Tuesday, December 6, 2016

A Model (amodal) of Hier(an)archical Synplexity

Following up on this post, the article then goes into basic categories, derived from image schema, that are the most concrete and are typically found in the middle of classification hierarchies. The latter are linear and arise from the sort of formal logic of necessary and sufficient conditions used in set theory. There is a unique particular at the lower end and a universal general at the other, with an evolutionary development from one to the other. To explain how we even got to the lowest point a metaphysical skyhook is used: something 'involves' from the highest plane. This is found in both Wilber and the Model of Hierarchical Complexity, the former with Spirit's morphogenetic gradient and the latter with ideal Platonic forms and abstract Aristotelian categories.
The basic category structure though is more grounded in natural empiricism. Yes, the hierarchical structure is still there, but it starts in the middle of the classification with the most concrete categories expressed in the human-environment relationship and builds to the more abstract categories at both the most particular and most general levels. In this case the holarchy (if you prefer that word) is not a linear logic from top to bottom and back again, but from the middle out in both directions, in media res, so to speak. Such an approach turns the typical neo- Piagetian systems inside out (unfolding) and outside in (enfolding) based more on the fold than the ladder. A good visual of that is here. And the implications are profound.

This is explored in depth in the Ning IPS threads 'real and false reason' and 'states, stages, the Wilber Combs lattice and the fold.' I prefer the term coined by Caputo for this sort of thingamabob: hier(an)archy. This alternative is a model (amodal) of hier(an)archical synplexity.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.