From Plant Morphology to Infinite Issues (including Ken
Wilber and Korzybski)
An autobiographical story
leading from plant morphology to healing logic, wholeness,
holiness, non-identity (Korzybski), integral philosophy (Ken
Wilber, etc.), health, laughter, silence, and mystery
by
Rolf Sattler
"If we could but
understand a single flower we would know who we are and what
the world is" (Tennyson)
Agnes Arber, the
preeminent plant morphologist of the 20th
century,
pointed out that plant morphology “may seem a narrow road,
but rightly conceived, it should, like other biological
paths, lead us to infinite issues” (The Natural Philosophy
of Plant Form, p. 1). In this autobiographical story, I
want to recount how, besides personal experiences, the
study of
plant
morphology, my primary
research area, led me to broader, deeper and infinite
issues, to
healing
logic
(fuzzy
logic,
both/and logic, Buddhist logic, Jain
logic),
oneness, wholeness, holiness,
health,
balance,
complementarity,
dynamics (process philosophy),
non-identity
(Alfred Korzybski),
integral philosophy
(Ken Wilber, etc.),
laughter,
silence,
mystery,
etc. (see also my web
page on Plant
Morphology that includes
some broader philosophical and spiritual issues and
reference to Ken Wilber and his AQAL map)
As a pupil in
school and a student in university, I learned that plants
(such as flowering plants) consist of three fundamental kinds
of organs: root, stem, leaf (and their homologues). This is
the tenet of what has been called classical plant
morphology. It is based
on Aristotelian either/or logic. Thus, any plant organ of
flowering plants that we encounter must be either a root
or a stem or a leaf or a homologue of one of the three.
The question I asked myself early on in my career as a
plant morphologist was whether nature actually followed
this kind of logic; and I found that in many cases it does
and in others it doesn’t. Hence
Aristotelian either/or
logic is only of
limited usefulness. It needs to be supplemented by
both/and logic and
fuzzy logic. In addition
to plant morphology, these kinds of logic contribute also
to a greater sanity in many types of relationships and
society. Their application could heal many conflicts and
even prevent violence and wars. I therefore refer to them
as healthy or
healing logic and healthy
or
healing
ways of thinking.
Buddhist logic
and
Jain logic appear healthy
and healing in an even deeper sense since they include
either/or logic and both/and logic, and then lead us beyond
logic to the
indescribable, mysterious ground of
existence.
According to classical morphology, the three fundamental
kinds of organs are distinct. However, a close inspection of
a plant (such as a flowering plant) shows that we cannot find
a line that separates the root from the stem and the stem
from a leaf. Root, stem, and leaves form a continuum (as the
colors of the rainbow form a continuum). Upon even closer
inspection we also fail to find a line that separates the
plant from its environment: the root appears continuous with
the soil and the stem and leaves with the air. Hence the
notion of the soil-plant-air-continuum (SPAC). Furthermore,
through the air, plants are connected with animals, including
humans. Through solar radiation plants are connected with the
sun, and finally, through cosmic radiation plants are
connected with the cosmos. Thus, everything appears
interconnected in one all-inclusive whole. As the Nobel
laureate Barbara McClintock put it: “ Basically, everything
is one.” Interestingly, modern physics arrived at the same
conclusion of
oneness and
wholeness. David Bohm
referred to “undivided wholeness.”
This
conclusion contradicts the way we normally experience the
world as consisting of separate objects. As we accept
these separate objects such as different plants, animals,
or humans as ultimate reality, we create the basis for
competition, conflict, and war. If, however, we recognize
the wholeness and oneness, the situation changes
fundamentally because we realize that by harming another
we harm ourselves since we are not separate but an
integral part of the all-inclusive whole (for a still more
inclusive and comprehensive view and experience of oneness
and wholeness see below the section on Ken Wilber).
Wholeness is related to holiness and
health.
In fact, the three words have the same etymological root. But
the relation appears far deeper than just etymology.
An awareness of wholeness can create a feeling of awe that
can be an expression of
holiness or
sacredness. Thus, being
aware of the wholeness of the universe can be awe-inspiring
and evoke a feeling of sacredness. Even contemplating a
flower can call forth a feeling of sacredness because
ultimately everything is related and part of the
all-encompassing whole. William Bake expressed this
poetically in his famous poem: “To see the world in a grain
of sand and a heaven in a wild flower; hold infinity in the
palm of your hand, and eternity in an hour”.
Health
can be seen as
being in tune with the whole instead of caught in a
fragment. In Chinese medicine health is considered being
in
balance, which manifests
itself physically, emotionally, and mentally. Working in
academia convinced me of the importance of balance. Most
academics seem to be caught in their favorite theory,
paradigm, and worldview. Thus, most classical plant
morphologists seem to be enslaved in the belief in the
trinity of root, stem, and leaf, ignoring or rejecting other
ways of conceiving a plant such as, for example,
Agnes Arber’s partial-shoot theory of the
leaf, which is
based on fuzzy logic and both/and logic instead of the
Aristotelian either/or logic of classical plant morphology
(for other alternatives to classical plant morphology see
Rutishauser, R. and Sattler, R. 1985. Complementarity and
heuristic value of contrasting models in structural
botany. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 107: 414-455, and G. Cusset.
1982. The conceptual bases of plant morphology. In: R.
Sattler (ed.) Axioms and Principles of Plant Construction.
The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff/Dr. W. Junk Publishers, pp.
8-87, also published in Acta Biotheoretica, Vol.
31A).
As I became more aware of alternatives in plant morphology, I
learned that in general recognizing and embracing
alternatives provides a more comprehensive view of reality.
Even embracing apparently contradictory tenets can lead to a
richer understanding in as much as they present different
aspects of reality. Different aspects complement each other –
hence the importance of the principle of
complementarity. This
principle is well known from physics as the
complementarity of the wave and particle view of light.
However, it can be understood in a very general sense and
thus be applied in many ways in science, art, politics,
everyday life, etc.
In plant morphology we can recognize the complementarity of
structural morphology (morphology in the traditional sense)
and process morphology. According to morphology in the
traditional sense, plants consist of structures such as
leaves, and processes occur within these structures, which
implies a structure/process dualism that defines sub-
disciplines of biology: morphology as the domain of structure
or form, and physiology as the domain of process.
However, process
morphology transcends
this dualism because in process morphology structure is
also seen as process: it is a very slow process that can
be illustrated through time-lapse photography. On this
view, a structure such as a leaf is a process combination:
a combination of slow morphogenetic processes with faster
physiological processes.
Process morphology can be seen as a special case of a
general
process philosophy according to
which everything in manifest reality is dynamic. As
Heraclitus said long ago: “Panta rhei” (Everything flows).
Keeping this in mind, it seems foolish to hang on to
anything as Alan Watts made it clear in his book “The
Wisdom of Insecurity” that had a profound influence on my
life.
Through process everything is interconnected, even opposites.
In her last book entitled “The Manifold and the One” (1957),
Agnes Arber, the preeminent plant morphologist who also had a
profound influence on me, dealt with many opposites such as
the manifold and the one. She emphasized not only their
complementarity, but also their coincidence in a chapter
entitled “The Coincidence of Contraries.” This coincidence
can happen in mystical union beyond the thinking mind. The
thinking mind appears limited because we are more than our
thinking mind. After all, who is aware of one’s thinking
mind? Ken Wilber and others said ever-present awareness, also
referred to as the (transpersonal) witness (see, for example,
Ken Wilber. 2001.The Eye of Spirit. Boston & London:
Shambhala, Chapter 13: Always Already: The Brilliant Clarity
of Ever-Present Awareness).
One very important author I failed to read during my
professional life is
Alfred
Korzybski. But after my
retirement I finally read his major opus “Science and
Sanity”, and to my great surprise I discovered that as a
result of my morphological research and personal
experiences I arrived independently and through other
authors at many of his conclusions such as the following:
1. infinite-valued logic (fuzzy
logic)
2. process thinking (see
process
morphology and
process
language)
3. dynamic relativism (complementarity)
4. general uncertainty (of which
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in physics is a special
case)
5. consciousness of abstracting (see Chapter 4 of
my Biophilosophy book)
6. undefined terms (also Chapter 4
of my Biophilosophy book)
7. organism-as-a-whole-in-environments (the integration
of organism and environment I referred to above)
8.
the map is not the territory (referred to as
the map analogy in Chapter 4 of my Biophilosophy book)
However, reading Korzybski’s “Science and Sanity” clarified
many issues for me. For example, it became very clear that as
Korzybski emphasized:
“Whatever you might
say
something "is",
it is not”
(see
also Korzybski
Quotes). Thus, when
I say: "It is a flower," I know now that it isn’t. Why?
Because a flower is defined by a number of properties and
the actual object is infinitely more than the number of
properties selected (abstracted) in the definition. Even a
picture is far less than the actual object. Magritte was
well aware of that. He painted an apple and above it he
wrote: "Ceci n’est pas une pomme" (This is not an apple).
Why not? Because it is only an image of an apple, which is
far less than the actual apple. Therefore, instead of
saying “This is an apple,” we say “This is a picture of an
apple.” And instead of saying “This is a flower,” I say “I
call this a flower.” All this seems rather obvious, so
obvious that even children can understand it. And yet we
confuse so often a name, a definition, or an image of
something with the thing itself. The thing itself we
cannot know. Our sensory perception abstracts (that is,
removes us) from it to some extent due to the limitations
of our sense organs and nervous system. For example, some
flowers have ultraviolet patters that bees perceive but we
cannot, and dogs perceive smells that we cannot. Hence,
our perception of an object is not identical with the
object, but only an aspect of the object. Now, when we
describe our perception, we lose (abstract) again because
words cannot completely represent our perception. Just try
to describe a sunset and you will realize how much detail
you miss in your description. Hence, your description is
not identical with your perception. Korzybski was acutely
aware of this
non-identity
of
description and perception on the one hand and perception
and reality on the other. He illustrated this non-identity
by his
structural
differential. The
consequences for the use of language are enormous. For
example, if the use of the word ‘is’ implies an identity,
then we cannot say: “John is a criminal”, or “John is
bad”, because John is infinitely more than just a criminal
or just bad. Therefore, Korzybski suggested that we say:
“John is a criminal, etc.” and “John is bad, etc.” Some
followers of Korzybski have gone further, suggesting to
avoid the “is” of identity (as in “John is a criminal”)
and the “is” of predication (as in “John is bad”).
Korzybski suggested other extensional devices that render
our language more appropriate and more in tune with
reality. Nonetheless, language cannot capture reality as
it is. Reality as it is can only be honored in silence.
Hence, the importance of
silence. As Korzybski
pointed out: "The
objective level is not words and cannot be reached by words
alone. We must point our finger and be silent" (Korzybski, A.
1958. Science and Sanity. The International Non-Aristotelian
Library Publishing Company, p. 399). "Whatever we may say
will not be the objective level, which remains fundamentally
un-speakable…The objective level is not words…neither can it
be understood as ‘non-expressible by words’ or ’not to be
described by words’, because the terms ‘expressible’ or
‘described’ already presuppose words and symbols (ibid., p.
34).
I
have felt for a long time that language is limited and
therefore cannot convey the richness and fullness of reality.
As a student I read Kant who emphasized that we cannot know
“das Ding an sich” (what a thing really is). Our perception
and description of the thing such as a plant removes us from
reality. Thus, I have had an inkling of Korzybski’s insights
for a long time. However, reading Korzybski has indeed been
very helpful in many ways.
Reading
Ken Wilber
also has had a
great impact on me. Already in high school and university
I was looking for “the big picture” that presents a
comprehensive map of the whole universe including human
existence. Therefore, I was delighted when I discovered
Ken Wilber’s
AQAL map
that I found
very comprehensive and of great significance for me as a
plant morphologist and a human being. This map comprises
four dimensions of experience. In a somewhat simplified
form, Ken Wilber distinguishes three major
dimensions:
self (art), nature (science), and culture
(morals). Often people
want to deny one or two of these dimensions and thus tend to
become one-dimensional. Thus, nowadays science is often
considered the only road to truth. Even worse,
materialistic-mechanistic science often is considered the
only true science. According to this dogma, the universe,
including human existence, is just a huge material mechanism.
It might be seen as a whole, but this whole is just a
material whole. The whole and wholeness I presented at the
beginning of this article could be seen as such a material
whole. Besides matter, it includes energy, but energy (as
understood in modern physics) is included in the
materialistic worldview of modern mainstream science.
However,
subtle energies are not
recognized in mainstream science. If wholeness includes
subtle energies, it transcends mainstream science (see, for
example, William A. Tiller. 1997. Science and Human
Transformation: Subtle Energies, Intentionality and
Consciousness. Walnut Creek, CA: Pavior). Since we have good
evidence for the existence of subtle energies, I include
subtle energies and even very subtle energies in the whole of
existence. But even if the whole of existence includes subtle
and very subtle energies, it is only one of Ken Wilber’s
three dimensions; it is only nature (science). In an integral
vision, we also have to include self and culture. Self means
the subjective experience of wholeness as we can experience
it or become it in meditation. Such subjective experience or
being is different from the objective experience of science.
Finally, culture, Ken Wilber’s third dimension, also needs to
be included since it may condition both objective and
subjective experience. Thus, wholeness may be experienced
differently in different cultural settings.
Besides the three or four dimensions, Ken Wilber’s AQAL map
consists of different levels. These levels form a
hierarchy that Wilber
prefers to call a
holarchy. In this
holarchy, holons are holarchically arranged. Holons are
entities such as atoms, molecules, cells, organs,
organisms, etc. Classical plant morphology recognizes the
holons root, stem, and leaf. However, in
continuum
morphology these holons
dissolve in the continuum of the whole plant (actually
they appear non-existent as separate entities from the
start). Similarly, organisms dissolve (appear non-existent
as separate entities) in the continuum of the
organism-environment whole. Hence, a holistic continuum
view undermines Ken Wilber’s holarchy that is based on
holons. However, to me this does not mean that Ken
Wilber’s holarchy is useless. It only means that it
represents a view based on the fragmentation of reality
into holons, whereas the
continuum
view is based on
continuity. As I see it, these two views complement each
other. Although the continuum view appears closer to reality,
the fragmentation implied in the holarchical view seems not
totally unrealistic. It seems to represent at least an aspect
of the differentiation of nature: “roots” are different from
“stems”, and “leaves” are different from “stems” and somewhat
articulated from “stems.” Thus, classical plant morphology
and continuum morphology represent different aspects of
plants. They complement each other. Problems arise, however,
if one view is taken as the only correct one. Thus, when Ken
Wilber claims that manifest reality “is”
holarchical, he
denies the continuum and other non-holarchical views. But
saying that manifest reality can be seen as holarchical does
not exclude that it can also be seen as non-holarchical
(see Ken Wilber’s AQAL map and
Korzybski).
Thinking in terms of a hierarchy or holarchy and entities or
holons that compose them is very common in our culture and
science, and often it is taken so much for granted that it is
seen as the only way one can think about almost anything,
even the whole Kosmos (Ken Wilber prefers to write Kosmos
with a capital K to indicate that it is not only the physical
cosmos). Alternatives to hierarchical (holarchical) thinking
include not only the
continuum and
undivided wholeness, but also
Yin-Yang and
network thinking. Ken Wilber
recognizes these modes of thinking, but not with regard to
the most basic structure (the levels) of the Kosmos.
Recognition of alternatives to the hierarchical (holarchical)
way of thinking appears liberating and leads to a fuller and
richer view of reality. It also changes human relationships
and society because it entails a shift from a dogmatic
insistence on one view to the tolerance of a plurality of
views that can complement each other.
Insistence on only one view to the exclusion of others often
leads to exaggerated defensiveness and seriousness that we
can witness in many debates from conflicts in personal
relationships to ideological, religious and ethnic
antagonisms within and between nations. Like
Osho, I consider
it a dis-ease. We can overcome it not only through the
recognition of complementarity but also through a better
sense of humour and laughter.
Laughter, often called
the best medicine, can be relaxing and liberating because
when we laugh we cannot think at the same time and
therefore we transcend the thinking mind that often is
tensely preoccupied with the defense of its one-sided
intolerant way of thinking (such as hierarchy (holarchy) –
ha, ha).
Toward the end of my career as a university professor, I
sometimes laughed for a few minutes with my students. They
were, of course, very surprised that a university professor,
who is supposed to be serious, would engage in such wild
(non-intellectual) behavior. But most of them realized how
relaxing and beneficial it was for them, especially during
highly stressful time before exams.
Since then, after my retirement, I have led many laughter
sessions, more recently what is called
laughter yoga. Again, most
participants found these sessions beneficial in many ways,
but some of them could not let go of their seriousness,
which is not surprising because in our society we have
been conditioned not to laugh for too long.
Paradoxically, laughter can lead to
silence because it
short-circuits and transcends the chatter of the thinking
mind. In silence we may perceive and be the
mystery of existence that
opens beyond the realm of the thinking mind and implies the
source of everything. As Albert
Einstein put it: “The
most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.
It is the source of all true art and science”.
Many approaches to
meditation can lead to
silence and the mystery (see, for example,
Shinzen Young and
Osho: Meditation.
The First and the Last Freedom. A Practical Guide to
Meditation. The Rebel Publishing House). However, for many
people laughing and dancing seem to be more easily
approachable doors to mystery. Instead of mystery, one
could also refer to suchness or spirit.
Spirit and
spirituality can be seen as
both immanent and transcendent. However, often spirit and
spirituality are only seen as transcending matter and the
world. This creates a dualism and the potential for conflict
between the worldly and otherworldly. According to Ken Wilber
and others, spirit both includes and transcends everything
and thus it is all embracing. Nature then can be seen as an
expression of spirit and sacred, not to be abused and
exploited, but to be revered. And plants as part of the
wholeness of nature can also be seen as sacred.
See also
Plant
Morphology,
Plant
Evo-Devo and my Morphological Thinking
and
Science: its
Power and Limitations
Home