Multiplex: What's New | Site Map | Community | News My Multiplex Account | Sign In 
in Search

Are Holons Real?

Last post 05-04-2008, 5:50 PM by schalk. 9 replies.
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  01-08-2008, 4:23 AM 35935

    Are Holons Real?

    Hi All
    Ralph, Jim & I have been engaged in a discussion about holons. I have a feeling that the title of the posting, "Systems - An interpretive approach" might be a little obscure and therefore I'm raising some of the fundamental concerns under a more provocative title!
    I'm curious about Ken's use of the holon concept. In some of his books (eg Brief history of Everything) he says that 'holons' are fundamental to his conception of the universe: "reality as a whole is not composed of thigs or processes but of holons" , in others (eg Integral Psychology) holons hardly get a mention and they don't seem to be central to his systematic exposition of states, structures or bodies.
    This leads me to question whether he really needs holons for his theory. Could not all of his important insights could be developed without the use of holons. 
    But as a relative newcomer I could be completely mistaken! So please point out to me if I'm missing something.
    And if holons do exist in some fundamental sense as Ken says what are they? Is an atom a holon? If so where is it's boundary (ie where does it begin and where does it end)? Let's assume that a constituent element of an atom is an electron and given that an electron cam be conceptualised as a wave (as well as a particle) were does the  wave begin and end ... You get the gist of my problem?
    Let's take something that has an order of magnitude something closer to what we can see and feel. Think of  any a lake ecosystem. Where are its boundaries? Is the river that runs into a lake part of the ecosystem or not? Is the lakeside vegetation part of the ecosystem? The mountains that form the catchment area of the lake?

    If boundaries cannot be specified, does it make sense to speak of Holons?
    To conclude: are holons necessary in Ken Wilber's Integral Psychology?
    Sid Luckett, Cape Town 

  •  01-08-2008, 1:23 PM 35970 in reply to 35935

    Re: Are Holons Real?

    Hi Sid,

     

    I think of a Holon as sort of an entity, made up of two primary aspects; it has both constituent (lesser) parts while simultaneously serving as constituent part in something greater. In a fuller sense Holons can be thought of as an organizing principle.

     

    While trying to imagine what the manifest world might look like without such an organizing principle, i.e., without Holons, the best i could do was to picture groups of ‘wholes’ (defined as stuff with similar characteristics) frittering about. Say that under this scheme a person was attempting to knit something, and that their sewing kit contained a large number of little ringlets, little wholes; it's difficult to see how a knitter might proceed without some sort of organizing principle, in this case something that would stick the ringlets together in some meaningful functional way. My limited imagination would have to posit an adhesive agent, some sort of glue-on perhaps.

     

    The notion of Holons avoids this needless complexity in an elegant and skillful way, in that the linkage (i.e., organizing principle) is built right into the links; and where each level both transcends and includes its constituents. A view, i suggest, that is completely necessary in and even definitive of integral psychology.

     

    Warmly,

     

    Charles

    88W18'28" 41N58'02" 

     

  •  01-13-2008, 1:08 PM 36431 in reply to 35970

    Re: Are Holons Real?

    Charles, hi

    Thanks for your response. I'm still not convinced that the idea of Holons is necessary.

    In Integral Psychology, Ken uses such concepts as waves and structures amongst others. Could he not simply use 'layered structures' instead of 'holons'? Another way of putting the question is: what are the essential characteristics of 'holons' that are not found in 'structures'?

    Sid  

  •  01-14-2008, 8:39 AM 36499 in reply to 36431

    Re: Are Holons Real?

    Hi Sid,

     

    I'm more than a little uneasy in speculating on what another might or might not have done; besides which Ken is fully capable of speaking for him self.

     

    But as nearly as i can tell, the choice of the word Holon was very specific with intent to avoid a certain problem; namely is our world, i.e. the Kosmos, made up of wholes or parts? This problem was a sort of chicken-and-the-egg infinite regression argument, which was resolved by this simple statement: there are no wholes; there are no parts; only whole/parts.

     

    It's my own view that the term ‘layered structures’ has connotations that add little to resolving this problem. For example, if i posit that a structure is akin to a brick, a sort of building block in a wall under construction, then any one brick on what-ever layer is fundamentally interchangeable with any other.

     

    Dissimilar holons are not interchangeable nor are they linked by something external, in the way that the bricks in a wall are linked by mortar; but their linkage is internal and is in fact their defining characteristic: no wholes, no parts, only whole/parts.

     

    Warmly,

     

    Charles

    88W18'28" 41N58'02"

  •  01-20-2008, 12:51 AM 36995 in reply to 36499

    Re: Are Holons Real?

    Charles, hi

    Of course I agree that Ken is 'fully capable of speaking for himself", but that's not really my point. Anybody's theory can only be acceptable as a whole and in parts, if it and its parts make are logically coherent & meaningful. In this case I'm questioning the use of  Holons in Ken's theory. Is it perhaps not redundant given his use of structures and levels.

    I don't think that the analogy of 'bricks in a building' fully captures Ken's idea of structures. For example in IP Ken says the following about structures:
    1) Structure is a level or sheath of consciousness ... (p12)
    2) Structures are holistic patterns that are found in levels of development ... (p13)
    3) The basic structures [including psychic, subtle and nondual] in the the Great Nest of Being. As they emerge peramanently in an individual's development, ... they become enduring contours of an enlightened mind   ... (p16)

    If I'm reading ken correctly then these structures transcend and include the structures at lower levels -- this is a characteristc central to Ken's idea of holons.

    The idea of structures, as Ken uses them, has an advantage over the idea of holons in that the problematic issue of boundaries doesn't arise. So why use the concept 'holons' when it doesn't add anything?

    Take care

    Sid 

  •  01-20-2008, 12:51 PM 37049 in reply to 36995

    Re: Are Holons Real?

    Hi Sid,

     

    I have just about reached a limit, or boundary, in my capacity to carry on this conversation, especially as my tendency is always to see things in the simplest of terms.

     

    If the world was suddenly bereft of the word holon not only would the occasional electronic newsletter common to subscribers around here have to be renamed, but a small city in Israel just outside of Tel Aviv might suffer a similar fate. On balance i think i'll just keep using it.

     

    However i deeply share your concern over boundaries as the notion of limits is both deep and profound. This is of particular note in the English language as is represented by the phoneme ST, where its use typically describes a limit. Words that employ it like structure, states, best, worst, most, etc. have connotations of boundary. They are, as was once pointed out to me by an insightful astrologer from the United Kingdom, in essence saturnine words.

     

    At the heart of what is sometimes called the integral impulse is the notion of transcending these limits; of entering and inhabiting a view that can at once use them without being proscribed by their boundaries -a very lofty aim indeed.

     

    Warmly,

     

    Charles

    88W18'28" 41N58'02"

       

  •  01-26-2008, 2:34 AM 37523 in reply to 37049

    Re: Are Holons Real?

    Hi Charles

    The newsletter might well disappear, but on the other hand it could simply change it's name. Concerning the city, I can't comment as I don't know much about it. I suppose it's possible that a name change could lead to the exodus of it's citizens!!

    Please explain the phoneme ST ... I don't know anything about it

    Sid

  •  01-26-2008, 9:16 AM 37549 in reply to 37523

    Re: Are Holons Real?

    Hi Sid,

     

    Please explain the phoneme ST ... I don't know anything about it”

     

    Explanations, the experts tell us, are dependent on context. Alas, i can claim no expertise in hermeneutics or semiotics. But it is abundantly clear to me, that all of our lives here, past, present, and future are subject to what i think of as invisible forces.

     

    Once i had the good fortune to be at dinner with a group of students of Andrew Cohen, most of whom were head and shoulders above me in cognitive development; so much so that when i observed to one especially bright fellow that ‘language is man's best invention’; he laughed and only half jokingly responded that ‘man is language’s best invention!’

     

    So part of these invisible forces are embedded right in language itself, just waiting as it were to be discovered. Typically this sort of discovery requires some sort of key; some sort of linkage or context. Pardon my long-windedness but this brings us to the phoneme ST. As stated earlier, when it appears in the English language it typically refers to a limit or a boundary. In the astrological lexicon limits are signified by Saturn. So ST in its role as phoneme typically stands in place for this critical archetype; which when put in motion can be thought of as contraction. It's also equally clear to me, that the relative world, the world of manifestation, by its very nature is dependent upon duality; so no thing manifests without its opposite. Contraction is in a dance with expansion. In the astrological lexicon expansion is signified by Jupiter. So we have the word jovial -formerly a god- but known to show up in human form as Falstaff, archetype of laughter and good times.

     

    We can see this interplay in this thread, where a limit was reached in our collective efforts to agree on the need for or value of the word holon. At which point an important principle was brought into play; i.e. when something reaches its natural limit or boundary, it tends to die and be born again as it’s opposite. Day turns into night. The Saturnine contraction, implodes on itself, and is born again as humor, as Jupiterian expansion.

     

    And finally i can’t quite resist the temptation to append this haiku which can be read as an attempt for clarity as well as a lament for its lack.

     

    Reading Between the Lines

     

    Words are tricky things.

    Oft they get in the way, of

    What i am trying to say.

     

    Warmly,

     

    Charles

    88W18'28" 41N58'02"

      

     

     

     

     

  •  05-04-2008, 7:30 AM 48759 in reply to 37549

    Re: Are Holons Real?

    Anyone who is interested in this discussion can pick it up in the thread, "Systems: An Interpretive Approach".

    Sid Luckett

  •  05-04-2008, 5:50 PM 48815 in reply to 48759

    Re: Are Holons Real?

    Sidney, Ralph:

    Sidney, you ask some very relevant questions!

    "Are Holons Real?" A very elegant and massive question. I am completely sincere when I say that it really depends on what "are," "holons," and "real" mean.

    Let me ask you this: from which quadrant would you prefer an answer? Would you prefer examples of holons existing in the material world individually or in a system, or would you prefer the answer to point to subjective and interior apprehension of their existence or inter-culturally manifested apprehensions?

    Isn't this a fundamental prerequisite to getting a meaningful answer to the question "Is X real?"

    I am wondering if you are functioning as a Zen Master presenting a koan. Is that your intention? Fine if you are, I like a good koan. But I am also wondering if you are sincerely wrestling with the notion of "are holons real?" or as the Chinese say, "tossing out bricks to attract jade."

    With regard to the relationship of structures and holons, would you agree that one can conceptually draw the lines and name the hierarchy of structures in any number of ways? Isn't it most useful to admit that the explication of a given set of hierarchical structures is merely a tool for orientation and does not mirror a fundamental series of dividing lines in any reality one wishes to speak of?

    So let's agree for practical purposes that there are "structures" that represent large spaces of phenomenal complexity where many horizontal translation activities take place from each of the 4 quadrants. It would seem most useful to regard holons as the filling for the structures, and one could also extend it and regard the structures themselves as holons. Or one can speak of the structures as structures in order to bridge a vocabulary gap with "speakers of foreign languages" (i.e. persons who are familiar with "structures" as a meaningul term.)

    A practical issue that must always be addressed is how much of the existing vocabulary to use when presenting what appear to be novel or refined ideas.

    I like your invitation to think of a lake and its systems. A very useful and elegant place to focus on the issue.

    Another orienting example I like to think of is the human body and its relationship to what is ostensibly outside of it. At what point when I exhale does the gas no longer belong to "me?" At what point does dirt on my skin become me?

    Let me share with you a notion that I have serious respect for. You know how prostitution has traditionally been stigmatized? It seems odd. After all, the women are people, God's creatures, and they are hurting no one, right?

    Well, in a very real sense, what a prostitute is is a walking garbage can. I mean that in only the most literal sense. They take in the bodily fluids from untold numbers of men and those fluids become them. These are men for whom they have not the slightest love or affection. In a sense, they are perverting the most precious facet of our nature.

    So, the next man who kisses or penetrates a prostitute in a very real sense is getting a big feast of communal excreta. One quite literally is mixing ones blood with the juice of any number of men who came before. This is inherently repulsive and probably not wise hygiene. And to me, that explains the stigma of prostitution.

    And that is simply the upper right example. One can also extend it to a lower left perspective and talk about the velleities and insincerities and mixed signals and inter-personally incoherent junk that one takes on board when consorting with a prostitute.

    So, in a sense the discussion of holons implicates a discussion of virtue and health.

    Is not cancer, in a sense, and I am not merely speaking from an upper right perspective, a case of holons gone haywire? The inherent boundaries have gone berserk. Things that belong to one holon are erupting and spreading to many other holons.

    Let me share with you my 4 quadrant theory on cancer. The best approach is to be reminded that in a very high percentage of cases, those who are afflicted with cancer are the nicest, sweetest, most friendly people you will meet. It seems absolutely perverse that "God" would choose them to visit cancer upon, while the cranky people, the stubborn people, those who march to the beat of a different drummer, rarely are found with cancer.

    The evolution of the world is such that each day there is more and more danger of holons collapsing within each 4 quadrants. Holons can be viewed as phenomenological organs. They must receive, they must transmit, but their essential boundaries must not rupture.

    In the upper left, my individual dominion and relationship with spirit is challenged more and more by a world that only regards as real that which is physical, in the lower left, the cultural constructs are less and less sincere and informationally accurate as advertising and politics fill us with disinformation back by ulterior motives, in the upper right I am bombarded with new combinations of viruses, food that is not food, and pollution, and in the lower right, I get the sense that the systems which I physically observe and function within no longer have a center that is holding. In each quadrant, the attack on the integrity of the holons is stronger.

    And the only remedy to this is to be massively and passionately stubborn about truth, beauty, and the good (as you seem to be!), not accepting of non-sense, unwilling to "take on" anything within any quadrant without first processing it (to use a Gestalt concept - chewing it completely before swallowing), and to be willing to give names to both the good and the bad in the universe, inasmuch as they both exist. This orientation to the post-modern world ensures that the relationships among holons remain healthy and intact.

    Now, back to the notion of borders.

    Remember George Carlin proposing that to earn a little extra money one might rent out the space inside one's nose? You can partition the area off into nanometer sized sectors, make a map available and allow people to visit their rental space on-line in a Google Map sort of quest. They can even store things there, have parties and concerts there, and sub-let the space. No pets, though!

    I would call you as an expert witness when I am sued in a very real lower right court by one of my tenants who claims that regarding the area I leased to him I did not have lawful title to, and it was in fact public lands.

    The solution to this would of course be to regularly spray one's nostrils with a solution that creates a crust, thereby bolstering the argument that the space at issue is not public but is more akin to the way nations draw the lines of their sea areas across the mouths of bays and the like. There is no better border inside my nose that a layer of crust!

    As a matter of fact, I can lease the area inside of my nose to you, and you can sub-lease it!

    This may seem odd, but my nose has more physical reality than the space people are leasing in Second Life! So, this option would be marketed to people who want a little more reality than Second Life offers them.

    You guys want to start a thread offering to lease, using payment involving the holon "universal market value units" instead of U.S. currency, the space inside our noses? As weird as it sounds, it could raise some very serious discussions about what is real and what isn't.

     

     

View as RSS news feed in XML
 © Integral Institute, 2006. all rights reserved - powered by enlight™ email this page del.icio.us | terms of service | privacy policy | suggestion box | help