Should the 4 quadrant map be amended?

Reflections
1

On Sunday, August 20, I initiated a minor debate with two integral friends about the “inner/outer” of evolution in Integral Theory. KW wrote: “every exterior has an interior,” (call it ‘E/I theory’: SES, page 127)-- (1) prehension in non-living holons, e.g. atoms, quarks, strings and (2) actual consciousness in organisms, as shown in the standard 4 quadrant map. My view:

  1. We have evidence for (2) but not for (1). Organisms adjust/adapt/react to their environment in ways that cannot be explained solely in terms of physical factors, e.g. chimpanzees and other species whose young learn by imitating their parents and other adults. Explanation of such behavior has to posit consciousness or some kind of interiority in organisms. By contrast, the behavior of atoms can be completely explained by the laws of physics; no need for prehension.

  2. I understand that Ken likes E/I for internal theoretical coherence—it avoids a radical discontinuity in the evolution of holons: interiors all the way up and all the way down. I like it, too, but we should admit that the concept is an item of speculative metaphysics, not of any evidence-based science or ontology. It is not one of the 20 tenets either–I checked. Perhaps E/I could be added as an additional tenet.

  3. There is already unavoidable discontinuity in IT’s theory of evolution, viz. macroevolution— transition from lower holons, e.g. single cell organisms to multi-cell organisms is a leap in vertical evolution. Transcendent properties of higher level living holons are emergents via “creative advance into novelty,” so why couldn’t interiority itself be an emergent property of evolution from inorganic holons to living ones?

  4. If I am right, an amended 4 quadrant map would look like the one below where prehension has been removed and interiority shows up first at fulcrum 3.

    Amended quadrant map
    Amended quadrant map594×664 75 KB

2

I personally think it’s fine either way. I definitely prefer the pan-interiorist view, it just makes far more sense to me, it’s the simpler explanation, and it has the greatest possible explanatory power.

But the fact of the matter is, evidence-based science has made very little progress when it comes to interiority whatsoever, and if someone wants to make an argument for interiors emerging at some point in evolution, I think the onus is on them to demonstrate a physical mechanism that produces that interior experience. It’s an idea that doesn’t make much sense to me — nowhere have we ever seen such a mechanism, and I would say this assumption is just as speculative and metaphysical as the pan-interiorist argument, but less coherent.

But if that’s the map you want to use, I say go for it. It is an interesting topic of coversation either way. In my Holons video, I make a pretty strong case for pan-interiorism, but I also tell the viewer that it’s perfectly fine if they want to draw the line of interiority at worms, tardigrades, or ferns.

However, for your amended chart to work, I think you’d also have to start the LL at fulcrum 3 as well, since the LL is looking at shared interiors. Can’t have a shared interior if there’s no interior to begin with!

3

Oh one other argument I’ll add for pan-interiorism — and this one is a bit controversial for many people who prefer to take a more emergent or materialist stance here.

I think a pan-interiorist view is more aligned with the most advanced states of consciousness that people can awaken to, where we run into something like a “Ground of Being”, often like a bug runs into a windshield. If there is any truth to that realization, I think it requires some kind of “being” that runs all the way down to, through, and beyond the very first forms to emerge in this universe. Of course, when it comes to physical sciences, this is an unfalsifiable claim. However, it’s interesting that there are phenomenological injunctions that any person can take in order to disclose this same data, and anyone who performs that same experiment for long enough will eventually experience that same groundless Ground, where “being” pervades all things.

So my own take is that if we want to take a fully integral approach, which would seek to include and integrate data from fundamental interior-facing methodologies as well as exterior-facing methodologies, the result of that integration would suggest something like pan-interiorism. However, whenever we exclude or dismiss any methodology from our analysis, we see a different kind of integration, and therefore different mental models can come out of that.

To me, considering the apparent deep symmetry that seems to exist between any number of “awakening experiences” that have existed for human beings on this planet throughout history, it makes sense to include that data in our own integrations.

4

What you’re talking about is similar to what Brendan Graham Dempsey is calling “emergentism”. I am unsure about this, but one thing that makes me kind of lean toward E/I theory is that we can understand information/energy and what Forrest Landry calls “eventities” at all holonic levels. We can identify several forms of qualia from out own conscious experience and the most fundamental is pure relational. This is often drown out of our conscious awareness because we are bombarded with other forms of qualia that are higher in the holarchy (adverbial, adjectival, and valence). And also our imagination is a construction of those forms of qualia as well. All of these experiences have a Kosmic address in the UL that aligns with something in the UR and there might well be fleeting experiences that would essentially be the UL equivalent of just fundamental information/energy relations.

1 Like
5

“Fine either way” is my view of the matter as well. My adjustment to the 4 quadrant map in no way threatens the overall model. I love the symmetry of pan-interiorism, but perhaps you can explain how it is the simpler view, since my view does not add a theoretical entity (forbidden by Ockham’s razor) but rather subtracts one, viz. prehension. Also, could you explain how pan-interiorism has greater explanatory power? If the behavior of an atom can be explained by the laws of physics, then, unlike the behavior of organisms, there is nothing more to be explained.

There is a deep sense, of course, in which pan-interiorism is true, according to Integral Theory, since Spirit pervades the entire universe, but that absolute truth doesn’t help much in our efforts to discover relative truths about the nature of holons in the manifest universe.

Finally, I agree that evidence-based science (you mean the physical sciences, I assume) doesn’t tell us much about interiority. For that we have to rely on psychology and philosophy. However, you also write: “if someone wants to make an argument for interiors emerging at some point in evolution, I think the onus is on them to demonstrate a physical mechanism that produces that interior experience. It’s an idea that doesn’t make much sense to me — nowhere have we ever seen such a mechanism, and I would say this assumption is just as speculative and metaphysical as the pan-interiorist argument, but less coherent.” I take it that “someone” refers to me. If I were a physicalist, the onus would indeed be on me to demonstrate a physical mechanism that produces interior experience. But I am not a physicalist. If a label for my view is needed, it would be something like Qualified Evolutionary Interiorism.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I will check out your video on holons to get a full understanding of your strong case for pan-interiorism.

1 Like
6

Oh not at all, just a hypothetical “someone”. Anyone, really! There are a bunch of “emergentists” out there who would prefer to do away with interiority at the lowest levels of matter.

In my view, a theoretical entity is being added when it comes to interiority emerging “out of” exterior-only forms (atoms and molecules), which would require some physical mechanism that’s capable of generating that interior experience. A paninteriorist view does not require that mechanism, as it argues that interiors simply go all the way down. So it’s an explanation that requires fewer moving parts, which is why, when it comes to the question of “where does consciousness come from?” it feels to me like it has superior explanatory power.

Put simply, a pan-interiorist view requires only one “Big Bang”, which brings both interiors and exteriors into existence simultaneously. But an emergentist view would seem to require two “Big Bangs” — one for exteriors to emerge, and then another for interiors to emerge.

If the behavior of an atom can be explained by the laws of physics, then, unlike the behavior of organisms, there is nothing more to be explained.

I think that is true, and I think can be accounted for in a pan-interiorist view. Because with each stage comes deeper/greater/more interiority, with greater freedom and agency and autonomy. Which means if we are looking at atoms and molecules, we don’t see much autonomy there at all. Like I say in the video, I think it is something to “be” an atom… but it’s not much.

As Ken says, that’s why we can predict the motion of Jupiter’s moons 20 years from now with mathematical precision, but I cannot predict where my dog will be in 20 minutes. Because a dog’s interior is capable of much more agency, autonomy, and freedom of choice than an atom has, because that atom would possess the tiniest sliver of interiority imaginable, and one that would be entirely “subject” to the laws of physics.

“There is a deep sense, of course, in which pan-interiorism is true, according to Integral Theory, since Spirit pervades the entire universe, but that absolute truth doesn’t help much in our efforts to discover relative truths about the nature of holons in the manifest universe.”

Agreed! That’s what makes it a controversial factor, at least in some circles :slight_smile: Still, I like to imagine that our universe is itself a moment-to-moment reconciliation of all of these different polarities — absolute and relative, form and formless, interior and exterior, individual and collective, part and whole.

7

To extend your logic, there would have to be a third Big Bang at Fulcrum 3 where life first appeared, a fourth at Fulcrum 4 with the emergence of eukaryotes, a fifth at Fulcrum 5, and so on all the way up. This is absurd, of course. But my model has no need for even a second Big Bang (which would by definition create a second universe). As my amended quadrant map shows, there is nothing illogical about the notion of interiority emerging some time after the Big Bang.

As you so beautifully explained in your video talk, it’s holons all the way down, but interiority is not a holon; it’s an emergent property of certain holons, and it is not needed to get a universe up and running. Again, I am not arguing that pan-interiorism is wrong; there is no argument for that, and as I said earlier, I like the theory for its elegance. My claim is simply that we lack evidence for it.

I agree. In my model collective interiors would not appear before Fulcrum 3.

8

Gregg Henriques’ UTOK model includes planes of existence for matter, life, mind, and culture. Nomali has an explanation for how it fits into the AQAL framework showing that each plane of UTOK can be found within each of the 4 quadrants. Gregg explains how there have been 4 big bangs, each of which saw the emergence of these plans of matter, life, mind, and culture. Each of these involved an acceleration of the morphogenetic processes because of the embedded information-energy within the previous phenomena of information-energy. For example, DNA is a novel form of information-energy that is embedded within the information-energy of atoms and molecules. Each of these provided novel ways for information-energy to be generated and complexified and this drove evolution ever faster and faster. Although there are more than 4 fulcrums, only these 4 had this internal feedback loop of information-energy.