I decided to move the comments below to this new post, as it begins a new line of inquiry.
August 4th, 2006 at 2:53 pm eEdward: “Technically holons have as their other set of duality agency-communion, which is, according to Wilber, not the same as the individual-social duality in the 4 quadrants.â€Â
They’re not the same, in his system, because he insists on separating individual and social holons, instead of recognizing that they form a developmental continuum. Seeing them in the latter way, there is no need to distinguish agency/communion from individual/social. Even in Wilber’s system, it’s clear that the interior/exterior distinction is far more fundamental than the individual/social distinction. Even Wilber will say that the distinction between an individual holon and a social holon is not always clear. He would never say that the distinction between an interior and an exterior is not clear.
August 4th, 2006 at 3:49 pm eI’d agree that the individual-social duality might not be fundamental, but agency-communion is essential to the whole idea of a holon, being a part-whole.
Also technically the other axis of a holon is not interior-extrerior but transcendence-dissolution. I think later Wilber added that dissolution is the negative aspect and integration is the positive aspect on this side of the duality. This duality is more like the AQAL dynamic of evolution-integration Mark discusses.
And then there’s the notion that holons each have 4 quadrants per the AQAL matrix, so there is some confusion as to the agency-communion and transcendence-dissolution dimension with the 4 quadrants of interior-exterior and individual-social. Mark tried to sort this out in his AQAL Eyes series beginning in Part II.
“I’d agree that the individual-social duality might not be fundamental, but agency-communion is essential to the whole idea of a holon, being a part-whole.”
Yes, and it can also be understood as individual/social, and self-maintenance (or immanence or integration)/growth (or transcendence or evolution). These are redundant terms when you understand that individual and social holons are embedded in a continuum, and that these terms all refer to the fundamental higher/lower duality. Growth, transcendence, evolution, communion, social all are interactions of lower holons towards higher holons, agency, immanence, self-maintenance, individual are interactions of a higher holon towards a lower holon.
Can someone explain how base holons such as atoms have agency and communion? We can readily understand both agency and communion in sentient beings. It seems to me that the tenets simply break down at the low and high scales. What is the intersubjective space that atoms create and how is this different from simple mechanical reactivity?
“The Four Quadrants propose a basic structure to Kosmic evolution that demarcates the Inner from the Outer and the Many from the One. These are basic perspectives that emerge from the heart of the Integral Kosmos. Similarly, the holon construct is based on the fundamental distinctions between the higher (transcendence) and the lower (immanence), and between the dynamics of agency (preservation) and of communion (adaptation). I believe that it is here, at these lines of differentiation that the relational problems between holons and Quadrants are more clearly seen. And, as I hope to show, it is also here that the solution to these issue is to be found.†Mark Edwards, Through AQAl Eyes Part II, Reading Room at http://www.integralworld.net
Ray: Whether or not you believe atoms have sentience is a matter of faith, I suppose. A panpsychist believes that they do. Sentience aside, they can be considered to have agency and communion. Agency is the tendency of an atom to maintain itself as a separate entity from other atoms. Communion is the tendency to interact with, and often form bonds with, other atoms. These two fundamental properties can be identified regardless of whether or not we believe atoms have sentience, “know what they are doing”, etc.
Notice that the process of communion is essential to forming a higher holon, a molecule. Though communal interactions, atoms join into molecules. So beginning at this level, we can see that communion is associated with growth, development and evolution, and eventually, with the formation of a higher form of life, transcendence.
Atoms also create an intersubjective space when they bond into molecules. This is why atoms within molecules can have properties that independent atoms lack. A good example is the ability to ionize, gain or lose an electron. Certain atoms that ionize only under extreme, laboratory conditions when existing independently will ionize readily when a member of a molecule–oxygen in an amino acid, for example. The reason they can is that the electron gained or lost is shared with other atoms in the molecule. The ability to ionize is really a property of the entire molecule, but the individual ionized atom shares in that property. I regard this as analogous, in an obviously rudimentary way, to the ability of humans to acquire properties of their social holons, for example, language. Language is a property of society, it can only emerge through the interactions of many individuals, but individual members of that society participate in this property.
So I regard the molecule as the interobjective space in which its member atoms are situated, just as the physical aspects of society are the interobjective space in which individuals are situated. To the extent that atoms have any subjectivity, the molecule functions as an intersubjective matrix. Each atom is situated in that matrix, and has a perspective that is related to its situation. Thus in the case of an ionized atom, its perspective is a function of its being ionized, which in turn results from being bonded to other atoms which allows it to gain or lose an extra electron.
Edward (quoting Mark): “the holon construct is based on the fundamental distinctions between the higher (transcendence) and the lower (immanence), and between the dynamics of agency (preservation) and of communion (adaptation). ”
I agree with this, but again, the terms are redundant. I consider agency and immanence to be the same drive or tendency, and likewise, communion and transcendence.