vrijdag 24 augustus 2007

Developing a true holonic model

 I am developing a true holonic model (first of its kind, I believe) of the manifest cosmos, especially as seen on our planet Earth. It entails a reinterpretation of Arthur Young's Theory of Process (TOP). As I do this in my free time, progress may be slow. Yet, it already looks very promising. You can have a look at the priliminary

There's a lot to be elucidated about the model, like the
overlay/interfacing/interweaving of micro-development within the macrosystem,
and a whole host of other things, not in the least the emergence of loops (reflexivity), but I have to do some research on more examples first to make it a little clearer and conclusive for you and myself.
If you have constructive comments to make, please do so.

vrijdag 17 augustus 2007

Interweaving of systems

In my example of generation I left out a couple of factors, because of the increase of complexity in the model it brings. Nevertheless, we cannot do without additional considerations if we want to build a  realistic model. For example, it is now known that stress entering the system of the mother can affect the child through the stress-hormones involved. That could be modelled as a "fifth stage" or substage interfacing with the third (sub)stage on level three. On a more esoteric level, there is the influence of imagination of the mother on the embryo/fetus and not to forget, the influence of the reincarnating entity that can motivate/urge (impulse) the parents-to-be to bond/mate. Reversely, the parents wil attract the reincarnating entity. That could and should be taken into consideration in my model at some point.

I am well aware of the fact that adherents of scientism (the  kind of scientist that thinks that his or her feelings and thoughts are the exclusive effect of a kind of molecular action)  will abhor all these notions. This is not my problem. Such scientists are ususally very mediocre and have no intuition at all. The best scientists have always been those with a somewhat developed intuition which led them to formulate fruitful new hypotheses.

For now, I leave it as it is. I am modelling something else to gain more insight into the workings of the model.

donderdag 16 augustus 2007

Some additions to the example of the generative subsystem

Firstly, please read the previous postings on the example, otherwise what follows won't make any sense to you.

As to levels in my example: visualize level 1 as the organism level,
level 2 as a subsystem (here generative) where something is sparked (a
micro-entity is "created" or woken from latency), level 3 where form
develops, level 4 where the micro-entity "object" separates from the mother matrix.
That briefly describes stages 1 to 4 of the generative process.

Stage 5 shows predominantly instinct at work, certainly in the beginning phases ; a covalent bond (strong instinctive bond) between mother and child (normally speaking); stage 6 predicts the presence of an "ionic bond": here we see the sign of
puberty: a pushing away of the parents, going one's own way, etc., a phase in
emotional/cognitive development.
Stage 7 predicts a development of more abstract powers of the mind.

These are just some general observations, yet these contain some
guidelines as to judging the development of a child. There are of
course many additional considerations necessary to make a convincing
case of "mapping" development on the right stage of the arc.
There are many pitfalls as well, because there are simultaneous multiple lines of development (moral, intellectual, social, etc.), in different stages. But, on the whole, the seven stage arc-model seems fairly well to correspond with the stages of development from seed to grown up human being. It can be used as a first approximation and possibly more.

woensdag 15 augustus 2007

Recap of the four-level model postings previously on Tripod

Huston Smith presents a four level model of man and cosmos in his
book "Forgotten Truth".

In basic form it reads: body, mind ("psyche"), soul, spirit. I omit other names/terms from several religions, because that doesn't make things clearer. This corresponds with the Kabbalistic Four Worlds: Action,
Formation, Creation and Emanation. This four level model seems
to correspond to some degree with Arthur Young's model. One has
to equate Level four with molecular action, level 3 with
organizational forces and blueprints, level 2 with soul,
beliefsystems, values, etc., and level 1 with spirit (autonomous
field as Vitvan would say).

The following theosophical correlation can be made to body, mind,
soul, spirit: body is the configuration of physical body plus
linga sarira plus prana; mind is kama-manas; soul is
buddhi-manas; spirit is atma-buddhi. All these terms are
explained in my free e-book

It gets really interesting when we ascribe the following aspects
to these four combinations:

Body as a configuration is the place where influences get combined.
It is a locus and means of action, execution of plans, etc.

Mind or more precise: kama-manas (desire-mind) is sometimes described as lower psyche, roughly our personality. It is the locus of psychodynamic factors (impulses, desires, imagination, personal motivation, energy, etc.). Circulation of driving energy. It also has an aspect of planning and formation of images, I believe. Also: processing of ideas.

Buddhi-manas ("soul") has to do with true ethics and moral values (true to the natural order as Vitvan would say). It can be seen as our inner Higher Self, a source of conscience and advice. Our inner teacher or guardian angel and spiritual parent in the esoteric sense. I suppose that buddhi-manas can be equated with noetic mind. (Nous means spirit in Greek). A steering factor if we allow it to be!
Intuitions are impulses coming from this level, I believe. Our
thinking combines in this case as it were already existent ideas
into something new. New paradigms are sometimes formed in that way.

The Great Work consists of the transformation of our ordinary
nature (kama-manas) into buddhi-manas (Christ-nature).
This was the true subject of the Mystery Schools of old.

Atma-buddhi is one's spiritual monad (see this e-book, first articles).
For our purposes we can see it as the Field we live in (our Father in
Heaven). The inspiration of this sublime being may be felt in
one's life occasionally. True inspiration translates in complete
new ideas about life. Obviously a rare event in history. Most, if
not all, of the founders of great religions had inspiration at
work in them, I think. But this is not the place to discuss that
at length.

There is a ton of teaching behind this. Much has been explained
in the writings of Dr. Gottfried de Purucker. See my e-book for
links to his work.

Four level model of humans continued (1)

The four level model of the human being can give us some guidance as to the debate about Darwinian evolution versus Intelligent design.

In my ebook, first article, theosophy basics, part one, I indicate the real meaning of the word evolution. It is a movement from within to
manifest certain "inborn" principles. The idea of natural selection has its place in esoteric philosophy. I refer to the book "Man in evolution" by Gottfried de Purucker. See www.theosociety.org in the online section. The idea that by total chance events DNA molecules get into existence is refuted by esoteric philosophy afaik. There are ordering factors at
work in the development of a cell. Some scientists have been making calculations as to the chance that a DNA molecule is formed. The chances that mechanical, molecular forces, etc. form this are astronomically small, let alone the formation of a cell. Not to talk about the emergence of human intelligence, hehe. Biologists will eventually come to the conclusion that they must research the organizational forces of life much deeper than has been done up to now. They begin to discover a thing here and there, like the biogenic radiation coming from a cell when it divides. The future will undoubtedly bring many a surprise to us in the realm of discoveries. There has just been a publication in Wageningen, in my country, about plants secreting certain substances that will attract enemies of leaf-eating organisms. The motto for the plant seems to be: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It shows that plants are not so passive in behaviour as many biologists have thought to be.

To get back to the current scientific idea about evolution: there is not one level of evolution, but there are separate lines of evolution coming together in the human being. See for example my e-book, second article. The fourfold model may yield more insight as to the relations of these lines of evolution to each other.

JG Bennett describes in this tome "Dramatic universe" how hidden factors have an influence on human evolution. See his fourth volume in that series.

Instead of trusting blind fundamentalists and deaf scientists and politicians who lead our society into disaster we better trust the wise people on our planet - if we can detect them! It will already make a difference when less money is spent on military issues and more on good education, health, etc. As to religion, the leaders must help develop their mythologies, stories, into viable directions that have something to say to well-educated people or risk becoming obsolete. I already discussed the failure of scientism in my ebook (see appendix about reductionism). Also, the splitting of ethical considerations off the scientific enterprise has been a very dangerous one. Think of the technological applications of science: nuclear energy, including mass destruction technology, gene manipulation, mass pollution, etc. and you get the picture.

Ok, now let's return to the 4fold model. I found a couple of nice links as to the mind and it's functions. To my delight some psychologists have started thinking about the will, conation, and tried to incorporate a little of this factor into their models. See for example http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/motivation/motivate.html

There's much more to be found there as well, for example a feedback model that includes spiritual/soul as a factor:


See also my link to the insightful http://home.tiscali.nl/knmg0234/concentric.zip

Then I found a thorough consideration about the mind as producer of thought: http://www.theos-talk.com/archives/200602/tt00098.html

That article brings also the factor of soul into consideration, which is a necessary thing for reflection and experience for people of our civilization. People are so out of touch with their feelings that our whole civilization often looks like a zombie or psycho movie. Only an orientation on true spiritual values can lead our world into a healthy direction.

I will come back to that article at some point, because it fits in nicely with some ideas of Arthur Young and also with Jim Miller's Living Systems Theory. His subsystems are described in my article http://m_euser.tripod.com/science/examples.html

especially http://m_euser.tripod.com/science/table1cellLST.html

and http://m_euser.tripod.com/science/table2organismLST.html

circular economy

Just watched a documentary on waste = food. It seems that designer William McDonough and the chemist Michael Braungart are succeeding in implementing the idea of a wasteless economy. When one can reuse waste for 100%, or nearly so, then one has created a circular economy (eco-nomy).

Quite impressive, I have to say. They say that when 5% of consumers are motivated to buy products designed according to wasteless criteria a hugh shift will occur in world economy. China seems to embrace such an approach.

Good idea. This clearly shows how valuation (in this case the valuing and understanding the profitability of ecological design) impacts decision and act, resulting in change and fact.

Transformist illusion

Douglas Dewar has written extensively on evolution.

He asserts that Darwinists are wrong in many of their suppositions.
Although I think that selection is an established mechanism operative in nature, there are many other questions that require serious consideration.
His posthumously published book The transformist illusion is well worth some study. See for yourself!

More texts on evolution can be found at: TUP online
Especially, see "Man in evolution" by Gottfried de Purucker.

The Fifth way

It occurred to me that historically there have been three ways to deal with the mysteries of life and the universe:

  1. Religion. Degenerated into fundamentalisms of all kinds.

  2. Science. Rife with savants idiots. Scientism as new religion.

  3. Older than science, but usually numbered as three: Hermeticism, the Middle road to truth. Gnosis, Freemasonry, Rosicrucean orders, several theosophical societies, anthroposophical, etc. can be considered as Third way attempts to understand life and provide people with a philosophy of life. Unfortunately, dogmatism is strong with many members and leaders in such orders, not to mention the flood of questionable material from the last century in some of these movements. Plus a reluctancy to do research relating to their ideas.

  4. A "Fourth Way" occurred later: Gurdjieff, Ouspensky and offspring ideas like Bennett's systematics. Little research taking place as far as I know; Bennett's systematics provide some clues for developing a more coherent science (I mean all disciplines).

My own writings find their source in all of the four above (and in some of my own experiences). I think it is high time that a true syncretism (holistic fusion of ideas into a larger framework) takes place. Especially ideas from the humanities and fields such as cybernetics should be incorporated into a philosophical model of the will, being and function of the human being and her/his place in society and cosmos. A good name for this endeavour is Fifth Way since it transcends and incorporates the preceding four ways and is not only inclusive of scientific findings but actually studies and refines academic disciplines (at least in principle). It is just in it's beginning stages and hopefully will attract many knowledgeable and creative participants. The least it does is raising important questions about the human drama, the larger setting of life and cosmos, and providing some tentative answers that may very well help guide humanity into a sane course of life.

Soul: instilling values. The realm of understanding

In the fourfold model of the human being there is Soul on the second level, after spirit. Soul has been designated "buddhi-manas", enlightened thinking. It is the realm of Understanding, different from mind because mind has knowledge, but little understanding! Understanding means: seeing the big picture, seeing relations between things on the inner level.

Soul instills values to mind, like a parent does to its child. The child must develop it's conscience and the parents help it to do that by setting rules and explaining why and how some actions can be hurtful to others. The child internalizes those rules and explanations. Likewise, the adult learns some lessons in life later on. The life experience in its essence is transferred from mind to soul during sleep (and at death). During sleep there's an opportunity for feedback from soul to mind (e.g. ideas, advice on problems, etc.). If you know how to listen to the "small voice" within then you can get feedback during the day as well.

Keep in mind that I am talking about the inner Self, the parent-self, your Higher Self. The "formation of a soul", spoken of in esoteric literature, pertains to a "light-body" and is not dealt with in this posting. That formation is part of The Great Work.

In the theosophical model (see my ebook), soul is called True human soul or higher human soul or higher self. In Kabbalah there is the ethical triangle which pertains to this soul. This could be a good topic to do a little research about. What is the function of the three sephiroth that form the ethical triangle? It includes Tiphareth as the messenger of the spirit, so much is certain. By my hypothesis, soul transfers values to mind. And life-experience leads to development of values. Soul distills values from mind or rather from life-experience.

On method. Overview of what has been accomplished

The way of developing notions and raising questions in the domains of fact and values in my work can be said to be "broad brush-stroke like". First I try to establish a rough frame of reference, typically using notions from one of the fields I mentioned in my last posting. This approach ("broad brush-strokes") ensures that we keep an eye on the whole situation instead of losing ourselves into infinite details. It is a time-honoured approach from the East which I fully endorse. We can add some details after we have established the broad outline, not unlike one does with setting up a drawing.

The last twelf years I have extracted some essentials from esoteric literature and teachings, which provides us with:

1. A basic ontology

2. A basic epistemology

3. In relation to the former two: a real philosophy of life, including basic understanding of the afterlife, human's role on earth, moral guidelines and an understanding of the Oneness of life.

4. Most importantly, a method for transforming oneself into a more harmonious being. See my ebook about that on http://m_euser.tripod.com/ScienceSpir3dmil.pdf

These points deserve full attention of all serious people. This knowledge is quite unparalleled in history and should be taught at schools and universities. The ideas expressed can be applied in real life and the inner worlds experienced. A whole new world of meaning can arise out of that.

I myself have some interest in researching philosophical and psychological notions in connection to esoteric teaching in order to see deeper into the relations between these notions. That is the subject of my other postings.

Goal, objective, purpose

To give an idea of how I approach academic disciplines, I'll sketch some of the thoughts and questions that enter my mind when I study a piece of text.

For example, Russell Ackoff and Fred Emery have written some stuff on goal, objective, and purpose in their book "On Purposeful Systems". I'll quote a small piece of text from this work. On page 240 we read under the heading of "The Nature of Ideals and Their Pursuit": "It will be recalled that the goal of a system in a particular situation was defined as a preferred outcome that can be obtained within a specified period of time. Further, an objective of a system was defined as a preferred outcome that cannot be obtained within a specified time period but can be obtained over a longer time period. A purposeful system is of a qualitatively higher order than is a goal-seeking system: it can pursue objectives."

The text goes on for quite a while, but this was the first passage I looked up in the book, as i was drawn immediately to chapter 14 on Ideal-Seeking Systems. Associations with Arthur Young's work immediately arose in my mind. Associations with the fractal human being by Onno Damste entered my mind as fractals can be seen as layers upon layers of development. Associations with and questions pertaining to the different kingdoms of nature entered my mind: do plants have goals?, do animals have objectives?, what about degrees of freedom regarding purpose and goals? What about the role of choice in these matters? What about the principles of mind involved in setting a goal, defining your objectives and purpose? How do Bennett's energies fit into this?

What about the interfaces or gradations between plants, animals and humans? How about the role of different brainstructures in this matter? The list goes on but this is to illustrate how a short piece of text can give rise to hundreds of questions (and ultimately hypotheses) about the human,animal and plant nature. This all pertains to the world of the true scientist.

Philosophy and belief-systems cannot be seperated from this enterprise as there is no such thing as a theory-free fact. About all perception is loaded with conceptual matters (filters through which you perceive). Scientists like to avoid these matters (bury their heads in the sand), but that is no solution! From "atom" to "time" or "space", all the way to identity, and even feelings; all involve concepts we have or ideas or beliefs about the world, the other, ourselves. I distinctly remember fellow psychologists avoiding subjects such as these (like the qualia problem) like the plague, trying to adopt a reductionist approach like physicists do, but this gets them nowhere in my humble opinion. The social sciences are fragmented into hundreds of little theories as a result. There is no one overarching theory in psychology.

The approach I just sketched leads to more integration of fields of knowledge since it deals with the whole picture at first and identifies hundreds of important points for research in relation to each other and the whole! It can also help organize knowledge, like Arthur Young's paradigm can and John Bennett's ideas can help to bring some order into a multitude of little systems/paradigms.


Spirit is the first factor in the fourfold model of the human being.

It embodies Truth, Beauty and Wisdom, in short "eternal values" or better: the deepest value-patterns possible on this earth. If one aligns oneself with Spirit then one follows the Dharma, one's inner law of being, one's inner pattern. Not an easy thing to do, in current distracting and chaotic times.

Soul can be said to be the interface between the Spirit and mind. I wrote about that a little in my previous postings. Will flows from Spirit to Soul down into manifestation and back.

The question of immanence of Spirit is a very deep one. It is sometimes stated that atma-buddhi, or spirit, penetrates all things. In most cases it is in an involutionary state, wrapped up in matter, and it is said that humans have evolved only a little bit of spirit, especially in the area of vital, organizational, forces in the human constitution. Little is known about these forces in our current world, but the Hindus mention five kinds of pranas, some dealing with metabolism (digestive process, breathing, etc.) and one with spiritual metabolism. (but there are more pranas). Indeed, while pondering about the organization of 'body' (see my article on Vitvan for the reason of the use of single quotes!), I can't escape from the impression that an awful lot of intelligence is expressing itself on the physiological level. Compared with our often capricious emotional-mental states, the 'body' is very much organized and evolved.

There are, of course, many mysteries involved with Spirit. Spirit ("inner God") can be seen as representing a macroscopic level of being, mind a more microscopic level and soul something in between, all relatively speaking. I can't elaborate here, but in esoteric literature we find clues that Spirit is the gateway to the inner worlds of the solar system, if I may put it that way. Spirit stems from the Spiritual sun, on the inner levels of our solar system. So, when it enters our world (earth-spheres) it projects as it were a soul (a "vehicle" for each sphere it passes through). Study De Purucker if your interest is raised.

It would be a good thing if we would understand more of the "heart-beat" of spirit and soul in manifestation. In order to be able to do that we must, at some point, research phenomena like expansion and contraction and their regulation. See the triad here?

The model continued

In the model there is a place for substance, being several forms of light, pattern (information), will, understanding, value, cognition/perception, act and action and a whole lot more. Consciousness is something we must study at some point; creation and formation likewise deserve our scrutiny.

Now, while level One represents an already differentiated macrolevel of being, a field of archetypal forms, many potentialities in respect to the next levels, level Two represents the level of creation (origination) of microbeings. These microbeings are beings that have not developed a permanent link with the inner levels (I mean the origin of the macrolevels, which can be called logoic). Think of particles that are created out of light, but also other entities like thoughts. These are of a substantial nature too. There seems to be a split into polar forces, "positive and negative charges", whereby a gradient comes into existence. This is something to research indepth, as it has a deep bearing on later developments and succeeding levels of manifestation. You may recognize the beginning of something of a valuation process here.

What I just described pertains especially to the left side of the developmental arc, the right side is the self-conscious side. The two sides work together as there must be a trigger to "create" something, an impulse from somewhere or some consciousness to valuate something. The particle creation I mentioned is just an example, but for physical particles it pertains more to level Four, the first sublevels.

The Third level represents action of the elements of level two. Formation of more complex forms takes place here. Many forces are at work here. At some point we must have a look at the six tattwas and their interrelations (36 pairs) to see whether the ideas about these tattwas can help us understand functions of life a little better.

The Fourth level is the most combinatorial level of all. Here all influences come together and find their end-point so to speak.

All the above ideas are derived from known sources, see my ebook, and they necessitate a deeper research in order to understand them better.

As yet I did not mention the left and right arc of development (involution vs evolution), but that notion should be included too in our researches. Left arc is more about formation of things, right side more about cognition and understanding. See this e-book for diagrams of the arc, e.g. in my article on Arthur Young.

The model continued (2); physico-chemical formulation

While reviewing what I said about soul and spirit, I got the distinct idea that we have a simple model of process here, formulated in rather physico-chemical terms:

1. There is a field, a potential difference

2. A messenger is active (after a trigger or impulse/signal from within or above, the field). It binds directly or causes to bind something to a structure and

3. that act of binding causes a change in form of that structure, or causes a signal/particle to be transmitted to or into that structure

4. thereby enabling some (local) action to take place. It could also trigger the execution of a program (such as to synthesize certain proteins, for example).

Iterations of steps may occur as we go from level to level, combining factors at work. The precise attribution to levels is something to be studied late, because we need to establish some criteria first as to which are the characteristics of these levels and whether there is overlap/interpenetration/integration of components in structures performing functions involved in the process.

This looks simple enough to investigate in several realms of life. One possibility is to study processes in a cell, or processes in the human body. Another possibility is to study psychological processes (behavioural, cognitive, etc.), after rephrasing the above sequence a little bit. We will probably encounter exciting examples from which we can learn a lot, and there may be some lacunae in present knowledge that requires us to interpret or speculate a little. Maybe new hypotheses can be formulated as well. It all takes time, patience and perseverance as this whole endeavour is a rather new one, I believe.

The model continued (3)

A few additional points are to be made in relation to the model I sketched in my previous posting.

1. A trigger can also be bottom up in the four level model, as when 'body' sends a signal to brain/mind that it is getting fatigued or getting hungry.

2. A trigger can also be "horizontal" as coming from the environment (influence from other people(verbal, emotional, etc.), physical objects (bumping into something), etc. Heterarchical connections refer to connections on the same level ("horizontal" ), while hierarchical relations refer to "vertical" connections. The latter can be inner relations (as mind to soul) or external (e.g, your boss or some authority figure).

3. The messenger is an intermediary between the trigger signal and the processing part. It may execute an evaluating function.

4. This three-tiered approach can be related to ideas of John Bennett and Charles Sanders Peirce. Initiation, reception/processing and mediation are very general concepts and widely applicable, I believe.

5. Very important is the idea of degrees of freedom (autonomous function vs causally determined function). While the original trigger in a process may be unpredictable (undetermined), the subsequent steps point to a loss of degrees of freedom. The intermediate step, the messenger, has a dynamic function, and thirdly, the program that is executed is by its own nature very much restricted. Analysis of this idea is very important, I think, because it does shed more light on the controversy of freedom vs determinacy, not the least of philosophical-scientific issues!

In accordance with the above, I am doing some inventory of process.

As an example, think of contraction of a muscle fiber, comprising a.o. excitation-contraction coupling: neuronal signal causes release of a neurotransmitter which by binding action generates an action potential that is propagated along sarcolemma and causes a whole program to be executed, leading to contraction of a muscle, work being done and relaxation. No need to go into details here as I am simply doing a quick inventory. It is very easy to get sucked into details and lose sight of the big picture. Point is that there is (1) a trigger (neuronal signal), (2) a messenger (neurotransmitter), and (3) a program that is executed, leading to (4) work done, energy spent.

Another example is that of the perceptive process: a signal from outside of the organism is perceived by some sense (can also be a receptor in a single cell) and through an effector triggers the execution of a program. This can be an elaborate program consisting of many complex steps. This is something that happens on many levels: cell, organ, organism, etc.

On the psychological level one can also think in terms of: perception, belief system, act. Interpretation is obviously involved in this. The role of belief system as a filter is a vital one to consider. An event, the subsequent evaluation which brings forth an emotion, which has a regulatory role/function (and may trigger action) and the subsequent act (behavioural program) also points to a three tiered approach, I believe.
(This latter example may turn out to be very complex)

However the case, we can always zoom in or out of the fractal human being to see more detail or focus on a larger picture.

BTW, the "program" or production of some form or change of form with subsequent work done involves two levels of the model, making four levels total.

I am sure that many more examples can be found and will continue to dig a little further. Remember: always keep an eye on the big picture!

The model continued (4);global-macro, evaluation

Some additional remarks:

1. The first level as macro-level has specific characteristics of being a gateway to other macro-levels. To give an example: archetypes occur as symbols in thought and speech. Language forms a gateway from the individual to the collective, across space and time. Long after someone is dead, his or her words may continue to have an influence on people through written word, audio or videorecordings, etc.

2. The process of communication may yield fresh insights as to the usebility of the model. Four aspects of communication must be researched.

3. Human brain has, relative to the body, a global function. The neocortex is heavily involved in language and symbolic processing. Also, the brain influences organs locally by secreting hormones and neurotransmitters. These can be seen as messengers.

4. The second level shows evaluative function. The regulation of emotion through norm and meta-emotion is subject of research. Complicated networks of meaning arise through experience, education, etc.
There seems to be some inherent fuzziness associated with this level (and sublevel two of levels in general). From elementary particles to ever shifting shades of meaning, all very fuzzy.

5. On the cell level one can see the famous "key-lock" "mechanism" operating in binding of substances to receptors. One can see this as an evaluative mechanism: a protein fits in the lock or it doesn't. If it does a whole sequence of steps follows (a program).

6. All the above bears testimony to the meta-model I have sketched thus far. It must all be carefully reseached, of course. Many more examples must be charted from literature and experience and some general observations and philosophical considerations must be made before we can conclude that the meta-model holds true in general. This model might subdivide in more detailed models subsequently, depending on the field of study.

The model continued (5); embryology

An important step forward in developing the model is to have a brief look at the generative process. All through antiquity there have been philosophical speculations about the origin of our world and kosmos. See for example:


Being, Life and Intellect are principles that occur or are operative at each level or sphere of kosmos. We will have to remember that later on.

For now, I envisage to take level one in my model (the macrolevel) as where the "seed" is latent: the germ-plasm is present in the parents-to-be. These parents are clearly macro relative to the seed they carry.There is a potential, latent, human being on level one, the person to be born. However, it is not until the couple actively engages in the procreative act (driven by attraction, level two and three motivating forces, probably modulated by level one cultural/social influences and considerations) that the ovum is fertilized or "created". That activity is level two function, a social level, where an exchange of substances take place and messages are communicated.

The fertilized egg or zygote travels to its destiny, in the womb,develops into a blastula (with two poles: embryoblast, an inner cell-layer, and trophoblast (the outer cell-layer)) and has to bind to the intra-uterine wall, a critical stage where rejection, repulsion, can occur, leading to spontaneous abortion. Today, more is known about the mechanism of binding, the development of the trophoblast, the hormones involved, etc., so, we may refine our understanding of this whole process considerably.

The question here is: "to bind or not to bind"! Talking about evaluation...

In level three and four we see the womb acting as a matrix for the embryo and fetus to develop its form and function.

These three stages are remarkably akin to the following, quoted from

http://jdt.unl.edu/emanate.htm :

" First, an initial identity of the product with its source, a sort of potential existence; second, an indefinite procession or unfolding of the product from its source, and third, a contemplative visionary reversion of the product upon its source, in which the product becomes aware of its separate existence and thereby takes on its own distinctive form and definition"

The third step looks very much like the instinctive awareness of the fetus, but certainly the birth-process is an often painful event where awareness of separation will be present (although not in a self-conscious form).

Level four in the Arthur Young model shows object-Self relationship and I like to take that level as the fetal stage where awareness of separate existence exists (fetus as "object") and labor takes place ( birth, the presentation of "the product or object" to the outside world). We will have to look at the substages of level four, e.g. to substages six and seven (mobility and goal completion, birth proper?).

BTW, level two is Self-object relation and here it is that the creation process occurs. Macro and meso create an object (fertilized ovum).

When the baby grows up to an adolescent it becomes capable of reproduction itself. By then it has developed higher level (1 and 2) functions.

Higher stages 5, 6, 7 can be seen as involving instinct/emotion, emotion/cognition and abstract thought/understanding, though we must be careful not to take this as a separation of these principles operating (subdivisions of kama, BTW, mixtures occur with prana, manas, etc.). Developmental literature shows that principles overlap or interpenetrate, sometimes portrayed as partly overlapping Gauss-curves (partly inter-penetrating spectra of consciousness may be better!) . I do wonder about the operation of principles in the four elements/levels. It can get very complicated as we may see later in an example/analysis of the creation spiral. Nature mixes and combines! BTW, the left arc (stage 1, 2, 3, and 4) shows formation while the right arc (stage 4, higher substages, stage 5, 6, 7) show instinct and development of cognitive-emotional functions (stage 6 and 7 especially for the latter functions ).

This all pertains to the appropriate sublevels of the human fractal. We have to discriminate it all more in detail later and pay attention to phase transitions.

The model continued (6); subsystems, dimensions

In addition to the previous posting: we see on level one (macrolevel) freedom of the system to procreate or not. On the levels two to four we see subsystems at work, bringing a subsubsystem (a fertilized cell) to the stage of organism. Quite a thing that is happening there!

We can use the work of Jim Miller to correlate subsystems with these levels or (possible combinations of) "stages" on diverse levels. The streams of energy and information have been mapped by him as processed by subsystems (ingestor, converter, producer, extruder, decider; input, decoder, network (transmission, transport) , encoder, etc., to name a few).

It struck me that level two shows selection at work. In the previous posting there is a selection of which of the sperms reaches the ovum and which one(s) penetrate the outer layer of it. Another example concerns images: we get bombarded by images and some attract sustained attention. Do we pay enough attention to the images from within? At any rate, we evaluate images (unconsciously or consciously) and choose which ones we will develop further (give form, flesh and body). The decider subsystem of Miller is at work here! See how important these considerations are for our well-being? These systems play a role in the creation spiral (Assagioli, Knoope, and others, to be dealt with): from wish to realization.

Another thing to have a look at is the possible identification of eternal patterns with level one (which are reflected on level 3 as forms) and hyparxis with level two. Level three shows both of the above factors as there is a combination of forces/principles taking place here. All very tentative, but again with tremendous theoretical and practical importance. Level four as a combining operator must be researched as well.

Lastly, John Bennett has developed some mathematical notions (four types of pencil, alpha, beta, gamma, delta in his work "Dramatic Universe, volume 1). He has extra "time"- dimensions added to the known four dimensions in physics. It is clear to me that patterns ("pattern-space") qualifies as in some sense orthogonal to the four dimensions. It is like the ideal that can be realized: it even can have an ontological status as the image that is (on its own level) but not yet has become (in space-time). The hyparchic factor can qualify as a connector of some kind: it looks to me that it connects micro with meso, and macro with mesolevel. Very important, how else can levels communicate signals with each other? Whether it can be seen as a rotating factor that brings certain patterns to bear on physical reality remains to be seen. Such operations in an extended framework of dimensions may prove very insightful. They may, for example, finally solve the riddle of the instant correlation of photons (Alain Aspect experiment!). The idea is that photons remain connected (but in another dimension! - perhaps their vibrational patterns remain coupled in pattern space (level one, wholeness) - which may be expressed through hyparxis via a lock in phase-relation). Scientists are always looking for invariances, so, here we may find something like invariance of phase-relation or something similar. But, I'm looking ahead a bit.

Welcome to my integrative philosophy blog

A new start: I have decided to move my blog from Tripod to Blogger.

A new name for this blog is appropriate: integrative science & philosophy. It is a natural philosophy about science in general, including the sciences, psychology, biology.
The main train of ideas comes from researchers like Jim Miller (Living Systems Theory), John Bennett (systematics), and Arthur Young (Theory of Process). My background is physics, psychology and I have a good knowledge of diverse esoteric teachings.

I will repost a part of my crashed blog on Tripod in this space here. You can find all the previous blogcontent up to August, 14, 2007 in my free e-book on Tripod.

Martin Euser