Summary: Mark Edwards, Another Way of Putting It: My particular take on the four quadrants, holons and suchlike, http://www.integralworld.net/
Edwards wrote this paper to provide a brief, clear guide to key points he makes in an extended presentation also available at Frank Visser's website. It seems a number of individuals have approached him to explore this work, but not sustained contact. I have to confess that I am probably one of the poor misguided souls who has attempted to engage Mark Edwards in an exploration of his ideas about integral theory and modeling, only to seemingly disappear, not to be heard from again. I would, however, like to emphasize that—from my point of view—such disappearance has been only temporary and that it is my full intention to engage him in a conversation for Integral Leadership Review—if he is willing. In the meanwhile, this article posted on Frank Visser’s Integral World website serves as a somewhat more accessible explanation of the differences that Edwards brings to integral mapping.
Edwards contrasts his approach respectfully to that of Wilber’s by positing any number of possible holons, which can be considered in relation to other holons. Furthermore, rather than four perspectives that there are really six (first, second, third persons singular and plural); each perspective is a holon with multiple quadrants. Thus,
Perhaps even more sharply contrasted with more “traditional” integral mapping has been Edward’s suggestions for exploring the relationships between and among holons:
As I continue to point out development is a mediated process as much as it is a structural one. Integral approaches to development must be able to analyse mediational processes (that can only be represented through relationships) if it aspires to a comprehensive understanding of developmental processes.
His term for this approach is integral “holonomics.” Edward’s work provides a significant opportunity to understand leadership dynamics (and many other applications) in a truly integral fashion. As I have pointed out elsewhere (article submitted for publication, Scenarios, Scaffolding and Leader Development), this approach provides a way to map agency and communion (Edward’s terms) for the individual leader, the relationship between leader and follower/collaborator, and the leader in relation to the relevant culture and systems.