Ken Wilber, his AQAL Map & Beyond

[Edward theurj Berge]

I came across this online book by Rolf Sattler, Ken Wilber, his AQAL Map and Beyond. Of particular relevance to my previous comments on hierarchical complexity is Chapter 2: "Either/or logic and beyond." An excerpt follows. After the excerpt he then goes into yin-yang theory, dialectics and network thinking (rhizomes), all examples of postformal operations. His criticisms of Wilber below are similar to some of my comments on the MHC.

 

Quote:

 

Wilber has gone far beyond the limits of either/or logic, but with regard to the basic holonic structure of his AQAL map he adheres to hierarchical thinking, that is either/or logic.

 

Fuzzy set theory deals with sets. How are sets defined? In traditional either/or logic the definition of a set applies to all members of the set. Therefore, one either is a member of a set or one is not, one is a man or one is not, one is a woman or one is not. According to fuzzy logic, which is also called fuzzy set theory, this changes radically: according to fuzzy set theory, membership in a set ranges from 0% to 100%. Thus one can be a partial member of a set; for example, a 50% member of the set of men and at the same time a 50% member of the set of women. We know that such partial members do indeed exist. There are people who are physically intermediate between a typical

man and woman. These people often have to undergo painful operations to conform to our categories of either/or logic. They are violently forced into our man-made categories. In contrast, fuzzy set theory allows for the whole range of intermediates.

 

Fuzzy logic is relevant to most, if not all, aspects of Wilber’s map, that is, to the three or four major dimensions (The Big Three or four quadrants), levels, lines, states, and types. Here I want to focus on levels, which means hierarchy. How do fuzzy logic and fuzziness affect hierarchies? I think they dissolve them. Let me explain.

 

To obtain and retain a hierarchy, the following two conditions must be fulfilled:

 

1. The levels that function as levels of the hierarchy must be distinct and mutually exclusive.

 

2. The upper level holon must completely include the lower level holons. Such complete inclusion requires that the set of lower level holons contains all members all or none.

 

[Recall Commons’ conditions for hierarchical complexity: 1. Higher order of complexity actions are defined in terms of lower order ones. 2. They organize them, and 3 that organization is non-arbitrary. Sattler provides examples from cell theory to show these conditions are not met.]

 

In conclusion, we can see that the fuzziness with regard to both conditions dissolves the hierarchy. A hierarchy is based on distinctness, mutual exclusivity, categories. It cannot be maintained in the face of fuzziness. Since there is so much fuzziness in this world, this does not lend great support to hierarchies. However, we can maintain hierarchies as long as we exclude all those cases that introduce fuzziness. How much of the whole Kosmos does that leave for hierarchies? I don’t know. One can also try to press the recalcitrant cases into the hierarchies and then end up with somewhat limping hierarchies. Or one can “simply” ignore everything that does not fit into hierarchies,

which really prevents us from a deeper understanding. (In a review of Wilber’s [2006]

Integral Spirituality, Frank Visser [http://www.wilberwatch.blogspot.com/] noted that in this book Wilber used the word ‘simply’ 268 times, and he added that this is “simply too much” “forced simplification”). In any case, fuzziness creates problems for hierarchies and hierarchical thinking. Maybe just a little fuzziness can be patched up, but more fuzziness leads to the demise of hierarchies (29-33).

[rltruthseeker]

I read the chapter on Either/Or Logic part Theurj,

I like thinking of the AQAL quadrant as a continuum, or continuous (fuzzy) set. It is only when we get into distinct labels, that we have trouble.

As far as the conditions 1 and 2 must be fulfilled

The levels that function as levels of the hierarchy must be distinct and mutually exclusive.

AQAL is not a hierarchy...it is a holarchy. Thus the "mutually exclusive" rule doesn't apply. Holons (which are really just contexts anyway) can transcend and include one another... a good image would be spheres within spheres. The new context or definition transcends (bringing something new to the table) the old definition, while including the older definition (or it recontextualizes it).

Nor do I think that the "boundaries" of definitions have to be exactly distinct...there can be flexible definitions or distinctions, depending on the person and intersubjective communication.

The upper level holon must completely include the lower level holons. Such complete inclusion requires that the set of lower level holons contains all members all or none.


Wilber, I think never said that a holon "must completely include the lower level holons." He only said that the higher 'holons' organize them...and this organization would depend on the higher order definition (new context).

Holons by their very definition don't follow either/or logic. It is both. A holon is a whole/part. This radically undercuts the greek dualism of either/or logic. If you have read Plato's Parmenides, you wold find that Plato goes in depth trying to resolve the whole vs. part debate. He couldn't understand logically (although he probably could practically) that "things" can be whole and part.


I think when we make categories we can apply either/or/both/neither (which is a limitation of words)....with the neither (exceptions) requiring it's own separate category if necessary. Moreover, I think that definitions can and are flexible or open-ended...especially when you get to the intersubjective domain, because they don't have simple location (for example, the definition of love).


That is not to say that their aren't definitions that are pretty weird. Here's a koan for you, is this a whole or part or holon? I can't tell, lol.

[rltruthseeker]

Platypus. Mammal? ????????????

[rltruthseeker]

perhaps either/or/both/neither/exceptions/indeterminate/potentially/needs new category....

categories. lol.