What of these other fours?
 Post appears BELOW Table of Contents.
 This blog focuses on similarities between others' four-folds, tetrads, tetrachotomies, and mine, and includes links to online information on others’ fours in their own terms. It results from overgrowth of an old post at The Tetrast "What of these other fours?".
Table of Contents

Fours that I've
adopted or adapted:
Fours with a striking
likeness to mine:
Fours involving some
likeness to mine:
More-or-less different fours:
Unless otherwise stated within the post, first posted on Friday, December 5, 2008. Post times here are just a device to control the order of appearance. Most of the posts are based on entries in an older post "What of These Other Fours?" at The Tetrast.
Ken Wilber's Four Quadrants & four moral development stages
Ken Wilber's Four Quadrants — Interior-Individual, Exterior-Individual, Interior-Collective, Exterior-Collective.
Ken Wilber's Four Quadrants
(Source: Wikipedia
Quadrant (UL)


e.g. Freud
Quadrant (UR)


e.g. Skinner
Quadrant (LL)


e.g. Gadamer
Quadrant (LR)


e.g. Marx [sic]
As far as I can tell, his foursome of quadrants doesn't correlate with any of my fours. It's interesting, though, and it consists of four combinations of values of paired two-valued parameters. Maybe I'll find a way to adapt it, though I'd be likelier to include Smith or Hayek than Marx as an example.

On the other hand, the way in which Wilber divides stages of moral development does seem to correlate, somewhat, with the way that I treat logical quantity, which involves conjoined quantifications, four conjunctions of answers to two twinned but mutually independent quantity questions (see my post "E.J. Lowe's four-category ontology" or the longer "Logical quantity & the problem of universals").

Correlations, not equations
Wilber's moral development stages
(source: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AQAL)
Tetrastic logical quantities
(Also see my "Logical quantity & the problem of universals."
Note: Wilber apparently assigns meanings to colors. My use of colors unrelated to his. Note, however, that the hues of color which I use (habitually) for the logical quantities are systematically opposite in feeling to the correlated Wilberian moral development stage.
Egocentric (similar to
Carol Gilligan's 'Selfish' stage).
Singular, or singulars taken as in a polyad, in a larger world.A. B-C. D. E. F. G. …
Ethnocentric or Sociocentric
(Gilligan's 'Care' stage).
Special-cum-general, i.e.,
neither universal (e.g., mathematical) nor singular (like you & me)
# # # # # …
* * * * *
# # # # # …
(Gilligan's 'Universal Care' stage).
(total population & its parameters, universe of discourse, gamut).
Pie chart. Photobucket
(Gilligan's 'Integrated' stage)
Universal but not a universe, i.e.,
there's more than one instantiation of it in its universe

••  ••
••  ••     ••  ••

The most questionable correlation is that between Wilber's "Being-centric" stage and the repeatedly instantiated universal. Wilber associates the "Being-centric" stage with a final and mystical stage of moral development. The immediate problem isn't the mysticism since, on my side of the correlation, there are merely logical quantities. The immediate question is whether by "Being" he means something that correlates with the repeatedly (indeed sometimes endlessly repeatably) instantiated universal. Of course, since being is that which everything has (though never in the same way twice), he probably does mean something similar to the universal that is not the universe or world.
Post a Comment