INTRODUCTION PART I PART II PART III Page 1 Page 2 PART IV Page 1 Page 2 PART V NOTES Notes 1-8 Notes 9-19 Notes 20-30

     ⁹ As we saw in note 6, many of the probability waves of development are collectively inherited, but whether they refer to the upper or lower quadrants depends on the specific characteristics being considered. "The red meme," for example, refers to the general set of values that are available to an individual within the probability space of a particular wave of consciousness (a wave that, in this case, we call "red" or "egocentric"). When an individual experiences a personal subjective value that falls within that probability space, that is an instance of the Upper Left (i.e., the red meme then refers to aspects of the subjective dimension of value as it vibrates in an individual human holon in a particular AQAL matrix). The preponderance of evidence, gathered by a reconstructive inquiry, suggests that the general features of this probability wave are inherited by humans whenever they evolve beyond purple, which we take as indicating that this wave has become a fairly settled Kosmic habit prehended by virtually all holons moving through that now-laid-down space.

      When these red prehensions are mutually shared with other holons at red; when there is an intimate, nonmediated resonance of red feelings with red feelings among two or more holons; when red values (i.e., values whose features have a very high likelihood of falling within the probability space called red) form the background of mutual understanding; when red value waves are a part of the fabric of the pre-reflexive feelings of the members of any collective holon; when the horizons of individual holons vibrating at red fuse in a mutual-enough prehension: then we speak generically of a "red worldview," and here red obviously means the Lower Left: not just individual, but communal.

     Finally, when a red value wave is lit up and vibrating in the UL or LL, there are (necessarily) corresponding vibrations in the UR and LR. In humans a red value felt subjectively (UL) goes hand in hand with an increased activity in the limbic system (the Upper Right). And when holons vibrating at red come together as a group, and act as if the group's center of gravity is red (i.e., the general features of the group's behavior fall within those that would be generated by the characteristic occasions of the red probability wave), then that group has a syntax or social system representing the collective exterior dimension (LR) of the red probability wave, and it has a set of mutual prehensions, semantics, and pre-reflexive backgrounds (LL) representing its intersubjective dimensions.

      Thus, it is not that there is something called an individual red value, and that several holons then come together and exchange this thing called red value (although that can happen), but rather and most fundamentally, there is a general probability wave or Kosmic habit (which represents the repetitive or karmic likelihood of finding a particular class of events in a particular spacetime locale)--a probability wave that in this instance we call "red"--and that probability wave can be looked at (and experienced) from at least four important perspectives: subjective, objective, intersubjective, and interobjective. These dimensions are not four different things but four different dimensions of any actual occasion (all the way up, all the way down).

      (Generally, the term "red" is used only for the subjective and intersubjective dimensions of this probability space, which is fine; but the point is that there is simply a general probability space with at least four dimensions, and we can use the terms from any of those four dimensions to refer to the others--this is merely a matter of semantics. We could just as well use "limbic" to refer to the correlates in all four quadrants, or "tribal," and so on. But generally, various terms are used specifically with reference to only one quadrant--terms like prehension, values, molecules, ecosystem--and those terms better reflect the realities of that quadrant or dimension, and therefore we will usually follow that custom; but the fact that these are merely four dimensions of a single actual occasion should always be kept in mind.)

      So the red intersubjective background does not come into existence through an individual exchange of red values; nor does the subject arise in an intersubjective space--rather, they all arise simultaneously and tetra-evolve. Any subject that does not initially mesh with the a priori or pre-existing AQAL space will be selected out of existence (a fact that appears to a pre-quadratic understanding as a belief that relationships, or the intersubjective background, are ontologically prior to subjectivity, a fractured understanding replaced by the simultaneity of tetra-evolution). Any quadrant has to mesh with all other quadrants or it is selected out of existence.

     The fact that the collective dimensions often have more weight (by sheer dint of numbers) should not be misinterpreted to mean that the collective dimensions are somehow ontologically prior. It is not that one quadrant is prior to another. Rather, what is prior to the AQAL space of this moment is simply the AQAL space of the preceding moment. There must initially be a tetra-mesh of this moment's AQAL matrix with that of its predecessor, or prehensive unification fractures, formative causation fails, there is no moment of continuity between now and then, and accordingly the newly-emerging holon is erased in its emergence. (We say it must initially tetra-mesh because, of course, it will also add its moment of creative novelty in all four dimensions, and thus the AQAL matrix of this moment will transcend to some degree the matrix of the moment before: thus does the Kosmos grow.)

     If intersubjectivity (LL) were ontologically prior to a subjectivity (UL), then cultural backgrounds could never be fundamentally changed by individual subjects (i.e., subjects, coming after the fact of the deeply prior ontological ground, could never get at the ground in order to change it), whereas individual subjects always have some sort of influence, sometimes profound, on the cultural background. Likewise, the cultural background itself must mesh with other dimensions: if, for example, the intersubjective background (LL) does not mesh with the techno-economic base (LR), then there is a profound interior conflict and dissonance between the cultural and social aspects of a holon's being-in-the-world (i.e., its semantics and its syntax clash). (For an extended discussion of this theme, see the section "The Nature of Revolutionary Social Transformation" in the main text.) The point, as usual, is that the quadrants arise simultaneously and tetra-evolve in mutual mesh.

     ¹⁰ "Deep" and "surface" are sliding terms, which is why one must rely on the context to help determine their meaning. For example, the "deep" features of a holon are defined as that which is common to that class of holons, and "surface" refers to only individual members of that class. But "deep" and "surface" are therefore relative, because they shift meaning according to the level of the class itself. There could be deep features common to members of a particular family, a particular subculture, a particular culture, a particular civilization block, all humans, all sentient beings, and so on. In that case, what is "deep" to one is "surface" to the next higher class: e.g., the deep features of a particular family (i.e., features shared by all family members) are surface features of a particular culture (i.e., they are not shared by all culture members). Likewise, the deep features of a culture are surface features for a civilization block, and what is deep to that block is surface to all humans, etc. All of those uses are acceptable, as long as they are based on reputable evidence from sound reconstructive inquiries.

     Further, it appears that all of those collectives (as well as the individual) generate morphic fields--which is Sheldrake's essential point. Thus, these classes are not mere abstractions--another essential point. That is, these morphic fields (of a family, a group, a subculture, a culture, all humans) exert formative causation on the form of all holons in that class, which is part of their deep-feature inheritance (or Kosmic-karmic influence on subsequent holons). Sheldrake gives example after example of how different classes of holons exert morphic influence on other members in that class--whether a family, a group, a nation, all humans, all species, etc. A civilization block, for example, is united in the fact that all of its members speak a particular language, such as English, and that collective linguistic field has profound morphic effects on its members. Likewise with the influence that a family can exert on its members, a peer group on its, a nation, and so on. Each of those classes, to the extent they really exist, have deep and surface features; and the deep features are inherited by all members of that class as part of its Kosmic karma.

     In the main text, when I generally say that "deep features are inherited, surface features are not," I usually mean that from the class of the universal (unless otherwise specified). From that vantage point, the universally inherited deep features of, say, beige (such as the need for food, water, and shelter, which are universally inherited by all human beings with no exceptions) nevertheless do not determine what a particular culture or individual does in the specific ways of acquiring food, water, and shelter, so we say that those specific surface features are not universally inherited--they are surface features that appear differently from culture to culture, and those cultural differences need to be acknowledged and honored.

     But a particular culture will invariably develop a set of practices (e.g., a particular language structure; various ethical norms; a particular techno-economic mode of production, styles of dress and accepted mores, etc.)--practices that, although surface to universal structures (i.e., those specific forms are not inherited by all humans), are nonetheless common for all members of that culture, and thus they are the deep features of that particular culture, inherited as background by all normal members of the culture. So those sociocultural backgrounds (intersubjective and interobjective) are actually deep features for that society, and as such are inherited by all normal members of that society (but not all humans everywhere). And likewise within those deep structures of a particular culture, there are family surface structures--but those might be common to all members of that family, and thus are "deep" structures collectively inherited by all members of that family (but not all members of that culture nor of all humans).

     The point is that what is "surface" for one level can be "deep" at another (and, among other things, the deep features at any level exert morphic resonance and formative causation on holons at the same class-level). Moreover, in order to spot "deep" features, the corresponding cognitive apparatus is necessary. For example, yellow systems theory discloses universal patterns that cannot be discerned with blue or green cognition. (See Excerpt C, subsection "A Brief History of Conperceptions.") This is why the green meme, for example, which does not have cognitive access to second-tier holarchical universals and their cross-cultural deep features, imagines that there are only surface features everywhere--that there are only relativistic and pluralistic features in existence. But add second-tier integral cognitions, and the deep features underlying cultural relativity come into focus--such as the deep patterns of the quadrants, with first-, second-, and third-person perspectives, and the spiral of development itself. This does not deny the relativity of many cultural productions--which are indeed universally "surface" and not universally "deep"--but it does complement rampant relativity with the many features, disclosed by yellow and turquoise, that are cross-cultural for humans, including many of the claims made by the postmodernists themselves, such as the interpretive component of all human knowledge, which is indeed a universally deep component.

      So the generic statement that "deep features are inherited, surface features are not" needs always to be qualified, because the concrete meaning depends upon which class-level is implied. The statement actually means "inherited by all members of that class."

      To summarize: Generally, in the main text, I am referring to cross-cultural or universal features, and thus when I say "deep features are inherited, surface features are not," I mean that those general probability waves are inherited as Kosmic potentials/habits by all humans, but that's as far as it goes, cross-culturally. Nothing that is relatively surface to those deep features is universally inherited. But that does not stop particular cultures, subcultures, and families from having their own "deep" features that are collectively inherited by their members (as determined by a reconstructive science). At their particular class-level--say, that of cultures--it is again true that "deep features are inherited, surface features are not"--which in this case means, all members of that culture inherit certain deep features, such as the culture's intersubjective background (which is generally deep to all normal members), but not all members inherit particular features within that background (which are surface). However, some features that are surface for that culture might be common to all members of a particular family, in which case they are deep features for that family and are inherited by all members of that family (this is particularly true, as almost everybody intuitively understands, for pathological traits in a family, where the sins of the fathers and mothers are visited unto the seventh generation...). Here we have a deep family karmic pattern which is nonetheless surface to the culture itself (and certainly surface to all humans).

      Anyway, please keep in mind the sliding nature of "deep" and "surface" in following the narrative about formative causation, morphic resonance, and Kosmic karma in general. As I said, in the text, usually I am speaking about cross-cultural and universal features (deep for all normal humans), so everything else is treated as "surface," which means, everything else is culturally relative (which is true). But within those cultures, there are many deep features inherited by that culture, by various subcultures, by families, and by individuals (with morphic resonance and formative causation presumably contributing to the mechanisms of that inheritance, along with factors in the other quadrants, such as prehensive unification, genetics, autopoiesis, habitus, etc.).

      The important point, which will be suggested in the main text, is that none of those deep features at any level--including the universal--are predetermined in any sort of Platonic, Hegelian, Aurobindian, or pregiven archetypal fashion. They emerge in part as creative novelty during evolution, and only after they are laid down as Kosmic habits do they become potentials that can be inherited by subsequent holons. This is an essential aspect of the move from metaphysical to post-metaphysical.

     ¹¹ The general idea involves what is technically called "states and stages": although higher stages have not yet crystallized collectively as Kosmic habits, higher states--including subtle, causal, and nondual states--are available to virtually anybody. The reason is that the four great natural states of consciousness, given to all human beings--waking, dreaming, sleeping, and ever-present nondual--give one type of access to the four great potentials that span the entire morphogenetic spectrum--gross, subtle, causal, and nondual. Anybody, at virtually any stage of development, can have an altered state or peak experience of these higher states (for the simple reason that everybody wakes, dreams, and sleeps). Those higher states are real, they exist, they are authentic, and they can disclose higher and deeper and wider realities spanning the entire spectrum and the great morphogenetic field (gross to subtle to causal), even though none of those higher states have settled into widely available, inherited, specific, concrete, morphogenetic stages. (As we have seen, the leading edge of collective stage-making is today around turquoise to coral.)

      When a leading-edge pioneer first pushes into some of these higher potentials (whether they do so yesterday, today, or tomorrow), they can do so in one of two basic ways: as a temporary peak experience (or altered state), or as a permanent acquisition (or enduring trait). If the former, they simply experience some of these higher potentials as a temporary spiritual experience or altered state, which can have a profound impact on them (and their followers, if they become teachers). However, these potentials do not become a permanently accessible trait or acquisition in consciousness.

      In order for that to happen--in order for temporary states to become permanent traits--then the pioneer must undergo some sort of learning, growth, and permanent development in those higher potentials. As with all learning--from learning a language to learning karate to learning how to ride a bike--there will be some sort of stages involved, or some sort of sequential unfolding of these acquisitions. As with all new emergents, much of these sequential acquisitions first emerge as free and creative novelty at the chaotic and frothy leading edge of development and evolution. But if they are repeated by more holons, they begin slowly to settle into Kosmic habits that are then available to subsequent holons who engage the particular injunctions that first brought forth and tetra-enacted this particular path and its stages. Gautama Buddha, for example, is credited with creating a novel series of meditative injunctions (exemplars, paradigms, practices) that could take a serious practitioner from gross states (waking) to subtle states (savikalpa) to causal states (nirvikalpa, nirodh, nirvana). Those specific practices involved a series of meditative stages that he taught to his followers (like all stages, they were not rigid and discrete linear steps, but fluid, flowing, and overlapping waves of consciousness, but they generally unfolded from sila, or a strenuous foundation in moral precepts, to meditative practices of absorption and insight, leading to nirvikalpa, nirodh, and nirvana; like all stages, those were never found to unfold in the reverse order). As more and more practitioners followed those general stages (in an AQAL fashion--that is, in collectives or sanghas anchored in social institutions), the more those stages became ingrained as Kosmic habits that made that particular meditative path a dependable series of stages through the great morphogenetic field of higher subtle and causal potentials. Today, the general stages of vipassana mediation are available as permanent acquisitions in the meditative developmental line, although, of course, their various surface features vary from culture to culture and often from individual to individual. But there is nothing about those stages that represent pregiven, fixed, absolute, independently existing ontological structures, planes, or levels of reality or consciousness. Rather, as more and more leading-edge pioneers pushed into the higher states on a more permanent basis, they increasingly give form to those realms, forms that, when adopted by more and more individuals, eventually settled into Kosmic habits as available stages of development that could be enacted by a particular series of paradigms and injunctions. (But even then, of course, only their deep form or morphic pattern is inherited; their surface forms and contents will vary from culture to culture and person to person, just as the surface forms of red, blue, orange, etc. do so now. And, it goes without saying, there are many other different paths available through the great spectrum of consciousness.)

     Today, for example, Hameed Almaas is fashioning a new series of waves and stages through the great morphogenetic field of higher potentials; as more and more of his followers pursue the specific morphogenetic groove that he pioneered, the more its features become ingrained as a Kosmic habit through that particular developmental line in the AQAL matrix. A lineage path, in other words, is now being cut into the Kosmic grain, and, like all lineages, it will bear the marks of its founder, both positive and negative. This is unavoidable in any sort of higher, pioneering path-cutting, and thus one always hopes that the founder or founders of a particular path in a particular developmental stream create a sufficiently self-critical sangha such that any major deviant patterns can be internally spotted and self-corrected. (Humanity, needless to say, has a spotty track record in that regard....)

      For a further discussion of the four great states (waking, dreaming, sleeping, nondual) and their corresponding potentials (gross, subtle, causal, nondual), see Sidebar G: "States and Stages," posted on this site. The point is that at any given time, higher states are collectively available even if higher stages are not (although higher stages can be forged uniquely by individuals or sanghas); but as more individuals push into higher states, the more they become available as collective stages (or Kosmic habits), stages that appear as a priori but are actually a posteriori--this is the essence of a post-metaphysical derivation of higher potentials without Platonic or Aurobindian givens.

     ¹² A legitimation crisis can happen, of course, regardless of the level of the worldview. Even highly authentic worldviews must seek and find legitimation. Authenticity is no guarantee of legitimacy, nor vice versa. See A Sociable God, CW3.

     ¹³ This is not to overlook the hundreds and thousands of micro-transformations or micro-increases in depth that can and often do happen in individual and societal affairs. It is simply that profound macro transformations (e.g., foraging to horticultural to agrarian) are relatively rare.

     ¹⁴ See note 17.

     ¹⁵ That is part of the AQAL reconstruction of Marx and his contributions: the importance of Marxist-historical materialist component is that it includes the Lower-Right dimensions of social systems and the institutional power they embody. What is entirely lacking in new paradigm and postmodern versions of "transformation" is they rely on subjective and intersubjective factors, totally overlooking objective and interobjective realities. Further, as we will see in our historical survey of the Lower Right (see Excerpt B), Marxism is a form of developmental structuralism in the broadest sense (or interobjective forces of production and relations of production: that is, relations of signifiers and systems of syntax). This can only be adequately analyzed using an IOS.

     ¹⁶ One of the many insuperable difficulties with the eco-primitivist view--which sees foraging tribes as an ecological, social, and political heaven--is that such a view has a very hard time explaining why, if that is the case, the foragers themselves abandoned that mode and adopted the horticultural mode in virtually every case it was offered. Why would cultures by the droves abandon such an alleged heaven? To voluntarily jettison heaven, either the foraging tribes were incredibly stupid, or they were not in any real heaven at all (but more like a relative hell they were all too eager to transcend, which transcend they did).

     ¹⁷ By the way, the above account of the nature of social transformation is a short summary of one of the major sections of the original volume 2 of the Kosmos Trilogy (which will now be volume 3). That section deals with an in-depth analysis of individual, cultural, and social transformation from an AQAL perspective. It arrives at what I believe are many new and interesting conclusions about societal transformation, such as that the single greatest (but not sole) determinant of the average mode of consciousness is the form of the techno-economic base driving the governance systems of a society; there are also extensive discussions of the specific factors required to initiate transformation in any quadrant, and the evidence of the types of transformation that are--and are not--occurring in today's world.

     ¹⁸ I would call this "four-quadrant prehension" or "quadratic prehension," but that stretches Whitehead so much that it would be misleading. But the idea is indeed that all four quadrants "touch" their predecessors, and this touching is part of the quadratic inheritance. Still, Whitehead's "prehension" really only covers the Upper Left, for reasons explained in the text (e.g., much of formative causation is not prehended, but exerts its influence nonetheless). See below in the main text, "From Partial to Complete Dialogical Inheritance." If I occasionally use terms like "quadratic prehension" (because they are fairly simple to understand), please remember the actual meaning.

     ¹⁹ The interpretations of today become the facts of tomorrow as Kosmic inheritance--but if and only if they survive selection pressures in all four quadrants. Of course, more technically, it is the totality of this moment's AQAL space that is handed to the next moment's AQAL space, so that the facts (RH) and interpretations (LH) of this moment are handed to the facts and interpretations of the next moment. The point is simply that facts and interpretations, or objectivity and subjectivity, or matter and consciousness, are inseparable dimensions of all holons.

      Incidentally, the surface features (in any quadrant) have their own individual history, which is subjectively inherited as prehensive unification and objectively inherited as individual morphogenetic fields. In order to manifest, these must mesh with the given intersubjective and interobjective fields--again, the quadrants tetra-evolve.