ORGANICISM: A 2nd Tier Development Before Wilber Complementing Integral Theory

ORGANICISM ©

By

Giorgio Piacenza Cabrera

Abstract

This paper presents Archie J. Bahm’s “Organicism” as a Second Tier Metatheory based upon the analysis of intuited polarity . It shows that AQAL (or Integral Metatheory) can benefit from a more deductive (and Metaphysical) approach that relates with the logical-relational aspects inhering at the core of Integral concepts such as “hierarchy” “inclusiveness” and the central “holon,” aspects whose continued development were somewhat forgotten due to AQAL’s current emphasis on experientially verifiable external patterns.

    

       ORGANICISM complements Integral Theory and has fundamental divisions mirroring Ken Wilber’s quadratic holon aspects. Interestingly, unlike Wilber discovering universal holon patterns through observation of piles of answers of methods and theories visibly displayed before him, the a priori rational patterns in Organicism were discovered mostly through the analytic exercise through a method of polar analysis. In this sense we can affirm that Organicism shows that deduction can indeed complement induction in the creation of Integral Theories (which are also theories of theories or metatheories). In my view, this has important consequences in relation to giving priority to the work of uncovering Exterior-based patterns through Integral Methodological Pluralism vs. giving priority to pattern forming essences that are prior to exteriority but can be disclosed by the use of reason. What is certain for me is that the patterns coincide and complement each other and this in itself is important to explore and inspect much further. In another paper (“Integral Quadrants in History”) I show that some modern era individuals and -quite possible- a pre-hispanic culture also arrived to similar (and complementary) discoveries in relation to the quadratic aspects which seem to be discoverable through keen dialectic intellectual processes which are also available to mystery, deduction and reflection.

      Organicim is a 2^nd Tier philosophy developed before the early 1950’s by the late emeritus professor Archie J. Bahm. It makes use of the experienced, dynamic, polar relations of existence which are mapped along 2 axes defined by 4 extreme polar values. The fact that polar relations come naturally to the intuitive mind and that, thereafter, these can be carefully analyzed eventually leading us the discovery of patterns that complement Integral Theory’s quadrants, needs also to be observed. 

      As I understand and extrapolate from Organicim, the origin of holons is tied with the dynamic of complementary poles and two of any complementary pair gives rise to 4 extreme polar values basically corresponding to Integral Theory’s “Four Corners of the Kosmos.” These 4 extreme polar values (called by Archie J. Bahm extreme one pole-ism, extreme other pole-ism, extreme aspectism and extreme duality) express 4 basic polar and holon-associated relations which match AQAL’s “Interior” “Exterior” “Individual” and Collective” observed dimensions of existence. The ultimate result is a conceptual method for complexly dealing with complex existence.

      I think that, essentially, Bahm’s Organicism was developed through a thorough logical analysis of the intuited polarities that become apparent when reflecting upon experience. In a sense we could call Organicism a Theory that came about through a priori deduction. In contrast, -if I understood Ken Wilber’s explanation adequately- the quadratic aspects of AQAL Theory were discovered by observing already formed patterns that grouped various theories. In other words, generally speaking, AQAL (and more in relation to quadrants) was discovered more through an a posteriori observation of the facts or through induction. Since Organicism is based on a more thorough logical analysis that begins with the inextricable relations of fundamental polarities, it seems to complement the pattern-recognition procedures involving AQAL Theory.

      Please note the theoretical mirroring effect: In Organicism, thinkers using static categories of polar analysis disclose existence as a PROCESS. That is, through logic, they find the inherent dynamics of existence. On the other hand, in Integral Theory, thinkers already embedded in inductive participatory-observational processes disclose already-manifested stable or STATIC PATTERNS (like quadrants and stages) of existence. In other words in Organicism, static analysis discloses process and in Integral Theory dynamic observation discloses static patterns. Opposite methods disclose complementary findings shedding light on the age-old symmetrical importance of both logic and empirism. 

           I think that the deductive method followed in Organicism could lend itself to predictive theory building and should be seriously studied in relation to the development of Integral Theories.

           When Archie J. Bahm studied (with his thorough “both-and” logic) the pair of metaphysically intuited complementary polar opposites of “SPIRIT” and “MATTER”  he found that 8 of the main metaphysical theories or explanations humanity had found to explain the nature of reality, in fact 8 metaphysical assumptions underlying many other religious or philosophical systems, were -by logical necessity- mutually indispensable within a diagram of polar values.  He also found that Organicism itself could be visualized as the central point at the crossing of the two axes that ensued. Moreover, he found that Organicism’s central tenet with respect to these other major theories was that their posits or affirmations about the nature of reality were all correct (and not just mutually exclusive in an either-or sense) but that their mutual denial of each other’s posits was incorrect. This fact also makes Organicism a Second Tier Metatheory that includes and transcends previous theories about the nature of reality while rendering logically invalid their exclusivist claims for truth and denials of each other’s affirmations. This detail is obviously also quite in agreement with some of the tenets held by AQAL Metatheory.

          I think that there also may or may not be a fruitful line of inquiry related to all this in that perhaps by also considering AQAL’s 4 quadrant defining dimensions as complementary opposites, the possibility of developing a deeper understanding of inter quadratic relations may also be possible. For instance, what are the logical relations between the Individual and Collective dimensions or between the Self and Other or Interior and Exterior dimensions using a “both-and” Organicistic logic? Could we also apply this analysis to inter quadratic relations or to the relations between quadrants which are formed by combining the four dimensions in pairs? Will we logically deduce something other than the simultaneous co-arising of contents inhabiting the four quadratic expressions of holons or occasions?

            Although (perhaps due to its inductive origin and to Wilber’s understandable preference to develop a theory that survives the modern and post modern critiques) AQAL is supposed to be metaphysically minimalist, various kinds of metaphysical polar categories were considered by Archie J. Bahm.  It’s obvious that Bahm had in mind a traditional and conceptually deeper philosophical understanding of metaphysics. Some of the traditional polar categories of existence that were considered other than Spirit-Matter were, Quality-Quantity, Permanence-Change, Actual-Potential, Cause-Effect, Agent-Patient,  Immanence-Transcendence, Substance-Function, Actual-Potential and Whole-Parts. In fact, I think that these and other traditional “metaphysical” categories of existence are experientially unavoidable in what contingent reality discloses through us at whatever altitude or “Kosmic Address” we may individually or collectively be and they need to be carefully included within AQAL Theory as they also are compatible with the core concept of holons and do not necessarily translate into wild, other worldly “new age” speculations, lacking rigorous logical consideration and/or communally verified experience after precisely practiced injunctions.  Likewise, I think that holons are not just defined by the whole-part complementary polarity but by all metaphysical complementary polarities of existence. This is because holons also represent all occasions or events that arise in the partially complete world of manifest existence. What seems to matter is the inherent open-ended logic of polar relations found in complementary polarities, a logic whose function can also be empirically observed as we disclose what appears as external in our world of experience. This is something that –according to experience- may translate (at least) into the 20 tenets or beyond.

          With the previously convoluted sentence I’m trying to give a sense that what we have come to call “holons” can both be seen as objective, ontological structural elements and as subjective, a priori epistemological elements pre dualistically united before distinctions are made through relative experiences. With Organicism we can see that there’s a logic behind conceptual and observable part-wholes (and other complementary opposites of existence) and then (through the careful observation of patterns in the existing world) we can verify a correspondence with our logical intuitions. Through logical processes in Organicism we can verify that epistemological logical-deductive necessity meets ontology. Through participatory processes emphasized in AQAL (in relation to our levels of development, injunctions and other AQAL accepted, reality-disclosure prisms) we find holonic patterns that match what can also be deduced. Ontology meets epistemology, a posterior meets a priori.  
 
          Organicism shows that the deduced relations between the essential polarities that generate its two-axes diagrams logically include mutual exclusion or independence of poles (“either-or” logic is still required and partially represented), but also mutual dependence or interdependence, interpenetration and, ultimately, also mutual immanence. The latter kind of relation was included by Archie J. Bahm nearing the end of his career after he consulted Oriental experts on the alleged relation between the YIN/YAN polarities in Taoist thinking, a thinking that had inspired his “either-or” logical approach capable of including and transcending the classical Western “either-or” (strong excluded middle) one. I consider mutual immanence to be at the limits of our human logical abilities to make distinctions and discern useful dialogical relations, a limiting situation in which non duality and duality meet. Interestingly, we must also understand that this partially cognizable limit in understanding is found not only within the relation between the principles of Yin and Yan but in every relation generated by complementary poles. Within the realm of a more generous or wilder speculation we could suppose that our perception of the mutual immanence of complementary poles reflects a level or Ground from which Spirit directly controls the unfoldment of what to us appears as duality-based, mutually dependent occasions. 

          Whether, useful inter quadratic relations can also be discovered by using Organicistic logical procedures remains to be discovered. In other words, these relations may or may not strengthen the sought after coherence of the parts that could make AQAL a more or less robust, applicable and predictive theory of everything. On the other hand the robustness of an all-inclusive Metatheory that is applicable to every possible kind of occasion (including mental objects in 1^st and 2^nd Person experience) may not necessarily be modeled after physical theories that rely upon externally unchanging or stable, observable patterns.  

A Brief Description of Organicism

          When there are two complementary opposites, four extreme polar values are logically generated. The 4 extreme polar values (called by Archie J. Bahm extreme one pole-ism, extreme other pole-ism, extreme aspectism and extreme duality) express 4 basic polar and holon-associated relations which correspond or are closely associated to AQAL’s “Interior” “Exterior” “Individual” and Collective” observed dimensions of existence. The ultimate result is a conceptual method for complexly dealing with complex existence.

          In AQAL Meta Theory, non dual “Spirit” -even if ultimately indefinable- is understood to include and transcend the Kosmic quadrants of holons/occasions and their contents.  In ORGANICISM, a “both-and” logic derived from a Taoist Chinese attitude of practical acceptance serves to analytically derive 4 extreme polar positions or values from 2 complementary polar opposites. These 4 extreme polar values define the extreme of 2 axes and are mutually involved along them. The “both-and” logic allows a more complete or complex use of the “Identity Principle” (A=A) in a way in which strong excluded middle exclusivism becomes a required but particular case. Although the use of the Identity Principle (or the understanding that what is is) cannot be avoided if we are to reason with conceptual coherence and clarity and this Principle or understanding has been adequately used in Indian thought to demonstrate both the inability to differentiate between form and emptiness and to demonstrate the impossibility of describing the Absolute in terms of conceptual-relative or contingent understanding, Archie J. Bahm used it to integrate age-old metaphysical categories of experienced existence, very much following a naturalist -and apparently- non dual acceptance of existence inspired by the Yin/Yan interplay and Taoism.

          By studying Bahm’s writings we discover that there’s extreme care to take into consideration all the “senses” in which a complementary polar relation can unfold. For instance, he recognizes that there will always be a sense in which the poles will be independent of each other even when they require of each other to define each other. Thus, rather than succumbing to a simplistic, all encompassing “either-or” reasoning he discovers a complex series of “organic” logical relations that lie at the heart of what apparently originates reality. Through this reasoning -for example- he doesn’t favor the whole or the part, one pole or another but points out that the very attitude or way of thinking Organicistically about complex polar relations becomes a philosophy that incorporates the truths of previous philosophies that can be placed along a polar position preference along a diagram of logical polar positions.

           In his 1953 Second Diagram (First and Second Forms), Bahm also showed 4 other intermediate positions placed between the 4 extreme ones, totaling 8.  Although these 8 basic positions are individual, diagrammed along axial lines and do not form areas arising as a result of combining 2 dimensions of holonic expression, I still have a non elucidated sense that they do relate with the 8 “zones” of AQAL associated with its Integral Methodological Pluralism.

          Remarkably, Bahm’s Second Diagram can also model 8 fundamental, but formerly incompatible, metaphysical positions regarding the nature of reality and Organicism acts as a 9^th, centrally located and dynamically coordinating, Second Tier, meta-metaphysical theory. Its meta-logical pattern (using a dialectical and sometimes rigid/sometimes flexible excluded middle) accepts as necessarily true all the essential affirmations about reality specified by these 8 metaphysical theories. It also rejects their exclusivist negations of each other’s affirmations. For this reason, the possibility of an inclusive, anti reductionistic, 2^nd Tier World Philosophy is born. In fact, Archie J. Bahm also was keenly involved as a professor of Comparative Religious Studies and through philosophical dialogues promoted the creation of a World Philosophy. He wrote The Philosopher’s World Model and –after studying ancient texts during a sabbatical- also a unique, more humanly amenable redefinition of the original teachings of the Buddha (Philosophy of the Buddha, 1958).

          Now, what more can we say about this continuously emphasized “both-and” logic? I believe that this logic is ultimately useful in finding non duality within a philosophy that values existence as experienced. It is based on the idea that -when interpreting experience with a clear logic that considers all possibilities- every occasion or holon is both A and not A . Quoting some of Archie J. Bahm’s writings in: Organicism: Origin and Development, 1996:

“The presupposition asserted in Principia Mathematica that ‘Nothing is A and not-A’ is regarded as false in organic logic. But the truth that the assertion is false is included in organic logic, and thus all that is involved in the assertion is included also.”

“Those who state ‘Nothing is both A and not-A” are making a statement including both A and not-A. Since the statement is itself something including both A and not-A, its assertions that nothing is both A and not-A is self contradictory.”

“The inference that Suchness (ordinary experience) is non-different from Sunya (ultimate reality, which is pure indifference) is valid in organic logic as it is in Buddhist logic. But the assumption that ultimate reality is pure indifference described in such a way that ‘It neither is A (any definite characteristic), nor non-A (any or all other definite characteristics), nor both AS and non-A, non neither A nor non-A’ is regarded as false in organic logic. Organic logic includes concerns about false assumptions and invalid inferences to the extent that there are truths about them that must be included among all of truths.”

“Organic logic includes the claim that every existence as experienced, when interpreted, can be observed to be ‘both A and not-A,’ …why? ‘And’ involves ‘not.’ If ‘and is a universal category of interpretation, then ‘not’ is also a universal category. Although ‘both-and’ and ‘not-both’ are interpreted by some as contradictory opposites, they are interpreted in organic logic as complementary opposites. Whenever two things exists, ie., when both the one exists and the other exists, each is not the other. The one is not the other and the other is not the one. Thus, the meaning of ‘and’ minimally involves two ‘nots.’ Although ‘and’ does not mean ‘not’ and ‘not’ does not mean ‘and,’ nevertheless, the meaning of each involves the meaning of the other.”

“When ‘and’ and ‘not’ are recognized as complementary opposites, one can say with confidence, when adequately interpreting existence as experienced, that ‘Each and every thing is both A and not A.”

          I think that AQAL and other integral metatheories that seem to spring from the conceptual and intuitive tensions found in complexifying working models dealing with issues of duality and non duality could also greatly benefit from a deeper understanding of what has already been conceptualized regarding the nature of polarity. I think that to understand holons we need to understand polarity and polar relations. Since the diversification and multiplication of holons seems to stem from the ever incomplete, dual nature of polarity and the tendency to uncover integrating (observed or deduced) patterns seems to be possible due to a non dual unity also underlying the nature of polarity, I think it behooves us Metatheorists to get a foothold on these issues.  I will just briefly state now that, within Organicism it’s been known that polarity involves at least three categories and their subcategories.

        

 In Polarity, Organicity Dialectic, (1970), Archie J. Bahm develops these ideas about polarity which include the following:

1. OPPOSITENESS           2. COMPLEMENTARITY          3. TENSION

    Position                               Supplementarity                         Tendency

    Negation                             Interdependence                         Extra Tension

  Duality                                Dimension                                   Contension

                        Reciprocity                                 Dimensional Tension

                                                                                                   Inter Level Tension

                                                                                                   Polari Tension

                                                                                                   Rever Tension

 

                                                                                       

 

                                                             

Polarity involves two opposing poles and their common dimension

(This diagram is a way to represent holons as tense associations between mutually necessary poles, associations that require transcendence, inclusion and subdivision to be resolved. The cylinder represents the common dimension of the poles which-for the spirit-matter polarity- represents extreme Aspectism or non dual Vedanta)

         

        So what else is Organicism? I think that Organicism occupies a conceptual position somewhat between Shankara’s transcendentalist interpretation of existence as Maya, Nagarjuna’s connecting of ordinary experience with formless Sunya and the emphasis on  exclusivist “either-or” clarity found in most of Western’s logic use of a strong “Excluded Middle.”  Organicistic logic offers an in-between, rational tool flanked by a hint of undefined transcendence on the one hand and concreteness on the other, all the while constantly showing us how to reconcile the polar paradoxes of existence. Organicism and its Taoist-inspired logic assisting our rational understanding may also help us to leap into a transrational intuition based upon the simple acceptance of being as is.

          Organicism could become an eye-opening, rational way of complexly thinking about duality manifesting in existence, preparing some to intuit the non dual Ground which appears to be connected with the essential and less causally describable ground of polar mutual immanence. For post modernists still over-relying in naïve “either-or” Western logical clarity to discredit both tradition and modernism, Organicism could offer an eye-opening “Samadhi” or mind-stopping experience comparable to when mystical Westerners also come to abandon extreme “either-or” polar contrasts and open up to utterly surrender with faith in an Absolute Other.

          While either-or logic is a great tool for producing practical results by assisting us to manipulate the partialness of existence, “both-and” Organicistic logic may do a better job of linking rational and transrational thought from the vantage point of a more open-minded consciousness which is still embedded in polar experience.

          According to A.J. Bahm, Westerners ideally tend to emphasize willfulness, Indians ideally tend to emphasize willessness and the Chinese ideally tend to emphasize willingness. I think that these general attitudes also led to emphasize “either-or” “neither-nor” and “both-and” logics respectively. I also think that each kind of logic is valid, that each supplements what the others don’t provide and that an Integral Meta Theory should clearly differentiate and flexibly include them all as needed. Also, as previously hinted, I think that the so called “Identity Principle” (or the fundamental rational understanding that which is is) is both universal and transcendental and specific and concrete enough to equally support the three logics.  In particular, due to Ken Wilber’s spiritual experiences better described by Vedanta and Madhyamaka (doctrines associated with the so called “Four Cornered Negation”) we can see that AQAL Metatheory makes a strong use of this particular way of utilizing what the Identity Principle allows. This preference particularly shows up in what has been criticized as Wilber’s “anti metaphysical” stance. To be fair I must say that I also understand that Wilber’s emphasis on critical thinking and discernment does makes use of “either-or” logic and that many elements related to level inclusiveness and transcendence in AQAL make use of “both-and” logic. In fact, no kind of integral theory would probably be possible without some degree of “both-and” logic. Maybe these three logics (allowed not just by a fundamental principle of rational understanding but by what Parmenides would have probably considered as BEING itself) can be integrated under a META LOGICAL PATTERN.

          So let’s us take a brief look at these three logics which I believe are all necessary for integral theories. 

Either-or logic is associated with worldly, efficient causal precision and with exclusively rejecting or accepting transcendence/God/Spirit in order to find either that God exists independently outside of the world (as the Christian God has been emphasized) or that the world (that is the physical world as experienced by the physical senses) is the primary or only reality. It uses the Principle of Identity in a way that favors clear, Excluded Middle distinctions between concepts, emphasizing external relations between parts. “Either-or” can be a logic of existence and of Being but –apparently- in a restrictive or highly focused sense. An “ideal” Westerner may reach non dual awareness by surrendering his or her inquiring mind and whole being to God understood as a logically necessary sacred Other, a being outside of contingency that can spiritually suffuse him or her. Spirit and Matter or also Spirit and Nature are normally conceived as separate. I believe that this logic promotes 3^rd person relations with a physical reality or 2^nd person relations with a 2^nd person Sacred Other.

Neither-nor logic (The Indian Four-Cornered Negation) is about transcending and then integrating into distinctionlesness. In Nagarjuna the world is seen as non other than distinctionless “Sunya” and in Shankara the world is seen as an illusion of also distinctionless Nirguna Brahman. The Principle of Identity is still used here to logically reject all distinctions about Ultimate Reality and to show how futile it is to describe that which is non conditioned with incomplete and mutually dependent mental concepts. Direct, intuitive “experience” of Sunya or Brahman is seen as the way to Ultimate Reality. Spirit and Matter are conceived either as illusory or as real entities of a common Ground for which all conceptual distinctions are abandoned. In terms of polarity studies this “common ground” would probably be akin to the common dimension that relates two complementary opposite poles and this is why Vedanta occupies a specific polar value in Organicism’s diagram depicting the Spirit-Matter polarity.  I believe that this logic promotes 1^st person relations either with an unqualifiable reality that transcends the world of form or a 1^st person relation with an unqualifiable reality indistinguishable from the world of form.

Both-and logic is associated with engaging the world of existence as it is and can also be associated with complexly understanding this world as it holonically appears to us. It is a promising way to augment our understanding of the complex, polar and quadratic/kosmic expressions of Spirit. I think that Bahm’s concept of “Organic Unity” and “Mutual Immanence” (at the heart of Organicism) include and transcend the polarities and can serve as a vision-logical conceptual basis to eventually reach a transrational disclosure of non duality. Thus Sunya-Suchness may eventually be intuited as we imbibe with Taoist naturalness how all of relative reality unfolds in our manifest experience.  I believe that this logic promotes 2^nd person (we) relations with anything experienced.

          When Archie J. Bahm -out of logical necessity- further complexified his diagram of polar positions coming up with 12 positions instead of the original 8 (I’m not going to delve into this level of complexity in this particular article), he claimed the following:

“Organicism holds that polarity consists in something that is not wholly describable but such that there is in it some basis for the positive claims made by each of the twelve preceding theories.   Organicism accepts the positive affirmations of the 12 positions (or theories) and rejects their denials of each other’s affirmations. Organicism as an evolving theory about theories of polarity states that EXPERIENCE as EXPERIENCED presents its apparently essential conditions as POLAR OPPOSITES. (A.J. Bahm, Organicism: Origin and Development, 1996).”

          From that statement I surmise that Archie Bahm did not pretend to develop a philosophy that transcended the appearance of those essential conditions (the polar opposites). Nonetheless, since Organicism stemmed from a major logic (the” both-and” logic) allowed by the Identity Principle the non duality manifested in its self consistent, organic strength also interestingly allowed and required a philosophy such as Vedanta to occupy one of its diagrammatic positions.  In other words, it seemed as if a naturalistic philosophy had found a way to logically incorporate or to be perfectly compatible with a transcendental philosophy.

          In a shrinking world in which we need to find more commonalities than disagreements in order to live with greater respect for each other, the fact that -conceptually speaking- Organicism validates 8 important metaphysical posits that inform many 1^st Tier faiths and philosophies cannot be underestimated. It’s true (as Ken Wilber would probably say) that only those capable of “orange level” or higher modes of thinking and being in the world may be capable of appreciating the importance that what had for long seemed to be logically incompatible fundamental theories about reality now can be understood as equally valid and necessary. Nevertheless, I think that this is one of the important latent contributions that Organicism offers towards greater understanding among peoples of different ideological persuasions. Perhaps even some day a benign World Federation will use this possibility.

          Crucial concepts behind allegedly irreconcilable philosophies are all validated. By applying Organic Logic to the Spirit-Matter complementary polar category we find that the following 8 fundamental assumptions about the Nature of Reality combine with 8 essential theories or diagrammed positions about polarity. Organicism, (finding that each assumption is logically necessary for consistency) occupies a 9^th, 2^nd Tier, central position that transcends, includes and coordinates them all under a “higher” perspective (See Second Diagram-First Form).

1)  Spiritualism (in One Pole-ism): Only Spirit exists.

2)  Materialism (in Other Pole-ism): Only Matter exists.

3) Emanationism (in Modified One Pole-ism): Matter depends upon Spirit.

4) Emergentism (in Modified Other Pole-ism): Spirit depends upon matter.

5) Advaita Vedantism, (in Extreme Aspectism): Neither Spirit nor Matter exist but are illusory aspects of their common dimension.

6) Neutral Monism (in Modified Aspectism): Spirit and Matter are two dependent attributes or aspects of an underlying neutral substance.

7) Boodin’s Creationism (in Modified Dualism): Although claiming independence for Spirit (God) and Matter it also recognizes the dependence of each upon the other in all creative processes. (I recognize that this is not identical with classical Christian metaphysics in which God is understood as completely transcendental and only immanent as unaffected Spirit but nonetheless Modified Dualism may be more compatible with a kind of Panentheistic point of view which –after all- may not contradict doctrinal fundamentals. In this view God may participate in the Kosmos also through an illusory extension of himself and not only as immanent Absolute Spirit).

8)  Dualism (in Extreme Dualism): Spirit and Matter both exist but in complete independence of each other and there’s nothing upon which they depend.

Based on inclusive and exclusive, but mutually involved polar relations found in existence as experienced and disclosed to reason, Organicism can offer a tentative understanding about the nature of reality. For example:

“Organicism finds itself between creationism and neutral monism in holding (1) that there is a sense in which spirit and matter genuinely exist and (2) that that each functions also as an aspect of something which underlies both. Not only do wholes and parts exist interdependently, but that which is both whole and parts exists. In sum, spirit and matter both exists and that which is both spiritual and material exists. Spirit and matter are partly independent of each other and partly dependent upon each other, and that which is both spiritual and material is partly independent of and partly dependent upon spirit and matter. Whatever is both spiritual and material can be reduced neither to the spiritual nor to the material. Spirit cannot be reduced to matter, matter cannot be reduced to spirit, and neither spirit nor matter can be reduced to that which is both spiritual and material.” (A.J. Bahm).

“Spiritualism is correct in claiming that spirit exists but mistaken in denying that matter exists. Materialism is correct in believing that matter exists but incorrect in claiming that spirit does not exist. Emanationism is right in saying that matter depends on Spirit, but wrong when it says that spirit does not depend upon matter. Emergentism is true when it says that spirit depends upon matter, but false in its presupposing that matter may be completely independent of spirit. Vedantists and Neutral Monists truthfully claim that spirit and matter are aspects of something underlying both, but falsely deny that spirit and matter have no independence whatsoever. Dualists and creationists rightfully hold that spirit and matter both exist, somewhat independently, but they are mistaken to the extent that they claim complete independence of matter and spirit from each other and from something that underlies or includes both.” (A.J. Bahm)

The Quadrants of AQAL or Integral Theory are formed by the combination of FOUR opposing parameters corresponding in Archie Bahm's Organicism to Extreme Aspectism, Extreme Dualism, One Pole-ism and Other Pole-ism. See lower diagram. In its VERTICAL AXIS: "Vedantism" (an indivisible unity corresponds to AQAL´s "individuality" parameter). Its opposite "Dualism" (corresponds to AQAL's "plurality" parameter... or its origin - since two is the first plural). In its HORIZONTAL AXIS: "Spiritualism" (corresponds to AQAL's  "Interior" or "subjective" parameter. It's opposite "Materialism" then corresponds to AQAL's "Exterior" or "Objective" parameter. Through a similar "second tier" logic of polarities similar results. 
While AQAL then goes on to combine the four parameters to define 4 quadratic spaces of manifestation and interpretation (ontological and simultaneously epistemological) Organicism goes on to place 8 main metaphysical interpretations along the two axis defined by another way to understand the same four parameters. 

As so-called "Integral" or "Second Tier" approaches both explanations may appreciate and include the 8 metaphysical positions described (4 extreme poles and 4 intermediate positions). In Bahm's model the central metaphysical position that equally admits the positive assertions of the 8 metaphysical positions is "Organicism." In Wilber's model the 4 quadrants formed may harbor ways of relating the 8 metaphysical positions while also admitting to their truth. 

In Organicism these metaphysical assertions are all equally valid whether they originated in premodern times or not. Perhaps in AQAL the emphasis on developmental distinctions would lead us into considering some positions as more inclusive or complete if generated in more recent stages. However, I can't see how materialism or emergentism may necessarily be more advanced than -  for instance - spiritualism, vedantism, emanationism. These are issues need to be further clarified. 

Source: Archie J. Bahm: Organicism: Origin and Development. World Books, 1996.

Below: AQAL's Four Quadratic experiential and ontological "spaces" formed by the Individual, Collective, Interior and Plural parameters. AQAL may be represented by seeing the whole demarcated diagram. 

Source: Ken Wilber: Integral Spirituality: Integral Books,2006.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of the dialectical-structural aspects considered within Organicism; aspects which I believe are implicated in how holons propagate are:

THESIS: A POSIT which is or has being, agency and patiency. Each occasion or “eventity” is a thesis.”

ANTITHESIS: A NEGATION or being an opposing thesis.

Multi Antitheses: Possible for inapposite opposites, each thesis is not any other thesis in existence.

SYNTHESIS:  Togetherness of 2 or more Theses.

Homothesis: What two antitheses have in common.

Henothesis: 2 antitheses + their homothesis acting as a new thesis.

Partithesis: Any thesis that functions as part of a whole.

Holothesis: Any thesis that functions as a whole of parts.

Analytic Dialectic: The emergence of two or more theses (Analytheses) functioning as a consequence of differentiation of parts within a larger whole.

Synthetic Dialectic: The emergence of a new thesis as the synthesis of two theses

functioning as antitheses.

Organitic Dialectic: The joint emergence of a new synthesis and of two or more parts or Analytheses

Self-Reincorporation: The endurance of a thesis by means of self-extension receiving the effects it has caused interacting with other selves. It’s the incorporation of otherness (either horizontally or vertically) allowing a thesis to grow.

Negation: Allows plurality and experience and is prior to being positive for when something comes into existence it negates all other things which already exist. Each thing exists as a negation of anything else that is different.

Coarchy: The mutual conditioning and cooperation of theses on the same level.

Lowerarchy: The conditioning of theses of higher levels by those of lower levels.

Organarchy: The mutual conditioning of all theses in all levels by each other.

(Source: Polarity, Dialectic, Organicity by A.J. Bahm, 1970)

          Regarding the whole–part relation which is so fundamental to the concept of holons and of the structuring and recognition of reality in general Archie Bahm wrote:

“Existence is such that there is a sense in which it exists only as wholes , a sense in which it exists only as parts, a sense in which it exists more as wholes than as parts, a sense in which it exists more as parts than as wholes, a sense in which it exists as having wholes and parts which are completely different from each other, a sense in which it exists as having wholes and parts more different from than like each other, a sense in which it exists as having wholes and parts more alike than different from each other, a sense in which it exists as consisting exactly equally of wholes and parts, a sense in which it exists as consisting of wholes and parts which are exactly equally alike and different, a sense in which it exists as consisting unequally of wholes and parts, and a sense in which it exists as consisting of wholes and parts which are unequally alike and different (From A. J. Bahm’s Polarity, Dialectic, Organicity, 1970).

          In a sense, we can affirm that Organicism relies on and affirms relative existence. As previously suggested, it probably offers a third logical path to non dual awareness through the acceptance or embrace of EXISTENCE.  According to Archie J. Bahm:

“Organicism regards negation as a category of existence. The only way to negate all negation is to negate all existence, but Organicism claims existence cannot be entirely negated. Non existence does not exist….

Organicism affirms all negation except the negation of existence which would include the negation of all negation… Although more sympathetic to the views of Nagarjuna, Organicism regards Nagarjuna’s negation of the negation of all negation (assertion the Suchness is not non Sunya) as unduly prolix as well as false. Differences do exist. Differences are experienced….The organic is closer to Lao Tzu’s Tao, which is always Yan and Yin, than to even the Suchness of Nagarjuna….Organicism sees existence and experience as always incomplete, always partially graspable by thought, but always such that there can be more thinking about it, i.e. more differences to discover along with each new thing, but also more similarities. Negation can be negated only by what is possible. Hence, there can be no complete negation of negation.” (From A. J. Bahm’s Polarity, Dialectic, Organicity, 1970).

A Brief Discussion of Theoretical Overlappings

          Aspects of Wilber stage 4 Integral Theory seems to clearly overlap with Archie J. Bahm’s Organicism.  In the “Combined Diagram of Organicism’s Extreme Polar Values and AQAL’s Four Dimensions of Holons” (see diagram below) we can see that AQAL’s Individual Dimension and Aspectism in Organicism seems to correspond. Individuality, oneness or non division seems to correspond with the Organicistic polar position or value interpretation of reality as an aspect of one shared or common dimension between the poles. Finally, the AQAL dimension of the Collective manifestation or expression of holons corresponds with the value of Dualism (which I see as the origin of multiplicity) in Organicism.

          Interiority seems to correspond with Organicism’s polar position or value called “One Pole-ism,” (meaning that only one pole is real). This seems to be a more subjective and uncertain interpretation but if all we can truly be sure is our own meaningful Interior experiences, that which we reject and consider foreign and non alive (the Exterior, physical, non living dimension) would correspond in Organicism to what is called “Other Pole-ism.

          Although in relation to existence, occasions or holons, all Organicistic position-values and Integral Theory dimensions seem to be of equal importance and to arise simultaneously, I think that –from Spirit’s perspective, a perspective that seems to have been generally intuited by credible mystics- that which is Interior and undivided is a more fundamental and prior manifestation. If conceptual approximations used to describe Spirit tend to go back to a sense of undivided, absolute subjectivity and carefully chosen conceptual approximations can really correspond to genuine and commonly validated experiences, there might be a good reason to think that- in spite of appearances of equal value and simultaneity-that which is Interior and Undivided is prior.   

           It’s a bit uncanny how the ideas of different seminal authors converge in relation to Integral Theories: Wilber’s interest in promoting a “World Federation” resembles Bahm’s interest in promoting a “World Philosophy.” Both are/were also interested in defining a more amenable form of Buddhism and in acknowledging the basic truths of all major religions. Both Bahm and Wilber also refer(ed) to the teachings of Vedanta regularly. Both knew about and benefited from Arthur Koestler’s “holons” and wrote about these.       

          There are many other affinities with AQAL Metatheory, especially in the crucial stage this Metatheory was back by the mid 1990’s when the idea of the “Four Corners of the Kosmos” was realized by Ken Wilber in a flash of insight but apparently after much effort. For instance:

Second Tier Awareness: According to Bahm, Organicism promotes a “quantum leap system gestalt” in human awareness. This idea is analogous to the idea of reaching a state of “Vision Logic” or to the idea that AQAL promotes a psychoactive evolutionary response.  According to Bahm, a form of “Luxuriant individualism” and “complex acculturation” is required for the proposed “gestalt.” (A.J. Bahm’s, The Philosopher’s World Model,1979).

Holons have transfinite, multihierarchical levels with no upper or bottom limit.  Organicism recognizes that wholeness includes each whole and its parts while also organically and processually functioning as part of other wholes. (A.J. Bahm’s Organicism: Origin and Development, 1996).

AQAL’s interior-exterior- and individual-collective dimensions essentially correspond to Organicism’s 4 extreme polar positions, generating 8 and (in further analytical stages) 12 other polar positions. Organicism’s polar positions (found through deduction) are placed along 2 axes. AQAL’s areas (mostly found through a process of induction) are placed in areas defined between axes. 

The need for a transcendental metaphysics sustaining the manifest Universe is downplayed. In Organicism, self creative processes in the Universe or in existence itself don’t require transcendental, eternal forms as is the case in Whitehead’s “Philosophy of Organism.” Archie J. Bahm’s Organicism posits that the Universe is a self-creating process in which transcendental, eternal forms are not considered as necessary for existence or as subsisting without process. This understanding is reached as a result of the logical consistency and sufficiency found after analyzing the polar categories of existence with a “both-and” logic.

Metaphysical minimalism: In its own way, Organicism is minimalist by provisionally positing at least 20 indispensable polar categories of existence. All Being -including transcendental Being- is understandable through a common logic that discloses existence (or Kosmos) as experienced. Whether there are realms that transcend what is commonly experienced is not explored.

Anti reductionism: Organicism is based upon a logic which, in turn, is based upon the organic union of opposites. Integral Theory uses also a “both-and” logic for inter-level comparisons and -like Organicism- harbors notions of complex, multidimensional holarchical transcendence and inclusion.

A Participatory God: If Organicism were to accept the idea of a supreme God, it would probably be in a way in which God `would also change and evolve with its changing and evolving sub wholes and parts. God would probably be understood as the totality of wholes and parts.

Integral: “Whenever an issue arises regarding two posits functioning as complementary opposites, care should be taken not to exclude any relevant truths or senses.” (A.J. Bahm’s,The Philosopher’s World Mode, 1979).  As in AQAL or Integral Metatheory, truths are not excluded but integrated in an overarching way.

Meta pattern: Organicism’s logical pattern of patterns which organically combines 8 or 12 polar values or positions is used to understand complex systemic, hierarchical and multi dimensional whole-part relations generated by the polar nature of existence. AQAL also discloses a meta pattern that connects multiple hierarchical aspects of existence. Organicism’s meta pattern appears to be self constructing open-ended and self reinforcing, not requiring anything external to itself, only a both-and logic and polarity. The nature of polarity is not explained, only its processes discovered. AQAL’s meta pattern seems to be self reinforcing and open but to an unqualifiable Source or Ground.

A Brief Description of Ken Wilber’s AQAL Metatheory

          AQAL Metatheory aims to incorporate all fundamental aspects of reality. These fundamental aspects are thought of as quadrants of (holons and reality) expression, levels of development, lines of development, always available states (this concept normally refers to states of consciousness but also applies to states in culture and nature) and typologies or particular characteristics of expression. It is also a Metatheory that offers a method (called Integral Methodological Pluralism or IMP for short) for incorporating all valid knowledge. This method is clearly influenced by the demands of evidence of modernism and contextual, cultural, relativist criticisms of post modernism.  Thus IMP requires an AQAL-Integral researcher to follow the specific injunctions required by clearly distinct kinds of knowledge corresponding to the “insides and outsides” of any of the four quadratic modes of expression under a prescription said to apply to obtain all acceptable and valid knowledge (in all aspects of reality). This is the formula of Injunction or Method, followed by Experience or Disclosure and the Collective Validation of those that adequately followed the adequate injunctions.

          AQAL Metatheory has also incorporated the idea that there’s physical, cultural, systemic and personal psychological evolution promoted by a non dual Spirit that somehow provides a telos or evolutionary direction of transcendence and embrace. AQAL Metatheory aims to include the crucial discoveries of individuals and cultures in all stages of development and to serve as a guiding model facilitating socio-cultural transformation as well as personal transformation. AQAL Metatheory is supposed to be a 3^rd person description that –by virtue of being a representation of the patterns in which the Kosmos unfolds in the aspects of self, culture and nature-is also considered as “psychoactive” theory capable of accelerating the awakening of a “2^nd Tier” or Metatheoretical, highly inclusive way of being in the world and understanding beyond the province of partially true but mutually excluding preferences.  

          AQAL Metatheory is also called “Integral Theory” because all the main aspects of reality are allegedly integrated under a set of principles that were inspired by Arthur Koestler’s idea of “holons.” The idea is that reality consists of wholes which are also parts, partially complete and partially incomplete, manifesting tendencies such as self preservation, self transcendence, greater differentiation, greater inclusion, heterarchy and hierarchy. In fact, the basic four quadratic expressions of holons (individual interiority, cultural or shared norms interiority, observable expression and systemic observable expression), all seem to derive from their very dualistic or polar nature while seeking completion in their –alleged- non dual Ground of Being. Lines of development, stages of development, always available states and typologies, all seem to integrally unfold within the four main quadratic divisions or expressions of reality. Also, the recognition and inclusion of these aspects in the model was heavily influenced by taking into consideration the finding of mystics like St Therese, and many developmental psychologists-researchers like James Mark Baldwin, Clare Graves, Abraham Maslow and Robert Kegan.

          The formation of AQAL Metatheory has also been greatly influenced by the writing of Western philosophers like Plotinus, Hegel and Whitehead and of Eastern philosophers like Shankara, Sri Aurobindo and Nagarjuna. We can also say that it came about as part of a cultural developmental search in the United States of America in which a tradition of East-West studies combined with the emergence of countercultural movements (such as the Human Potential Movement), the Humanistic and Transpersonal psychologies and the influence of Systems Theory.

          I must mention that a key influence on the metatheory was also the persistent recognition of an ontological Chain of Being as a unifying general scheme shared by many pre modern, pre scientific cultures. Nowadays, in the more current versions of the metatheory, it is not clear how much of pre existing ontological realities are acknowledged due to an effort to adapt AQAL to the demands of modernity and post modernity. On the one hand, the existence of three basic realms (gross physical, subtle and causal) are posited (each with their four quadratic aspects) but, on the other hand, nothing is said to exist until it has been disclosed with an adequate “kosmic address’ (which includes method and level of personal development).  

          I will reduce the complexity of the AQAL model to the following two diagrams that depict the Four Quadrants with lines of development and the Four Quadrants with their inside and outside methodological zones:

  A Brief Sidebar

          Besides comparing Organicism with AQAL Metatheory, we may also compare it with other metatheories and some similarities also seem to hold. For instance, thanks to Steven E. Wallis PhD, I became aware of Stephen Pepper’s “Roots Metaphors” Metatheory and noticed (in a diagram presented online in http://www.shkaminski.com/Classes/Handouts/Pepper.htm) that his “Formism,” “Contextualism,” “Mechanism” and “Organicism” root metaphors (each said to possibly support major philosophical theories) could be diagramed in four quadrants. Is there a reason to believe that integral metatheories are generally compatible with diagrams containing two axes and/or four quadrants? At any rate, I don’t know whether we can derive Pepper’s four metaphors from a complementary polarity but it basically seems that Mechanism roughly corresponds to AQAL’s UR quadrant, Contextualism to AQAL’s LL quadrant, Organicism to AQAL’s LR quadrant and, perhaps, Formism with the UL quadrant if we see it as related with the mental recognition of rational laws. 

A Brief Discussion on Theoretical Contrasts

          Although there are concepts about holons and holarchies, not being a psychologist A.J. Bahm didn’t apparently develop the concepts of states, types or those of psychological, cultural and systemic levels. Also, unlike AQAL Metatheory, Organicism doesn’t posit the existence of non physical realms. Nonetheless, it doesn’t necessarily preclude them either. If the categories of existence disclosed by experience were a guideline for Archie J. Bahm and he had been aware of adequate evidence of other realms disclosed by commonly available experiences, he may have agreed about expanding his model.

           As said before in a different manner, while AQAL’s Integral Methodological Pluralism serves to disclose partial knowledge of dynamic (evolving-devolving) holonic contents expressing in fixed patterns (i.e. in the 4 quadrants and revealed in IMP’s 8 “disclosure” zones), Organicism discloses the dynamical relations among static, but conceptually necessary polar positions. There’s an interplay here that needs even further elucidation. IMP is modeled using bi-dimensional quadrants forming spaces of holonic expression and Organicism is modeled using polar values equally distributed along one-dimensional axes. While AQAL’s IMP appears to be more participatory or to depend more on an individual’s or a group’s levels of development, Organicism appears to be more like 3^rd person logical practice although still dependent on an open-minded and thorough application of logical possibilities.  

          There’s an interesting difference. With AQAL we may say that some of the world’s main metaphysical theories are more inclusive than others but with Organicism we may see that they all stand on an equal footing. For instance, under Organicism, Materialism is not less “evolved” or inclusive than Spiritualism-Idealism or than Vedantism. Many of the main metaphysical theories (Spiritualism or Idealism, Emanationism, Emergentism, Materialism in one axis and Vedantism, Neutral Monism, Creationism, Dualism in the other axis) are chosen to correspond a logical polar position and, as said before, are all equally necessary (actually mutually necessary from an Organicistic point of view). Each is a solution to what the Spirit-Matter polarity requires. Thus, from an Organicistic perspective even Vedanta can be considered a partial 1^st Tier perspective.

A Brief Conclusion and Suggestions    

          The fact that Organicism was developed as a metatheoretical, deduced construct capable of integrating the validity of various theories about the nature of reality and the fact that the construct itself shows interesting parallels with some fundamental aspects of AQAL Metatheory seems to show that  a priori thinking about generally intuited aspects of experience and not just observing and recognizing the patterns given to experience is still a fundamentally valid method appropriate to disclose reality. I think that within the efforts of orthodox AQAL Metatheorists not enough has been said about serious conceptual practices that can be considered theoretically valid and withstand the test of modernity and post modernity. Thus I think that orthodox AQAL Integralists and also those trying to develop valid integral metatheories unorthodoxly should consider revising the importance of a knowledge that can be obtained through a priori means. The kind of metaphysics practiced by Archie J. Bahm as he was developing Organicism is definitely not an “airy fairy” or wildly speculative affair. It instead demonstrates the power of critical thinking, logic and reason to create theories that complement others that rely much more on pattern recognition through experiential means. As previously stated, this may serve to complement what AQAL Metatheory offers and even to adequately deepen the practice of theorizing to even antedate or predict what might be later validated by experience.

          Perhaps when the original metaphorical Greek meaning of “Theory” (Theoria) as the transfixed observation of a spectacle displayed in a raised theatre (the unfolding Kosmos?) is finally considered as important for personal transformation as are the gradually disclosing patterns which unfold while participating in the theatre’s play, we will begin to Integrate ourselves with what is epistemologically latent and available to reason and ontologically latent and available for disclosing experiences. Perhaps then, the understanding attitude of integral theorists will be ripe and ready to bear a mature fruit within a higher level of inclusivity.   

          I suggest that, in order to strengthen an integral metatheory such as AQAL, we may have to return to old and valid intuitions as Archie J. Bahm did when he was in the process of developing “Organicism.” I believe that, as integral theorists, we need to deepen and transcend the best insights previously achieved by seminal thinkers in the study of classical metaphysics. I insist that here’s a great need to re-consider and re-integrate deductive, a priori methods with greater emphasis. I think that we need to go back to the old philosophical sources and to think more boldly but also critically on issues that were never clearly settled.

          The search for “robustness” in a metatheory or of its mutually independent but necessary and connected parts in association to explaining or predicting a phenomenon may have to focus on occasions as holons first in a non reductionistic way that also connects to the specifics in each of the quadrants or zones of holonic expression. This may require not to model the search for this robustness on theories that focus on the solidly established patterns or “laws” of the physical dimension of existence. I think that integrating meta patterns ought to include the greater degrees of freedom found in the individual and cultural interiorities of meaningful experience.

          I suggest that a step forward to integrate the exteriorities with the interiorities within an overarching integral framework with greater explanatory and predictive power could be to explore generally less known metaphysical concepts such as “pure act” and “passive potency” in relation to the “Mind-Body Problem” or to the problem of how may ontologically distinct realms relate within an Upper Right (Gross, Subtle and Causal) quadratic expression and Lower Right (Gross, Subtle and Causal) quadratic expression, in interacting association with the qualitative Upper Left and Lower Left interiority quadratic expressions. Perhaps the application of polarity dialectics and Organicism may assist in reaching for the theoretical intuitions after conceptually exploring previously unexplored pairs of intuited metaphysical complementary polar opposites in relation to these issues. 

REFERENCES

Metaphysics: An Introduction, Archie J. Bahm, World Books, 1974.

Organicism: Origin and Development, Archie J. Bahm, World Books, 1996.

Polarity, Dialectic and Organicity, Archie J. Bahm, World Books, 1970.

The Philosopher’s World Model, Archie J. Bahm, Greenwood Press, 1979.

A Theory of Everything: An Integrating Vision of Business Politics, Science and Spirituality, Ken Wilber, Shambhala, 2000.

Integral Psychology: Consciousness, Spirit, Psychology, Therapy, Ken Wilber, Shambhala, 2000.

Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution, Ken Wilber, Shambhala, 1995.

“Root Metaphors and World Hypothesis.” Diagram based on Stephen Pepper’s World Hypothesis: a Study in Evidence. Was retrieved from the world wide web from: http://www.shkaminski.com/Classes/Handouts/Pepper.htm on August 4, 2009.