Excerpt
from a letter
to Ken Wilber: The system
of
four
quadrants is a workable concept to put worldviews in an
order, I think.
Anyway,
the reduction from second person to first person plural ignores the
essential
quality of a dialogue: When I say "you", I do not mean "we",
and I also do not mean "I" or "he". These are mere aspects
of the "you". The main point is the change of
perspective as
such, that creates the dialogue, the perception of another
individual as
itself and so the second-person view. I change my viewpoint to the
viewpoint
of the other (partly at least) and come back to a new own one and so
forth. Because
this change
underlies all the other quadrant views (you are only "he", when I am
mainly I), it could be the quadrant in the middle or the big one
beneath/encompassing
the other ones. Another
problem I see in considering all quadrants equally. Who
perceives the four quadrants and changes between them? Since
consciousness is
omnipresent, as you state by yourself, the first-person view should be
at the
top, followed by the other three views being special aspects of the
dynamic
"I" (of the individual focus, the universal subjectivity). So the
individual becomes a dynamic hierarchy culminating
in the center of
"I". It is from this perspective only, that "others" and
collectives are possible in the last consequence. Claus Janew May 13, 2003 (unanswered) The above hierarchy may be illustrated by the following picture:
|
