Participatory Spirituality for the 21st Century
HFT offers a across-time, interactive rendering of various constitutive AQAL elements by linking Integral Scientific Pluralism (ISP) with the dynamic drives of four dualities in their healthy and pathological avatars: drives of interior –exterior duality, individual-collective duality, internal-external duality and higher-lower duality, with the purported aim of resolving some philosophical and grammatical inconsistencies in AQAL meta-theory.
Three questions whose answers are not yet clear to me, and on which I invite thoughts from others are:
I applaud the attempt to introduce the fluidic /dynamic aspect to an otherwise ‘static’ look and feel of AQAL, and may be a reading of the earlier papers on this subject may help answer the questions raised.
In the relative world of form, a holon does not exist in isolation of its environment and processes that keep it alive. Field is the construct that links static holons and their interacting drives and processes. And yes, it is also the construct that unites a superholon with a subholon as the subholon is embedded in the superholon through the process of differentiation and integration. That degree of differentiation/integration does not exist at the same degree as if the subholon was not included in as deep of a holon (as measured by the level of the superholon).
In my view, the field cannot be thought of as uni-direction (as from higher to lower). Instead the field is the total of the drives and actions interacting between holons. Some drives foster integration and others don't. And we have to account for ascending and descending development as well as pathological components per level, and so on. I wonder if this helps?
Hi, yes, thanks; it does. And it reminds me that I had planned to ask you, in my original post to you, if you've read much by Sean Kelly (or Morin). In particular, your field description brought to mind the two forms of participation Kelly discusses: embedded participation and enactive participation. Or possibly Gendlin's notion of body-constituting as environmental process. Your remark about the field not being seen as uni-directional is also clarifying. I was thinking, for instance, of the current philosophical critique of holism that one finds in speculative realism or complexity theory: the whole is both more than and less than its parts (and both more than and less than itself; and parts are both more than and less than the whole; etc).
Right - that's a good point about the whole being both more and less than the parts. Development transcends some limitations and includes some core capacities. But it also excludes potentialities and even some lower level tendencies that can create different paths of evolution. Those different paths can be reconciled at even wider levels of development.
No I haven't come across those concepts of Kelly or Morin but I should look out for them. Really nice to engage you with this material.