Instead of thinking of things in terms of hierarchies I
prefer the 'network' view.

One problem with the hierarchal-pyramid way of looking at
things is that it seems to over-stress the top-down movement of
information and energy (power, money etc. [trickle down theory])
and tends to ignore the ground-up (grass roots) flow.

Look at the internet. There is no one big computer which runs
the whole show. The center is everywhere. Information is
distributed throughout the entire network and for it to operate
most efficiently all parts should be free and open to all signals
it receives so that it can process those signals before sending
them on again, either unchanged or modified by the unique
experience of that one node.

The key to the new paradigm is openness and respect for the
uniqueness of each individual I would think. Partnership rather
than domination. 'Unity-in-variety' as Arthur Koestler would say.
'All for one; One for all' and 'All in one; One in all'.

"I have compared the great syntheses achieved by science over
the last hundred and fifty years to a river delta. But each
confluence - such as the merging of electricity and magnetism,
or of particles and waves - was also followed by a fanning out
of more and more specialised branches, subdividing into a network
of irrigation channels. To change the metaphor: increasing
specialisation is like the branching out of arteries into
capillaries; the sequence of mergers is like the reverse
confluence of veins. "The cycle which results makes the evolution
of ideas appear as a succession of repeated differentiations,
specialisations and re-integrations on a higher level - a
progression from primordial unity through variety to more complex
patterns of unity-in-variety."
This dual aspect in the evolution of science reflects a basic
polarity in nature itself: differentiation and integration. In
the growing embryo, successive generations of cells branch out
into diversified tissues, which eventually become integrated into
organs. Every organ has a dual character of being a subordinate
part and at the same time an autonomous whole - which will
continue to function even if transplanted into another host. The
individual itself is an organic whole, but at the same time a
part of his family or tribe. Each social group has again the
characteristics of a coherent whole but also of a dependent part
within the community or nation. Parts and wholes in an absolute
sense do not exist anywhere. The living organism and the body
social are not assemblies of elementary bits; they are multi-
levelled, hierarchically organised systems of sub-wholes
containing sub-wholes of a lower order, like Chinese boxes. These
sub-wholes - or "holons", as I have proposed to call them - are
Janus-faced entities which display both the independent properties
of wholes and the dependent properties of parts. Each holon must
preserve and assert its autonomy, other wise the organism would
lose its articulation and dissolve into an amorphous mass - but
at the same time the holon must remain subordinate to the
demands of the (existing or evolving) whole. "Autonomy" in this
context means that organelles, cells, muscles, nerves, organs, all
have their intrinsic rhythm and pattern of functioning, aided by
self-regulatory devices; and that they tend to persist in and
assert their characteristic patterns of activity. This
'self-assertive tendency' is a fundamental and universal
characteristic of holons, manifested on every level, from cells
to individuals to social groups."

- "The Roots of Coincidence" by Arthur Koestler (1972)

Ken Wilber has some good points to make on this subject.

Ken Wilber is (or was) the editor-in-chief of 'ReVision Journal' which
had a lot of great stuff and the book "The Holographic Paradigm and
other paradoxes: Exploring the Leading Edge of Science", which he edited,
has a collection of some of those articles and interviews as well as some
stuff from the 'Brain/Mind Bulletin' edited by Marilyn Ferguson. Other
contributers to that book, in addition to Marilyn and Ken, are David
Bohm, Fritjof Capra, Karl Pribram and Renee Weber. Here are a couple
quotes from that book which pertain to some of the stuff we are
discussing here:

>>> ...
ReVision: In your original critique of the holographic theories, you
used the concept of hierarchy quite often. Do you still feel it is
important?

Ken Wilber: Yes, absolutely. If we return to Plato's analogy, there
are the objects in the cave and there is the Light beyond - but
the point is that some objects are closer to the opening of the
cave. That is, there is a gradation in ontology - as Huston Smith
summarized the essence of the world's great mystical traditions,
"Existence is graded, and with it, cognition." That is, there are
levels of being and levels of knowing, leading, as it were, from the
very back of the cave and through the opening.

RV: And the absolute is the highest level of this gradation?

KW: Not exactly, because that would be dualistic. It is paradoxical,
again. The absolute is both the highest level of reality 'and' the
condition or real nature of every level of reality. It is the highest
rung on the ladder, 'and' it is the wood out of which the ladder is
made. The rungs in that ladder are both the stages of evolution at
large and the stages of human growth and development. That was Hegel's
and Aurobindo's and Teilhard de Chardin's message; evolution is
moving through the links in the Great Chain of Being - starting with
the lowest, or matter, and moving to biological structures, then to
mind, then to subtle and causal realms, and finally to supermind or
omega point. It's not that the absolute or supermind only comes into
existence at that last stage - it existed all along, but could only
be 'realized' when consciousness itself evolved to its highest estate.
Once we get out of the cave we see there is and always has been 'only'
light. Prior to that final and highest stage, there seems to be
nothing but shadows, but we don't realize they are shadows, having no
point of comparison. So anyway, the absolute is both the highest stage
or goal of evolution and the everpresent ground of evolution; your
real and present condition and your future potential or realization.
Anything less than that paradox is dualistic.

RV: Where does hierarchy fit in?

KW: Well, the stage-levels of evolution and ontology 'are' the
hierarchy. But hierarchy only covers one-half of the paradox -
it covers the fact that certain levels are closer to the Light than
others. The other half of the paradox is, of course, that all things
are already and fully Buddha, just as they are. All things are
already One, or always already One, and all things are trying to
evolve toward the One, or omega point.

RV: That's why you are Buddha but still have to practice.

KW: Yes, if Buddha were not omnipresent, it would not be Buddha,
but if it were only omnipresent, you would be enlightened right
now. Dogen Zenji has made all that very clear. But if you leave
out any side of that you get into theortical trouble. You could
paraphrase Orwell: "All things are God, but some things are more
God than others." The first part of that is God's omnipresence;
the second part is God's hierarchy. The stage-levels of evolution
show increasing structural organization, increasing complexity and
integration and unity, increasing awareness and consciousness.
There is even a sense in saying, as Smith and Schuon and the
traditionalists do, that each higher level is more real, or has
more reality, because it is more saturated with Being. In any
event, evolution is hierarchical - rocks are at one end of that
scale, God the Omega is the other, and plants, reptiles, mammals,
humans and bodhisattvas fill up the middle, in that order. 'And',
God is the very stuff, the actual essense, of 'each and every'
stage-level - God is not the highest level, nor a different level
itself, but the reality of all levels.
<<<

From the same book but a different interview:

>>> ...
Renee Weber: I'm wondering what metaphors or symbol systems one
can bring in to clarify what the mystic is doing, since that, in
a way, is the heart of the controversy.

Fritjof Capra: The mystic is looking at the ordinary, everyday
reality in a nonordinary mode of perception. And perceives this
reality somehow in its essence or in a more fundamental way, in
a deeper way. The patterns and principles of organization that
emerge from that experience are very similar to the patterns and
principles of organization we observe in physics when we go to
very small dimensions. Mystical perception goes beyond intellectual
distinctions, and so it goes beyond space and time, beyond subject
and object, inner and outer worlds. It transcends these categories.

Weber: Is the mystic describing a world that also transcends the
hierarchical structures referred to in the perennial philosophy?

Capra: Well, the concept of heirarchy is the central part in Ken
Wilber's argument, and is to me the most interesting part.
According to Wilber, the most striking feature of the perennial
philosophy is the fact that it presents being and consciousness
as a hierarchy of levels, moving from the lowest, densest and
most fragmentary, to the highest, subtlest and most unitary. Wilber
says that in most of these traditions, there are six major levels:
the physical, the biological, the mental, the sublte, the causal
and the ultimate. And in his review he gives a very beautiful
summary, as he does also in his books, of these levels of
consciousness or levels of being. He calls them ontological levels.
And he says that any account of the mystics' world view that leaves
out this type of hierarchy is bound to be superficial. Now I think
there are a number of things that I can say about this. Physics
certainly does not contain the notion of these levels, but science
does. I mean other sciences, like biology, psychology and so on.
But before I talk about this, I have to talk about terminology,
about the term hierarchy. I don't think hierarchy is a good term to
use for these levels we observe.

Weber: Now why is that?

Capra: Well, what we observe in nature is what I like to call a
stratified order. We observe levels of differing complexities
which are highly stable. I'll give you an example. Let's start
again with Newtonian physics, as we did before, and talk about
the motion of two bodies, for example the planetary motion of the
earth around the sun. This is quite easy to deal with mathematically,
in terms of Newtonian science. If you have three bodies, it gets
much more complicated. If you get 100, it's impossible, because,
mathematically, it's too complex.

Weber: You have too many variables by that time.

Capra: Yes, but if you get 1,000,000 it becomes very easy again,
because then you do statistics and then you have thermodynamics,
so you reach a level of complexity at which you can use a
different language and it becomes easy. Similarly with a few
atoms you do quantum mechanics. If you take many atoms, you can
still do it, because we have various techniques of approximation
which allow us to deal with many atoms. But if there are too many,
it gets too complex. However, with many, many more atoms it becomes
easy again. You do chemistry. See? Then you let the atoms or
molecules become larger and interact and the chemistry becomes
exceedingly complex until, at a certain level, you realize, my God,
they're forming cells. Then you can do cellular biology. Then the
cell's become very complex, impossible to handle, until suddenly
you realize that it's a tissue. And then the tissues become complex
and you realize that's an organ, and then the organ becomes very
complex; let's say you are dealing with the brain, the most complex
organ, and then suddenly you can switch to a totally different level
and you do psychology instead of neurophysiology. So there are these
levels of complexity which are extremely striking.

Weber: Just to clarify: when you say that at a certain point the
topic becomes exceedingly difficult to handle, you mean, if one
were to stay with that viewpoint, that the subject itself requires
a new 'focus' and that's what we call a new field, so to speak.
When you move from physics to chemistry to biology, you say the
complexity of the material itself demands a new organization, or
a new way of looking at it.

Capra: Yes. Now these various levels that we observe are not
separate but are all mutually interconnected and are all
interdependent. Although we have systems within systems, as we
would say in modern language, this is not a hierarchy. It's often
called a hierarchy, but this is really not a good term to use
because hierarchies exist only in the social realm, for instance
the hierarchies of the church; that's actually where the term
came from.

Weber: Could you explain the origin of this?

Capra: Well, the Greek word means "the sacred rule." It was
originally the rule of the pope over the archbishops and the
bishops and the priests and, I guess, it probably was the rule
of God over the archangels and the angels and so on. That was
the original hierarchy. And now we have the hierarchy of various
human organizations; the hierarchy of a university for instance
with the president, the deans, and so on. Those are hierarchical
structures. The important point is that in human hierarchies, the
higher levels dominate the lower ones. They are hierarchies of
power and control. Although there is relative autonomy and freedom
at various levels, the power flows from the top to the bottom.
This is not the case with natural levels where all levels are
interrelated and interdependent and influence one another. That's
why I prefer the term "stratified order," rather than "hierarchy."

Weber: Ken Wilber's claim is that the higher influences the lower,
but the lower levels do not in the same way include and influence
the higher. Your're saying that is not so?

Capra: Let me first talk about what we observe in the natural
world, then we'll go back to his argument. In the human organism,
for example, we have organs and the organs consist of tissues and
the tissues of cells, but each of these levels interacts directly
with its total environment and influences every other level. In
my new book, I have taken the symbol of the pyramid, which is the
classical symbol of a hierarchy and I have turned it around. I
have made it into a tree. Now the tree contains exactly the same
information about the relation between levels: there's one stem,
there are several branches; there are more twigs; and there are
even more leaves. So you also have systems within systems but the
tree, of course, is an ecological symbol. In the tree you see very
clearly that the nourishment comes both from the roots and from
the leaves. The sun nourishes the leaves and the roots bring
nourishment out of the earth. So it comes from heaven and from the
earth, if you want to be poetic. Both are needed, and none is
primary, and all the levels are always interacting with one
another in the environment. so this is a much better image for the
multileveled structure that we observe in nature. Now it's also
interesting historically and culturally that hierarchical systems
are characteristic of patriarchal cultures. A hierarchy is
something associated with male consciousness.

Weber: Can you go into that?

Capra: Sure! Look at the original hierarchies! The popes are men,
the bishops are men, God is a man and so on.

Weber: What about Mary?

Capra: Oh, that's interesting. Mary comes from the prepatriarchical
religion. Mary is the ancient Goddess, because God was female
before he became male.

Weber: Even in the West?

Capra: Yes, even in the West. Especially in the West, in what they
call the old Europe, around the Mediterranean.

Weber: I don't know if that's generally known.

Capra: It's not known because we're in a patriarchal culture, in
which this kind of knowledge is not supported, but it is coming out
now. There are now several books on this subject. Now I bring this
up because when Wilber says that all perennial philosophies
emphasize hierarchies, that is not quite true. Hierarchies are
emphasized mainly by those which are patriarchical traditions.
Taoism for instance which I believe has its roots in a matriarchical
culture, and which emphasizes the feminine element, does not have
hierarchies. Hinduism does, Buddhism does, and Islam and
Christianity do. But there are other traditions which do not have
hierarchies. So I think it's important to realize that hierarchical
structures are not a law of nature, but are human constructs.
<<<




Most of the sciences today seem to be moving to a new way of
looking at things, or paradigm, which looks more to the whole rather
than individual parts. The 'network' is one of the major metaphors of
this new paradigm.

"The argument took the shape of "Do you ask what it's made of -
earth, fire, water, etc.?" or do you ask, "What is its 'pattern'?"
Pythagoreans stood for inquiring into pattern rather than inquiring
into substance."
- Gregory Bateson

"The ideas set forth by organismic biologists during the first
half of the century helped to give birth to a new way of
thinking - "systems thinking" - in terms of connectedness,
relationships, context. According to the systems view, the
essential properties of an organism, or living system, are
properties of the whole, which none of the parts have. They
arise from interactions and relationships among the parts.
These properties are destroyed when the system is dissected,
either physically or theoretically, into isolated elements.
Although we can discern individual parts in any system, these
parts are not isolated, and the nature of the whole is always
different from the mere sum of its parts."
- Fritjof Capra, "The Web of Life - A New Scientific
Understanding of Living Systems" (1996)

The internet, more than linked computers, is about linked humans
(poorly understood organisms in their own right it seems) and
about the relationships between these humans. Is the internet
an example of artificial intelligence and/or artificial life?
It seems to fit the definition of intelligence as Leary used the
term - receiving signals, synthesis and integration of the signal,
and then transmission of a new signal.

"Because networks of communication may generate feedback loops,
they may acquire the ability to regulate themselves. For example,
a community that maintains an active network of communication will
learn from its mistakes, because the consequences of a mistake will
spread through the network and return to the source along feedback
loops. Thus the community can correct its mistakes, regulate itself,
and organize itself. Indeed, self-organization has emerged as perhaps
'the' central concept in the systems view of life, and like the
concepts of feedback and self-regulation, it is linked closely to
networks. The pattern of life, we might say, is a network pattern
capable of self-organization. This is a simple definition, yet it
is based on recent discoveries at the very forefront of science."
- Fritjof Capra, "The Web of Life"

Even tho we may agree that the internet is made up of living
human nodes we may not agree that it is alive and so we might
choose the term 'artificial life' instead. Whatever way we
choose to look at it I think one of the big things we can learn
is that we all play a part in the various networks we are a part
of. We are a part of a greater whole. A whole that cannot be
controlled by any one part of it. A whole in which everyone and
everything participates.

"The "web of life" is, of course, an ancient idea, which has
been used by poets, philosophers, and mystics throughout the
ages to convey their sense of the interwovenness and
interdependence of all phenonmena. One of the most beautiful
expressions is found in the celebrated speech attributed to
Chief Seattle. which serves as the motto for this book...

This we know.
All things are connected
like the blood
which unites one family....

Whatever befalls the earth,
befalls the sons and daughters of the earth.
Man did not weave the web of life;
he is merely a strand in it.
Whatever he does to the web,
he does to himself.
- Ted Perry, inspired by Chief Seattle

The view of living systems as networks provides a novel
perspective on the so-called hierarchies of nature. Since
living systems at all levels are networks, we must visualize
the web of life as living systems (networks) interacting in
network fashion with other systems (networks). For example,
we can picture an ecosystem schematically as a network with a
few nodes. Each node represents an organism, which means that
each node, when magnified, appears itself as a network. Each
node in the new network may represent an organ, which in turn
will appear as a network when magnified, and so on.
In other words, the web of life consists of networks within
networks. At each scale, under closer scrutiny, the nodes of
the network reveal themselves as smaller networks. We tend to
arrange these systems, all nesting within larger systems, in a
hierarchical scheme by placing the larger systems above the
smaller ones in pyramid fashion. But this is a human projection.
In nature there is no "above" or "below," and there are no
hierarchies. There are only networks nesting within other
networks."
- Fritjof Capra, "The Web of Life"

When you accept that humans are a part of the web of life, and
not something that stands outside of it, the concept of 'artificial'
seems to become rather difficult. One of the definitions of that word
is: contrived with skill or art; artistic.
So something artificial is something made by a human but we are still
left with the mystery of the source of artistic inspiration. We may be
all artists on some level (Who is the master who makes the grass green?)
but on another level might we not be the paintbrush?

I'm not saying that the hierarchical view is wrong. I just
feel that the network metaphor is a better way of looking at things.
The hierarchical model seems to be linear ( The great chain of
being with God at the top and simple, small critters nearer the
bottom. ) whereas we are learning more and more about how non-linear
the world is we live in. It seems to stress quantity over quality.
Bigger is better. Might is right. I'm the king of the castle and
you're the dirty rascal.

Now here is the main thing I find disagreeable: This notion
that this world we live in is low and dirty, if not evil, and
is something we need to escape. God vs. Nature, with man, born
in original sin, stuck in the middle and offered the choice
between shunning nature and accepting the Good or in sinking
into the evil of earthly existence. These attitudes and the
hierarchical model have been used to justify the rape and
destruction of lower, small, stupid cultures and the untame,
dirty, evil natural environment for quite a while now it seems.
Our inability to accept the world we live in seems to be a
reflection of our inability to accept who we are as individuals.
We have been conditioned to believe that we are incomplete, we
aren't good enough the way we are, our bodies and its urges are
dirty and bad.

I prefer the network metaphor and the way of openness
and acceptance because it fits the insights and intuitions of
my own experience. Everything that is - is a living system.
Self-organizing, self-referring and perfect and yet evolving.
Where we are right now is exactly where we need to be and
contains everything we need, to be who we need to be. We are
already enlightened. We just need to BE HERE NOW in order to
realize it. My view of Buddhist detachment isn't about trying
to deny or escape the wheel of samsara but trying to not get
stuck at any one point on it and to see into our true nature.
It seems to me to be about the full, open and conscious participation
in the process. Go with the flow.
( see also: Mahamudra)

Maybe when we realize that we already own it all, and it us, is
the time when we will not feel the need to dominate it. We always have
been, and always will be, partners in creation. How can it be
otherwise? A return to a partnership society ( which doesn't have
to be a step back in time ) seems to be just a common sense
recognition of the interconnectedness of everything.

"The experience of sacred world begins to show you how
you are woven together with the richness and brillance of
the phenomenal world. You are a natural part of that world,
and you begin to see possibilities of natural hierarchy or
natural order, which could provide the model for how to
conduct your life. Ordinarily, hierarchy is regarded in the
negative sense as a ladder or a vertical power structure,
with power concentrated at the top. If you are on the
bottom rungs of that ladder, then you feel oppressed by
what is above you and you try to abolish it, or you try to
climb higher on the ladder. But for the warrior, discovering
hierarchy is seeing the Great Eastern Sun reflected
everywhere in everything. You see possiblities of order
in the world that are not based on struggle and aggression.
In other words, you perceive a way to be in harmony with
the phenomenal world that is neither static nor repressive."
- "Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior"
by Chogyam Trungpa

I think to return to balance requires a change in metaphors from
the hierarchical, patriarchal, war mentality to something like a
dance in which the opposites joyfully play together; neither trying
to dominate the other.

"We separate in order that we may reunite in greater harmony."
- Taoist quote

- Posy

Participant Comments follow below

04/06/04 16:31:07 GMT