Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Kinds of structures and holarchies

Continuing from this post, Wilber agrees with the above in that per this post according to Appendix II of IS a kosmic address includes the altitude and perspective (aka quadrant or quadrivium) of both the subject and the object. In a sense the 'object' can be seen as the life conditions per SD above. And in both models the object or life conditions also have altitude and perspective. But it is at this point where both differ from the more dynamical system kind of complexity because it seems the former are projecting human epistemic levels with how other objects see levels. I'll grant that there are mereological levels to objects but I'm doubting that they translate or correspond so nicely like that. It might even be the difference between developmental and ecological holarchies per Edwards?

Also of note is my comment about life conditions being transitional structures while cognitive stages are basic structures. The former transcend and replace while the latter transcend and include. If this is accurate it reinforces my argument that the trajectory of basic structure is being projected onto that of the transitional structure, which might also be correlated with the difference between developmental and ecological holarchy as defined by Edwards.

The SD FAQ also makes clear that a person or society aren't at a single level. There are all sorts of mix and matches depending on a lot of things. Using the notion of lines also adds another dimension. But even with a line a suobject can be at different altitudes depending on context. I still though agree with the concept of a general center of gravity, like a dynamic virtual attractor, that indeed can and does shift both up and down, again depending on a host of other factors. Hence the socio-economic system of capitalism is shifting ever so slowly toward the next wave.

No comments:

Post a Comment

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