Integral Math Basics: Experience of "x"

MPP part 4: Experience of: “x” (draft)

Originally posted on March 3, 2009 on IntegralMath.com

In this article, I discuss the concept of experience of, or interaction with two or more persons or perspectives. This is represented by the symbol of “x”, analogous to the multiplication sign in conventional mathematics. In a sense, it is also the symbol that separates the subject from the object.

(1p x 1p) – My experience of myself
(1p x 2p) – My experience of you
(1p x 3p) – My experience of George Bush

(2p x 1p) – Your experience of me
(2p x 2p) – Your experience of yourself
(2p x 3p) – Your experience of George Bush

(3p x 1p) – George Bush’s experience of me
(3p x 2p) – George Bush’s experience of you
(3p x 3p) – George Bush’s experience of himself

I actually will not elaborate further on the above outline, and will as much as possible avoid using the expressions I just listed — why would I do that right after outlining them? Because they don’t represent the concept of vantage points I’ve discussed in the last article.

One of the primary principles of Integral Theory is the inclusion of the explicit concept of interiors, represented in Integral Math by vantage points. Conventional scientific method and mathematical frameworks are notorious for not acknowledging the interior dimension — i.e. the actual vantage point through which we’re observing a phenomenon. By not doing so, these expressions do not give representation to the understanding that all sentient beings also have a unique vantage point to the Kosmos, and thus neglects the experience itself. For a universal depiction of all of the Kosmos, we need to include vantage points:

(1p(1p) x 1p) – My experience of myself, from my own vantage point.
(1p(1p) x 2p) – My experience of you, from my own vantage point.
(1p(1p) x 3p) – My experience of George Bush, from my own vantage pont.

(2p(1p) x 1p) – Your experience of me, from your own vantage point.
(2p(1p) x 2p) – Your experience of yourself, from your own vantage point.
(2p(1p) x 3p) – Your experience of George Bush, from your own vantage point.

(3p(1p) x 1p) – George Bush’s experience of me, from his own vantage point.
(3p(1p) x 2p) – George Bush’s experience of you, from his own vantage pont.
(3p(1p) x 3p) – George Bush’s experience of himself, from his own vantage point.

Now the above notation acknowledges our vantage point. The (1p) above represents the premise that each of us have our own vantage point through which we experience the object. However, we’re still missing something — acknowledging that the person we’re observing has their own vantage point as well. Thus:

(1p(1p) x 1p(1p)) – My experience of myself and my vantage point, from my own vantage point
(1p(1p) x 2p(1p)) – My experience of you and your vantage point, from my own vantage point
(1p(1p) x 3p(1p)) – My experience of George Bush and his vantage point, from my own vantage point.

(2p(1p) x 1p(1p)) – Your experience of me and my vantage point, from your own vantage point.
(2p(1p) x 2p(1p)) – Your experience of yourself and your vantage point, from your own vantage point.
(2p(1p) x 3p(1p)) – Your experience of George Bush and his vantage point, from your own vantage point.

(3p(1p) x 1p(1p)) – George Bush’s experience of me and my vantage point, from his own vantage point.
(3p(1p) x 2p(1p)) – George Bush’s experience of you and your vantage point, from his own vantage point.
(3p(1p) x 3p(1p)) – George Bush’s experience of himself and his vantage point, from his own vantage point.

You’ll note that here I mention (1p) twice, once in the first subject portion and the other in the second object portion. They have different connotations — in the first part, the (1p) vantage point refers to the vantage point I,you, or George Bush is observing through. In the second part, the vantage point refers to an acknowledgement of the vantage point inherent in the sentient being we’re observing.

Getting a bit more intricate, yeah? Well, that’s the deal…yet, as far as I can tell with my own years of analysis and reflection of interpersonal conflict, a formulaic breakdown of communication and perspectives is perhaps the only way to precisely identify the source of conflict.

Thus, it’s worth all the time, energy, and investment to work all this stuff out.

As a note: I’m proposing looking at other symbols besides the “x” for the same reason the “x” is discouraged in higher level conventional methematics — that looks too much like the letter (and common variable) x. The fact that Wilber uses the “*” for another purpose, the singular or plural qualities, prevents us from substituting it outright.

As Integral Math develops, I will be proposing a rewriting of the symbol to be the “*” instead of “x” to those using it. At that time, I will update this article, and all other articles, to represent this. Until then, we’ll continue to stick with the multiplication sign.