Note 19 - On Holarchy and Non-Holarchy
Appreciation of the "imaginary" aspect of experience greatly modifies any attachment to rigid holarchical notions.
The very nature of experience in dynamic terms is that it is conditioned by polarities
(horizontal, vertical and diagonal) that are complementary with respect to each other.
Asymmetrical holarchies however - by their very nature - require ignoring the complementary dynamics of such poles. As we have seen this is done by arbitrarily fixing the frame of reference with just one pole so that relationships between variables appear related to each other in an unambiguous asymmetrical fashion.
If - as in so much of conventional science - we attempt to look on physical reality as if somehow independent of the observing mind, it will reveal asymmetrical type holarchies.
So then - for example - the atom will appear to be included in the molecule, which is included in the cell which is included in the organism etc.
However what is simply happening here is that we are fixing our frame of reference with - merely - the exterior pole.
Whereas conscious differentiation of experience requires making such asymmetrical distinctions, integration is fundamentally distinct and ultimately based on the lack of any asymmetrical distinction (i.e. is nondual).
Now the direct home of integration is in the unconscious (which implicitly attempts to modify the unbalanced dualistic tendency of the conscious differentiating mind).
As we have seen, the unconscious is made indirectly present in experience through "imaginary" understanding (i.e. where symbols become expressive ultimately of spiritual desire).
Now by its very nature the Spirit is nondual. As holarchy always implies arbitrary dualistic distinctions, clearly the Spirit in this sense is non-holarchic.
Likewise the "imaginary" aspect of understanding - which is indirectly expressive of such nondual understanding - is also non-holarchic.
Therefore when the "imaginary" aspect of understanding is well developed (as with the mystical consciousness) it continually serves to undermine rigid asymmetrical distinctions of all kinds.
In dualistic terms this leads to a continual shifting of reference frames so that one becomes keenly aware of the paradoxical nature of all asymmetrical understanding.
So when the "real" conscious aspect of experience is solely recognised (in formal terms), it inevitably leads to belief in rigid asymmetrical distinctions.
Holarchies in development - that are understood in a one-directional unambiguous fashion - represent just one important example of this dualistic tendency.
However when the "imaginary" aspect becomes properly recognised, experience becomes much more interactive and bi-directional in polar terms. Then the attachment to rigid asymmetrical distinctions is greatly eroded.
So the significant growth in "imaginary" understanding - ultimately expressive of nondual reality - is compatible in dynamic terms with paradoxical type dualistic distinctions (i.e. where every asymmetrical is counterbalanced by an opposite "mirror" interpretation).