Thanks for this (and everything you are manifesting these days!). Seeing these 8 ideas spelled out is a confirmation of how much this system is taking on, and each area is rich and worthwhile in itself. But my issue is that I get hung up from the start at the planes of existence. I have not been able to resolve/integrate your framework with integral theory/AQAL in a way that is satisfactory or natural to me. It just doesn't click with my background AQAL OS. Maybe you can help? Maybe others have felt this tension/confusion? (Apologies if you are not familiar with integral theory - but if not, please allow me to humbly suggest that you should be! ;-) 

Your sequence of entities makes sense to me (objects, organisms, animals, people), since these are all physical entities of increasing complexity. This is similar to a sequence of increasing complexity in the upper right quadrant (yes?). 

The systems of justification make sense to me (physical, biological, psychological, social), though they may not map onto a quadrant. I think I can appreciate how this ties into important conversations about science and knowledge, and I wouldn't suggest that it needs to map onto AQAL. (and if it does in a way I don't see, let me know). 

The 4 planes are where I get confused (matter, life, mind, culture), because the word culture points me to the collective domain of mind. I see that you are not equating culture with the lower left/interior collective across planes (which I have to keep reminding myself), and that you use 'mind' to denote the mind of animals that humans transcend and include, but I find this terminology counterintuitive and can't seem to shake the notion that animal mind has its own realm of collective mind/culture, as life has a collective/shared realm of life-interaction (as does matter), and that culture means more than just human reality. 

Would you say that all 4 planes tetra-arise in all 4 quadrants? It seems to me that in the plane progression (matter - life - mind - x), x would refer to the plane that includes matter, life and mind, as mind includes (emerges from) matter and life, as life emerges from matter. X would be some synonym for human mind. Is that what you mean by culture - human mind, in all 4 quadrants? 

I guess I am checking to see if my confusion is semantic or conceptual, since in my familiar language (collective, interior) culture does not emerge from animal mind or human mind, it is co-extensive with animal and human mind, as the collective domain of being. (I think Deepak raised a similar issue with different language, but I don't remember it being resolved in language I grasped). 

If the 4 planes all arise in all 4 quadrants, then instead of culture, I'd think we'd be referring to the plane that transcends and includes matter, life, and animal mind - the plane of the human, individual and collective, interior and exterior, epistemic and ontic. But if by culture you mean the collective/shared domain of human mind, isn't that an orthogonal move away from the sequence of holonic complexity (matter-life-mind) into a different kind of distinction? And if you mean the domain of the human plane in all 4 quadrants, why not say: matter, life, animal, human? 

(I see a problem here with linguistic overlap with the sequence of objects. [Objects, organisms, animals, people] refers to bodies (yes?), where [matter, life, mind/animal, culture/human] refers to the plane of epistemic/ontic reality in which those beings live. Yes? If this is the case then I guess it comes down to word choice). 

Another way of asking: are the 3 progressions you name (planes, systems, entities) all holonic? Or some are and some are not? Is 'mind' a synonym for the animal-level-complexity-perspective-reality, individually and collectively (which would include animal culture/LL)? And by 'culture' you mean the human-level-complexity-perspective-reality, individually and collectively? If so, I guess it is a semantic problem, and I just wish we could use language that does not denote differences in individual vs collective signification. If not, I'm curious how TOK fits with AQAL - or if it does not, perhaps intentionally. 

Sorry if this is not helpful to others. But if I can get beyond these language blocks, I sense that I'll be able to get more from TOK and better integrate its various insights with other frames and models. 

thanks,

Brad

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 8:32 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote: