How Does Eros Operate or How Do Holons Interact Across Realms?

From a certain point of view the post-metaphysical stance is plausible. Cognizing the disclosure of particulars is gradual. An ecosystem 100,000 yrs. ago was but was also not cognized as such by us humans until fairly recently. As thought-provoking philosopher Ken Wilber said in his book Integral Spirituality (p.249), the ecosystem may also be cognized differently 1000 yrs. from now. But how else can we come to understand with greater detail that metaphysical posit called "Eros" (conceived as a probability-nudging and upward pulling evolutionary force) in terms of metaphysically interconnected holons across realms? Would less externalized, subtler realms be "higher" or "more inclusive" of the more externalized, gross realms in terms of their interiority, of their exteriority or both? And how would a "higher" (potential or actual?) "influence" actually operate across realms in order to produce meaningful synchronicities? Perhaps that unappreciated, historically thwarted but lingering friend "metaphysics" can -after all- give us some fundamental clues. 

From a traditional (and also ultimately non dual) but spiritual-emanation compatible approach, the less exteriorized realms would display less dual appearance and "Maya" while their corresponding interior experience becomes freer and their exterior counterpart more responsive and malleable. These realms would also be degrees closer to Pure Spirit which is also considered as Absolutely Actual. The relation between interacting holons, some in more interior and, thus, more actual, less dual, realms and others in more exterior, more potential-to-be, more Maya limiting realms needs to be studied as a way to enhance in detail our crude understanding of the function of "Eros." Thus, what are the more specific metaphysical mechanisms under which "Eros" operates? 

In these inter-realm situations, the relation between a more inclusive (ultimately more interior and more actual), "higher" holon's interiority needs to be related with its interacting, less inclusive, "lower" holon's interiority and, separately, with that same "lower" holon's exteriority. Furthermore, the relation between that more inclusive "higher" holon's exteriority needs to be explored with its associated, less inclusive, "lower" holon's interiority and, distinctively, with that "lower" holon's exteriority. Moreover, the relation of the exteriority of the "higher" holon needs to be distinctively explored with its associated, lower holon's interiority and exteriority. Thus, it appears that we can have 04 (four) essential hierarchical, "top down" variables of interaction in relation to the quadratic holonic expressions between "higher" realm and "lower" realm holons: Interior-Interior, Interior-Exterior, Exterior-Interior, Exterior-Exterior. Also, we might productively see these relations from the "bottom-up" perspective of the "lower" to the "higher" holons.

I think that our explorations into these matters needs not only to include the various forms of experiential disclosure favored by Integral Methodological Pluralism but also deductive disclosure. In this integral efforts, some traditional metaphysical principles now mostly lefty aside in most Integral Theory thinking (perhaps because they are unpalatable in the current modern-postmodern academic milieu while confused with Mythic stage thinking and now with traditional Myth of the Given ways of thinking) are: The idea of existence as Potentia and of existence as Actuality. I think that these Aristotelian ideas complement well Platonist emanation models, and especially more so now under Integral Theory. For example, a particular quadratic aspect of a holon in one realm aspect may hold a "potential" kind of relation with another quadratic aspect of an associated interactive holon in another realm. Also, a particular quadratic aspect of a holon in one realm may hold an "actuality" kind of relation with another quadratic aspect of an associated interactive holon in another realm. Even more, seeing inter realm holon relations from this emerging perspective may be compatible both with some of Ken Wilber's "post metaphysical" insights and with some traditional esoteric insights. 

Even if all quadrants were to manifest simultaneously as Integral Theory (a theory whose quadrants derive from an experiential understanding of patterns disclosed from the dual nature of kosmos), we must ask ourselves how, from the point of view of contingency, the exterior quadrants correspond to actuality while from an Absolute point of view they correspond to a Potentiality to be rather than to Actual, Real Being. Similarly, we must also ask ourselves how, from the point of view of contingency (or of duality and appearance) the interior quadrants correspond to Potentiality and the exterior ones to Actuality. In doing this, while recognizing that within duality all quadrants manifest simultaneously, we would also be able to distinguish realms and quadrants that are "principially" (a term borrowed from Fritjoff Schuon), metaphysically and ontologically closer to Non Duality. We would also more clearly see why subtler realms (or realms manifesting less exterior, objective quadratic aspects) are hierarchically-speaking "higher" -or rather- more inclusive. 

Would the interior of what is normally called (for simplification purposes) a "higher" realm holon, a holon having a more subtle exteriority (likely more capable of being modified by interior volition) relate as the potential or as the actual metaphysical condition of a "lower" realm, but interconnected holon's interior quadratic aspect? What about this "lower" realm interconnected holon's exterior quadratic aspect? And what about the "higher" holon's exterior quadratic aspect in relation to both of the "lower" holon's interior and exterior aspects? What quadratic aspect of the "higher" holon would be more actual to what quadratic aspect of the "lower" holon? All these issues need to be clarified with a more sophisticated metaphysical approach without necessarily regressing to the lesser wild speculative aspects of previous cultural eras. We must indeed come to explore inter realm relations through an expansion of both experiential and deductive metaphysical approaches.  

Since his "post metaphysical" turn, Ken Wilber seems to be focusing on one way of perceiving things and philosophizing about things that (perhaps unbeknownst to him) ultimately, is not incompatible with his previous acceptance of the Great Chain of Being. In order to maintain the gist of the Platonic-esoteric view compatible with Wilber's Post Metaphysical view (or vice versa), most likely we need to modify what we normally and simplistically take under consideration as "real" or as "existing." For instance, thinking "top-down" and from a contingent (pro-inductive, object based, experiential) perspective, would the higher realm holon's Interior aspect be seen as potentially existing in relation to the lower realm holon's Interior or to this holon's Exterior aspect? What about its Exterior aspect in relation to the lower realm holon's Interior and Exterior? Then, from an non contingent, Absolute-based (more deductive, ultimately not object based but necessary) perspective, would the higher realm holon's Interior be seen as actually existing in relation to the lower realm holon's Interior or to its Exterior? Also, what about the higher realm holon's Exterior in relation to the lower realm holon's Interior and Exterior? 

Having in mind the issue of how all the quadratic aspects may relate across interacting "higher" and "lower" realm holons while reincorporating into Integral Theory the metaphysical categories of potentiality and actuality, I'll try to explore (in a future post) more specific significances of the idea that "Higher holons give the probabilities of the Lower as Lower holons give the possibilities of the Higher." Also, against the preconception that metaphysics only refers to "top down" hierarchical organization views, I might also explore the idea that sentient beings embodied in "lower," more exteriorized or material realms might actualize holonic quadratic aspects in "higher," less exteriorized, subtler (less material) realms.  How (while being focused in one or more material realms) we disclose subtler preexisting realms that impinge on us but are also affected by us needs to be considered since the principle of "as above so below-as below so above" may transcend any particular stage of cultural evolution and may need to be revised under more sophisticated eyes even beyond Ken Wilber's unique mind-opening but also delimitating influence.

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

Now, attempting to criticize the general emphasis of current Integral Theory, I think that perhaps relying mostly on particulars in order to arrive at generalities (a characteristic of inductive, experiential methods) may also tend to lead awareness towards the limitation of appearances. Recognizing the existence of Non Dual, ultimate Spirit which quietly operates and embraces all manifest form may not be enough to escape from the entrancement of form if we also with a lack of "integral" awareness deny or prefer to ignore (or not to embrace) its metaphysical-ontological modus operandi. In fact this subtlety may be the difference between the ultimate success or failure of Integral Theory as a means to enlighten and guide more of humanity into a greater awareness into its role in the scheme of things. It may also be the difference on whether Integral Theory can produce apt guidelines for the scientific endeavor in relation to a "multiverse" that includes not only other physical universes but other "realms" and combinations thereof.  

If I'm correct, originally, "inducere" (from which the words "induction" and "inductive" come from) meant "leading into" and I take this as an indication of "leading into the multiplicity of dual appearance." Conversely, inferring about particulars while basing ourselves on general principles (deduction) may tend to lead us away from appearance and limitation because this other "path" seems to ultimately be inspired by a higher intuition, a transmental mind focused on the principles of logic and on our innate recognition of non contingent Being, of necessity and implication in thinking and of the ultimate isness recognized even in dual, comparative thinking, all derived from the ultimate sense of pure, Non Dual awareness. I also think that, originally, "deducere" (from which "deduction" and "deductive" come from) meant "leading away from." If the mindset of modernity and post modernity induces us to shy away from first principles -while gaining metaphysically secondary or derived exterior manipulative sophistication- we may be led to embrace attention-grabbing material aspects of manifest reality while lacking the counterbalance needed to transcendentally cognize and stabilize the non-dual priority of Interiority against the appearance that duality imposes (as we personally and collectively relate to how the kosmos unfolds). Integral Theory seems mostly to give us an idea on how this dual, appearance-based "kosmos" manifests without  acquainting us with the hierarchic principles that give rise to a more fundamental differentiation between appearance and Reality, a differentiation also needed to understand the metaphysical foundations on how "higher" and "lower" realms manifest (besides quadratic simultaneity) and interact.