Quotes
from Wilber's AQAL Map and
Beyond (by Rolf Sattler)
From the
Prologue
[Ken] Wilber’s
[AQAL] map is an excellent point of departure for a further
exploration of new ways of thinking because it is very
comprehensive and easily accessible, has been worked out in
considerable detail, and has the potential to fundamentally
affect in a very beneficial way all aspects of our lives and
society (see, for example, his Integral Operating System
(2005d) and The Life Practice Starter
Kit by his Integral
Institute (2006)). His map has, however, limitations (p.
iii).
From Chapter 1:
Hierarchy and Beyond
I would not say
that “the Kosmos is a series of nests within nests within nests
indefinitely” (Wilber 2001a: 40, italics mine)… I would say
that from a hierarchical perspective the Kosmos appears as a
series of nests within nests within nests; and from a
nonhierarchical perspective the Kosmos appears as a
continuum, a unity, and other ways (p.23)
[H]ierarchical [holarchical] thinking is not the only way. We
can also think in a nonhierarchical way and this kind of
thinking reveals another important aspect of manifest reality
that cannot be grasped through hierarchical thinking.
Therefore, “beyond” means that
we embrace different kinds of thinking and do not get caught
just in one way. Then hierarchical and nonhierarchical
thinking can complement each other and together these two
ways of thinking can provide a richer and deeper
understanding of manifest realty than one alone (p.23)
[T]here is a kind of holism that is still more holistic than
the holism in terms of hierarchy (holarchy): it integrates
holons at any level to such an extent that they vanish as
entities, and it abolishes levels which means that it goes
beyond hierarchies, emphasizing instead continuity, oneness,
or “undivided wholeness” (to use David Bohm’s expression in a
more general sense). In other words, nonhierarchical holism
in terms of undivided wholeness does not fragment reality
into holons and levels of a holarchy (p.20).
[Ken] Wilber (2001: 39) wrote: “organisms actually contain
cells, which actually contain molecules, which actually
contain atoms. You can even see this directly with a
microscope. That hierarchy is one of actual embrace.” Can we
indeed see this?... it is a matter of perspective
whether we see cells as separate entities or not… If we
consider the organismal theory, cells can no longer function
as fundamental units (holons) at one level of the hierarchy.
As a consequence the hierarchy collapses at that level. What
appeared hierarchical is no longer hierarchical. Thus a
nonhierarchical view emerges. This does not mean, however,
that therefore the hierarchical view at this level is totally
wrong. It can still be maintained as another perspective
based on the limited validity of cell theory. As cell theory
and the organismal theory can coexist as complementary
theories, so the hierarchical and the nonhierarchical views
can also coexist and complement each other… Now one could
argue that the breakdown of exclusive hierarchical thinking
at one level such as the cellular level does not
automatically apply to all other levels of the hierarchy of
Figure 1 -1. This is, of course, correct. But the hierarchy
can also be collapsed at other levels ( pp. 12-14).
From Chapter 2:
Either/Or Logic and
Beyond
Hierarchy
[holarchy] in the strict sense and typical hierarchical
thinking are based on either/or logic. Since either/or logic
is only of limited applicability, [Ken] Wilber’s [AQAL] map
and the hierarchy on which it is based also apply to reality
only to a limited extent. If we want to obtain a
richer and more comprehensive map of the Kosmos, we have to
go beyond either/or logic and embrace also alternative ways
of thinking such as both/and logic, continuum logic (that is,
fuzzy logic), Yin-Yang and network thinking. The latter
connects everything and thus provides many bridges that have
been obscured or forgotten due to the fragmenting nature of
thought and language in terms of ideas, ideologies,
religions, and beliefs (p. 42).
Many phenomena are
fuzzy so that Kosko (1993) in his book on “Fuzzy Thinking.
The New Science of Fuzzy Logic” referred to a “fuzzy world
view.” This worldview is indeed revolutionary. Its
importance and far-reaching consequences cannot be emphasized
enough. It allows us to perceive the world differently: on
this view, the world is not just black and white, but has a
rich and varied gradation of grays; it is not just discrete
colors, but has also a fascinating mingling of colors. Most
of all, it is not only categorical, this or that, but a
continuum spanning the categories (p.27).
In our culture, especially among so-called educated people,
it is almost preposterous and irritating, if not ridiculous,
to refer in all seriousness to fuzziness. The ideal very
often has been and still is to do away with fuzziness as much
as possible, that is, to reduce everything to clear-cut,
unambiguous categories. However, the real world is not always
so clear-cut and unambiguous. Therefore, if we want to better
understand the real world, we have to learn to speak a
language that comes as close as possible to the real world.
Ultimately, there is, of course, no language that will reveal
absolute reality as it is. But with regard to relative
reality, we have the choice between different languages based
on different kinds of logic. Either/ or logic will allow us
to understand some simple aspects of reality. For example, if
in the continuum from black to white we just want to focus on
the extremes, black and white, either/or logic will be
sufficient to do that. However, if we want to deal with the
whole range from black to white with all the gray tones in
between, fuzzy logic will be required. Thus, fuzzy logic will
make it possible to greatly increase the scope of our
understanding because there is so much fuzziness in the real
world (pp. 27-28)
[Ken] Wilber has
gone far beyond the limits of either/or logic, but with
regard to the basic holonic structure of his AQAL map he
adheres to hierarchical [holarchical] thinking, that is
either/or logic (p.27).
Either/or logic divides and its practitioners can easily
become antagonistic and even belligerent. Both/and logic,
fuzzy logic, Yin-Yang and network thinking connect and
therefore aid in reconciliation and healing at a personal,
social, and global level. Hence, the recognition of these
alternative kinds of logic and thinking is extremely
important for a betterment of the human condition and the
environmental situation. [I am presently working on a new book
tentatively entitled Healing Thinking and
Being that will elaborate on this topic]
(p.42).
From Chaper 4:
The Dynamic Mandala
The dynamic
mandala [that goes beyond Ken Wilber’s AQAL map] is not just
one mandala such as the one presented in Figure 4 -1, but
includes many interpretations and transformations. Thus, the
dynamic mandala is a multitude of mandalas or even the set of
all mandalas (p.51).
From Chapter 5:
Transformations of the Dynamic Mandala
[The dynamic mandala] can be transformed in many ways by
changing the number of circles, the number of concept pairs,
its basic structure, and by rendering it organic and
artistic. In all of these transformations, the empty center
remains the same, because, as the unnamable, it is even
beyond fluidity (p.81).
Since, in the
widest sense, the mandala of this book can be seen as a
mandala of mandalas, or, more precisely, the set of all
mandalas, it comprises all mandalas of the past, present, and
future. This means it also comprises the mandalas of the
wisdom traditions such as Hinduism and Buddhism. These
mandalas are, of course, not actual transformations of the
mandala of this book, but they can be seen as transformations
because we can envisage a dynamic relationship between all
mandalas [Hence, the dynamic mandala is an all encompassing
mandala] (p.80)
.
Since mandalas have been created in practically all cultures,
religions, and wisdom traditions, a mandala of mandalas that
relates all mandalas also relates the cultures, religions,
and wisdom traditions in which they originated. Therefore,
the mandala of mandalas has an enormous potential to unify
and connect diverse cultures, religions, and wisdom
traditions. The unification occurs through the center that
all mandalas share; the connection through the different
peripheries of the mandalas that can be seen in a dynamic
relationship (p.80).
[Ken] Wilber’s [AQAL] map turns out to be one of the many
transformations of the mandala, which means that it is a
special case of the dynamic mandala. The reverse is, however,
not the case: the mandala is not a special case of Wilber’s
map because the mandala cannot be generated from Wilber’s
map, since his map is not dynamic and self-referential as the
mandala (p.81).
From Chapter 6:
Complementarity
Mandalas are maps
of reality (p. 93).
[The different interpretations and
transformations of the dynamic mandala] offer different
perspectives of reality and therefore complement each other.
Thus, together they offer a richer and more comprehensive
understanding of reality than any one alone (p.82).
The following analogy may help to envisage how contrasting
and even contradictory theories, views, or ideas can
complement each other. Imagine a mountain that is steep on
one side and gently sloping on its opposite side. Now look at
the steep side of the mountain and you will conclude that
this is a steep mountain. Then look at the opposite side of
the same mountain and you will conclude that this is not a
steep mountain. Thus you have come to contradictory
conclusions and both of them are correct to some extent
because depending on your perspective, the mountain is steep
or not. The two perspectives complement each other. Together
they give us a more complete picture of the mountain than
only one alone. Yet in science, in society, and everyday
life, we often want to exclude the opposite view and thus we
deprive ourselves of a more complete picture (p. 83)
Since complementarity is of such wide-ranging applicability,
it is of utmost importance to be aware of it.
Since much
human suffering is due to either/or thinking that can lead to
conflict, aggression, and war, awareness of complementarity
that is based on both/and logic can bring us more mutual
understanding, more tolerance, and more peace within
ourselves, in our relationships, in society within and
between nations. To foster more awareness of complementarity
it should be taught in kindergarten, elementary school, high
school and university (p. 94).
From Chapter 7:
The Kosmic Dance
People who follow
predominantly either/or logic are rather static in their
thinking because they are locked into one mode. They are for
this and against that: therefore they defend this and argue
against that. As a result they may become more and more stuck
in whatever they are defending.
In contrast, people who can also follow both/and logic can
easily move from one perspective to another that complements
it; and from there to yet another perspective, and so on. As
a result these people are not as much stuck; they move
around. These people are dynamic. When the movement is
spontaneous and free, it becomes a dance. Thus one can see
and experience a multitude of complementary perspectives.
This makes life exciting because there is always novelty. It
is like a big adventure. One never knows where it will lead.
Consequently, there is insecurity, but these adventurers may
feel secure in this insecurity, knowing that ultimately life
is not secure and predictable. Therefore, they let it unfold
as they dance along. (p. 95)
With regard to the mandala of this book this means moving
easily from one interpretation to another, from one
transformation to another, thus exploring more and more novel
interpretations and transformations. Since the mandala with
all its interpretations and transformations can be a
representation of the Kosmos, and since we are part of the
Kosmos, this movement allows us to become better acquainted
with the Kosmos and ourselves. Moving and dancing with the
fluid mandala we enjoy life and learn about life and the
world, about ourselves and the fluid Kosmos.
Moving and dancing with conceptual mandalas
might feel like moving and dancing with skeletons. But
dancing with organic/artistic mandalas is almost like dancing
with partners made of flesh and blood; and the partners keep
changing as, for example, in a circle dance where the dancers
inside the outer circle move along from one partner to the
next. Each mandala, like each partner, is a different
experience of life and the world, ourselves and the Kosmos,
and yet they all enclose the same unnamable, mysterious
source (p.95).
The dance
of Nataraja is spontaneous. It has no script, no set steps to
follow, no purpose or goal. It is pure joy, exuberance,
celebration. There is no dancer who is doing the dancing. The
dancer dissolves in the dance. In other words, the dancer is
the dance: dancer and dance are one. This is the
transcendence of the ego, the doer, the dancer. It happens
through playfulness, which in India is referred to as lila,
the kosmic play. To become lila we have to let go and relax
into existence instead of trying to control it. Then we can
partake in the kosmic play and in this play we can even
transcend the mandalic structure because we can transcend any
structure.
In its spontaneity, play has lightness and nonattachment. It
overcomes resistance and fear. Referring to philosophical
positions, Puhakka (1998:397) wrote: “Playfulness manifests
in the lightness with which the position is held.” The
opposite is the stubborn attachment to one’s position, one’s
map, one’s philosophy, ideology, or religion, which is so
characteristic of the serious person who cannot dance and
play (pp. 96-97).
There are many ways to meditate. Just sitting as in Soto Zen
or Mindfulness Meditation are wonderful ways of meditation,
but they are not always easy for the beginner. According to
Osho (2000:153), dancing and laughing are two natural, easily
approachable doors to meditation, to the realm of no-mind and
ultimate oneness. Of course, it has to be total dancing and
laughing. Not just dancing that is directed by the mind, but
dancing that is so total that the dancer becomes the dance.
And not just a crippling laughing that still allows thinking
at the same time. Other natural and easily approachable doors
to meditation include toning, chanting, singing, and
listening to or playing music in such a way that one flows
with the sound or music and dissolves in it (p. 97).
From Summary and
Conclusions
Since Wilber’s AQAL map is of immense value, this book should
be seen as an appreciation of his map. However, it also
points out limitations of his map and shows how they can be
overcome. The mandala of this book goes beyond Wilber’s map
in the following ways:
1. Because of the multitude of transformations and
interpretations, the mandala does greater justice to the
complexity of the manifest world than Wilber’s map with only
a few versions, all of which are holarchical.
2. Besides Wilber’s hierarchical (holarchical) holism, the
mandala offers a nonhierarchical holism (undivided
wholeness), which at least to some extent overcomes
fragmentation of the world into holons (entities) that are
then hierarchically (holarchically) ordered.
3. The mandala offers a continuum view in addition to the
holarchical view. This continuum view applies also to levels
within the quadrants. Wilber too endorses a continuum when he
refers to waves instead of levels. However, with regard to
the basic structure of his AQAL map, this continuum still
implies the “Include and Transcend” Principle, whereas the
continuum of the mandala may or may not imply this principle.
4. The recognition of continua liberates us from either/or
thinking (categorical thinking) and emphasizes fuzzy thinking
(fuzzy logic) in addition to Aristotelian either/or logic
that is so prevalent in our culture.
5. In addition to Wilber’s hierarchical “Include and
Transcend”, the mandala also allows a Yin-Yang view with
regard to levels, which means that the lower level contains
(if only as a germ) the upper and vice versa. As an extension
of this view one can envisage a partial belonging to more
than two levels. In Chapter 1 I pointed out that this view
was actually endorsed by Wilber to a limited extent. Related
to the Yin-Yang view is the dialectical view according to
which any level may be either the total or partial negation
of its preceding level or the synthesis of two preceding
levels. Negation is contrary to the holarchical view, whereas
synthesis is compatible with the latter.
6. The mandala can be interpreted in a linear fashion as
Wilber’s map, but also in a less linear way, and therefore it
allows for more network interconnections. Wilber recognizes
many networks including interconnections between lines and
quadrants (which are not indicated in his map). He insists,
however, that the levels in the holarchy follow each other in
a linear fashion, which means that levels cannot be skipped
(in the individual quadrants). Whether levels can be skipped
or not, in my opinion depends at least to some extent on
their definition; if they are defined very loosely, they may
not be skipped, but if they are defined more rigorously, at
least some levels may be skipped and the linear sequence
becomes more of a network (see Chapter 2).
7. Wilber’s map and his thinking are flexible, but because
the mandala takes into consideration more alternatives it is
still more flexible.
8. Besides the evolutionary arrows from the center toward the
periphery as in Wilber’s map, the mandala also offers
interpretations with involutionary arrows in the opposite
direction and no arrows at all denoting involution and
evolution beyond time in the eternal present.
9. With regard to evolution, the mandala offers perhaps even
more room for “regressions” than Wilber’s map. And
“regressions” are not necessarily seen as negative, but as a
playful up and down. Therefore, the mandala places greater
emphasis on playfulness and also on the lightness with which
positions are held, humor, and laughter, which are the
healing antidote to all basically fixed structure and the
seriousness that I often (but not always) sense when Wilber
talks and writes about his AQAL map.
10. The mandala utilizes complementarity and perpectivism to
a greater extent than Wilber’s map that applies
complementarity and perspectivism within the four quadrants
and eight zones but not with regard to the basic holarchical
structure of his map, although, according to Integral
Post-Metaphysics, “the world of manifestation is the world of
perspectives” (Wilber 2006:288).
11. Since the mandala is dynamic, it emphasizes movement and
dance more than Wilber’s map. In contrast to Wilber’s map
that has only a few versions, the mandala is a mandala of all
mandalas, a map of all maps, each of which represents another
aspect of reality (unless it is totally false, a possibility
that I do not want to rule out dogmatically but consider most
unlikely).
12. In general, the mandala is less restrictive than Wilber’s
map and therefore allows for a greater range of views and
experiences. For example, as pointed out above, Wilber’s map
restricts perspectivism and complementarity to the four
quadrants, the eight zones, and some other domains; it
excludes perspectivism and complementarity from the basic
structure of the Kosmos, which according to Wilber is
hierarchical (holarchical). According to the mandala,
holarchy is only one perspective of the Kosmos. Other
perspectives are a nonholarchical holism, continuum, network,
and Yin-Yang views. However, to avoid misunderstandings, I
want to emphasize that Wilber also recognizes continuum,
network, and Yin-Yang views in many ways, but not with regard
to the most basic structure of the manifest Kosmos which,
according to him, “is a series of nests within nests within
nests indefinitely” (Wilber 2001:40), that is, a hierarchy
(holarchy). According to Integral Post-Metaphysics, this
hierarchy with its levels is not eternally given; it evolved,
and “once a level has evolved, it is a very real structure
existing in the universe” (Wilber 2006:272). I do not want to
deny evolution, but I want to emphasize that the process and
product of evolution can be interpreted in hierarchical and
nonhierarchical ways.
In sum, in comparison with Wilber’s map the mandala offers a
still greater range of perspectives, interpretations, and
transformations, more dynamics and playfulness, more
openness, flexibility and complexity, less linearity, and
more emphasis of nonholarchical holism (undivided wholeness),
fuzzy logic, Yin-Yang, continuum and network views.
Needless to say that the mandala is far less worked out than
Wilber’s map. In fact, so far the mandala is only a sketch
that highlights how we can transcend Wilber’s map. It is an
invitation to everybody to work it out in greater detail and
to provide additional evidence. Furthermore, as I shall point
out in the following section, it is an invitation to expand
Wilber’s map so that it is less limited (pp.107-109).
Removing Limitations in Wilber’s AQAL
Map
In addition to creating a new map as I have
done, one could also change Wilber’s map in such a way that
many or most of its limitations are overcome. To achieve
this, one would have to add instructions to his map that
would allow for complementary interpretations. Since he also
presented his map as an Integral Operating System (IOS 1.0),
one would enrich this basic version by creating a more
inclusive version. Here are some specific suggestions on how
to achieve this.
Instead of reading his map only as a holarchy, one would add
complementary interpretations (perspectives) in terms of a
nonholarchical holism (undivided wholeness), a continuum,
Yin-Yang, dialectics, and a network. Wilber has already
suggested that the levels should be seen as a continuum of
waves, but for the levels in the individual quadrants he
wants to retain the principle of “Include and Transcend,”
which means that the higher level includes and transcends the
lower level(s). At least according to one notion of the
continuum that I proposed in this book, this principle does
not apply. For example, in the color continuum of the rainbow
to which Wilber also referred, blue does not include yellow;
it is simply linked to yellow through a continuum. Thus, in a
continuum of this sort there is change, but not inclusion.
On the other hand, if inclusion is envisaged and if fuzzy
thinking is applied, the inclusion could range from 0% to
100% depending on the situation.
When we apply the Yin-Yang perspective to the levels, we
recognize that the lower level may also contain to some
extent the higher level as the higher level includes to some
extent the lower level. This view again is rather different
from Wilber’s holarchical view according to which the higher
level includes the lower, but not vice versa.
Adding a network view as yet another perspective might remove
at least some of the remaining linearity of stages from
Wilber’s map and make other interconnections such as those of
lines (that are recognized by Wilber) more obvious.
Another suggestion is to add two transformations to his map:
one in which the arrows point in the opposite direction to
indicate involution in time, and another without arrows to
indicate involution and evolution beyond time in the eternal
present. This change of his map would provide consistency
between his general thinking and his map because in his
general thinking he emphasizes both evolution and involution
in time and beyond time, but in his map with arrows pointing
only in one direction this is not reflected.
All of the above additions to IOS 1.0 would result in an
upgraded version of IOS from which most of the limitations I
pointed out in this book would have been removed. It would,
however, still be more limited than the mandala of this book
that, through its manifold interpretations and
transformations, comprises many mandalas and could be even
envisaged as a mandala of all mandalas or a map of all maps.
Because of its organic/artistic transformations, the mandala
also represents art besides science, philosophy and
spirituality. In contrast, Wilber’s map is only a conceptual
map that also points to art, but in its representation is not
artistic in the general sense of the term (pp.109-110).
A Message for Educators and Educational
Institutions
Throughout this book I have stressed the
importance of incorporating alternative ways of thinking and
being into the educational curriculum from kindergarten to
university and adult education, that is, lifelong learning.
Thereby students and adults would gain a broader and more
balanced outlook and this in turn would lead to a beneficial
transformation of society: better health, more tolerance,
peace, and happiness.
Each school, college, and university should incorporate into
its teaching program Wilber’s (2005) Integral Operating System
and the Integral Life Practice
using the Integral Life Practice Starter
Kit that was
prepared by Wilber’s Integral Institute (2006).
Integral Life
Practice addresses
body, mind, and spirit in science, art, and culture, nature,
self, and morals. Its practice would lead to enhanced health
and balance in individuals and society.
Teaching perspectivism and complementarity is also of
fundamental importance and would lead to far greater
tolerance and peace. Similarly, teaching network thinking,
fuzzy thinking, and Yin-Yang would be very beneficial.
Laughter Yoga, or just humor and laughing, as well as dance
could be introduced already in kindergarten and continued up
to university. Exposure to other forms of meditation and the
contemplation of mandalas would also be most beneficial. It
would create more awareness of the center, the source, the
unnamable, the mystery, where we are all united.
Finally, teaching the dynamic mandala of this book would lead
to greater creativity, playfulness, tolerance, and peace
(p.111).
From
the Epilogue
With regard to
“Sex, Ecology, Spirituality” (SES) in which Ken Wilber
presented his AQAL map for the first time, he wrote “that
every tomorrow brings new truths, opens new vistas, and
creates the demand for even more encompassing views. SES is
simply the latest in a long line of holistic visions, and
will itself pass into a greater tomorrow where it is merely a
footnote to more glorious views” (Wilber 2001: 41). I can say
the same about the dynamic mandala I presented in this book.
At the same time, I hope that it will be useful until someone
will devise an even more encompassing map (p. 112)
Maps like [Ken] Wilber’s [AQAL] map and the mandala maps of
this book have the advantage that in a sense they go beyond
themselves because transpersonal, transmental realms are part
of them. Thus they point to no-mind, emptiness, mystery, the
unnamable beyond anything that can be named, talked about,
written and argued about. Both [Ken] Wilber’s [AQAL] map and
the [dynamic] mandala of this book coincide in this deepest
way. The difference between the two is with regard to
manifest reality, the relative, that which can be named and
talked about. Only in this respect do I find Wilber’s [AQAL]
map too limited, and therefore I proposed a [dynamic] mandala
that does not have the limitations of his map (p.112).
See also Ken Wilber
Quotes