There is another possible dimension of depth in understanding the AQAL Map. A dimension of sight, a dimension of sound, a dimension of mind. You're entering into a new frame of reference, another reality, where the norm is the unexpected and the unexpected is the norm. You're entering into The Zone of Incomprehensibility.
However, more may be said that psychoactively opens another dimension of -- not mental cognition -- but of intuition.
Yes, sir, it's this: The difference between upper and lower quadrants is a matter of scale of integration. Yes, it's a matter of "count" -- of "It" compared to "Its", of "the One and The Many", of "how many are involved" -- but those kinds of descriptions seem only to describe piles of different sizes. Skandas. We're after bigger fish.
What distinguishes a pile from a system is how parts fit together, how they become something new, how they combine, how they act together and how they handle energy together. A system brings to life a unique range of behaviors. Consider an invention. A novelty. An artistic creation. A system of thought. All are emergent wholes, "somethings" that mysteriously emerged by the combining of other whole somethings. Each whole "something" is called, a holon. We perceive in terms of holons.
It's a matter of how many holons a holon comprises, and of its participation in the greater holons of which it is a part. It's a matter of how wholeness appears at larger or smaller scales of perception. Yes, I know this sounds like science fiction or Greek. That's why I have included an illustrative CARTOON on the subject. (See below).
"How Many 'Its'" leaves us with indeterminate piles of things, not systems.
MAKING COMPREHENSIBLE THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE: THE AQAL MAP
Reality, in the the four-quadrant model of reality, the AQAL Map, may be experienced from four perspectives, represented, on paper, as a circle divided into four quadrants.
left and right positions:
signifying "interiors" and "exteriors".
"I" and "we" comprise the two left quadrants
and "It and "Its" (or those)
signifying "interiors" and "exteriors".
"I" and "we" comprise the two left quadrants
and "It and "Its" (or those)
comprise the two right quadrants.
The upper and lower positions signify singular and plural:
The upper and lower positions signify singular and plural:
"It" (upper right) and "Its" (lower right)
"I" (upper left) and "we" (lower left).
"I" (upper left) and "we" (lower left).
That the language typically used.
However, more may be said that psychoactively opens another dimension of -- not mental cognition -- but of intuition.
Here goes:
I believe that the relation of the upper quadrants to the lower quadrants may be stated more descriptively than "It" and "Its" (or "Those", or "Them").
I believe that the relation of the upper quadrants to the lower quadrants may be stated more descriptively than "It" and "Its" (or "Those", or "Them").
Yes, sir, it's this: The difference between upper and lower quadrants is a matter of scale of integration. Yes, it's a matter of "count" -- of "It" compared to "Its", of "the One and The Many", of "how many are involved" -- but those kinds of descriptions seem only to describe piles of different sizes. Skandas. We're after bigger fish.
What distinguishes a pile from a system is how parts fit together, how they become something new, how they combine, how they act together and how they handle energy together. A system brings to life a unique range of behaviors. Consider an invention. A novelty. An artistic creation. A system of thought. All are emergent wholes, "somethings" that mysteriously emerged by the combining of other whole somethings. Each whole "something" is called, a holon. We perceive in terms of holons.
It's a matter of how many holons a holon comprises, and of its participation in the greater holons of which it is a part. It's a matter of how wholeness appears at larger or smaller scales of perception. Yes, I know this sounds like science fiction or Greek. That's why I have included an illustrative CARTOON on the subject. (See below).
When holons come together and start to function in a new way, they are said to integrate. They become a new holon. A holon is a whole "anything". A holon is distinguishable from a pile by the arranging, fitting together, and synergistic functioning of those parts.
"Holon" is a generic term -- believe it or not -- and not a brand of shoe ("Holons").
"Holon" is a generic term -- believe it or not -- and not a brand of shoe ("Holons").
AN EXAMPLE OF A HOLON
Anything you can identify is a holon. Your shoe is a holon. Think about it. It has a sole, a heel, an "upper", a tongue (perhaps) or a strap: parts. These parts, put together by a shoemaker, function synergistically, in this case, as a shoe. Your shoe.
I am reminded of a time at a certain restaurant. I had ordered banana cream pie and they had had the audacity to bring the dessert in the following configuration:
on a plate:
- to one side, a banana (peeled, whole, raw)
- a section of crust with filling
- a dollop of whipped cream on the other side
I wanted to ask, "Where's the shovel?"
This was no banana cream pie. It was a pile of ingredients.
So, to re-state:
"How Many 'Its'" leaves us with indeterminate piles of things, not systems.
"How Many, How Arranged" gives us systems.
Integration brings forth new functional behaviors. Always. Integration brings something new into existence: emergent function, emergent behavior. Emergent behavior is new behavior that can't be predicted by looking at the "parts" involved. It's the manner in which they work, together, the relations of parts, how they integrate, together, that produces emergent behavior. A new, three-dimensional set of relationships set in motion, in time. Holons are (at minimum) four-dimensional.
We regard a carburetor as an "it". Don't we.
That's the Big Clue:
We perceive everything as an "it" (from the right-sided quadrant perspectives); but every "it" is actually a combination of many "its" -- many 'its' fitted together, or hanging together, and moving (or vibrating) together in a certain way.
Every system of "its" is an "it".
The difference between the upper and lower quadrants is matter of perception. Look closely at an "it" and you see it composed of smaller its. Is it an "it" or a collection of "its"? Does it belong in the Upper Right quadrant or the Lower Right? It's a matter of how fine the seeing and the scale of size.
"Its" that integrate more levels of 'its' along the scale of size are said to have more depth than "Its" that comprise fewer levels of "its".
So, it's not exactly "turtles all the way up, turtles all the way down"; it's more like "more and more detail going in, more and more intricacy, coming out." Intricacy means, "more moving parts moving in coordination."
If you've seen fractal video, you know what I mean.
Here's one.
This is the "intricacy-into-detail" direction.
So, the relation of upper and lower quadrants of the AQAL Map is about holarchy.
Upper right: lesser holarchy
Lower right: greater holarchy
The relation of the two right-hand quadrants is, depth.
The relation of the two left-hand quadrants is also, depth.
On the left-hand side, depth of another kind: psychic depth --
that is,
to the degree that the lesser holon (self)
is awakened to its self-condition (proprioception)
and
to the degree that self is permeable, open
to the experiences of its external senses
to that degree psychic depth is experienced.
Inner and outer,
resonant and resonating together,
generate (an unpredictable emergent):
psychic depth.
Integration brings forth new functional behaviors. Always. Integration brings something new into existence: emergent function, emergent behavior. Emergent behavior is new behavior that can't be predicted by looking at the "parts" involved. It's the manner in which they work, together, the relations of parts, how they integrate, together, that produces emergent behavior. A new, three-dimensional set of relationships set in motion, in time. Holons are (at minimum) four-dimensional.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE
Let's look at the parts of an engine, each, one at a time, as an "it". Here's a piston, here's piston ring. Easy. Here's a carburetor. Wait. Not so easy. A carburetor consists of a lot of parts fitted (or hanging) together and moving together in a certain way. Is it an "it" or an "its"?We regard a carburetor as an "it". Don't we.
That's the Big Clue:
We perceive everything as an "it" (from the right-sided quadrant perspectives); but every "it" is actually a combination of many "its" -- many 'its' fitted together, or hanging together, and moving (or vibrating) together in a certain way.
Every system of "its" is an "it".
The difference between the upper and lower quadrants is matter of perception. Look closely at an "it" and you see it composed of smaller its. Is it an "it" or a collection of "its"? Does it belong in the Upper Right quadrant or the Lower Right? It's a matter of how fine the seeing and the scale of size.
"Its" that integrate more levels of 'its' along the scale of size are said to have more depth than "Its" that comprise fewer levels of "its".
So, it's not exactly "turtles all the way up, turtles all the way down"; it's more like "more and more detail going in, more and more intricacy, coming out." Intricacy means, "more moving parts moving in coordination."
If you've seen fractal video, you know what I mean.
Here's one.
This is the "intricacy-into-detail" direction.
So, the relation of upper and lower quadrants of the AQAL Map is about holarchy.
Upper right: lesser holarchy
Lower right: greater holarchy
The relation of the two right-hand quadrants is, depth.
The relation of the two left-hand quadrants is also, depth.
On the left-hand side, depth of another kind: psychic depth --
that is,
to the degree that the lesser holon (self)
is awakened to its self-condition (proprioception)
and
to the degree that self is permeable, open
to the experiences of its external senses
to that degree psychic depth is experienced.
Inner and outer,
resonant and resonating together,
generate (an unpredictable emergent):
psychic depth.
As two holons meet and resonate, a third appears,
an emergent.
Lower quadrants signifiy emergence.
That's holarchy
an emergent.
Lower quadrants signifiy emergence.
That's holarchy
and the relation of
the upper quadrants of the AQAL Map
to the lower quadrants.
Of course, this is all conceptual.
The actuality is, the upper and lower quadrants
are only so-named singular and plural,
but are actually plurals made of singularities
and singularities made of pluralities.
It's the ol' Chicken-and-the-Egg conundrum.
Of course, this is all conceptual.
The actuality is, the upper and lower quadrants
are only so-named singular and plural,
but are actually plurals made of singularities
and singularities made of pluralities.
It's the ol' Chicken-and-the-Egg conundrum.
No comments:
Post a Comment