This is an excellent video on holons. I’ve been looking for an explanation like this to help me fully ‘get’ the concept’s full depth for a while. Thank you!
We have always called this idea "levels of description" - no need for new name like "holon". Even though I think this way, this is still a very nice explanation and video.
Is there anything actually new, or simply an attempt to define new vernacular on ancient concepts? BING! The light bulb went on. Itty bitty things make up really small thingys which then make up bigger thingys when they make up biggerer thingys. That is sooo cool!
This is very close in many ways to what I've been researching with Analytic Idealism philosophy. With one exception being that Holon's are seen as having the capacity for inner experience down to sub-atomic level, while for reasons specific to parsimony, Bernardo Kastrup (for the time being) has limited inner experience down only to the level of metabolizing life forms. Which I think is still very questionable. I understand why he's held at that level, but intuitively I think inner experience can be taken down to sub-atomic level. I'd enjoy an informed response if you're familiar with both models and can translate between the two. Thanks.
This is a very well-made video. I appreciate it. I find this Holon concept problematic, from an Integral perspective. Take the example of a pine tree. What is a pine tree a part of? First the straw men: A forest - ah, but as you explain in the video ("we aren't a part of the universe, the universe is a part of us") Wilber specifically calls that a reductionist move. As you and I and Wilber know or claim, but many explanations get wrong, the UR Quadrant tree and the LR Quadrant forest are the very same holon from two different perspectives. A whole pine tree is not a part of anything. Right? So, there is no turtle going up. It isn't going to merge with other trees and become a mega-tree. Maybe that potential exists, but it is unrealized. So, I guess a pine tree then is a "heap" of cells, and the cells are "personally believed" to have interiority while the tree itself is not "personally believed" as having interiority? Okay, but we're Integral here... what is the use of personal belief to integral theory? That would be Amber meme. The Holon concept is self-described as Second Tier, and so it should concern the integration and intersection of paradigms. So fine, let's just say that a cell has a hypothetical "interiority" in that it has the agency to reproduce, which dirt lacks. A tree is a heap of cells, but now we're in a trap. One of those cells is not a part of anything. In the LR it is a heap of cells in the shape of a pine tree, and you can stop right there, that's the final turtle. Likewise, you, as a holon, have the potential to move up a holonic level by moving up say an Altitude. But you are not part of the next Altitude, it simply doesn't exist to you until you are exposed to it and embody it. Okay, okay, so if we're saying that potentials count as "wholes", that a pine tree has the potential to develop into an animal, which it may quite simply never do at all - even if that is the point, how can we possibly say that it's turtles all the way up and all the way down? That's a claim that according to its own logic literally can never be proven true, but could perhaps be proven false with information we don't have yet. It's a "God of the gaps." That's an enormous assumption that we clearly do not know the answer to. It may be more functional but less fun to say it's turtles as far as the eye can see. Turtles, cells, and molecules etc, are discrete. They have boundaries. The Altitudes are self-described as a spectrum. So, it's a little suss to say that a spectral transcend and include by waves system has the same "holonic" nature as things with physical boundaries merging together into larger things in a manner that is in itself self-evidently discretely constructed in its actual nature, not by any analogy or using memetics. The stages of one quadrant are thus derived from the stages of another, and this seems fuzzy at best, because as you go up the turtles scale, you have to switch which quadrant generates the stages of the others, and whether the transformation is spectral/memetic or obviously discrete. With simpler holons, we have to "personally believe" in interiority, and with the more advanced holons, we have to assume "systems functions" of the brain. In each case, we are assuming that the other quadrants must hold the same pattern because of the nature of quadrants. It's weird to me to start with the discrete and readily apparent lower part of the great chain of being in the UR, then quickly shift to something that is spectral in nature with any discrete stages being self-described as arbitrarily divided, and to use this imperfect analogy as the base to the claim that these are identical in nature and the analogy is perfect. It's really more of a human centi-turtle sometimes. We have a sort of logical uroboris here, where holons are true because quadrants are true because holons are true. And believe it or not, I actually do subscribe to the logic of this model. I just think that it's always described in precisely this manner because if you don't curate the information in this extremely methodical way, it's actually really rickety and difficult to digest, which is bad when it's one of the more base components of integral theory. We need to find a greater variety of ways to address these issues with holons, rather than sticking to the script and avoiding the problems. I want to be able to talk holons in a casual intellectual conversation. Currently impossible. Why can't it be the case that 11th dimensional strings or quarks or whatever are the "atomist" base of reality and there's simply nothing beneath that but empty space itself? Why can't it be the case that consciousness cannot be more expansive than Clearlight Nondual permanent stage of a developmental Line? It seems like Wilber and Integral are presenting this variation on Koestler's idea as a fundamentalist presumption. Or, at least, that's what the analogy of the turtles strongly suggests, and the claim "everything in the Universe is actually made of holons." It isn't technically made of holons if it's a pine tree cell heap with no greater whole, or a quark with no parts, or reality itself (the Kosmos) which by self-definition has no greater whole. There seem to be many cases within the integral model itself of wholes that are not a part of anything that we know of, and parts that do not subdivide in any way that we know of. How exactly is a black hole a holon? It seems quite a bit more logical to me to assume that there are some things in the universe, at the extremes, that are strictly wholes or parts, that the Kosmos is a whole in all four quadrants that is not a part of anything, and that somewhere down the line of zooming in by powers of ten, you arrive at a thing that cannot be meaningfully subdivided. How can we possibly posit as axiomatic that there is no bottom or top turtle? 💗
The mind is also a holon, whole of the body, part of consciousness. Consciousness is also a holon, whole of the mind, part of ? The mind can set probability in the body. !
I´ll point out that though maybe for most of hollons, specially lifeless states of matter and energy, as well constructive society-cultural levels, the evolutionary trend happens to be to complexity, on living-beings it could happen towards the opposite when a parasityc life-style got involved as environmental driving-forces happens to select the evolutionary pathway for many living organisms, so at living beings, evolution trens happens not just into straight-forward complexity levels, but also into the reversal way if that´s the way of living of them, and no-moral constructive paralelism to human nature correlation ought to be infered here to explain the main idea on hollons just only evolving in one direction themselves, because it actually doesn´t happen, though indeed humans could figure out a main evolutionary trend for higher complexity levels. Furtherly hollons don´t follow just one path into complexity itself but could diversify: soil is done by matter with no-life as well living-matter, and could have solid, liquid and gaseous parts within it, the living-beings could exist in a lot of levels of complexity which though into an average comparation between them might resemble a common evolutionary pathway towards higher complexity where all different species got in between on the large evolutiionary time, however it happens that it isn´t so simple and there is a lot of times of parallel and convergent evolutionary trends on living-beings which aren´t closely related to each other (the main samples could be the different types of simplier organisms as algae, fungi, protozoans and even "worm-like" groups of animals), and finally the Earth is made up not by one simplier set of holons but for several types which aren´t necessarily related to each other and are on different stages of complexity between then as the hydrosphere, the atmosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere aren´t on the same way of hollonic complexity equivalency between them eventhough they end linking each other, although they on the non-living Earth spheres may not need the other parts to exists on themselves. (Furtherly even the human activity sphere or Noosphere doesn´t need to exists so the Earth could work as a whole living-organism-like being as the Ecosphere or Gaia, so... that hollon though may derivate from the previous ones, it doesn´t works itself for the whole existence of the living-planet-system itself in all, and maybe actually being the main cause of unhealthyness on it, so again... complexity isn´t necesarily a positive and unique trend on evolutionary paths.) Hollons idea is amazing and interesting but tends to be overlooking a lot of secondary evolutionary trends which happens and to be oversimplifiying all into one progressism ideology which actually doesn´t happen as it for real in all.
@Michael Erdmann well all makes sense but kinda seems to force out the complexities overall of a hierarchy of growing organizational levels in general, it still is very much a hierarchy which only might happen by human view and cognition-understanding of it, therefore much like an ideology as very much the teleological views are to view some meaning at core and as the ultimate final or start of all than what might be real as more probably unknowable in all
Interesting introduction to holons you have here; that I'm not sure Koestler would approve of in terms of translation, but maybe in approachability... Koestler's ideas about holons are very cold, scientific, statistical with ties to superstition like psychic forces. Yours is very maternal with care taken for each holon, categorizing types of holons, when I'm not sure they need to be categorized. A heap of stone thrown at someone versus a large diamond has little to do with the organizing principles of the molecules in the object and more to do with the fact that something with weight is travelling with velocity toward someone... You've even included anti-capitalism propaganda in a video whose source material is from a jewish person who successfully escaped Nazi totalitarianis because the benevolence of capitalist countries. There is a twist to the material you're presenting here that you don't seem to be aware of, sort of a product of your times. I think Koestler presented holons in a much more timeless fashion, with hints toward an emerging idea about superstition that he cleverly hinted at but didn't detail.. That there is a primary holon, which governs us all.
Just more construct, more analysis, more bollocks to promote and sell to people who thinks this codswollop gets them closer to some kind of enlightenment, which in actual fact is achievable to anyone at anytime, irrespective of your made up knowledge and price tags.
Absolutely amazing piece of Work. Thank you for this, very needed for all of us.
Yessss. More videos like this please. Great job 👏 thank you ❤️
A wonderful contribution to the vital task of expanding both an awareness and understanding of Post-postmodern Philosophy. Thank you 🙏
I feel like I have been looking for this video all mi life. Thank you.
Excellent video. Thanks Corey.
Thank you for your video! Amazing explained !
Oh damn I'm gonna have to share this!! 🎉❤
Thanks Corey. glad you were at the group discussion today.
This is an excellent video on holons. I’ve been looking for an explanation like this to help me fully ‘get’ the concept’s full depth for a while. Thank you!
Thank you Corey. Amazing intro to Integral theory. Please produce more of these. These will be infinitely invaluable.
Corey, thank you. You are such a talented speaker!
I've been thinking of this my whole life
thank you a lot
"Love is that which enables choice"
Thank you, Corey!! Excellent primer for a deep subject.
Great work!!
Waiting for your next work!!
I love Corey in this video!
We have always called this idea "levels of description" - no need for new name like "holon". Even though I think this way, this is still a very nice explanation and video.
Wow, just the perfect explanation I'd been looking for. Thanks
Is there anything actually new, or simply an attempt to define new vernacular on ancient concepts?
BING! The light bulb went on. Itty bitty things make up really small thingys which then make up bigger thingys when they make up biggerer thingys. That is sooo cool!
Absolutely Amazing. Thank you 🙏
this video should be shared more
Very well done my friend.
Very funny your end. I didn't see it coming.
Thank you for this excellent video!
I was once shown the Building Blocks of life.. I was told and shown fractal codes.
By who? And can you divulge the information?
@@centralfloridafishingsourc8249 Yes, this happened on my first ayahuasca journey.
This is very close in many ways to what I've been researching with Analytic Idealism philosophy. With one exception being that Holon's are seen as having the capacity for inner experience down to sub-atomic level, while for reasons specific to parsimony, Bernardo Kastrup (for the time being) has limited inner experience down only to the level of metabolizing life forms. Which I think is still very questionable. I understand why he's held at that level, but intuitively I think inner experience can be taken down to sub-atomic level. I'd enjoy an informed response if you're familiar with both models and can translate between the two. Thanks.
YOU ARE THE INTEGRAL BILL NYE
PLEASE MAKE THIS INTO A NETFLIX SERIES
This is a very well-made video. I appreciate it. I find this Holon concept problematic, from an Integral perspective. Take the example of a pine tree. What is a pine tree a part of? First the straw men: A forest - ah, but as you explain in the video ("we aren't a part of the universe, the universe is a part of us") Wilber specifically calls that a reductionist move. As you and I and Wilber know or claim, but many explanations get wrong, the UR Quadrant tree and the LR Quadrant forest are the very same holon from two different perspectives. A whole pine tree is not a part of anything. Right? So, there is no turtle going up. It isn't going to merge with other trees and become a mega-tree. Maybe that potential exists, but it is unrealized. So, I guess a pine tree then is a "heap" of cells, and the cells are "personally believed" to have interiority while the tree itself is not "personally believed" as having interiority? Okay, but we're Integral here... what is the use of personal belief to integral theory? That would be Amber meme. The Holon concept is self-described as Second Tier, and so it should concern the integration and intersection of paradigms. So fine, let's just say that a cell has a hypothetical "interiority" in that it has the agency to reproduce, which dirt lacks. A tree is a heap of cells, but now we're in a trap. One of those cells is not a part of anything. In the LR it is a heap of cells in the shape of a pine tree, and you can stop right there, that's the final turtle.
Likewise, you, as a holon, have the potential to move up a holonic level by moving up say an Altitude. But you are not part of the next Altitude, it simply doesn't exist to you until you are exposed to it and embody it. Okay, okay, so if we're saying that potentials count as "wholes", that a pine tree has the potential to develop into an animal, which it may quite simply never do at all - even if that is the point, how can we possibly say that it's turtles all the way up and all the way down? That's a claim that according to its own logic literally can never be proven true, but could perhaps be proven false with information we don't have yet. It's a "God of the gaps." That's an enormous assumption that we clearly do not know the answer to. It may be more functional but less fun to say it's turtles as far as the eye can see.
Turtles, cells, and molecules etc, are discrete. They have boundaries. The Altitudes are self-described as a spectrum. So, it's a little suss to say that a spectral transcend and include by waves system has the same "holonic" nature as things with physical boundaries merging together into larger things in a manner that is in itself self-evidently discretely constructed in its actual nature, not by any analogy or using memetics. The stages of one quadrant are thus derived from the stages of another, and this seems fuzzy at best, because as you go up the turtles scale, you have to switch which quadrant generates the stages of the others, and whether the transformation is spectral/memetic or obviously discrete. With simpler holons, we have to "personally believe" in interiority, and with the more advanced holons, we have to assume "systems functions" of the brain. In each case, we are assuming that the other quadrants must hold the same pattern because of the nature of quadrants. It's weird to me to start with the discrete and readily apparent lower part of the great chain of being in the UR, then quickly shift to something that is spectral in nature with any discrete stages being self-described as arbitrarily divided, and to use this imperfect analogy as the base to the claim that these are identical in nature and the analogy is perfect. It's really more of a human centi-turtle sometimes. We have a sort of logical uroboris here, where holons are true because quadrants are true because holons are true. And believe it or not, I actually do subscribe to the logic of this model. I just think that it's always described in precisely this manner because if you don't curate the information in this extremely methodical way, it's actually really rickety and difficult to digest, which is bad when it's one of the more base components of integral theory. We need to find a greater variety of ways to address these issues with holons, rather than sticking to the script and avoiding the problems. I want to be able to talk holons in a casual intellectual conversation. Currently impossible.
Why can't it be the case that 11th dimensional strings or quarks or whatever are the "atomist" base of reality and there's simply nothing beneath that but empty space itself? Why can't it be the case that consciousness cannot be more expansive than Clearlight Nondual permanent stage of a developmental Line? It seems like Wilber and Integral are presenting this variation on Koestler's idea as a fundamentalist presumption. Or, at least, that's what the analogy of the turtles strongly suggests, and the claim "everything in the Universe is actually made of holons." It isn't technically made of holons if it's a pine tree cell heap with no greater whole, or a quark with no parts, or reality itself (the Kosmos) which by self-definition has no greater whole. There seem to be many cases within the integral model itself of wholes that are not a part of anything that we know of, and parts that do not subdivide in any way that we know of. How exactly is a black hole a holon? It seems quite a bit more logical to me to assume that there are some things in the universe, at the extremes, that are strictly wholes or parts, that the Kosmos is a whole in all four quadrants that is not a part of anything, and that somewhere down the line of zooming in by powers of ten, you arrive at a thing that cannot be meaningfully subdivided. How can we possibly posit as axiomatic that there is no bottom or top turtle?
💗
Well, on one side there are "philosophers", and on the other, science. Not really comparable.
The mind is also a holon, whole of the body, part of consciousness. Consciousness is also a holon, whole of the mind, part of ?
The mind can set probability in the body. !
Hello my fellow human holons
why the basic concept of a Holon looks like a lot as Leibniz concept about the Monad?
Good video. Can I have your shirt?
😀👏👏👏👍👍💯🎉🎉🎉
I like your jokes :) Video is great, too!
Fractal Reality
I´ll point out that though maybe for most of hollons, specially lifeless states of matter and energy, as well constructive society-cultural levels, the evolutionary trend happens to be to complexity, on living-beings it could happen towards the opposite when a parasityc life-style got involved as environmental driving-forces happens to select the evolutionary pathway for many living organisms, so at living beings, evolution trens happens not just into straight-forward complexity levels, but also into the reversal way if that´s the way of living of them, and no-moral constructive paralelism to human nature correlation ought to be infered here to explain the main idea on hollons just only evolving in one direction themselves, because it actually doesn´t happen, though indeed humans could figure out a main evolutionary trend for higher complexity levels.
Furtherly hollons don´t follow just one path into complexity itself but could diversify: soil is done by matter with no-life as well living-matter, and could have solid, liquid and gaseous parts within it, the living-beings could exist in a lot of levels of complexity which though into an average comparation between them might resemble a common evolutionary pathway towards higher complexity where all different species got in between on the large evolutiionary time, however it happens that it isn´t so simple and there is a lot of times of parallel and convergent evolutionary trends on living-beings which aren´t closely related to each other (the main samples could be the different types of simplier organisms as algae, fungi, protozoans and even "worm-like" groups of animals), and finally the Earth is made up not by one simplier set of holons but for several types which aren´t necessarily related to each other and are on different stages of complexity between then as the hydrosphere, the atmosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere aren´t on the same way of hollonic complexity equivalency between them eventhough they end linking each other, although they on the non-living Earth spheres may not need the other parts to exists on themselves.
(Furtherly even the human activity sphere or Noosphere doesn´t need to exists so the Earth could work as a whole living-organism-like being as the Ecosphere or Gaia, so... that hollon though may derivate from the previous ones, it doesn´t works itself for the whole existence of the living-planet-system itself in all, and maybe actually being the main cause of unhealthyness on it, so again... complexity isn´t necesarily a positive and unique trend on evolutionary paths.)
Hollons idea is amazing and interesting but tends to be overlooking a lot of secondary evolutionary trends which happens and to be oversimplifiying all into one progressism ideology which actually doesn´t happen as it for real in all.
@Michael Erdmann well all makes sense but kinda seems to force out the complexities overall of a hierarchy of growing organizational levels in general, it still is very much a hierarchy which only might happen by human view and cognition-understanding of it, therefore much like an ideology as very much the teleological views are to view some meaning at core and as the ultimate final or start of all than what might be real as more probably unknowable in all
Interesting introduction to holons you have here; that I'm not sure Koestler would approve of in terms of translation, but maybe in approachability... Koestler's ideas about holons are very cold, scientific, statistical with ties to superstition like psychic forces. Yours is very maternal with care taken for each holon, categorizing types of holons, when I'm not sure they need to be categorized. A heap of stone thrown at someone versus a large diamond has little to do with the organizing principles of the molecules in the object and more to do with the fact that something with weight is travelling with velocity toward someone... You've even included anti-capitalism propaganda in a video whose source material is from a jewish person who successfully escaped Nazi totalitarianis because the benevolence of capitalist countries. There is a twist to the material you're presenting here that you don't seem to be aware of, sort of a product of your times. I think Koestler presented holons in a much more timeless fashion, with hints toward an emerging idea about superstition that he cleverly hinted at but didn't detail.. That there is a primary holon, which governs us all.
Just more construct, more analysis, more bollocks to promote and sell to people who thinks this codswollop gets them closer to some kind of enlightenment, which in actual fact is achievable to anyone at anytime, irrespective of your made up knowledge and price tags.