[Integral 1/5] The Four Quadrants of Ken Wilber's Integral Framework

[@m3vm3]

I feel the indigenous way of life is a holistic and integral view of the world. That’s what this reminded me of. This is transformative information.

[@moonman5543]

Beautiful explanation. Integral politics makes it easy to see that the polarization of America is because both parties approach issues from a reductionist approach

[@DivineLogos]

I assume by reductionist approach, and tell me if i'm wrong, you mean an approach that is not at the deepest level which is the divine. But conservatives are often christian and advocate for christianity, doesn't this make their approach unreductionist. Or is perhaps what they practice as christianity not spiritual enough? Enlighten me.

[@milankurienov6768]

​@@DivineLogosreductionist means ignoring one or more of the four quadrants described in this video. I, being a Christian, believe that my moral and theological beliefs as well as my spiritual practices do have a part in forming my political opinion, but my opinion consists of more than just spiritual practices and beliefs.

[@DivineLogos]

@@milankurienov6768 How would you know though. You are not the commenter.

[@milankurienov6768]

@@DivineLogos Because that's the definition both in the video and in Wilber's books. You should watch the video before arguing about it, it'll answer your questions

[@bingusiswatching6335]

@@DivineLogos with reductionist he refers to levels of awareness. america is split among mostly level 4 and level 5 counter-postmodern conservatives and level 6 progressives. the reason there is no "talking it out" is because they speak fundamentally different languages, its not possible to understand a level above your own without personally exploring it and having that "aha!" moment

[@johnev1233]

"Essentially, Integral is a set of orienting generalizations" may be the most accurately succinct description I've heard.

[@shawnlarebrinkley5146]

Thank you so much for breaking this down in such a relatable manner. My professor in my doctoral program in performance psychology suggested I watch this video to better understand integral theory and the four quadrants. I actually think I get it now. I appreciate your use of real-world examples to help drive it home! Awesome work. Thanks again!!

[@MoonShellTemple]

Thank you! I feel LESS alone in this wild world. This gives me some hope.

[@thezedroadtrip]

Hello Alan, thanks for the video. It is very useful. I am a youth development worker from Zambia and I am very interested in using integral theory to empower young people to adopt a much more positive outlook in life.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

I would say evolution is an expression of entropy following a path of Variation--- Selection---- Differentiation----Variation etc. This where major Differentiation can only be recognized retrospectively.

[@koanforty]

Very helpful lecture on the Quadrants. I understand it now better than ever. Many Thanks

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Thank for taking the time to offer me your feedback! 🙏 I'm glad it worked for you.

[@magsblackie7244]

Awesome summary of the essence of this work

[@susanhasty6414]

Alan, my feedback...This is AWESOME!! The content is so well structured and relevant to everyone. I really enjoyed it and will definitely sign up for more! Thanks!

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Wow!! Thank you for your feedback!!

[@billwilder1340]

Thank you for this amazing summary of Integral work!! I have a very hard time understanding Ken when he talks about but this is broken down in simple language!! Well done

[@skyewinfrey]

Nicely done! I'm impressed by the quality of both the presentation and the lecture. Thanks for your intro -- this helped provide me with a good primer/preface to diving into all my grad psych material.

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Thank you for your kind words! I'm glad you liked it! :-)

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

😀

[@Onelove-Oneheart-h4c]

As within so without, as above so below.

[@kavitamins]

This is incredible, thanks so much.

[@deniseannbarredo9419]

Thank you for the info. I now understand what integral theory is.

[@jonmichaelswift]

This is really helpful! I'm just trying to get into the guts of integral theory and it's helpful to have somebody lay it out in a video. Thanks for your work! Subbed and hope to keep consuming your content on the topic!

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Thank you for taking the time to comment and for subscribing! I'm glad you liked it!

[@ArielSit]

Thanks for this articulate explanation of this legend's theory. Much appreciated.

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Hi Ariel Sit! You are very welcome! Thank you for taking the time to comment.

[@natclo9229]

Holarchy = logical levels Logical types is a really cool area to study And i love the different angle and presuppositions

[@dr.chaitanyaugale8390]

Alan greatful to you for integral series. Kindly add more videos on application of integral in abstract-material concepts.

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Hello Chaitanya Ugale! Thank you for your comment! Life has been busy, but we have an upcoming course on the Integral Framework here: bit.ly/integral4week 4 consecutive Wednesdays: November 16, 23, 30 December 7, 2022 11am-1pm, US Pacific Time This class is held on Zoom. After you sign up, we will send you the Zoom link. No-one is turned away for lack of funds

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

5:30 So, a whole is also a part. A part is also a whole. That is the holon concept. A lattice of holons form a kind of Indra's Net to capture not only the world, but the possibilities of the world. 'Indra's Net'; it is not not so much a noun as it is a verb.

[@PaulJones-oj4kr]

I'm working on an integral theory of aesthetics and the arts and have most of Ken's books under my belt. A book is planned after I get other projects off my plate. Ken IS at the top of the apex...epsitemological, ethical, and ontological.

[@divinelytwistedalcheme7180]

Interested

[@roselotusmystic]

Great Intro to IT 👍

[@SomethingImpromptu]

I like where your head is at on this generally. I have found that the general phenomenon of "holons" has been formulated and discussed by many disparate kinds of groups using many disparate terms/concepts which all attempt to describe the same reality about nature. For instance, even in ancient times the Hermeticists held the principle of "polarity" (which was popularized more recently by Alan Watts). That is, the idea that an individual whole (a totality) is made up of two counterposed opposites which cannot exist without each other, the same way that a single magnet cannot exit without a north and a south pole. As Watts puts it, "behind explicit difference there is implicit unity." The Hermeticists also argued that because these opposites which form he halves of a totality are, in fact, part of one totality, they were not qualitatively different but quantitatively different. This has proven true in some cases; if we deconstruct the concept of temperature into its opposed components, heat and cold, hotness and coldness are not two qualitatively different forces of nature. Cold is just the absence of heat. In the realm of the ideal, some philosophers would make the same argument (that Evil is simply the absence of the Good). In Western philosophy, the concept of the dialectic has been used to describe this phenomenon (In the realm of the ideal by Hegel and then in the material world by Marx, and many others have derived their own interpretations from both). Dialectics was the first to take a more scientific approach to understanding the relations between the two opposite halves (what they called thesis and antithesis), how they interact, and how entirely new phenomena (syntheses) are produced by this process. Holon theory seems to describe this same reality about nature-- that you cannot have left without right, matter without antimatter, positive charge without negative charge, up spin without downspin, space without time, self without other, inside without outside, and so on. I appreciate what Wilber has done with the holon concept, but I would really like to see all of these ways of talking about the phenomenon unified in some way, because I think what they reveal about nature is both practically significant and incredibly informative to a lot of disciplines. Where I disagree with you is in your assessment of how integral could be applied to politics. The reality is that, in the West (especially the US), we do not have the diametrically-opposed components of a holon represented. We have two parties which represent the same class interests, and which bicker more for political theater and over social issues which they deem negligible than because they are vehemently opposed to most of each other's policies. They are financed by the same kinds of groups (billionaires, multinational corporations, banks, military-industrial profiteers, etc.). The solution is not as simple as just to have a party that unites them, because they are not working for the general public. It would only unite the ruling class against everyone else, even more than they already are. I think that if you want to really understand how Integral theory could make sense in a political context, you have to look at Marx, who already applied the dialectic (basically the same notion) two-hundred years ago. In essence, the dialectical relationships at the heart of our economic system are oppressive and hierarchical (in the dominating sense), and are therefore held together by tension, not harmony. To be explicit: the capitalist class cannot exist without the working class, because it is denied by the fact that it owns the means of production and needs workers (who have no means of production themselves) to produce. The working class (the proletariat in Marx's terms) is defined by their exclusion from ownership of the means of production, so they have to rent themselves to the people who do own capital to survive. If capitalists didn't exist, the proletariat wouldn't either, because everyone would be part of one universal class who both work and own the means of production. Resolving that point of contention-- the division of the classes-- is the goal of socialism. Even though they can't exist without each other, the two classes must always be in conflict and tension, because they have conflicting interests. The workers want to be paid as much as they can (the full value of their labor), while capitalists want to maximize the profit margin, which means paying as little as possible, avoiding providing benefits, cutting corners on workplace safety standards and anything else that cuts into their bottom line. This is why labor has been organizing and bargaining against the owners since capitalism began, and it's why labor has often been brutally repressed by state violence at the hands of the capitalist class. And it's why the left-wing parties were stamped out and replaced with a party which is pro-imperialism, authoritarian, and pro-corporate capitalism, just like the Republicans. If we want to address this political system, then we need to go to the holon at the root of the problem, which is that we live in a society where most people (the workers) are divided against the ruling class (who then divide the workers against each other, telling them they have to compete rather than co-operate). Only when the holon of class society is replaced with a sustainably free and democratic one in which people have a say in their own institutions (both economic and political) will this problem go away. Attempting to solve it by helping the two parties of the ruling class coordinate harmoniously is like trying to stop a building from burning down by creating a perfect friendship between the two arsonists who both wanted a fire. The political system isn't failing, from their perspective. It's doing its job perfectly-- allowing the "minority of the opulent" (in James Madison's words) to control and exclude the majority so that the powerful can govern and enrich themselves all the more effectively by virtue of having the sole hands on the levers of power.

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Hi Matthew: I like what you said, and agree with all your points - except for the part where it seems you misunderstood what I said. The point is not to unite people or parties with “liberal” or “conservative” views. I agree that, to paraphrase Ralph Nader, the main difference between Republicans and Democrats is who bows down to their corporate masters faster. Rather, the idea is to integrate PERSPECTIVES to arrive at a more holistic or integral view. An integral approach to politics would incorporate all the issues you mentioned - I would hope. Otherwise, it wouldn’t seem very integral to me. Thank you for taking the time to comment! ~Alan

[@SomboonCM]

Congratulations. You're stuck in the external plural quadrant, arguing why it's superior to the other three. As heady as you try to appear with your pseudo intellectual jargon, you're clearly not smart enough to get the concept here. Typical Marxist error, confusing the antithesis with the synthesis and arguing it as such, confusing problematizing as a solution.

[@davidshaw2303]

I like this " Theory of theories" a lot. Is or has there been any issue or situation in your life that has not stood up to the four quads.

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

They're a lens I can use to see the world through, when they're useful.

[@verntoews6937]

Internal individual melancholy External individual sanguine Internal collective phlegmatic External collective Choleric We all have all four in variing amounts manifesting the entire spectrum of us all

[@mohamedal-qabtan4962]

This is great! Thank you so much

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

5:28 So whole/ part does not mean, here, a whole with, or consisting of parts. It's whole/part, with whole being a part of something larger. Context/whole/part.

[@Taustavoima]

I would love to see that checklist you mentioned. A great video. I hope to see the missing parts.

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Hello Vesa! Thank you for your comment! Life has been super busy. We have not yet published parts 4 & 5, but we have an upcoming course that covers it all! bit.ly/integral4week 4 consecutive Wednesdays: November 16, 23, 30 December 7, 2022 11am-1pm, US Pacific Time This class is held on Zoom. After you sign up, we will send you the Zoom link. No-one is turned away for lack of funds

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

5:29 Holonistic thinking sees 'a thing' as a 'whole / part'. Like the two views of a Necker Cube. Now a process is a event in time. Holonistic thinking sees 'a process' as a 'Past---NOW---Future'.

[@othmarrey8683]

infinite LOVE is the KEY to all TRUTH getting it YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

🙏

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

Atoms to cells, letters to books---- that's Korzybski's Structural Differential of Abstractionation in microcosm.

[@verntoews6937]

I believe old Dr Hippocrates was correct in identifying the four perspectives. Melancholy internal individual Sanguine. external individual Phlegmatic internal collective Choleric. external collective

[@TheWayofFairness]

This idea is in Edward O Wilson's book. Consilience the unity of knowlege

[@formaffinity]

Where does the "Guiding Intuition" come from? Is it just intuition? Or is there any evidence for the idea that no mind can be 100% in error? Or is this where the generalizations come in? I'm having a time trying to understand this idea. I've heard Ken mention this before and have always wondered. This is a fantastically clear and well put together video btw. Thank you

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Good questions. My approach would be to try it on - lightly - as a hypothesis. Don't take my word for it, or Ken's. Hold it lightly with healthy skepticism and see what you find. The idea that no mind can be 100% in error is another way of saying that EVERY perspective has some angle on truth or reality. It makes sense to me, but I wouldn't want you to believe it blindly. Thank you for taking the time to comment!

[@DarkMoonDroid]

It's more than intuition. Ken went thru a process to come up with this. He has told the story many times. If you Google something like "how Ken Wilber formed Integral Theory" you may get a few hits. You'll know it when he talks about writing down stuff on a yellow pad and spreading all the pages out on the floor. He calls these things "orienting generalizations". The difference involves the rejection of "reductionism" which means as new things come up that aren't on this map yet, they are not ignored or reduced to what he's already named, but they are analyzed for how they impact each Quadrant.

[@karimaharrison7416]

This is wonderful content i have just signed up for cascadia Workshops. I was introduced to these concepts , first intuitively and then through an article called " A generous Ontology: Identity as a process of Intersubjective Discovery- An African Theological Contribution". I look forward to connecting with you.

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Thank you, Karima! Come to our upcoming course if you can! bit.ly/integral4week 4 consecutive Wednesdays: November 16, 23, 30 December 7, 2022 11am-1pm, US Pacific Time This class is held on Zoom. After you sign up, we will send you the Zoom link. No-one is turned away for lack of funds

[@Anannt_Urjaa]

2:45 Everyone is right ... upto some extent. 4:00 Holons. Everything is whole, part of larger whole. Quadrants Lines of Developments Level of Consciousness / Stages

[@sazham]

Thank you Alan for the breakdown. I work in the healthcare (Mind space) this is a great explanation. I hope to learn more from you.. Anup / Bangkok

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Thank you for your comment! We have an upcoming course on the Integral Framework here: bit.ly/integral4week 4 consecutive Wednesdays: November 16, 23, 30 December 7, 2022 11am-1pm, US Pacific Time This class is held on Zoom. After you sign up, we will send you the Zoom link. No-one is turned away for lack of funds

[@alexanderhaddadin]

Thank you for putting all this effort to share your experience and knowledge. How can I serve you?

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Let's have a conversation! :-) reach out to me: [e-mail]

[@rationalityrules111]

Good work. Thanks.

[@martinskyttefernandes5882]

Im trying to make the ITF work as the "Teen_Risk:Predictor" that parents allways wanted or wished for. Its under construction, but the thought itself - how do you think Wilber translates into the field of sociology,

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

I would use the four quadrants as lenses I can look through to see what I might be missing. This takes nothing away from sociology, but simply places it in a larger framework, and has the potential of better outcomes by incorporating complementary approaches. That's my take.

[@fluxpistol3608]

Holons have processes/tensors

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

1:00 Source of wisdom; General Semantics. People in Quandaries, W. Johnson, 1946.

[@krizlange]

Looks like the way a horoscope is divided

[@othmarrey8683]

i am the light by ITSELF so let it shine brighter then ever before now........ yes i am in love joy and much more peace

[@summondadrummin2868]

Keep your day job

[@LuXxenatorX]

buy ada lol

[@cindycharles8289]

Hi Alan, Thanks so much for this video, a great summary! I'm wondering if there is somewhere that you can access the checklist you mentioned that your friend Barrett created?

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Sign up for our 4-week course on the Integral Framework here: bit.ly/integral4week 4 consecutive Wednesdays: November 16, 23, 30 December 7, 2022 11am-1pm, US Pacific Time This class is held on Zoom. After you sign up, we will send you the Zoom link.

[@chtomlin]

Maybe you can show me how the 4 quadrants is better than seeing things thru what I call "Dual objectives". Instead of 4, it seems 2 is far more workable on the fly....like in sports. So the quadrants would be pair in the following- you have the self in balance with the group. The self has an internal balanced with the external. The social has the internal balanced with the internal as well from your example. Imo this reflects a more natural flow of the aspect vs the quadrants being more of a divisional approach. Thoughts?

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

sure 🤷🏻‍♂️ if you want to bounce around the quadrants two at a time and that works for you i think that's fine... the point remains the same...

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

In summary: every phenomena shows up in these four dimensions; every phenomena could be looked at through each of these four "lenses"; you cannot reduce reality to any one or two quadrants - they're all important, and they all tetra-emerge, and tetra-evolve; use it as a way of attaining additional perspectives for a more complete view - do NOT treat it as an orthodoxy or something else to be fundamentalist about. I think that's kinda how I would summarize the part that would remain relevant...

[@serenityprayer2718]

Dear Alan, thank you for sharing your knowledge. I am really interested about the "being dragged down by the negativity of the world". What - in short words - would be a way out of this (of the "weltschmerz") in your opinion? (if i may ask)

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

In short, the answer to your question is community. Inner fortitude helps a lot, but we need each other! We are offering an upcoming course on all the basic elements of the Integral Framework: bit.ly/integral4week 4 consecutive Wednesdays: November 16, 23, 30 December 7, 2022 11am-1pm, US Pacific Time This class is held on Zoom. After you sign up, we will send you the Zoom link. No-one is turned away for lack of funds

[@kerifernandez]

thank u sooooooooooo much for sharing this knowledge for free! my question is how do u categorize a preacher who tells his congregation to vote Republican bc it's what the Bible says to and bc its for the greater good of the planet?

[@kerifernandez]

the preacher happens to be my dad. and I'm a liberal. oy!

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

This video is only on the quadrants. It's easier to understand people with very different worldviews once we bring in some of the other elements, in particular stages of development. Maybe that can be a future video. (?)

[@kerifernandez]

Genius!

[@trupela]

It seems to me that time needs to be integrated into this model. Maybe I just haven’t dug deep enough yet.

[@acea7638]

Naked reality is an online vid course I am making that tries to modernise and simplify the core of all mystical traditions so they can hopefully reach more people/

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

Is ' whole / part ' the only holon or is it the basic holon? Is 'context' implicit in 'whole/part'? Context/whole/part.

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Context is implicit. Everything is both a whole AND a part of a larger whole. It's a nested reality. atom -> molecule -> cell The letter 'a' is a whole unto itself, and part of the word 'bark' - which is also part of a sentence. And that context hopefully clarifies whether it's the bark of a dog or the bark of a tree.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

@@AlanRafaelSeid 'Everything is both a whole AND a part' , viewed from two different cognitive perspectives. Whole is the first, 'it', the basic CP. Seeing the whole as containing parts, is second. Seeing the whole as a part, as having a context, is third. 'Viewed from two different cognitive perspectives'; like seeing the two views of the Necker Cube. 'Having a contex'; e. g., like belonging to a wider term of abstraction. 'It's a nested reality.' It's a hierarchy of conceptualization. See Korzybski's diagram Structural Differential ( of Abstractionation ), 1925. What would CP four be? The Necker Cube, on paper, is two dementional. When we view it, lending it perspective, we will have two possible interpretations.

[@francisgallant1479]

I'm new to Ken Wilber ,this is great stuff. I really enjoyed the presentation. Here's a couple of things that bugged me though: @ 7:40 isnt it symbol & THEN image rather than the reverse? ...Images are full of symbols symbols are not full of images. @ 9:15 the comparasion (the exemple) doesn't work as far as I can see & I am pretty sharp at this maybe someone can explain me? Also, is it Wilber who talked about those things like this or is it Alan's interpretation of it?

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

1) A symbol has meaning, and image is just an image. For example, a red octagon outlined in white is only that. A stop sign is a symbol; now it means something. 2) watch it again, i give several examples. It takes too long to write here when you could just watch it again. 3) Read his books yourself. :-)

[@francisgallant1479]

1)I understand that you're thinking precisely about symbols has a collective agreement but from a more fondamental view symbols are precisely the essence of things. There's a symbolic meaning in everything including a red octagon. It's why metaphors works so well. An image can't help but to be filled with symbols. 2)Yes, I got it. I was really more challenging this precise association than anything. 3)Yeah I'll definetly check out more of his work this stuff is truly gold & I am looking forward to your 4th part of this presentation. It really works well for me to get a good sense of the essence of a concept before diving deep into it & your videos are doing a great job at that keep it up! & thank you.

[@DJMikeron]

The truth is simple seekers are complex. So many fancy words and complex material. But it's your right to get lost in it. :)

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Did you get lost in it? My job is showing the way through this complex material in a way that is simple and accessible. You wrote: "The truth is simple seekers are complex." I like that. :-)

[@CirrowProductions]

Uh huh

[@michaelmcclure3383]

DJMikeron i guess it's sacrificing depth for span haha

[@summondadrummin2868]

Its not simple but neither are cells -your made up of them. Computer chips -you used them to send your message. Or even the internal combustion engine which delivered the food to your local store. So no this material is not for every one...but its a good thing it is for some who are so motivated.

[@chtomlin]

@@summondadrummin2868 things are seem simple once they are mastered...

[@francescospezzano4707]

Super Wilber

[@DarkMoonDroid]

16:06 26:10 I would love to look more closely at this but the video quality is not good enuf. Here's a link to a clearer image: www.thegreatstory.org/charts/4-quadrants.html

[@tobiaszb]

16:08 So he collapses "You" into LL "We" part. curious..

[@joakimbiondi]

There is no "You" without "I". "I" + "You" = We

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

If holon is whole/part, a complementary conception would be synonym / antonym -----thesis / antithesis. Also, Past --- Now --- Future. 'The universe is not made up of things or processes --- the universe is made up of synonym---antonym conceptions.' 'The universe is not made up of things or processes --- the universe is made up of thesis---antithesis conceptions.'

[@thetarealm]

So basically what he did with the Integral Framework was to rearrange Carl Jung's theories of the cognitive functions and psychological types by categorizing other phenomenon that are not directly related to psychology but that are perceived by the human psyche and instead of categorizing people, he chose to categorize the events that are perceived by people and how they are perceived... I don't see much of an improvement or pioneering to be honest... he just chose to categorize things in a way that matched his own type and objectives so as did Jung... but Jung actually did that first and went even further by theorizing synchronicity as an interchangeable system between the interior and exterior quadrants with actual empirical data from his patients and from ESP experiments.

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Thank you for commenting. Carl Jung was awesome! One thing I appreciate about Ken is that he reads hundreds or thousands of books before he writes one. This video is on only one basic element of Wilber's framework. When you add up holons, quadrants, lines, levels, states, and types, I experience something qualitatively different - without diminishing in any way Jung's amazing achievements and contribution. There's a book called Integral Psychology, and I would refer you to the charts in the back of that book. In these charts Ken lays side by side research from dozens of researchers East and West, pre-modern, modern, and postmodern, covering developmental models from St Theresa of Avila to Rudolph Steiner to Duane Elgin to Aurobindo. It's stunning to see the correlations side by side of SO many systems. It sounds like you've made up your mind about Integral, is that accurate? Either way, it's none of my business. :-) And I appreciate you engaging. ~Alan

[@thetarealm]

Not really, I haven't made up my mind yet haha. I'll look the source material you referred more thoroughly. I guess I tend to be a bit conservative when it comes to psychology. Thanks for the reply!

[@prawtism]

When looking at Wilber's work, it's more useful to view it in terms of new connections, perspectives and applications, not new ideas, even though he has also popularized some new concepts like the pre-trans fallacy.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

I suppose the opposite of a holon is a singleton. That's single-tON

[@alankuntz4406]

Holons ww are ralking about dependent arising, interconnectedness,, WE.Buddhism explains all this better than any one.

[@Myrslokstok]

Well consius is not realy its parts. Chess pices are parts of chessgames, but there are far more chessgames then pices.

[@Davebasnel]

This was very helpful. I am keen to know if you have some across the idea of applying this approach to sales and sales coaching ?

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Yes, yes I have. Probably too long to write here, but I'm guessing that if you look over the four quadrants with your question in mind you can figure it out. :-)

[@Davebasnel]

thanks. I would love to see any material you might have had about this?

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Dave -- with regard to business and business coaching, what is your question exactly? How to look at business from a 4 Quadrant approach?

[@coweatsman]

The whole talk reduces down to a promotion of his business.

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

That's very astute of you!! But I'll be even more explicit: EVERY video on my channel can be construed to be part of my business. I owe no-one an apology for constructing a livelihood that really serves and helps people! If you look at the comments, even my free content contributes to people. And if you look at my testimonials, you'll see the results people get by working with me, which they can't get from a video: CascadiaWorkshops.com/testimonials Good day to you. 🙏

[@debrahaley910]

His political view sounds centrist, taking the best of the conservative ideas and the liberal. Non- partisan, balanced, wise humane ideas that truly want to solve the problem, not make excuses that appeal to wealthy donors. I guess that view would fit into a quadrant.

[@wi2110]

Very well presented. Cognitive dissonance dispelled! Thank you!

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

Awesome!

[@davidcraze1643]

good at

[@joshuamitchell1733]

This is a westerners attempt to describe Hinduism. KEN doesn’t really describe anything integral. He starts from the wrong end. He starts from the idea of things/descriptions of things external to the observer. All this leads to is more concepts and and more categories not really better descriptions.

[@KazBrekkerCousin]

What is the correct end to start from, in your perspective?

[@33samogo]

12:52; "Each and every holon has four intrinsic dimensions, none of which can be reduced to any of the others" This is not correct, each dimension is a holon to! Holon is a fractal!

[@jarijansma2207]

i think he means to say that they're not identical, they might break up fractally, but the contents will be different

[@jarijansma2207]

so that there are 4 fundamental intrinsic dimensions, that are fundamentally different from eachother

[@33samogo]

@@jarijansma2207 contents are not identical, but inside each of the four intrinsic dimensions you will find all contents. holon is self repeating infinitly dimensional system, so the differences between intrinsic dimensions in perspective of the holon are infinitely small, in perspective of the single holon dimension, the differences are infinitely large

[@jarijansma2207]

Woah, not sure if I understand completely but yeah i think I agree with your description. I'll get back to you, as this is quite interesting

[@virenderyadav707]

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@opinionday0079]

how can enlightenment be so dull. less is more

[@AlanRafaelSeid]

HA HA HA -- loved this comment!

[@Mehdi.BH09]

Impeccable content! Ps: is there a chance to get a pdf or something similar to the "other view of the four quadrants" paper? Thank you.