During the last week of December 1999 I began work on an essay --- one that was intended to be a follow-up to an essay that I had just completed the previous week. At the time of beginning to work on the essay I had no hint of what was to follow; no actual clue of the breadth and depth of what was to come. I literally had no idea that the essay would grow to such a volume.

Shortly after beginning work on what I thought at the time to be just another essay, I sent an e-mail to Elias asking him if there were any sort of limits on the amount of material that I could send him (as he is the one who has to deal with formatting the essays for the Internet I wanted to be sure of what he could and could not handle). Elias' reply was something like "Go ahead! Write a book if you want to!" It was a green light. And, as it turns out, is exactly what has occurred. Out of the seeds of a supposed essay formed the fruit of this book, which can also be considered to be a series of subtexts that touch on the subjective as well as the objective, the social as well as the cultural, the local and the global --- all culminating in an attempt to formulate what I call a "four-quadrant" book, or text.

The idea of a "four-quadrant" text is taken, in large part, from the work of philosopher and author Ken Wilber. Wilber has mapped, in quite an inclusive and thoroughly developmental manner, what he calls "four different territories". These "four different territories" are akin to being the "four corners of the Kosmos": The interior and exterior of the individual; the interior and the exterior of the collective. These constitute the four fundamentally different territories of Being, each one with its own language, its own traditions, and its own rites of passage --- or developmental sequences of unfolding, if you prefer. These four territories can also be framed in terms of the subjective and objective, cultural and social; where the subjective is the individual interior territory, the objective is the individual exterior territory, the cultural is the collective interior territory, and the social is the collective exterior territory. Hence, these are the four fundamentally differentiated "ways" of orienting ourselves in relation to the apprehension, confirmation, and conveyance knowledge about "what actually is?" the nature of Being-in-Existence here and now. For instance, we can be truthful and descriptive in subjective terms, or truthful and descriptive in objective terms, i.e., from any one of those points of reference. And no matter the apparent discrepancies that arise from a unique framing, these distinct territories are not mutually exclusive, but rather mutually penetrating. What may at first glance appear to be contradicting points of view --- as if only one view could ever be right and truthful --- becomes, when cast in the light of the "four-quadrant-text", mutually penetrating complimentarities. Revisioned in this way, the objective does not so much as diminish or negate the subjective in the "four-quadrant" text, but rather, illumines the subjective and clarifies it further. The same can be said for the cultural and the social --- that these left to themselves are ever more and more partial and biased. Yet, when one takes the "four corners of the Kosmos" approach, these partialities and biases become "augmenting clarifiers", which can serve to flesh out a fuller spectrum, embodied across all domains of knowledge apprehension and conveyance.

Without going into too much detail here (as that is reserved for Mr. Wilber himself), it is clear that we cannot language the world --- or communicate in truthfulness about the world --- without first determining the "exact" context of what and where we are communicating from. In other words, it is quite clear that a monk and a scientist, for instance, may speak truthfully regarding their own particular territories, but may not be able to hear each other across the 'potential' divide that conceptually separates their territories one from the other. Through the mapping that Wilber has provided it is now possible to conceptualize strident differences as being territorial, contextual, and focus-specific, i.e., relative. For instance, the monk may have dedicated his or her efforts to cultivating the interior of the individual through contemplation and meditation. It is an authentic and truthful path --- one with objective correlates, as well as social and cultural significance; it is sincere. At the same time, the scientist may have dedicated his or her efforts to the exploration of the exterior of the individual --- empirically and experimentally, objectively. This too is an authentic path, born of sincerity and truthfulness, with its own potent social and cultural ramifications. The key insight here --- as well as being a very crucial Wilber-inspired understanding --- is this: That the four distinct territories cannot be wholly reduced one to the other without gross inequities being the result. For instance, the language and the truthfulness of understanding human cellular processes --- which is an individual-exterior territory, i.e., objective --- can not tell us all there is to know about the subjective feelings one has about the nature and significance of being alive, which is an individual-interior territory, i.e., subjective.

The very fact that there are these differentiated territories tells us that different maps must have also been developed; maps that describe in ever greater detail their specific territory. These maps are meant to actually refer to the honest distinctions born of differentiated territories. Just as territories cannot be wholly reduced, one to another, neither can the maps. The symbol-systems, languages, signs and indicators, all these are intended to point to, to actually refer to something within that territory which the map is derived from. In short, we cannot fully illuminate one territory with the map of another. The maps and the languages that have been developed over time and generations of inquiry and investigation are meant to refer to a certain context as they are born of that context and that specific focus of inquiry --- not another.

The "postmodern" in the title of this text is meant to refer to what Michael Zimmerman calls those "complex social and cultural permutations that are now occurring." Zimmerman, in his book Contesting Earth's Future: Radical Ecology and Postmodernity, offers up some of the more significant "social and cultural permutations":

Third World peoples are challenging Eurocentric historical teleology; the relentlessly self-critical character of modern theorizing is undermining assumptions about rational foundations and metaphysical foundationalism; those for whom truth is a perspectival, power-oriented affair are questioning assumptions about "objective" or "eternal" truth; and those who emphasize the relational, decentered, heterogeneous character of human identity are questioning the primacy of the centered, self-controlled, patriarchal ego.

Also there is the postmodern challenge that raises questions about the relationship between "representation" and "reality" --- simulation and the Real. In its most basic form "postmodernism" is a call to accounting of the modern assumptions that have ordered and oriented humanity in relation to both Self and Other. I tend to see the various "postmodern" movements --- intellectual and artistic --- as being akin to those "post-game" shows that report on the game just completed, as well as examine in greater detail the potential consequences and ramifications of the game just completed. In this sense, "modernity" is the game just completed, while "postmodernity", and "postmodernism" in general, are the "critical interrogations" that examine in depth the potential alternatives, as well as bring to light the buried assumptions and shortcomings beneath the fortresses of "modernity".

One of humanities historical dilemmas has been the clash of these various territories (through the efforts of their, quite oftentimes, mono-focal members). Science has often tried to reduce all of religion and spirituality to its terms; while religion has, in its own immutable way, tried to reduce society and culture to its terms. In the same way, through various socio-cultural movements, there has been the failed and quite bloody attempt to reduce individuals to solely social and cultural terms and values. In essence, each partial truth group has been out trying to make converts of those whose focus has been on a completely different territory --- not realizing that they may have had much more in common if they had only known, or been aware of, those contextual limits which apply to their specific territory. We have all only been quite too familiar with the evangelical efforts of every partial truth group. The historical record is quite clear on this point. Each territory can potentially illumine a corner of the Kosmos, but not all "four corners of the Kosmos" can a single territory illumine alone.

A "four-quandrant" text is one in which there is an attempt made to take into account all of the various ways of languaging these "four corners of the Kosmos" --- these specific contexts: That of neuroscience along with that of music; that of dance and that of poetry; of politics, as well as the spheres of economics and commerce. Each sphere has something important to tell us --- but, and here is the crucial point again --- not everything to tell us. Science cannot tell us everything about what it actually means to "be here now" --- no more than poetry can. Yet each specific form of languaging a certain territory of the Kosmos can tell us something, something very key and crucial --- but also very partial and incomplete.

From my way of seeing the current historical situation, which humanity is faced with, I see that there is no recourse for humanity (outside of more and more territorial bloodletting) than for us to realize the contextual limits that are implied in each form of inquiry. Reductionism has limits. Each context of inquiry has limits. For example, our ascertaining the materially objective basis of a painting is not going to tell us anything about the subjective effects that a painting has on us as individuals --- not to mention any social ramifications a painting might have if it happens to be a political work of art like Picasso's Guernica. Again, realizing the specific context is crucial in assisting us in our intersubjective relational exchanges. A context omitted or not clarified ahead of time merely leads to further and further misunderstandings; where separation and fragmentation are increasingly exacerbated because we have not illumined the specific territory we are coming from and referring to.

With six billion plus of us and growing, intersubjectivity is going to be more and more crucial in determining the fate of humanity, along with whether or not there is to be a viable Planet Earth that can sustain a population of the Living --- of any living form, that is! My proposition here is that it is not so much a matter of us not being totally truthful and sincere, but rather it is more a factor of us not realizing the very distinct and different contextual domains that we are coming from: that we are coming from as cultures, as nations, as peoples, as individuals, as families, as groups and as corporations. When we are coming from, issuing forth from, referring to a different context entirely, it is entirely possible that we may never have the hope of understanding each other. I may come from a socio-economic context and refer to that exclusively, while you may come from a biospheric context and refer to that exclusively. In doing so there are fundamental distinctions and languaged differentiations that must needs be translated by some medium if we are at all able to really, deeply, sincerely understand each other. And furthermore, if one of us has no actual capacity to reference the others context then we have yet another greater challenge. Because the fact of the matter is that if we have no capacity to reference the "other's" context, then we have no capacity to truly understand and empathize with that "other". Period.

We know that the socio-economic question is a fundamentally intersubjective question. The cultural question --- as to the resocialization of the globe according to the standards of multinational capitalism --- this too is a fundamentally intersubjective question. And, as it stands, intersubjective questions demand intersubjective answers; answers of the people, by the people, for the people. Not a people, a group, a sector, an elite. No. The people. All of the creatures great and small; those who speak in many tongues, as well as those who speak on behalf of the unpsoken for. All of these are intersubjective challenges facing us. Requiring dialogue. Requiring discernment and clarification of territory and context. Requiring us to address the full-spectrum of Being. Period. Where we are no longer content to have these continuous forays into territorial battle royales; where we wait in anticipation for the next Alpha-narrative to assert its dominance by assigning us the latest definition of "Reality"; subjects of the latest Alpha-Representation: Reality masked, costumed, concealed.

Ultimately though, I do sometimes have pause to wonder if we can really leave behind all of our "territorial absolutism". Can we shed those Alpha-narratives that would mythicalize us, that would render us as high-definition spectators of, rather than suggestive participants in Reality. Maybe we would no longer be so ready to conscript ourselves into one or the other territorial clan or tribe --- alone and solely; with our fundamental convictions that alienate at the same time that they profess to unite "our" peoples, "our" kin, "our" clan, "our" territorial domain.

My prayer is that when the full dress of night has finally been shed we will note the non-territorial dawning; where a renewed multi-dimensionality invigorates each and every, one and all. And yes, a multi-territorialized Kosmic species finally awakens; one that is all set to begin the singing of those songs that will span the Great Divide of warring parties, where victors have shed much blood with losers, and mothers have wept for sons and daughters that never ever did return from the front.

My prayer is for us to sing... That we may rejoice at the first light of dawn and know the multiple territories that simply do abound, each like a vital sign of the One. Yes. Let us sing a world. Let us sing for all the multiple territories that abound. Some which have long been singing and signing to the impressionable humans --- to all those who are the you and me in this flowering We. Yes. Let us sing a world. Simply humming, singing, whistling --- as is your want. Singing with the world in contextual harmony, intersubjectively, graced and gracefully. Singing; singing we; singing you and me; singing out a territory; a corner of the Kosmos.