Help
Sign In
dualism
August 2006 
On -ism's, -ity's, Wilber and the birth of the tetrality
Diederick
In the context of my thesis (I should write a post with an overview on its subject - I'll put that on the list), I've been looking into the difference between dualism and duality. None of the dictionaries I checked make any meaningful distinction between these two, but I know they are sometimes used to refer to two qualitatively different kinds of relationship between two entities, properties, phenomena - I'll stick to the term phenomena for now. Although I've spent some time researching this on the web, as well as in sociological literature (for my thesis), another warning is in place: this is still far from clear to me! What follows are some thoughts on what I've found. Any thoughts, knowledge or leads would be much appreciated.
In philosophy, the term dualism is often used to refer to an asymmetric, vertical (in the sense of ‘higher' and ‘lower') relationship between two phenomena. A well-known example is the dualism between the ideal and the real. Other examples: spirit-matter, absolute-relative. A duality, on the other hand, refers to a symmetric, horizontal relationship between two phenomena, such as male-female, divergence-convergence.
Using these definitions, it makes a big difference whether you use duality or dualism. Take the relationship between mind and matter. Call it a duality, and you're saying these are two (horizontal) aspects of reality, without expressing a preference or asserting the primacy of one over the other. Call it a dualism, and you're saying that there is an asymmetrical, vertical relationship between the two. You'd be asserting the primacy of either mind over matter or vice versa. Now these two positions are very different!
Source: D. H. Th. Vollenhoven (http://www.aspecten.org/vollenhoven/vollen_index.html, unfortunately only in Dutch) and some other exotic Google results - there do not seem to be many sources that deal explicitly with the difference between dualism and duality. Or they're not online (unlikely). Or I didn't find them (more likely).
In sociology, the terms dualism and duality have been used in very different ways, although the distinction between them is not necessarily less dramatic than in philosophy. I'm most familiar with their use in debates around individual-society, creativity-constraint, subjectivism-objectivism, and voluntarism-determinism (which are closely related). Here, a dualism would refer to the relationship between two independent phenomena. A duality, on the other hand, refers to two interdependent, mutually constitutive phenomena. The analogy that is often used is that of the head and tail of a coin.
Let's take individual-society. As a dualism, they are taken to be independent phenomena. To be sure, they interact, but it's more like two coins bumping into each other. As a duality, it's really one coin with a tail and a head, and existence of the one implies the existence of the other. Individual and society are intimately interwoven. Their relationship is internal, rather than external as with a dualism. Obviously this is quite different from the way duality and dualism are used in philosophy. But equally obviously, in sociology, using the one or the other makes quite a big difference.
Source: Anthony Giddens (1979, 1984), Margaret Archer (1995), Colin Hay (2002).
All of this has started me thinking about some aspects of the work of Ken Wilber. There are some interesting questions around a possible absolute-relative dualism in his work, but that's not what I want to pursue here. Rather, I've been thinking of the horizontal aspects of his work: the four quadrants. I'm assuming readers are somewhat familiar with his work. If not, there are plenty of sources to read up on this (e.g. here).
Horizontally, Wilber distinguishes between subjective-objective and individual-collective, which generate four fundamental perspectives, four kinds of truth, the four quadrants (intentional, behavioural, social and cultural). Now for the big question: -ity or -ism? Since these are four, we should probably introduce a new term first. A list of what's possible word-wise, mixing Greek and Latin roots, -ity's and -ism's: unity, monism, dualism, duality, triality, trialism, tetrality, tetralism, pentality, pentalism/pentism, and so on (the ones in italics were made up by me, so as far as I know they're not used much, let alone acceptable).
To come back to that big question, is Wilber promoting a tetralism or a tetrality? I suppose it breaks down into the following question: Do the subjective-objective and individual-collective relationships represent a dualism or a duality? And then the next question would be: with reference to the philosophical or sociological use of them? I'd like to stick with the sociological one. Then the question becomes a little more clear (finally):
Are Wilber's four quadrants really ‘four sides of the same coin' (holon, in his terminology), or do they refer to independent (related, obviously, yet independent) aspects of reality? Asking the question like this makes me inclined to answer they are ‘four sides of the same coin', which would make it a tetrality in my (fckd up) terminology.
I might as well go rambling on for a little bit, see where this might go. The four quadrants as a tetrality would suggest that the relationship between the four aspects of reality is internal. However, in the analogy of the coin, you can only look at either head or tail at any one time. In the same way, you could suggest that you can only take one of the four perspectives on the holon -on reality- at a time. An ontological duality/tetrality would therefore logically generate an epistemological dualism/tetralism. In normal language: even though a coin has 2 (or in this case, 4) sides, you can only look at (know) one side at a time!
This would not prevent you from switching the coin, switching perspectives, but it would prevent you from taking multiple perspectives at a time. Now that makes sense intuitively, since I think I only take one perspective at a time more generally, but what does that mean for taking an ‘all-quadrant' approach to something? I guess it can only mean you subsequently take four different perspectives on the thing. So there would be no such thing as an ‘all-quadrant perspective', as that would imply taking multiple perspectives in a parallel, rather than serial way. That's not necessarily a crazy assertion, but I need to think a little more on the implications of that.
I know all of this may seem a bit crazy to you. However, it is very helpful to me to spell this out and actually I'm really hoping someone can help me out a little. I'll sit on this for a while and see what else comes up.
Access: Public
Mooi stuk!!
Zoals je zegt kunnen we maar één perspectief tegelijk waarnemen; je kunt nu eenmaal maar één kant van de munt tegelijk zien. Maar zelfs binnen hetzelfde aanzicht kan je maar een “perspectief” tegelijk waarnemen (zoals bij die psychologie plaatsjes van “what on a man mind”, met freud en een naakt vrouwtje) Deze kun je nooit tegelijk “zien”.Prakties gezien is dit echter geen probleem, we hebben namelijk een geheugen en een hersencapaciteit, die combinaties kan maken. Dus die meerdere perspectieven kun je alsnog los onderzoeken en later samen pakken. (daarbij deze waarderen op duality (tetrality) wijze, oftewel horizontaal gelijkwaardig.) ..lol..Uiteindelijk hangt het dus erg af van je definitie van perspective. Als je hiermee “one snapshot in time” bedoelt, kun je inderdaad niet zeggen “all quadrant perspective”. Approach lijkt me dan beter. Als je echter AQAL als een kaart ziet, kun je misschien wel van een kaart perspective spreken. Misschien ontloopt Wilber op die voet jouw pirsig style ontleding van zijn AQAL perspective :) Wilber praat sowieso vanuit een abstract meta niveau. In the end, is het toch zo dat alles wat ik hier schrijf, jij schrijft, wij denken en wilber schrijft, rationele signifiers die gebruik maken van een subject object scheiding. Allemaal een relatieve illusie voor het absolute niks of pirsig's “qualiteit”. Zolang je denkt of schrijft in the realm of relativity, kun je dit nooit vereenzelfvigen met het absolute….
Je kunt het echt niet maken om in dit soort teksten de “enter's” te laten verdwijnen :)
man, ~D! you are sooo Über-geeky! i like it. your compassionate warning on top of your post is very groovy because at least those who dare to venture into your dark rabbit hole would probably run away to their fluffy walled-gardens…
anyway, speaking of coins, here are my two cents:
“is Wilber promoting a tetralism or a tetrality?”
i think the best person who can answer this is Wilber. however, those who witness Wilber's presentation will interpret his works according to their beer-goggles. brood upon it. i know you understand this perfectly.
it's cool to focus on Wilber-4. just remember that there's Wilber-5. and there's also Wilber-ZERO. WTF is Wilber-ZERO? i know you know but for those who don't here's a quote:
“For the real intent of my writing is not to say, you must think in this way. The real intent is: here are some of the many important facets of this extraordinary Kosmos; have you thought about including them in your own worldview? My work is an attempt to make room in the Kosmos for all of the dimensions, levels, domains, waves, memes, modes, individuals, cultures, and so on ad infinitum. I have one major rule: Everybody is right. More specifically, everybody–including me–has some important pieces of truth, and all of those pieces need to be honored, cherished, and included in a more gracious, spacious, and compassionate embrace. To Freudians I say, Have you looked at Buddhism? To Buddhists I say, Have you studied Freud? To liberals I say, Have you thought about how important some conservative ideas are? To conservatives I say, Can you perhaps include a more liberal perspective? And so on, and so on, and so on…. At no point I have ever said: Freud is wrong, Buddha is wrong, liberals are wrong, conservatives are wrong. I have only suggested that they are true but partial. My critical writings have never attacked the central beliefs of any discipline, only the claims that the particular discipline has the only truth–and on those grounds I have often been harsh. But every approach, I honestly believe, is essentially true but partial, true but partial, true but partial.
And on my own tombstone, I dearly hope that someday they will write: He was true but partial….”
oh, and one last thing: MAKE A FREAKIN' DIAGRAM! jeesh!! :)
~C (for Can't understand German)
…
Thanks for your thoughts guys… and ~C, that's not German… it's Dutch, the language of those precious few who boast some of the most subtle, complex beer-goggles in the world, Harleying all of you 'mericans out there! (Yes, I'm calling you a Yankee ~C, what 're you gonna do now, make mean faces at me?!)
I'm not going to translate your reply, but Jeroen, I fully agree with what you're saying. In fact, I think people should really learn to read Dutch, just so they can read your reply, as well as Thomas' rant.
And ~C, I wasn't really focusing on Wilber-4 explicitly and since I'm talking about perspectives, which seems to be the hallmark of Wilber-5, I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you think Wilber-5 answers these questions?
And sure, I'll come up with a diagram…. once I get my cognitive act together!
“And ~C, I wasn't really focusing on Wilber-4 explicitly and since I'm talking about perspectives, which seems to be the hallmark of Wilber-5, I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you think Wilber-5 answers these questions?”
yep. i was referring more to your references to quadrants and verticals and horizontals and holons and perspectives. they are mostly Wilber-4. but i know you know Wilber-5 too which is more on subtle stuff like integral mathematics, primordial perspectives, and interiors and exteriors of interiors and exteriors. this Wilber beer-goggles is sometimes wearing me down.
i'm not sure if Wilber-5 answers your questions. i'm still trying to wrap my mind around your questions, not to mention Wilber-5. i'm not that geeky you know? :)
so what's your take on Wilber-ZERO?
Well, with Wilber-5 transcending and including (or Harleying, of you will) Wilber-4, I'd say vertical levels and horizontal quadrant-perspectives would still be relevant. I take the excerpts to complement, rather than replace, previous work. I'm sure you do too, just wanted to clarify that.
“so what's your take on Wilber-ZERO?”
This is the first time I've come across that terminology, but if it refers to the Attitudinal Ground towards all of his work, as I'd take from the quote on 'the real intent' of his writing, than what can I say but “fuckin' A!”? Apart from the substance of his work, this attitude is what makes the integral approach so powerful, in my view.
What's your take on this?
Over ”experiential AQAL” gesproken… Ik vermoed dat Jeroen toch engels spreekt… ;-)
But hey, guys, I don't grok all of this everybody agreeing that it's only possible to adopt one perspective at a time…
I have no difficulty at all experiencing the kosmos tetra-arising - and doing it past-present-future simultaneously. Is it just me? Or maybe it's that female multi-tasking thing. Or maybe you're all just being so frickin' cognitive?
Love y'all!
H
Cognitive?! Me?! ;-)
Are you serious though? I've never really thought much about this, but the conclusion drawn from writing this post seems to be that you'd only be able to tak one perspective at a time. I've never seen Wilber address this explicitly (which doesn't mean he didn't, just that I didn't see it or remember it).
Does make sense intuitively though, although on the other hand it doesn't. We're gonna need some more perspectives on this. Serial or parallel multiperspectivism?
“Does make sense intuitively though, although on the other hand it doesn't. We're gonna need some more perspectives on this. Serial or parallel multiperspectivism?”
ok that's it! that's got to be one of the geeeeeeeekiest terms i've encountered in my lifetime. i say a six-pack beer-goggles will do! jeesh! :)
Well, I think it's a state of consciousness as well as a way of looking - a bit like those 3D pictures.
There are times of stress (usually family “discussions” work well) when I just automatically used to jump into these associated/dissociated states where I could experience 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, zero and infinity position simultaneously, as well as the small and big history of each perspective. Very wierd. But it also struck me very powerfully as a really useful trick.
Now I find that by relaxing my focus and not grasping onto things with my discursive mind, I can sink into this multiperspectival awareness of the kosmos tetra-arising. Only if I try and grasp it cognitively, of course, it doesn't work.
So whaddya make of that, boyz?
You have to tell me the name of the mushrooms you're taking! ;-)
I don't know about this - will keep it in the back of my head. I guess we'll need to ask Ken to post a 5-page reply here….
i think that dude is high on dandelions. forget Wilber. he's a slacker :)
What's the fuss, guys? There's no secret that there are heightened states of consciousness where we can sense things that our rational minds can't grok. Maybe we should ask Rinus… (Marinus Jan Marijs - remember him?)
H
There's no fuss Yesh ;-)
Although Mr. Cognitive here would love to comprehend and see all this, I can personally live with getting this non-rationally. Still I can't say I know what it would be like to be aware of the Kosmos tetra-arising. I can understand it a little, rationally, but that's not what you're talking about I think.
And no, I don't remember this guy. What's up with him?
Rinus helps organise Stuart Davis's gigs in Holland. He is also a mystic, in the sense that he lives permanently in certain high states of consciousness and knows a lot about these things. Stuart interviewed him for Integral Naked- I'll post the link to the interview when I have a moment - but right now I have to rush off, take a shower and conduct my son to a scouts meeting on the other side of Waterloo…
:-)
H
I agree with Yeshe. “Information” can be assimilated into awareness in non linear/serial ways. We do it all the time. We see, hear, taste, listen, ‘simultaneously’, don’t we? Or is it that we are timeslicing on a ‘thread of execution’ at such as speed such as to make the perception of simulatenaety apparent? I would say that although the UR Mechanisms of brain computation and cognitive wetaware are interesting, they are no less relevant than the UL subjective experience that such UR phenomena enable and/or facilitate. And as far as my experience in UL terms I, like Yeshe, have experienced multperpectival awareness of phenomena; from the prosaic (of which I’ll give an example) to the sublime (which is unqualifiable and mostly undiscribable).
As to the prosaic; as an Airline PIlot, I developed a technique of ‘Instrument Scan’ , which I used during the final portions of an instrument apporach to landing (the last 300’ or so), where rather than switching my attention, in a fast serial fashion, between the various instruments (as all instrument flight training programs advocate) I.E. Altimiter, Localizer, Glideslope, Airspeed, and other Flight Director queues, I used instead an unfocused ‘one view’ of the central instrument cluster and assimilated the information directly. This also alowed me to keep an awareness of the view out the window (for the runway ‘materializing’ out of the clouds and fog) where traditional flight training specifically mandated that the flying pilot *not* lookout the window, at all, until the the non-flying pilot, to whom such a responsability was assignged, would call ‘Runway in Sight’ upon seeing the runway (or call out ‘minimums’ triggering the flying pilot to execute a missed apporach), at which point the flying pilot would transition from the instruments to looking outside and thus complete the landing of the aircraft.
In 13 years of my flying career, mostly in heavy Jets flying internationally, I never once missed a precision instrument approach (ILS) having been cleared to do so by Air Traffic Control. I was probably lucky as well, but time after time I was able to get in because I was able to assimilate information more efficiently–in parallel–as oposed to the conventional methods taught, and I was able to ‘see’ the runway, and transition to landing from instrumnet flying, with much less of ‘state change’ since I already had awareness of the runway. However, if the FAA had ever known what I was doing, the would probablyl have rescinded my Airline Transport Rating :)
> In normal language: even though a coin has 2 (or in this case, 4) sides, you can only
>look at (know) one side at a time!
That would only be so if your ‘eyes’ were only capable of seeing one perspective at a time due to their (subject) being on one side or the other of the coin (object). Why should such a limitation be applicable?
In any case, I don’t see why we cannot, as human beings, learn to assimilate our perceptions of ‘reality’ as a Tetra Arrising AQAL perspective. I would think Its a matter of understanding what is involved, and practicing.