Holons and Holarchies
A Sermon Delivered by
The Rev. Thomas Schmidt
December 9, 2007
at the
Unitarian Universalist Congregation of
the Lowcountry
This past week, I noticed this
book on the Welcome Table, it is “A Thousand Acres.” I have never read the book, but I do remember seeing
the movie that was based on the novel. It was several years ago now, but it left a lasting impression on me primarily
because about half way through the movie, I kept thinking to myself, “This all seems so familiar.” By the
end of the movie, it dawned on my, and this I did not think to myself, this I said quite loudly for everyone to hear, “It’s
KIng Lear” The movie was a modern re-telling of the Shakespeare’s “King Lear.” It was
so familiar to me at the time because I was still in college and it had not been that long since I had studied the play in
depth. The professor who taught Shakespeare believed that to study one of Shakespeare’s plays, it was imperative
to not only read it, but to see it performed in as many ways as possible. Thus I had not only recently read the play,
but I had seen it performed live on stage and on video tape.
Besides being familiar with the
story the story resonated with my own personal experience in some ways, thus it was no wonder the movie seemed all too familiar
with me. It is believed that King Lear was first published in 1608, nearly 400 years ago. The world has changed considerably
in that 400 years. Well, no, that is not so. A more accurate statement would be that our understanding of the
world, and how we relate to the world has changed considerable in that 400 years, but really, not much has actually changed
with the world. For example, in Shakespeare’s day, the dominant world-view throughout Europe, the lens that most
people viewed and tried to make sense of the world, included what is called the Great Chain of Being.
Most
of us are probably familiar with this model, it was a strict hierarchy with God on top, angels immediately below that then
humanity, with the remainder of natural world following in order. And of course, each layer on the hierarchy could be
broken down to corresponding hierarchies. Angels could be ranked from seraphim to archangel and society was likewise
ranked, from king to serf, and each household was ranked, generally according to gender and age. It is written by many scholars
that Shakespeare’s King Lear portrayed the result of one king trying to undermine the system. Lear’s early
abdication of his throne, giving his kingdom to his daughters, and otherwise upsetting the natural order things so upset the
natural order of things that the resulting tragic events could be interpreted as the best of all possible outcomes.
Of
course, we moderns generally do not accept this model of the world. It simply does not hold up to scientific, democratic,
feminist, scrutiny. Personally speaking, I so embraced these modern critiques of the old system, and accepted as fact
the more modern understanding of society and nature, with the emphasis on relationship and individual rights rather
than strict hierarchy, I so embraced these new ideas that that the very idea of hierarchy became anathema. I completely rejected
the entire Chain of Being idea as being not just outdated, but a complete misunderstanding of the natural order of things.
But now, I am wondering if perhaps I threw out the baby with the bath water. Perhaps it was not the idea of a Chain
of Being that was wrong, but rather how that chain was interpreted. First off, a true chain is not hierarchical, a true
chain can be laid in any direction is only as strong as it’s weakest link,so a modern understanding of a Chain of Being
must not rank one link higher, or better than any other; each link in the chain has inherently valued. And of course,
any new understanding the Chain of Being must take into consideration the finding of modern science and current theories about
the structure of our universe.
Let us very briefly examine what a modern chain of existence might
look like, shall we. At the bottom of the old Chain of Being were the four basic elements the ancients believed were
the foundation of all material things: earth, air, fire, and water. The foundation of a more modern chain of being would begin
at the sub-atomic level but for the sake of argument, I will use atoms as the primary building block since that is what most
of us are most familiar. So let us start with an atom, a self contained, perfect structure. One thing we know
about atoms is that they tend to group together in a wide variety of configurations that we call molecules.
In
a similar fashion, molecules can join together to form simple cells and those cells are the building blocks of life.
What develops is what some have termed an holarchy, “a word a word coined by Arthur Koestler. It is a combination between
the Greek word 'holos' meaning whole and the word 'hierarchy'.” Essentially, a holarchy is a structure
consisting of any number of smaller units, which are called holons. Each Holon is either a whole or a part of a larger
whole, depending on how one views it. From a molecules point of view, for instance, an atom is merely a part of its
own structure, while the molecule itself is a part of a larger whole, a cell. An atom, a molecule, and a cell are each
examples of holons, and each can be viewed as a whole in and of itself or as a part of something bigger.
One
very important aspect of this new model is that each advancement in complexity both includes and transcends that which preceded
it on the chain of being. Or put another way, a holon is more than the mere sum of its parts. It is tempting to reduce
a single cell organism to its component parts, this much carbon, this much hydrogen, etc. But the fact is, cells can
do things that molecules cannot. Cells are living things, whether they be a single cell organism or one of the billions
of cells found in the human body. The ability to move about, reproduce, transform matter, etc. are transcendent qualities.
And as one moves up, down, through the chain of being, onto ever more complex collections of cells, we eventually arrive at
the neo-cortex, the human brain, the seat of human consciousness.
The past several years, several
books and studies have been published that illustrate the effects of meditation and prayer on the human brain. Using
magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, functioning
magnetic resonance imaging, fMRI, scientist can map the brain during its various states of consciousness, including: Waking,
dreaming, dreamless sleep, and for the sake of argument what I will call transcendent consciousness. In the studies
in question, the brain has been photographed and mapped at times of peak experience as determined by long-time practitioners
of various forms of meditation and contemplative prayer. The studies have shown that certain parts of the brain become more
active at these times, while others become less active.
I think I have talked about such
studies before, and given that the subject is far to complex to properly address in the short time we have together, I won’t
go into any more detail other than to point out that this field of study is still very new and it to make conclusions based
on the data so far collected may be premature. For instance, the studies have been used to both prove and disprove
the existence of god. Quite frankly, the ability to prove or disprove such a thing is well beyond the scope of the studies
mentioned. Simply put, the studies do nothing more than show what happens in the brain during prayer and meditation.
They show what happens, they show a correlation between ones actions, the act of prayer or the act of meditation, and a corresponding
reaction in the brain. It is tempting for many to reduce the experience felt by practitioners of various spiritual practices
to a mere biological anomaly and say that these studies prove that. While that may in fact be the case, the studies
cannot prove that.
Here is the problem, the MRI and fMRI can only record the brain’s response to
a given stimuli, it cannot judge what it is responding to. If , were to think about a particular person while
pictures of my brain are being taken, the pictures would show certain parts of my brain being more active, and others less
active in relation to baseline pictures when I wasn’t thinking of that person. If a transcendent experience can be reduced
to a mere biological anomaly, then is it also true that the person I was thinking about can be reduced to a mere biological
anomaly? And if so, what if you were the person I was thinking about? Quite frankly, I have always been one to
reduce unexplained spiritual experience, explain consciousness itself as a by-product of biology; The need for spirituality
as a biological need.
However, as I re-examine the Great Chain of Being, the Great Holarchy
of Being for myself, using the idea of holons and holarchies, consciousness seems less like an anomaly and more like a transcendent
quality. Ken Wilber, in his book, “Integral Spirituality” writes that evolution is the unfolding of “Spirit
from matter to body to mind to soul to Spirit itself, or the realization of the absolute Spirit that was the Goal and Ground
of the entire sequence.” There is a chance, a good chance I would say, that we, the great human experiment, are the
result of spirit seeking spirit, consciousness seeking consciousness. It would explain why I can read a Shakespeare
play four hundred years after the fact, and in spite of all that has transpired in that time, I can recognize my self and
my experience in those words.
Let
me close with these words of John Keats, a poem entitled “On Sitting Down to Read King Lear Once AGain,”
O golden-tongued Romance, with serene lute!
Fair plumed syren, queen
of far-away!
Leave
melodizing on this wintry day,
Shut up thine olden pages, and be mute.
Adieu! for once again, the fierce dispute
Betwixt damnation and impassion’d
clay
Must
I burn through; once more humbly assay
The bitter-sweet of this Shakespearean fruit.
Chief Poet! and ye clouds of Albion,
Begetters of our deep eternal theme!
When through the old
oak forest I am gone,
Let me not wander in a barren dream:
But, when I am consumed in the fire,
Give me new phoenix wings to fly at my desire.
