LOKAS AND TALAS

Perhaps elements of Vedic Science can come together with elements of Western, Quantum Physics to try to understand how some inter-reality processes can occur or be harnessed.

"TALAS" ARE THE MATERIAL OR OBJECTIVE OR (IN INTEGRAL THEORY TERMS) "EXTERIOR"  ASPECTS OF A WORLD/Universe, or sub plane conforming a particular Gross Physical SUB-REALM OR "LOKA". ALL CONTINGENT REALITIES (whether physical or subtle) HAVE INEXTRICABLE EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR ASPECTS IN THE SINGULAR AND PLURAL MANIFESTATIONS.

"LOKAS" NORMALLY REFER TO WORLDS ....OR RATHER, UNIVERSES of different densities WITHIN a physical or non-physical REALM, BUT THAT WORD CAN ALSO BE USED TO REPRESENT THE COMPLEMENTARY "INTERIOR" O "SUBJECTIVE" ASPECTS OF THAT PARTICULAR UNIVERSE or SUB-REALM.

NON "EXCARNATE" EXTRATERRESTRIALS ARE PHYSICALLY EMBODIED AND NATURALLY LOCATED IN A SPECIFIC "RUPA LOKA," A WORLD WHOSE "TALA" IS MADE OF PHYSICAL OBJECTIVE MATTER AND PARTICLES. IT COULD ALSO BE OUR OWN PHYSICAL SUB-REALM OR PARTIALLY KNOWN PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WORLDS OF DIFFERENT PHYSICAL DENSITIES IN THE "RUPA LOKA" CATEGORY, SOME GETTING CLOSER OR FARTHER FROM BEING LIKE WORLDS IN THE SUBTLE, NON-PHYSICAL REALM OR "ARUPA LOKA."

An interaction and interpenetration and mutual immanence between THREE MAIN PRINCIPLES expressing these realms also OCCURS. The Subtle Realm would be in a RAJASIC (active) state with respect to the Gross Physical worlds of the Rupa Loka. The so-called "etheric" template would be an intermediate, quiescent but potential state (a  SATTVIC state) containing all the potentials and information for every physical level or universe in the RUPA LOKA. The overall ETHERIC as it relates to a specific physical world would be what we conceive as  a quantum potential aspect and (complementing it) as specific quantum probabilities, including retrocausal information and influences. But all physical possibilities for all specific physical universes and timelines would be of the non-physical ARUPA LOKA realm.

The non-physical Arupa Lokas sub-realms would contain and trascend the physical causal and retrocausal information and influences, cancelling them out and expressing its "TALAS" or objective exterior materiality as an IMAGE. A different kind of understanding of what is "material" operates here. In the non-physical, ARUPA LOKA SUBTLE REALM "Time" and "Space" adapt to subjective experience as much as influence it in equal measure.

The Rupa Lokas would be defined by Tamasic (inertial) states and limit the causal effectiveness of subjective experience to various degrees according to physical density. Exerting consciousness-based information control on the 'etheric' patterns and quantum probabilities (likely connected with zero point energies and holographic information) would assist technologically advanced extraterrestrials to materialize or dematerialize into and  out of our particular physical universe, density and timeline located in the overall RUPA LOKA.
By Giorgio Piacenza

The Scientifically Acceptable Hypothesis that Some UFOs Are Otherworldly

The Scientifically Acceptable Hypothesis that Some UFOs Are Otherworldly

By

Giorgio Piacenza

Before thinking integrally about the extraordinary, it should at least have been rationally approved as genuine under modern, scientific thinking...

Introductory Remarks

Can it be validly asserted in a rigorous scientific manner that some UFOs are indeed extraterrestrial and-or of otherworldly intelligent origin? Is this an eternally ‘preposterous’ statement mostly because of psychological and sociological forces or is there already sufficient evidence to merit this affirmation scientifically?

Pierre-Simon La Place’s allegedly affirmed the adage that “the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportional to its strangeness.” Off course, what constitutes “strangeness” for some may not constitute the same for another and what is valued as “extraordinary evidence” may depend on inadequate or adequate biases. However, accepting La Place’s adage at face value (an adage rephrased and made popular by the famous and inspiring cosmologist and exobiologist Carl Sagan in 1986), we do seem to have enough of such evidence to posit in a scientific manner not only that some genuine UFOs MAY BE extraterrestrial but also that they ARE extraterrestrial.

However, most scientific, academic and cultural leaders in positions of power or in need to maintain their work and status stubbornly hold on to established theories and to a metaphysics of materialism, mechanicism, positivism mostly suitable to phenomena limited to a classic physical world and inimical to the fraction of UFOs which after careful research continuous being truly anomalous. They dare not take a careful, unbiased study of the best evidence considering it with the necessary fresh eyes of awe and wonder required of scientists.  UFOs are especially controversial if mind is somehow involved in the physical effects, if they remind us of magic, if the discovery that we are not alone in the universe has long come and gone, if macro-scale quantum events are displayed apparently annulling inertial forces and gravity modifying space-time.

Ostensibly scientists love evidence over speculation but the key issue here is that they seem to abhor the extraordinary if the extraordinary lies outside the also beautiful and enthralling material world that can be mechanistically interpreted. Thus, the extraordinary can often be easily dismissed. However, a more challenging form of the “extraordinary” exists along with its undeniable concomitant evidence.

Accepting that some of those genuine “anomalies” (perhaps 1% to 5% of carefully researched UFO cases if researched under classic biases) comes with so much evidence that it genuinely demands scientific attention may also be too hot of a “potato” to handle and there’s the understandable fear of not knowing what will happen if one risks calling a naked emperor “naked.” What is available for scientific judgment would not simply be a “residue” from which unwarranted conclusions are being drawn because that “residue” (even one case) can be highly indicative of a serious anomaly in our conventional views. On the other hand, the number of cases admissible as genuinely unexplained could be much larger if considered under a less deconstructive methodology. But accepting the evidence is a “catch-22” inside the scientific “priesthood.” Accepting as genuine the anomalies provided by an ever-increasing piling up of a variety of evidence from UFO research, observations, experiences and inductive implications would be  empirically based and inductively honest in terms of how science should operate but it would nonetheless evidence that the materialist, positivist, mechanicist edifice cannot remain unchallenged.

But, simultaneously, inside the “priesthood” scientists risk ridicule, demotion, ostracism, denial of funding. They may even secretly fear never to be taken seriously again and to undergo an eventual “ex-communication” and in such environment there’s – understandably - little room for the truly extraordinary. Unfortunately, in spite of advances in quantum physics (already slowly challenging some cultural foundations) there seems to be little time left to spare as doing it may only increase destruction and conflict by not recognizing the complex, self-organizing patterns of an ever-surprising, highly interconnected world. There’s little time to keep holding on to the erroneous but entrenched-atavistic illusion of essential disconnection and dichotomous thinking without peril. I take it that we urgently need to start sensing, understanding and feeling that “the world” and all sentient beings in it also holographically exist within us beyond any spacetime distance and disconnection.

And the “priesthood” normally supportive of (and supported by) the broader cultural-political system is still another human social institution derived from an outmoded but ingrained and manipulative excessively generalized “win-lose” mindset and its associated power play. Within its boundaries, the value of “truth” and the “spirit of science” often becomes a lip-service metaphor in the current “publish or die” competitive system typically geared toward the chase of tenure, recognition and-or significant corporate or government funding.  

But people want to know and, if more information on the best available evidence gets out widespread past the walls of information barriers and selective information processing, cognitive dissonance is bound to rise in the scientific and human heart. Moreover, empirically verifiable truth (even if repeating itself without a clear pattern over time) has a way to assert itself by incessantly bringing back into clarity both human consciousness and conscience. In other worlds, denial has limits. Especially in the case of truly anomalous UFOs, the international weight of collectively accumulated evidence is piling up to such a degree that it’s turning both simplistic attitudinal denial, intellectual posing and overt or covert suppression into feeble-minded props increasingly unable to sustain the conventional edifice.

In the end, we’ll be collectively forced to take an “honest-to-God” look at the unique but persistently obvious, doing it with interest, awe and “fresh eyes,” weighing as much of the “Grade A” evidence about the reality, uniqueness and importance of the interactive phenomenon; self-removing the veils imposed by ill-disposed social forces, attendant, closed-minded premises and incompatible theories which must, after all, evolve.

But can we really do it? Is the UFO phenomenon too strange for us to cognitively apprehend and manage? Will an honest attempt to do it lead to another round of social strife and chaos? I believe in human resilience and the capacity to face – first and foremost - the facts. Within us there ought to be a deeper CAPACITY TO ADAPT even to aspects of reality which transcend classic thinking patterns.

Most fundamentally, we can recognize that something REAL (even if challenging and strange) is going on and respond beyond our half-baked, old-fashion reactions into more intelligent and conscious responses that may feed back into the phenomenon co-opting it to evolve. Perhaps, if we become more proactive and aware that our thinking patterns are ineffective (ending our rather general indifference and-or denial) we may (as notable researcher Jacques Vallée suggested) be able to modify through our own feedback the cybernetic control or “steering” mechanism behind the physically-interactive, but also rather “ambiguous” and “cryptic” meaning of most of today’s truly anomalous UFO event (now elusively impinging upon our minds and civilization as if asking from us a more intelligent response arising from the choice of growing up and becoming aware).

Perhaps the event needs us to rise to the challenge. The truly anomalous UFO experience is probably beckoning us to respond to it differently from what is customary and it may be doing it from a realm outside of our stubborn, self-complacent and increasingly dangerous organizations based on outmoded time-forward, entropy-increasing, linear, conscious modes of thinking, feeling, being. Besides coming to terms with a basic recognition of a percentage of truly anomalous UFO reality (any percentage will do), the capacity to adapt to this non-ordinary reality may already exist within our bodies, our minds and consciousnesses through the inner quantum universe we participate in, a realm located in a higher order, “topology” and type of symmetry connecting “objects” with our unconscious minds in a meaningful, non-linear way, both retrocausally and atemporally; a non-local and metaphysically prior realm subjacent to any need to “make sense” of sensorial phenomena just through classic, bio - psychological predispositions. Quite likely, the mental realm of experiential possibility may be “transdimensionally” used via the inter phasing of quantum reality to affect physical probabilities and our unconscious minds are already connected with it.

In other words, we are likely to have the wherewithal, the need and, through the UFO phenomenon (among other reality-challenging phenomena) the spur cajoling us to open our eyes, shift the probabilities by gaining information, and discovering how we participate in a vaster multiverse of profound meaning and connectivity. What we should definitely stop doing is hiding time and again under the sheets, holding on to an “us vs. them” self-protective, fear-based mentality, laughing at the accumulating evidence, hoping that the emergent reality will go away.

Just as when upon delaying when to observe and to gain information (from our particular space-time perspective) from electrons that have already moved through slits as waves we can retrocausally affect their prior state, we may be subtly interacting with an intelligent quantum-like phenomenon whose reality (as probabilities from our perspective) may retrocausally change and become defined for us when we are able to observe its particulate, spacetime aspect. While still physically interactive with our physical system, generally-speaking, the “genuine UFO” may still be physical in its own right but in a distinct level of reality which could be in more of a quantum mechanical state in contrast with ours. In fact, that “quantum state” (quantum stage?) difference may be why interactions are elusive, sometimes conclusive for some and often leaving considerable margins for doubt for many.

Because of currently subtle or non-complete interactions still leaving doubt on large segments of humanity on a collective scale the phenomenon’s original probable states may only minimally change upon interactions with some of us. Its reality is simultaneously physical, liminal and imaginal. As a corollary there may not yet be “absolute, collective proof” of a non-classic, “hyper physical” and/or “transdimensional” intelligent phenomenon slowly but surely interacting with humanity by various means or… there may indeed be that at least for some of us as (unlike certain circumstances change) the interaction is meant to be in preliminary interactive stages. Nonetheless, conceptually-speaking, (extrapolating Gödel’s incompleteness theorems beyond second order arithmetic) there may not even be (using classical, two-valued, excluded middle logic) “absolute proof” about any phenomenon whatsoever in terms of classic scientific thinking based on classic logic. However, I think that there is “sufficient proof” from a rational perspective even if at present our recognizing it eludes us due to the social forces and attachment to inimical theories, worldviews and paradigms insisting on the narrow use of our not-to-adequate, bio-psychologically predisposed predispositions.

Even so, because the reasonable aspects of our minds and the intuitive extend over and beyond the strictly excluded middle-dependent, “rational” (corresponding to a classic two-value logic), through experience and accumulated, pattern-producing information, we can also validly work with scientifically reasonable assumptions (as scientists do all the time in spite of implications extrapolated from Gödel’s incompleteness theorems) stating that we already have sufficient bona fide evidence intuiting the scientifically valid hypothesis that some UFOs not only are scientifically interesting but also examples of an advanced, “otherworldly” science.

Subtleties about Evidence

Following a strict procedure to classify “UFOs,” after adequate, careful, objective research and evaluation, only some of them can be sufficiently confirmed in a sufficiently scientific manner as truly “anomalous” or – technically- as genuine UFO’s. This understanding corresponds to astronomer J. Allen Hynek’s basic endorsement that UFOs can be objectively deemed as such only after experts capable of making an unbiased determination have carefully looked at the evidence not being able to find a prosaic explanation. Speaking before a United Nations ad hoc committee in 1978 he summarized that definition as “any aerial or surface sighting, or instrumental recording (e.g., radar, photography, etc.) which remains unexplained by conventional methods even after competent examination by qualified persons.” Thus, for Hynek a “UFO” (an acronym created by Captain Edward Ruppelt, director of Project Grudge and Project Blue Book from 1951 to 1953) is not simply an unknown or unidentified flying object as is the case under a lax popular understanding.

It is clear in a strict sense that not all unidentified objects in the sky are UFOs because they have not been carefully studied by qualified experts that could not truthfully, carefully and objectively find a suitable conventional explanation. It is also clear that only some UFOs could be extraterrestrial in origin but a non-analytical, popular understanding often automatically confuses the acronym “UFO” with “extraterrestrial spaceship (or vehicle).” This is why many serious researchers and official Air Force teams in the world now prefer to use other equivalent terms.

Cases corresponding to Hynek’s strict definition could generally be in the “D2” sub-category among the “PAN” cases accumulating in the files of France’s official GEIPAN committee (“PAN” being an acronym meaning “Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non identifies” or “Unidentified Aero Space Phenomena” or “UAP’s” in the English language and “FANIs” “Fenómenos Aéro Espaciales No Identificados” in Spanish).  

GEIPAN (Groupe d'Études et d'Informations sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux non Identifiés or in English “Unidentified Aerospace Phenomenon Research and Information Group”) is a unit of the French Space Agency “CNES” and categorizes its types of “PAN” cases as “A” “B” “C” and “D.” While GEIPAN’S “D” category of cases (also subdivided into “D1” and “D2” types) correspond to an “unexplained” amount of 22% of the total number, of these, only “D2” cases present multiple kinds of highly consistent evidence. The latter “D2” cases typically correspond to 1%-3% of the total number cases received after people have been willing to fill out a questionnaire and analysts have had the time to evaluate to the best of their possibilities and under their particular ways of accepting or dismissing information and evidence.

However, while GEIPAN doesn’t officially discard the (intelligent and technologically advanced) “Extraterrestrial Hypothesis,” strictly-speaking, even some of these “D2” cases may or may not be indicative of actual intelligent extraterrestrial and-or technically advanced (perhaps “transdimensional”), “otherworldly” events and, moreover, not just the remaining “D1” cases but also cases assigned to other categories (some of the “C” cases – about 41% - presenting non-ordinary characteristics but for which there is insufficient information may also well be truly anomalous even if after careful evaluation they cannot be objectively categorized as such.  Furthermore, even a small fraction of the approximately 28% of cases categorized as “B” cases (those with information mainly - but not definitely - supporting a prosaic explanation or the “null hypothesis” against the more popular “extraterrestrial hypothesis”) may be truly anomalous cases. Finally, none of the cases assigned to the “A” category (about 9%) can be considered “anomalous” because they are the ones that have been entirely and conventionally explained.

The official French research GEIPAN was previously called “SEPRA” and before that (beginning in 1977) “GEPAN” an – as of today – has been an effort spanning some 38 years. In 1999 the (technically- speaking) non-official "Committee for In-Depth Studies" (COMETA) formed by high-level analysts, scientists, and military closely associated with the Institute of Advanced Studies for National Defense, SEPRA and the French Space Agency (CNES) concluded that the best explanation for some Unidentified Aero Space Phenomena (UAP’s) was the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis.  Technically-speaking, it was not the “French Government” or an official institution in that government adopting such a more unequivocal position but – as far as I can tell - within that government (represented in these matters by GEIPAN), that hypothesis is simply not officially discarded but is (albeit non-stridently) positively considered among the possibilities. The same may be said of Chile’s CEFAA, Uruguay’s CRIDOVNI and Peru’s DIFAA. It makes no sense to dismiss a genuine POSSIBILITY because it is strange but unlike COMETA and particular researchers (like me) they normally take a more conservative and prudent public stance until evidence is truly extraordinary.

The Fine Line

The term “otherworldly” reminds us of past superstitions accepted on faith and tradition; of unproven assumptions from which science and a segment of humanity’s evolutionary “leaders” emerged out from only a few centuries ago. Nonetheless, through quantum physics, scientifically careful paranormal and parapsychological research and the findings of conventional, “bona fide” sciences like astrobiology, the “intelligentsia” and people considered to be “educated” are once again gaining respect for that term. We are gradually coming to understand that other realities besides our ordinary physical world may exist and –instead of being validated mainly by experience and tradition – can also be scientifically validated. Thus, we are moving back spiral-like into a non-mechanistic, non-reductionist, “re-enchantment” of the world under a more integrative and evolved perspective. 

There’s a fine line between admitting and stating that – rationally-speaking - SOME UAP phenomena MAY be of advanced ET and/or “otherworldly” origin and – also rationally- speaking - stating that the most RATIONAL EXPLANATION (among several) is that they ARE of advanced ET and/or otherworldly origin. The latter is usually summarized as the “ETH” (extraterrestrial hypothesis) historically associated with a “nuts & bolts” approach but it is becoming increasingly clear that that physicalist approach can be expanded to include a physically interactive “inter dimensional” hypothesis, or even macro-scale, quantum, retrocausal, information-based, space-time manipulating hyper dimensional –multidimensional and-or extradimensional, possibilities. The latter also is my working hypothesis.

Agreeing with the high-level French committee known as “COMETA” (one acting quite independently as an ad hoc committee which – technically speaking – was not under the direct control of the French Government or a unit thereof), I contend that indeed the ETH has been sufficiently substantiated as the most plausible EXPLANATION which can be considered as a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis. In fact (also technically-speaking), general agreement is not required to emit a genuine and valid scientific opinion and hypothesis. Neither is a degree of voluntary reproducibility of a phenomenon easily applicable (as in a lab performing a classic physics experiment) to every INTELLIGENT PHENOMENON which may require a more intimate degree of interaction with researchers for that to happen.

Our approach on how to conduct valid science is not rigidly set in stone. Concepts about what is a genuine scientific approach and about an ideal “scientific method” evolve and sometimes supplementary, (but not always necessary) ideas are included such as the more post-modern, constructivist idea that there has to be general consensus and acceptance from the power elites and major cultural players for any scientific hypothesis or explanation to be “real.” But the latter idea applies more for science to have societal effects, to be acknowledged and be influential in social reality but – in my view - not for the essential practice of science per se. How in the world would we have ever flown airplanes or reached outer space if we had waited for respectability and scientific consensus?

Did Galileo have to wait for a consensus of reasonable and impartial scientists and Church representatives to look through his telescope before accepting the Copernican theory over Aristotelian-Ptolemaic theory based on his own observations? No, he was conducting perfectly adequate science even if doing it by himself.

It is crucially in the practice of actual individual scientists that hypotheses can be scientifically considered as sufficiently validated. It is when science is well-practiced that counts. So the ETH can really not just be considered as a valid and admissible scientific hypothesis, but also one that (for at least some accredited scientists and critical thinking individuals with a scientific approach) has been sufficiently demonstrated in a genuine scientific manner to posit that it best explains a fraction of UFO and UFO-related events. This is equivalent to proposing that an actual intelligent extraterrestrial presence is showing up on Earth.

This, without the need for general consensus from a bureaucratized community apparently set on demonstrating Thomas Kuhn’s thinking about resistance to “scientific revolutions” through an early acknowledgement of a paradigm’s insufficiency. Thus, it is not necessary to wait for ample consensus for the correct recognition of a hypothesis as being the most adequate. Moreover, rigid materialist scientifist approximations to science are losing their grip and evidence that was previously considered as irrelevant may now be considered useful from an integrative perspective aware and inclusive of the importance of subjectivity and inter subjectivity.

And what about Karl Popper’s “falsifiability?” Well, if the ETH is not a valid hypothesis in relation to UAPs it should eventually be found after consistently working under a more proactive method. It is often said that – due to the elusiveness of the phenomenon not producing a recognizable pattern– it is impossible to prove or disprove the ETH but I beg to differ. It may continue being very difficult to verify or falsify if we continue using an “after the facts” type of research and analysis or if we dismiss going out to the field to increase the chances of an interactive experience with intelligences that may have their own reason for showing up or not.

Based on the testimonies of alleged experiencers/contactees regarding the potential willingness of some extraterrestrial intelligences to communicate and based on the fact that intelligent behavior seems to accompany some UFOs/UAPs, then ways to test the ETH through expediting greater degrees of voluntary interaction can be predicted. Some more credible voluntary conscious physical contactees like Sixto Paz and Steven Greer even provide guidelines to assist us in doing this.

Counsel

Instead of waiting for another 40 years for more researchers, UFO organizations and official Air Force teams around the world to – once again - conclude (while not discarding the ETH) that indeed a small percentage of the sightings are “unexplainable,” it should be possible (or not but should be seriously tried) to relate more creatively with the phenomenon, to eventually show that an intelligent interaction with ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) can take place or is actually taking place in relation to some UFOs/UAPs. Then, perhaps some of these objects could be called “Identified Extraterrestrial Vehicles” (IEV’s), “Intelligently Directed Extraterrestrial Vehicles” (IDEVs) or so.

Interactive or responsive approaches, signals, communications and maneuvers –even landings - which can be filmed, collectively witnessed, measured from different angles (for instance with electrostatic and magnetic field meters, gamma ray detectors and spectrographic devices) or simultaneously photographed by two cameras a good known distance apart (in order to triangulate a distance from a three-dimensional object assuming no major spatio-temporal distortions throwing calculations off) would be some of the extremely worthwhile efforts ufologists should also increasingly engage in. Seeking ways to generate mutually respectful interactions would be crucial in making an intelligently guided phenomenon more amenable to being verified or falsified.

Why limit research possibilities to a posteriori data analysis? It behooves serious researchers to start this more proactive and experimental phase of seeking to interact with the phenomenon more intimately and intelligently before it takes place, for instance by expanding and perfecting so called “CE-5” initiatives including working with a few bona fide contactees that have shown a reasonable degree of objective and collective evidence of their interactions. We should go out to field work assuming that at least some genuine UFOs are intelligently controlled and that at least some of the intelligences behind these “unknown” objects have a say or choice as per their interactions with us and that that interaction can evolve or change according to how we approach them.

ET Hypothesis-Some Validating Evidence

Essentially, a scientific hypothesis is a proposal useful to start explaining some observed and/or deduced patterns of information. The case for the ETH relies on a vast confluence or significant co-incidence of different types of (‘hard’ and ‘soft’) evidence compatible with the idea of an intelligent otherworldly presence capable of producing non-conventional physical (and subjective-intersubjective) effects through a technology associated with some UFOs reports.

The ETH may even be testable and, in terms of that general guideline called “parsimony,” it may be one of the simplest, straightforward proposals best explaining that confluence of evidence. Otherwise, to deny the barrage of evidence would probably require settling in for a statistical Type Two error or inventing complicated to maintain the not fitting illusion of paradigms and worldviews which (in spite of more than 100 years of quantum mechanics) are still heavily influenced by passé forms of materialism and mechanicism. How many times will highly experienced pilots confuse a balloon, a dead fly against the windshield or the planet Venus rising outside of their visual range for a large UFO? How often can electrical plasmas coherently endure for quite some time, follow airplanes and behave intelligently? Are hundreds of credible, credentialed professionals who worked in government projects or witnessed activities pertaining to ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) just making it up, risking their reputations due to a pathological need for attention? If the ETH is correct and interactions can be modified and improved by changing our responses, feedback and input we may be able to gradually acquire more interactive evidence to demonstrate the hypothesis.

Closing our minds to the possibility of intelligent beings capable of a more communicative interaction just because we assume from the start that it would be impossible for them to come from afar or because we assume that they should behave as we would if we were “ambassador-astronauts” is only partially reasonable and is definitely once again clouded by…hubris.

We cannot discount outstanding scientific progress arriving or a possible science capable of sneakily (but not necessarily ill-intended) “transferring” advanced extraterrestrial entities into our reality system, especially when there already are in our midst convergent and promising alternative scientific developments in the works such as the possibility of manipulating spacetime, energy, entropy, mass, inertia, uncertainty, the quantum of action, wave function ‘collapse’ and gravity through 5D theoretical and experimental advances in the Alcubierre Drive, the possibility of modifying the quantum potential perhaps through resonant holographic conjugates and an associated non-local, holographic information field. I understand that all of these emerging concepts may be compatible with each other and with the concept of manipulating the scalar electrodynamic potential and its virtual particle fields. They may also be compatible with the concept of learning to use pre-physical, intention-interacting, interconnected fractal energy-information geometric pathways in the quantum vacuum.     

The Amount of Evidence

The amount of circumstantial evidence, approved photographic and video evidence after analysis, thousands of declassified, well-researched,  sketched, documented and evaluated UFO (or UAP) case files in Air Forces or other government institutions around the world (often describing not just “lights in the sky” but occasional structured objects) cannot be - in all honesty - offhandedly dismissed as poppycock.

The presence of mentally sound witnesses and credible professional witnesses including military, presidents and pilots; the existence of credible former government whistleblowers with verified professional credentials; the analysis of land traces with chemical evidence of soil modification; radar-visual UFO daylight cases, sometimes accompanied by several witnesses and air intercepts and intense interaction (such as the 1980 incident over La Joya Air Force Base in Perú); the mention of strange flying discs in ancient documents (such as in Medieval Japan); verified and plausible official documentary evidence specifically mentioning flying saucers and retrieved aliens; photographs of lenticular and tubular objects dating back at least to the beginning of the XX Century; an ever increasing number of mentally healthy persons (even children) currently reporting interactions and one-way and two-way messages as contactees, abductees and, generally-speaking as “experiencers” is too copious and mutually-reinforcing of an evidence (which sometimes includes photographs, electrical and “paranormal” effects at home, other witnesses) to reasonably dismiss as simply caused by confusion, misperceptions, hoaxes, mental illness or perhaps the need for re-enchantment and magic.

Occasionally individuals (like Daniel Fry) being given tid bits of scientifically plausible knowledge. “Programmed sightings” through voluntary, telepathic “contactees” and/or sensing or somehow knowing in advance when an alleged ET vehicle is about to appear and allowed to be photographed (as in Peter Maxwell Slattery’s case) cannot be discounted. Children and adult descriptions of being taken on-board craft, witnessing a hybridization program, receiving complex information and symbols while interacting with different extraterrestrial species, remembering all kinds of extraterrestrial encounters with and without hypnosis are abundant human facts in the casuistry (for instance in information found in Mary Rodwell and several other hypnotherapist and psychologist’s research). When carefully looked at they cannot simply be discounted as over active imaginations or pathologies. Something real and life-changing seems to be happening to thousands of individuals worldwide.

While each individual type of evidence may not be sufficient, all of the evidence mentioned seems to form an ever-strengthening, Meta evidential, new paradigmatic “edifice” with the otherworldly as a common denominator. This is not a simple return to a magical and/or mythical way of thinking. It is backed by critical thinking, physical evidence and appropriate, emerging theoretical developments like that of “the Quantum Hologram” and what could be termed other “it from bit” approaches to the nature of reality.

Highlighting Three Types of Physical Evidence

MANEUVERING: Natural events usually exhibit position, velocity and acceleration but the complex modification of acceleration is normally (albeit not always) present with intelligence and understood as a cybernetic factor called “control.” Besides “impossible” ‘flight’ characteristics many UFOs (or UAPs) exhibit this factor. Credible witnesses and some verified videos reveal them as stopping, accelerating, going steady and changing direction abruptly. This indicates intelligent guidance.

UNKNOWN MATERIALS such as those obtained by Dr. Roger K. Leir and subsequently analyzed by several respectable laboratories. Even if the small anomalous objects extracted had been of military, industrial complex, “special access,” “unacknowledged,” ultra-compartmentalized “black projects” placed on ordinary citizens not particularly interested in the UFO phenomenon before, how were they created? Why were these found to be advanced nano technological objects, transmitting EM signals and while avoiding rejection from living tissue? 

Large solid objects are sometimes seen suddenly and silently ACCELERATING at exceedingly high Mach rates almost impossible to structurally withstand under Newton’s laws of motion. They are also sometimes seen “DEMATERIALIZING” before sane and credible witnesses. Did they “cloak”? Did they shift to another level in the “fractal-holographic” universe? Where would this technology come from even if it was secretly developed by a power on Earth?

RADAR INVISIBILITY and-or visual invisibility during radar on-screen detection of objects sometimes causing alterations of electrical equipment in electronic equipment, automobiles and airplanes.

Conclusion

Even according to an “either-or,” strictly objective scientific standard there is no absolute proof, only sufficiently strong evidence and UFO/UAP research merits scientifically stating as a plausible hypothesis that there’s sufficient evidence that some UFOs/UAPs are extraterrestrial in some non-conventional kind of “otherworldly” fashion.

If all of this evidence is not simply composed of mistakes, hoaxes or figments of pathological imaginations, there remains the fact that all of it points towards the “non-conventional,” “extraterrestrial” “technologically advanced” and “otherworldly.” Is it a simple “coincidence?” Well, when “coincidences” like these unceasingly increase year after year in agreement with a (however eccentric or avant-garde) hypothesis, that’s a good indication that they are simply validating that hypothesis. Thus, it is perfectly rational and scientific to propose the hypothesis that some UFOs/UAPs are technologically advanced, intelligent, extraterrestrial and – above all - otherworldly.

Bibliography

Aharonov, Y. & Bohm, D. (1959). “Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory.” Physical review, Second Series, 115 (3).

Bearden. Thomas E. (2002). “Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles.” Santa Barbara: Cheniere Press.

Bell, M., Gottfried, K. & Veltman, M. Eds. (2001). “John S. Bell on The Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.” London: World Scientific.

Boi, Luciano (2011). “The Quantum Vacuum.” Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Dolan, Richard M. & Zabel, Bryce (2012). “A.D. After Disclosure.” Pompton Plains: New Page Books.

Factor, Donald Ed. (1985). “Unfolding Meaning: A Weekend Dialogue with David Bohm.” Glocestershire: Foundation House Publications.

Coomer, David (1999). “The UFO Investigator’s Guide.” London: Blandford.

Davies, Paul (1990). “Other Worlds: Space, Superspace and the Quantum Universe.” New York: Penguin Books.

Freeman, Jon (2013). “The Science of Possibility: Patterns of Connected Consciousness.” Ferndown: Spiral World.

French Association COMETA (1999). “UFOs and Defense: What Should we Prepare for?” Retrieved from http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_cometareport01.htm

GEIPAN (2015). “Groupe d'Études et d'Informations sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux non Identifiés.” Retrieved from http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/

Good, Timothy (1998). “Alien Base: The Evidence for Extraterrestrial Colonization of Earth.” New York: Avon Books.

Greenewald, John (2008). “Beyond UFO Secrecy.” Lakeville: Galde Press, Inc.

Harris, Paola (2008). “Connecting the Dots: Making Sense of the UFO Phenomenon.” Bloomington: Author House.

Hynek, Joseph, A. (1972). “The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry.” Chicago: Henry Regnery Company.

Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Nationale (1999). “UFOs and Defense: What Should we Prepare for?” Retrieved from http://disclosureproject.org/docs/pdf/COMETA_part1.pdf

Kean, Leslie (2011). “UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record.” New York: Three Rivers Press.

Kline, Morris (1980). “Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty.” Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Laszlo, Ervin & Currivan, Jude (2008). “Cosmos: A Co-creator’s Guide to the Whole-World.” Carlsbad: Hay House, Inc.

Lloyd, Seth (2006). “Programming the Universe: A Quantum computer scientists Takes on the Cosmos.” New York: Vintage Books.

Marcer, P. J. & Schempp, W. (1997). “Model of the Neuron Working by Quantum Holography” Informatica 21:519-534.

Mitchell, Edgar “Nature’s Mind: The Quantum Hologram.” Retrieved from http://edmitchellapollo14.com/dvdandbooks/articles-and-essays/natures-mind/

NICAP (2015). “Official UFO Documents.” Retrieved from http://www.nicap.org/documents.htm

Paz, Sixto (2011). “Guia Práctica para tener un Contacto.” Barcelona: Editorial Vanir.

Petit, Marco A. (2007). “UFOs: Arquivo Confidencial: Um Mergulho na Ufologia Militar Brasileira.” Campo Grande: CBPDV.

Piacenza, Giorgio. (2014). “A Worthy Attempt to Solve the Enigma of UFO Propulsion.” Retrieved from http://exonews.org/worthy-attempt-solve-enigma-extraterrestrial-ufo-propulsion/  

Piacenza, Giorgio. (2014). “Surfing the Cosmos More Lightly: NASA’s Forthcoming ET-Like Technology Research Increases the rational Credibility of ET Visitation.” Retrieved from http://exonews.org/surfing-cosmos-likely-forthcoming-et-like-technology/

Puthoff, H.E. & Little S.R. (2010). “Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum

For Interstellar Flight.” Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.5264.pdf  

Radin, Dean (2006). “Entangled Minds: extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality.” New York: Pocket Books.

Rodwell, Mary (2010). “Awakening: How Extraterrestrial Contact can Transform your Life.” London: New Mind Publishers.

Rothman, Tony & Sudarshan, George (1998). “Doubt and Certainty.” Cambridge: Perseus Books.

Salla, Michael E. (2010). “Exposición de las Políticas del Gobierno USA sobre la Vida Extraterrestre.” Kaelakekua: Exopolitics Institute.

Sarg, Stoyan (2009). “Field propulsion by Control of Gravity: Theory and Experiments.” Lexington.

Sheehan, Daniel (2007) “Exopolitics and ET Disclosure Policy.” UFOTV Studios, retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPzqUORVLGE   

Sturrock, Peter A. (2009). “A Tale of Two Sciences.” Palo Alto: Exo Science.

Swanson, C. (2010). Life Force, the Scientific Basis: Breakthrough Physics of Energy Medicine, Healing, Chi and Quantum Physics. Tucson: Poseidia Press.

Swords, Michael & Powell, Robert, Eds. (2012). “UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry.” San Antonio: Anomalist Books.

The Citizen Hearing on Disclosure (2013). National Press Club. Retrieved from www.citizenhearing.org   

Thornton, Stephen (2013) “Karl Popper.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Tiller, W. (1997). Science and Human Transformation: Subtle Energies, Intentionality and Consciousness. Walnut Creek: Pavior Publishing.

Tiller, W., Dibble, W. & Fandel, G. (2005). Some Science Adventures with Real Magic. Walnut Creek: Pavior Publishing.

Valone, Thomas, Ed. “Electrogravitic Systems.” Washington: Integrity Research Institute.

Vallée, Jacques (2008). “Dimensions: A Casebook of Alien Contact.” San Antonio: Anomalist Books.

Vallée, Jacques & Aubeck, Chris (2010). “Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times.” New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin.

Vedral, Vlatko (2010). “Decoding Reality: The Universe as Quantum Information.” Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Remembering Greek & Andean Integral Ideas to Sustain an Integral Economy

Some ancient seminal ideas from Earth-respecting traditions – in spite of originating in largely pre-modern stage societies- are still essentially compatible TODAY with Integral Theory and with other integrative approaches. These are integral-level ideas embedded across time within the main cultural-social developmental stages. Apparently, many of these ideas did occur in agrarian economies like those of the Ancient Greeks and the Andean pre-Hispanic.      

Economist Jorge Alberto Montoya Maquin, knowledgeable in Andean cosmology and traditions studied the Quechua language and ancient Greek and wrote a critical translation of “About Economics,” the first economic “treatise” written in dialogue style by Xenophon (friend and disciple of Socrates). Apparently, his perspectives originated in a more ancient tradition. Like Socrates’ “Maieutic” (not unlike traditional educational styles in the Andes) Xenophon’s dialogues don’t tell us what to think but elicit moments of discovery and resonant understanding.

Montoya Maquin wrote Económico de Ksénofon: Traducción Crítica, which includes an original translation into Spanish, notes and an interpretive section trying to revive – unlike other modern translations - the cultural context of ancient Greece. The book also compares Xenophon’s ideas with Andean thinking and was published in 2013 by the School of Economists of Lima. It should definitely be translated into English for scholars to re-discover Xenophon’s foundational economic ideas.

Unlike modern Economics focusing on concepts like “scarcity,” “greed,” “competition” and an objectifying “rational” attempt to maximize individual “profit,” Xenophon's thinking represented a synergistic kind of “utilitarian” administration and protection of the goods and entities within an “oikos” ( a “house” or “estate”).  

“Economy” derives from the word “oikos” and “nomos.” The former can be appropriately translated as “house” or as “estate” and the latter as the “norms” which that house or estate follows to maintain its organization and objectives. That “house” would essentially have to be a circumscribed land inclusive of all its living entities and this concept can extend to a country, a village, or to the Earth itself. “Oikos” should also be considered an “autarchy” or self-sustaining organization in a fractal-like relation with other such elements. This in itself reminds me of the concept of “holons” as self-organized, self-organizing systems in relation with other higher level, lower level and same level “holons.”

A well-administered “oikos” would benefit all plants and animals within it while being useful in meeting basic and genuine needs. It would be a “synergistic administration” in current terms and would correlate well with the Andean concept of “living in a good, nourishing, relational way” (“Sumaq Kausay”). The world would also be made of interwoven, functionally independent, yet related “oikos.”.

If components of Andean thinking are “integral-level” and on a par with forgotten Greek foundational concepts in Western civilization, perhaps (as philosopher Edgar Morin hopes) important contributions to “complex” (and integral) thinking can also potentially rise from these once culturally disdained and overlooked components.

Apparently, Xenophon conceived the world much like Andeans did: As “Alive.” He did not say thus explicitly as Andeans but that conception is noticeably implicit in his dialogues. In a sense all that changes (not just animals and plants) is “alive” also because it can actually communicate with us. Moreover, if (like the Andeans) we disclosed the features of the world under their subtle aspects they would also be perceived as “alive.” That would enhance our concepts about “holons” (to include piles and artifacts) and what is – erroneously - considered as an insentient collection of systems called “Gaia” and would probably concur with current quantum information holographic theories. 

In relation to Xenophon and the Andeans, since everything changes, in order to live well we need to demarcate and situate ourselves. “Episteme” referred to delimiting an aspect of experience so as to observe it (in stasis) from outside in order for its inside to reveal meanings at various degrees of depth. It is like relating to the interior meaning of “holons” and - as in the Andes where everything that changes is considered to be “alive” – it is relational, surpassing the simple acquisition of information about something simplistically reduced as an “object.”  Thus all “things” would have a relational-living aspect.

Xenophon also uses the idea of “making a chorus” (a concert) to administer the “oikos” well an “oikos” which must be of benefit to all life within and to humans if they administer it without greed taking only what is needed and useful without waste. This attitude is similar to life within an Andean community or “ayllu” based on the concept of “making pairs” or of connecting two to make three. Besides, the “ayllu” is also considered like an “autarchy” or self-sustaining entity in which (corresponding to Xenophon’s views) people share each other’s work and every person plays multiple converging roles. Poverty in the “ayllu” and the “oikos” essentially means disconnection from others.

If Xenophon had been less misrepresented under modern biases by authors entrenched in a conceptually incomplete modernity he may have influenced modern economic thinking in its formative stages and perhaps our current economic systems would have emphasized more a practical, relational harmony with the life-world while de-emphasizing resource exploitation, scarcity, greed, unending “growth” and competition. Let’s reconnect with this wisdom now to nourish a major change.

Clarifying a “Ken-Fusion”

In Integral Spirituality (2007, pp. 233-234) Ken Wilber basically writes that metaphysical structures/levels described by Plotinus and other metaphysicians now require being defended after modernity's "demand for objective evidence," postmodernity's demand for "intersubjective grounding" and  modernity's plus postmodernity's "critical turn."   In other parts of his "Integral Post Metaphysics" chapter Ken SEEMS to be in favor of "jettisoning" all metaphysical assumptions and-or only those that cannot be demonstrated. What is he really saying? The language may be confusing to the reader not paying attention to the slightest details.

I favor the latter idea that involves thinking of a demonstration of pre-existing involutionary necessary metaphysical levels as I think that there are methods which can be shared (following the advice of modern and postmodern requirements) and used to disclose aspects of those pre-existing realities "out there" even if by doing so we are also co-structuring them in "kosmic addresses" along with our interpretive subjective spaces, mostly according to altitude & method. This can be understood as recognizing ontology while revealing aspects of its reality inextricably through epistemology.  The way Ken's original writings were worded SEEMS to forget, dismiss (or even relegate) ontology and to privilege epistemology, the consciousness with a perspective. This misunderstanding was increased by the phrase circulating here and there that "reality is composed of holons that are perspectives." This seemed to equate holons only with perspectives but should have also been understood as "holons" (or "part-wholes"/wholes which are "parts" of more inclusive "wholes") which are not things or processes but which involve in all of their quadratic expressions ontologically real objects AND perspectives.

However, the sacrosanct historical knowingness (and EVIDENCE) that there indeed are other levels of reality besides the physical (and with which we are also inextricably related) SEEMED to have been offhandedly questioned.   I didn't like how Ken went about trying to bring in a Post Metaphysical "turn" on this issue. I thought he was neglecting evidence on the important existence of other realms which need to be better understood for scientific purposes and to know how/where we are situated in the Kosmic scheme of things. Another source of confusion (Kenfusion?) may be the emphasis on "post-metaphysical levels" conceived of as "forms that have developed in time, evolution and history." This SEEMS to say that non-physical pre-givens do not exist unless disclosed but perhaps the key idea here would be if conceived (strictly) as "post-metaphysical levels."

What Ken doesn't seem to emphasize is that we may have a greater access to experience and interpret/to disclose ontological aspects of the non-physical Subtle and Causal realms, both in an experimental/objective and collective manner. In fact the thre "eyes of knowledge" may function simultaneously in the three realms mentioned by Vedanta if our situated consciousnesses include three bodies suitable to experience these realms. In each realm there will always be exteriors, mental interior relations and the spiritual principle (s). Therefore, we may also have many more ways to access, perceive and disclose the Subtle and Causal realms that co-exist with us and with our own constitution right now.   Therefore, we may also have many more ways to access, perceive and disclose the Subtle and Causal realms that co-exist with us and with our own constitution right now.  

I think that the Ground of Being/Consciousness that Ken refers to (with a big "C") is not epistemic subjective perspective per se but gives rise both to (and in an inextricably linked manner) being and perspective. This takes place when Consciousness (with a big "C") operates within the (three) realms of distinction or duality. Since the word "consciousness" also is specifically used for epistemic perspectives it can be confused with (big "C") Consciousness. 

I would say that epistemology and ontology are inextricable and that what Ken SEEMED to emphasized was the necessary con-struction of metaphysics as per our situated awareness. He didn't actually deny ontology (be it physical or non-physical). However, what I also objected to in previous writings was to think that metaphysical realities necessarily were thought of as static pre-givens. I posited an interplay and relational exchange (under three logics and modes of being) among three main realms of being and knowing referred to in Vedanta and other wisdom systems (including the Quechua-Inca) and I posited that we could consider non detected-non disclosed realities as actual in their own level but as POTENTIAL to our perception/consciousness. I still think that even as "potential" (for us if undetected/undisclosed/uninterpreted) they exist and I think that as "actual" they also possess interiors and exteriors in singular and plural forms albeit with different degrees of intensities that allow inter-realm differentiations, interactions and other forms of relation. 

Discovering how realms relate should be part of the next stages of development of Integral Theory and might even be useful for this Meta theory to become more useful for interpreting quantum mechanical phenomena and phenomena related with the Mind-Body problem, "interdimensional" phenomena and the interpretation of 'critical' evidence steadily accruing on the survival of a situated consciousness after the demise of the physical body.  

My Response to Ken Wilber's "Critical Realism Revisited"

My Response to Ken Wilber's "Critical Realism Revisited"

I'm glad Ken Wilber is making it clear that Integral Theory also includes ontology. In fact, epistemology and ontology inseparably. There had been some con fusion and I also fell for it. I fell for thinking that Wilber priviledged epistemology over ontology. The way perspectives were being spoken about seemed to indicate that the subjective and perspectives were being privileged. I already understood that both ontology and epistemology are necessary and that they stem from a deeper level of less dual unity. The post metaphysical stance was also associated with an excessive talk about perspectives and method perhaps at the expense of reality or ontology as such. What confused me most was the lack of acknowledgement of non physical realities as if they didn't exist because they were not perceived or didn't matter because they could not be disclosed with a shared method and interpreted under a certain altitude (which off course is not true).

But in this discussion we must refine the understanding of what holons are: Not things or processes but wholes that are parts of larger wholes. When talking about "holons" are we also speaking about the metaphysical categories of UNITY, DIVISIONS and their RELATION? Are we speaking about a TRINITY that is variously recognized in different traditions. SAGUNA BRAHMAN as Father (the Whole), Division (Logos) and Holy Spirit as the connectivity between the Many and the One (or between Divisions and Unity)?

In "Critical Realism Revisited" Wilber writes that Integral Theory has an extensive ontology also as involutionary "givens" (the Twenty Tenets, etc). However, I think that these ontological "givens" also are Metaphysical assumptions necessary for the integral model to hold. They are both 'things' andf Metaphysical epistemological 'assumptions' and thus, once again, talking about a "Post Metaphysical" model may lead to further confusions as when epistemology seemed to be privileged.

In my previous writings I mentioned that the relations between the realms (an underdeveloped element of Integral Theory) were given by three main types of reasoning or logics: Either-Or, Both-And and Neither-Or. When Wilber says that Epistemology and Ontology are "from the start" mutually "INTERACTIVE" "COMPLEMENTARY" and "COMPLEMENTARY" he coincides with my thinking about these three logics (as applied to the relation between epistemology and ontology) because "Interactive" means exteriorly related through well defined differences (either-or), mutually "Complementary" means related through mutually defined complements (both-and) and mutually "Enactive" means mutually interior to each other (thus need to be defined neither as exterior nor as complementary).

In other words, "HOLONS" are useful to ways of being (and associated realms) that range from well defined (like exterior dominant Physical objects), equally complementary subjective and objective Subtle Realm existence and Interior-Subjective dominant Causal Realm existence. All of these modes of epistemology-ontology simultaneously coexist in whatever mode of experiential realm we may be focusing on. Their existence can be actual in conscious experience or potential to conscious experience but all of them are always present. I think that this issue should be realized and discussed to expand Integral Theory.

INTERVIEW TO ROY BHASKAR

In which ways Ken Wilber's emphasis on epistemology is insufficient to describe reality and in which ways a reassessment of ontology is necessary to compensate for this? How can Ken Wilber's "Integral Theory" and Professor Roy Bhaskar's "Critical Realism" relate so as to create a more complete and formidable model? In which ways Critical realism contributes to our search for understanding and a better approach to life, values and spirituality?  To commence this dialogue of ideas, please connect with the following link that presents my recent interview with ROY BHASKAR.

Thanks to Integral Leadership Review and to Professor Russ Volckmann. 

http://integralleadershipreview.com/TO

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.