This essay presents a brief summary of the great chain of being, as historically conceived and as it is reappearing in modern evolutionary and system theories. It particularly addresses the misconception that the notion of "hierarchy" is abstract and linear and reiterates Arthur Koestler's point that "hierarchy," which is a holistic concept of fields within fields, really ought to be called "holoarchy." The implications for psychology of the great holoarchy of being are briefly addressed, and the comprehensive nature of the great chain is related to various modern schools of psychology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ken Wilber (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: