Comparison of Ken Wilber's Ideas (from the Integral Approach) and Benoit Mandelbrot's Fractal Geometry

   I recently learned about mathematician Mandelbrot's discovery of fractal geometry. The concept, as shown in a recent NOVA episode on PBS, reminded me of something I do all the time as a poet: "variation on the theme". A fractal follows the mathematic principles of "self-similarity" and "iteration". As I understand it, a fractal takes the original pattern of a series, or "set", and adds it to the set in a new way (in new angles, on new surfaces) that gradually builds a complex system which may not appear at all related to the original pattern, but which has remarkable consistency throughout - a "self-similarity".

   Interestingly, a fractal antennae pulls in many more frequencies from the electromagnetic band than does a regularly-configured antennae. This broad band capacity would indicate that the fractal antennae has a greater likelihood of accessing higher frequencies among the mix of frequencies it pulls in. 

    In his integral maps, Ken Wilber associates higher frequencies (as represented by certain colors) with higher stages of consciousness and development. Spiritual author Wayne Dyer also equates spiritual growth, or higher consciousness, with learning to operate from "higher frequencies". It would stand to reason that a "fractal" mind, like the fractal antennae, would have a greater chance to access those higher frequencies.   

    One of the things that the NOVA episode reviewed was the fact that the energy efficiency of a large organism is greater than that of a small organism, pound for pound. This whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts phenomena reminded me of Wilber's instinct to emphasize integrated wholes as a productive way to look at things, and as a productive way to actualize human potentials. His "integral approach" would be analogous the the relatively higher energy efficiency of a more complex organism.  

   The idea that complexity can lead to efficiency, rather than chaos, reminded me of a point that Wilber makes as regards the nature of "integration". He maintains that complexity, and its occasional chaotic appearances, is a necessary element of integration.  

   While it is true that too much complexity too soon can cause disharmony and lack of integration, it is equally true that harmony/unity at the expense of complex differentiations results in a lower level of integration. According to Wilber, true integration requires the interaction of unity and complexity.

    For example, Wilber cautions modern man not to throw out the complexities of the post-modern era in order to return to a simpler, and seemingly more unified, version of culture. Although I don't recall him using the following word, the temptation to go back to a simpler unified pattern appears to me, as a retired psychology service provider, to be "regression". 

    I once read a book by Dubrowski (spelling ?) called Positive Disintegration, which also attests to the idea that a disorganized, un-uinified, mental state (including, in some cases, mental illness) can be the mind's attempt to reorganize (re-"integrate") at a higher level. The sentiment that "Sometimes things have to get worse before they  can get better" seems to ring true when considering both Wilber's and Dubrowski's (?) compelling points. 

    Wilber's and Dubrowski's slants on integration seem to fit science's observations about fractal patterns. It appears that complexity which conforms to the mathematical concepts of "iteration" (repeated patterns) and "self-similarity" (similarity between a set as a whole and its subcomponents) can lead to growth and efficiency, even if the complexity has to pass through an awkward stage in order to get there. 

    To me, it is interesting to note the similarity between "self-similarity" and the psychological/spiritual concept of being "authentic" or "genuine". I have long felt that the Judea-Christian story of Eve's giving into temptation by eating the forbidden fruit has something to do with inauthenticity, going outside oneself for ultimate answers. To put it in traditional religious terms, it seems that we need to be "the way God made us" (in accordance with our unique aptitudes, or "gifts"), before we can reach our full (individual or collective) potential. Both the biblical advice to put that authenticity into a manifest form by "be(ing) fruitful and multiply(ing)", and the bible school song's advice to "let it (your little light) shine", acknowledge the power of iteration. 

"Fractal Phenomenology"

    The information about fractal patterns helped me refine a theory which has recently been percolating in my mind. I had been perseverating on the idea of seeing things, or operating things, in different "formats". My interest in this came from my own observations of what my mind does as it creates a poem. Over and over again, I repeat a theme and then vary it by putting it into new contexts, new "formats". 

    If I am in the "image" of the "Creator", then such observations (and thoughts about the observations) seem to be more than just "passing time" or "mental masturbation".  Creating a poem may not be on the same scale of creating the physical universe, but it appears to be a parallel to that "creation" - a "fractal", if you will, to the "self"/set called the universe. The universe appears to have developed an unbelievable amount of complexity in accordance with the principle of "self-similarity" and the action of iteration. 

    As regards the "phenomenology" part of Fractal Phenomenology, I have long valued Herserel's (sp?) phenomenology. This approach recommends that if you want to really learn about things, open up your mind and observe the phenomena as it presents itself, rather than allowing preconceptions to clutter the perceptions and thoughts. Phenomonology is a valid way to help open the mind.  

   The limit , however, to this approach may be that, despite our attempts to respond only to the presenting phenomena, mental sets tend to sneak into the experience more than we realize. I suspect that we are better off to "play within our game" (within the limits of our minds at any given time) and humbly accept the influence  of those mind sets. That way we aren't fooled by our hidden forms or structures which our minds carry along with us wherever we go, as a matter of self-similarity. 

   As I understand it, the southern school of Buddhism largely formed "Zen" after seeing problems with the northern school's advocating of "wiping the (mind) mirror clean". The southern school felt that the effort to wipe the mind empty ends up scratching the mirror, figuratively speaking. Trying too hard to empty the mind may beg the opposite tendency of the mind to sneak its own fixed forms into the desired mental state of  unbiased openness. I agree with this basic idea, that we must accept the limits of our ability to empty the mind, lest we end up with a false version of open-mindedness.

   While the southern school liberated themselves from the mirror wiping years ago, the modern version of being in the here and now may have invited another form of wiping. If you try too hard to attend to only the presenting phenomena, it seems to me that it could end up being "camera lens wiping". If I give excess emphasis on the here and now, where does my intuition or my mind's eye or ancient archetypes go? Too much effort to shoo them away could, paradoxically, practically beg them to sneak into the experience through a back door in a manner which could distort my perceptions, just as repressed fears in the subconscious mind can distort reality appraisals.  

   Here is where the notion of self-similarity from the fractal math and science camp struck me as revealing a certain truth. Like the popular slogan "shit happens", it seems to me that "mind sets happen". To pretend they don't, is to be inauthentic. As a poet, I don't avoid the set theme - I embrace it, repeat it (using iteration), and then allow it to be varied or re-formatted, over and over again. The created poem seems to involve a fractal pattern. How would that differ from creative living - from an impromptu writing of my life script as I live it?    

   It now appears to me that the same fractal pattern is going on with every experience I have. It is not limited to the creation of poetry. The common denominator between the experience of writing a poem and all other life experiences is my mind. That mind is the "self" (an overall, or at least a larger, set) in the self-similarity principle endorsed by the fractal camp. That mind only knows what it knows (or thinks it knows!). To pretend otherwise is to invite a "scratched" (distorted) image on the mind's"camera lens". 

   If the fractal notion is true, then the mind may open up to the presenting phenomena best by working with its own inherent structure, rather than trying to transcend itself by only seeing the phenomena on the presenting situation's own terms. If we learn to trust the fractals of the mind, the mind will eventually open an inner door to an outer event. In effect, the fractal (variation-on-the-theme) structure of the mind is like the fractal antennae that pulls in a wide range of frequencies. 

   While there is validity to the usefulness of "thinking outside the box",  it may turn out that learning to think "completely (in a fractally complex manner) in the box (of one's established themes or mind sets)" may take us beyond the limits of thought better than seeking a "truth" which is analogous to Eve's forbidden fruit. The thought outside of the authentic self ends up becoming a source of distortion - of "sin".   

  Below are some initial thoughts about this new theory or philosophy that I am calling Fractal Phenomenology: 

1. The fractals of the mind are themes which are varied by putting them in new contexts, in new "formats". These fractals create new angles of the mind - going deep, wide, high and low, creating a kind of mental antennae which pulls in a wider range of frequencies.  

2. These themes, these mind sets, are a valid part of the experience, perhaps at times even anticipating (in a fore-giving manner), the essence of the thing being contemplated. 

3. True learning and growth is a hybrid of "sets", and "lets". The mind "sets" expand when they "let" new experiences re-contextualize them. A proposed motto for Fractal Phenomenology is "Let the set let and beget"! This is another way of saying "do variations on the theme" as you participate in life. If you try too hard to transcend your mind sets, then much of the integrating potential of the mind is lost to chaos. If you try too hard to merely replicate the themes without "letting" them be varied, then much of the integrating potential of the mind is lost to sameness and reduction.  

4. The different angles of seeing the thing or situation - the mind's fractals-  are just as real, perhaps more real, as the "thing" itself. We are "out of our minds" if we think the thing exists outside of the only mind we have to work with. But this does not mean that the mind cannot transcend itself. The mind can transcend itself; both by new momentary states which offer glimpses to growth, and by elevating to higher stages. Fractal Phenomenology is not solipsism. As in the Moody Blues' song House of Four Doors (from the album In Search of the Lost Chord), in which the fourth door opens beyond, outside of,  the "house", Fractal Phenomenology can open a door that leads outside of the "box".

5. Fractal Phenomenology may offer a bridge, or interface, between Ken Wilber's knowledge domains of  "I, we, it, and its". The fractal mind's odd, or "orthogonal", angles and planes weave in and out of those domains. I may be looking at a thing as an it, when my mind takes the angle of seeing it as something which is sentimental (in the "I", subjective realm). This unique "iteration", this fractal, links the two domains. The phenomena is both objective and subjective in the fractally-expanded version of the self-similar mind.