Toward a New Understanding of Value with the Integral Model

The postmodern era left us with many positive realizations.  It brought us the messages of the downtrodden across the globe.  It illustrated the influence of cultural factors and the consequences of upbringing.  We were brought face-to-face with the ugliness that modernity left in its wake.  We were shown the monstrous effects of our industrial modes of production and consumerist lifestyles upon the planet-at-large.

Eventually, however, a problem begins to arise with the postmodern value system.  All of the discussion about the relative nature of perspectives seems very true.  The points on the fallacy of hierarchies appear right on.  In fact, it isn’t at all obvious, at first, but...if the postmodern perspective is wholly correct, if the belief is that every viewpoint is equally valid – then why do people (even postmodernists) hate Nazis so much?  That was their perspective.  The atrocities they committed were, to them, the Right Thing To Do, as they understood it.  That was their truth, and they were simply expressing it.  They were just letting their freak-flag fly.  

How do you account for the fact that, by saying there are no hierarchies, you are creating an implicit hierarchy wherein having no hierarchy is better than, or more true than, or more useful than, or more authentic than having hierarchy?  There is no hierarchy other than that between hierarchy and no hierarchy?  

What is it makes some things appear to be more valuable than others in the first place?  That is the real question, in my humble opinion.  In philosophy, this is known as the Basic Moral Imperative (or Instinct), and it has been debated for millenia.

The Integral Model, as proposed by Ken Wilber, has an answer; and I have yet to hear a better one.  I hardly agree with every point he makes, and do find him a touch positivistic (positivism being the belief that there has been only progress, however distateful it may at times seem) but his model has many truths that must be accounted for, in my opinion.

Before I embark on any of this, I must state for the non-dualists:  all things, just as they are, are radical and brilliant manifestations of the Divine.  They are beautiful, wonderful, and perfect within their own right, and for their given purpose.  In the Integral Model, this is known as their Ground Value, or Absolute Value.  It is the only type of value that is inherent, and exists by itself.  This idea of differentiating value only ever arises upon comparison of apparent differences.  They are relative values only.  However, while we are all the Perfection of Manifestation, part of that Perfection is the fact that we all instinctively compare, differentiate, and have our own perspectives.  We are a perspective before we are anything else, as are all things.  

For whatever Reason, difference and separation are just as much a part of this whole thing as the fact that all apparently separated things are really Ultimately One…that which is No Thing because it is Every Thing; The Eternal Self-Existing One-Without-A-Second.  Whatever you want to call it (or not call it).  

We can act from that knowledge with compassion and love…but we cannot remove differentiation from Reality.  We do need to be extremely careful to not turn differentiation into dissociation.  Metaphorically speaking, we must understand that the music box will not make the pretty sound again until we put it back together.

The basic idea, really, is simplicity itself.  It is all about inclusion.  Atoms include quarks, molecules include atoms, cells include molecules, organs include cells, organisms include organs, ecosystems include organisms, etc, etc, etc.  Just as words include letters, sentences include words, and paragraphs include sentences…you see the basic pattern?

The term used by Wilber (and first coined by Arthur Koestler) for something that is a whole in and of its self, and yet is also a part of a greater whole, is Holon.  All things are first perspectives, then Holons.  What we are discussing here can more accurately be termed as a holarchy rather than a hierarchy.  We are discussing levels of inclusion as opposed to necessity, not dominance as opposed to servitude.

If you had to choose between destroying an organism or an ecosystem, which would you choose?  Why?  If you had to choose between destroying an organ or an organism, which would you choose?  Why?  If you had to choose between destroying a molecule or a cell, which would you choose?  Why?  You begin to see the idea, I imagine.

The more of the Universe a being (animate or inanimate) includes within its existence, the more value it appears to have.  

There is a flip side to this, however.  

If you were to remove all ecosystems from the Universe, what would happen to the atoms?  If you were to remove all of the atoms from the Universe, what would happen to the ecosystems?  

The terms used for the two sides of this dichotomy are significance and fundamentality (or depth and span, respectively).  The more of the Universe -- the more Holons and networks of connections and inclusions -- that something supports, the more significant it is termed to be (or the more depth it contains).  The more of the Universe that is built upon something -- the more that can exist only because it exists -- the more fundamental it is called (or span it encompasses).

This system of valuation holds its ground in the noosphere as well.

Why do we seek to incarcerate serial murderers, and revile Nazis and the Elite?  Because their philosophy, or ideology, excludes everyone but themselves.  Why do we revere great leaders, and pay homage to our mystics and sages?  Because their philosophy, or ideology, includes so many beyond themselves.  

From this perspective, the long-sought Basic Moral Instinct looks like the desire to protect and hold true to the greatest amount of depth over the largest span when we e-value-ate our choices.

Now, there is at least one hole in this idea that I have yet to hear addressed (although Ken does a lot of interviews these days, and I have hardly seen them all).  Not a hole, I suppose, but more an addition that must be taken into account:  it is all about perception, and hence perspective.  We can only perceive the depth of something to the extent that we can communicate with it. 

We need some way to plumb that depth in order to know how deep it goes. 

It is very rarely (especially upon entering the noosphere) as readily apparent as span.  It can be easy to mistake something as being far less significant than it, in fact, is; and vice-versa, you can take something for being more fundamental than it, in fact, turns out to be.  I believe that we should err heavily on the side of caution when it comes to interpreting depth.  Until shown otherwise in some reasonably definitive way, assume whatever is just as significant as you are…and maybe more.

Nevertheless, as long as you make an honest and sincere attempt to stay in communication with as much of reality as you can, try to peer into the depths of everything, and truly attempt to take into account (as opposed to simply trying to explain away) as many perspectives as possible…the basic idea holds up remarkably well.  

In fact, from this framework, we can even show the infinite value of the Eternal Itself.  As it is both what everything is made of, and what everything makes up, it is simultaneously the most fundamental and most significant 'thing' there is (or is not).

It is the Source of Ground Value, and must never be forgotten.  It is primary.  It exists before -- and remains after -- any comparison or differentiation is made.  And is everywhere in between as the substance of which all is formed; and that which formed it.  

It is the Alpha, and the Omega.

Those interested in a more full exposition of this idea should check out Ken Wilber’s Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality, and/or A Brief History of Everything (the “Reader’s Digest version” of SES).  His collected works were re-released in 2000 (in many cases, with new forewords and footnotes, and other assorted goodies!), and even newer works have come out since then.  They are all available from Shambhala Publications, Inc.  Be sure to check them out!  

Also, there are many free pieces up on:
www.Shambhala.com
Wilber.Shambhala.com
www.KenWilber.com