Ken Wilber’s AQAL Map and Korzybski’s General Semantics
One of Korzybski’s best known
slogans is “the map is not the territory”, and more
specifically “A map is
not the territory
it represents, but, if correct, it has a
similar
structure to the
territory, which accounts for its usefulness” (Alfred
Korzybski. 1958. Science and Sanity. The International
Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Company, p. 58). Ken
Wilber agrees and therefore he has often stressed that
his AQAL map
is
just a map and not the territory to which it refers: “AQAL
or IOS [Integral Operating System] itself is just a map,
nothing more. It is not the territory.” (Ken Wilber.
2007. The
Integral Vision. Boston &
London: Shambhala, p. 213). However, Ken Wilber insists
that AQAL, his integral map “is the most complete and
accurate map we have at this time” (ibid., p. 18). But as
I have pointed out in my online book Wilber’s AQAL Map and
Beyond,
other maps
have been proposed that at least in some respects appear
to surpass the AQAL map. For example, Thomas J.
McFarlane’s Mathematical Mandala (the Integral Sphere) and
the Dynamic Mandala I proposed in
my book, although less worked out in detail, appear more
comprehensive than Wilber’s AQAL map (for a brief
discussion see “McFarlane’s Mathematical Mandala and the
Mandala of this Book” in Chapter 6 on Complementarity). With regard
to human development, the ADAPT model by Hugh and
Amalia Kaye Martin appears more encompassing than Wilber’s
AQAL model.
Another slogan by Korzybski that, although less well known,
appears even more fundamental: “Whatever you might say the
object “is”, well it is not” (Alfred Korzybski. 2010.
Selections from Science and Sanity. Fort Worth, Texas: The
New Non-Aristotelian Library, p. 19), or simply, “Whatever
you say it is, it isn’t” (Alfred Korzybski. 1958. Science and
Sanity. The International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing
Company, p. ). The non-identity between what we say it is and
what it actually is has been well demonstrated by Korzybski
through his Structural
Differential: anything we
can say about an object or the whole Kosmos can depict
only a relatively small number of characteristics of the
object and therefore is always less comprehensive than the
object or reality itself.
It seems that in many ways Ken Wilber also recognizes that
there is a non-identity between what we say about an object
(which may be the whole Kosmos) and the object itself, which
means that what we say an object "is", it isn't. However, he
does not seem to apply this recognition to the interpretation
of the fundamental structure of his AQAL map. This structure,
he insists, is a hierarchy (holarchy), “what we
also called a nested hierarchy or actualization hierarchy,
which is why holarchies are the backbone of holism” (Ken
Wilber. 2001. A Theory of Everything. Boston: Shambhala,
p. 40). And this structure, according to Ken
Wilber,
is that of the whole
Kosmos: “The Kosmos is a series of nests within nests within
nests indefinitely” (ibid., p.40).
It seems that with regard to the interpretation of the basic
hierarchical (holarchical) structure of his AQAL map, Ken
Wilber does not apply Korzybski’s general semantics. For if
“whatever you say it is, it isn’t”, then saying that the
Kosmos is
hierarchical
(holarchical) means that it
isn’t. This conclusion
appears fundamentally important because if we cannot say that
the Kosmos is
hierarchical
(holarchical), then we can only say that the Kosmos
can be
seen as hierarchical
(holarchical). Consequently, hierarchy (holarchy) becomes a
view, a perspective of the Kosmos. And if it is only a view,
a perspective, then it does not necessarily exclude other
views such as Yin/Yang, continuum and network views for which
we can also provide evidence (see my ebook
Wilber’s AQAL Map and
Beyond or my blog
post Ken Wilber, Holarchy and
Beyond). This
entails a switch from dogmatism to tolerance. Needless to
say, Ken Wilber has held tolerant views in many ways but
not with regard to the most basic structure of the Kosmos,
which he claims is
hierarchical
(holarchical), that is, “a series of nests within nests
within nests indefinitely” (Ken Wilber. 2001. A Theory of
Everything. Boston: Shambhala, p.40).
Accepting other views besides the hierarchical (holarchical)
one would have two major consequences: First, it would lead
to a rather fundamental modification of Ken Wilber’s AQAL map
(see “Beyond Wilber’s AQAL Map” and “Removing Limitations in
Wilber’s AQAL Map” in Summary and Conclusions
in
my ebook Wilber’s
AQAL Map and Beyond). Second, it
would lead to the recognition that instead of looking
for the
best map
(which Ken Wilber claims is his AQAL map) it might be more
appropriate to accept different and perhaps even
contradictory maps as complementary to each other because
they can present different perspectives on the Kosmos.
This implies the recognition of the general principle
of complementarity
and its
underlying logic, which is a
both-and logic that is a healing
logic in contrast to the common either-or logic that often
leads to conflict or even war.
It is interesting that in his more recent writings Ken Wilber
embraces an Integral Perspectivism, which means that "in the
manifest world there are no perceptions, only perspectives"
(Ken Wilber. 2006. Integral Spirituality. Boston &
London: Integral Books, p, 255). However, it seems that he
does not apply this perspectivism to what he considers the
basic hierarchical (holarchical) structure of the Kosmos
including human existence. It seems that he presupposes this
hierarchical (holarchical) structure to determine the
altitude (level) and perspective of any phenomenon. This
means that he does not recognize the basic hierarchy
(holarchy) as a perspective, and as a consequence no room is
left for other basic non-hierarchical
perspectives on manifest
reality.