Nowhere in the literature of modern social theory is there more acrimony expressed than over the topic of hierarchy/heterarchy. — 51: 767-768
He is absolutely correct, and so from now on I will often use “hierarchy” and “holarchy” interchangeably. Thus heterarchists, who claim that “heterarchy” and “holism” are the same thing (and that both are contrasted to the divisive and nasty “hierarchy”), have got it exactly backward: The only way to get a holism is via a holarchy. Heterarchy, in and by itself, is merely differentiation without integration, disjointed parts recognizing no common and deeper purpose or organization: heaps, not wholes. — 59: 877-881
In short, extreme cultural relativity and merely heterarchical value systems are no longer enjoying the vogue they once did. The word is out that qualitative distinctions are inescapable in the human condition, and further, that there are better and worse ways to make our qualitative distinctions. — 70: 1038-1040
the language of objective naturalism (“it”-language), and thus they fail miserably when applied to domains described only in I-language (aesthetics) and we-language (ethics). — 73: 1084-1085
However, when a holon’s self-transcendence approaches zero (when its creativity is utterly minimal), then the reconstructive sciences collapse into the predictive sciences. — 92: 1376-1377
order of — 103: 1540-1540
(We will return throughout the book to this topic, and see that it is related to the issue of intrinsic and extrinsic values; and see also that theorists who mistake great span for great depth are always confusing more fundamental with more significant, and thus, once again, end up recommending regression as a direction for further growth; with a flatland ontology, the crucial depth dimension is missing.) — 113: 1673-1676