Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Some objections by a learner

Posted February 7th, 2010 by John Rose in Counterconsiderations
In Reference to:
How It All Fits Together: The Quadrants

Having just discovered this community of understanding, I am intrigued by most of what Ken Wilbur says. But in his explanation of the four quadrants he says:

Now, if you and I are talking and communicating, we will indicate this by using, for example, the word “we,” as in, “We understand each other.” “We” is technically 1st-person plural, but if you and I are communicating, then your 2nd person and my 1st person are part of this extraordinary “we.” Thus, 2nd person is sometimes indicated as “you/we,” or “thou/we,” or sometimes just “we.”

This jumped out at me because it seems to violate his very important distinction between individual and social holons and Wilbur usefully points out how destructive this can be, both cognitively and politically. In counseling terms, it violates boundaries, it is an instance of enmeshment.

My second and more global difficulty is the impression that the structure of the quadrants is being imposed onto some of the elements that are part of that whole. The world is not necessarily so tidy; indeed, it is so complex that all our efforts to integrate our understanding with our frames of reference will necessarily fall short.

Nonetheless, I credit Wilbur with some very useful cognitive frames, especially of the stages of human development, and I intend to continue my learning process.

 

John Rose

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Welcome! May you have fun here...

Posted February 8th, 2010 by GameOfThriving

2 thoughts.

1) it is mostly a question of establishing an agreed meaning to the terms. When you get the terms you mean straight, then I vs. We makes more sense. The more you read Wilber the more you will understand how he is using the terms, and then his meaning will become more clear. AND, isn't that a great example of how I understanding is not WE understanding until we have agreement on what we mean? That is a pretty good example of Upper Left (UL) vs. Lower Left (LL) quadrants...

2) All existents have all four quandrants (as Wilber defines it). So, we never try to categorize anything into one of the quadrants (although we might talk about Freud in the UL and Heidegger in the LL). Everything has (minimally) these four aspects. Again, the more you understand what he means, the more clear it becomes.

I will say that when you really get what he is saying, 99% of the questions go away. AND, that 1% expands infinitely into bliss...

--

Mark Michael Lewis - The Thrive Coach - Know Your Purpose. Build True Wealth. Love the Journey. - http://GameOfThriving.com - http://OptimalHumanValues.com

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

The joy of spelling

Posted February 8th, 2010 by Billy Guilfoyle

Hey man, 

Just thought you might like to know that Wilber is spelled with an "e," just like Rose. I don't know enough about the quadrants to answer your questions, but I've been reading Ken Wilber's work and listening to hundreds of hours of his conversations and talks since 2000, and it is infinitely obvious that the man is one of the smartest humans alive as well as one of the most caring. So I hope you enjoy reading and learning more from him and others at Integral Institute. As far as I'm aware, they are the most knowledgeable, comprehensive, and expert in the field of human transformation. 

 

Peace to you and thanks for your work in counseling,

 Billy Guilfoyle, Integral Mind