Note 12 - Illustration of Dynamic Eight Sectoral Approach

In horizontal terms inclusion dynamically implies exclusion and exclusion implies inclusion respectively.

Therefore if we define a holarchy in one sector in terms of inclusion, then in the opposite (horizontal) quadrant it will be defined in terms of exclusion.

And of course when we change our frame of reference the positions will be reversed. So inclusion and exclusion - depending on frame of reference can relate to either sector (in horizontal terms).

I will briefly illustrate these ideas.

Let us take the familiar holarchy of an atom transcended and included in a molecule, which is transcended and included in a cell, which is transcended and included in an organism etc.

Here inclusion is clearly defined in terms of an (isolated) exterior frame of reference.
In other words we are implying that the relationship between atoms, molecules, cells etc. somehow exists independent of our (interior) relationship with them.

However we can give an equally valid interpretation using the opposite horizontal sector (i.e. interior) as our frame of reference.
Thus when we say that the atom is included in the molecule, which is included in the cell, which is included in the organism we now refer to interior mental interpretations (based on conceptual and perceptual categories).

So in isolation we have two asymmetric interpretations (in horizontal terms).

1) exterior - where we view relationships as applying to actual physical realities (that are independent of mind)
2) interior - where we view relationships as applying to psychological categories (independent of matter). In other words the truth here is inseparable from our mental interpretation of the event.

Now clearly in the dynamics of experience both aspects interact.
We are now posed with the problem we faced with our drivers. In isolation, each driver moves unambiguously in a forward direction; however in dynamic terms they move - relatively - forwards and backwards with respect to each other.

It is likewise here with our exterior and interior interpretations. With isolated reference frames, movement in development takes place unambiguously in one direction. However in relation to each other these explanations are paradoxical and integration is vitally based on recognition of this fact.

If we ignore such dynamism, imbalance and rigidity inevitably set in.
If we operate on the (exterior) reference frame, reality will to this extent become inevitably detached from the observer impeding spiritual integration.
Equally from the opposite (interior) reference frame interior categories of thought will become detached from (exterior) reality again impeding successful integration.
So when we include (from one reference frame) we dynamically exclude from the opposite reference frame. Thus belief in the independent objective validity of physical relationships excludes realisation of the fact that such relationships are in fact intimately dependent on our subjective constructs of interpretation.

So it is very one-sided to define holarchies solely in terms of inclusion, though it is true that from a differentiated perspective - where isolated reference frames are employed - that holarchies certainly appear this way.

However when we deal with the authentic task of dynamic integration - as befits the mystical stages - these inclusive notions largely break down.
Indeed because of the lack of previous emphasis on exclusion this now becomes the main emphasis with mystical development.
Thus if we look the mystical stages of St. John of the Cross in asymmetrical terms they represent holarchies more of exclusion (rather than inclusion).
So in dynamic terms it is necessary not only to preserve the relationship as between inclusion and exclusion but also to show in development when each aspect is especially appropriate.

In vertical terms we can define polarities (whole/part and part/whole) again with respect to two equally valid reference frames.
We can adopt holism where the direction in development is towards more collective wholes; equally however we can adopt partism where the direction in development is towards more unique parts.
Once again in dynamic terms recognition of one aspect excludes the other; so holarchic emphasis excludes recognition of partarchy; equally partarchical emphasis excludes holarchy.
So once more a one-sided approach will by its very nature tend to impede successful integration in experience.

Finally we can define the diagonal polarities (immanence/transcendence and transcendence/immanence) again with respect to two equally valid reference frames
i.e. immanent and transcendent directions respectively which again - in dynamic terms - tend to mutually exclude each other.
Thus for example if we continually emphasise holarchical development in terms of transcendence then this dynamically excludes realisation of the equal importance of immanence. This consequently will create a fundamental imbalance in understanding, which can then act to impede the reconciliation of both aspects in actual experience.

So combining all of these reference frames we have eight distinct asymmetrical interpretations of development


1) Holarchical model of transcendence and inclusion

2) Holarchical model of transcendence and exclusion

3) Holarchical model of immanence and inclusion

4) Holarchical model of immanence and exclusion


5) Partarchical model of transcendence and inclusion

6) Partarchical model of transcendence and exclusion

7) Partarchical model of immanence and inclusion

8) Partarchical model of immanence and exclusion

The dynamic integration of these asymmetrical interpretations requires the bi-directional pairing of opposite interpretations in horizontal terms (inclusion and exclusion), vertical (holarchy and partarchy) and diagonal (transcendence and immanence).