a response to that experience with the multiplex. i'm not sure if they're going to be able to accommodate what sidney, for instance, is doing.

i've been following ceo robb smith's blog in the holons newsletter for the latest information. maybe we should warn him there's some hot weather headed his way from our parts.

---