October 28, 2006

INTEGRAL SPIRITUALITY

Table 1: Human Consciousness B Domains and Structural Stages *

Stages

Domains

of Human

Consciousness

(Quadrants)

Beginning B years

ago

AI@

Self and

Consciousness

AWe@

Culture and

World view

AIt@

Brain and

Organism

AIts@

Social System &

Environment

3,000,000

Symbolic, instinctual (infrared)

Archaic

Sensorimotor

Hominids

Survival clans,

Foraging

11,500

Conceptual,

pre-operational (magenta)

Magic-animistic

Blood lineage

Body identity

Organic states, limbic system, neocortex

Ethnic tribes

Horticultural,

Neolithic society

4,500

Egocentric,

power-driven (red)

Magic-mythic, power gods

Idem

Feudal empires

Agrarian

2,500

Conventional,

ethnocentric (amber)

Mythic-order, rules tradition, roles

Idem

Early nations

400

Rational, formal, world-centric (orange)

Scientific-rational modern, pragmatic

Autonomy

Ego identity

Idem

Corporate states

Pluralistic, multi-cultural (green)

Post-modern, pluralistic

Idem

Value communities

Holistic, low integral, low vision-logic (teal)

Holistic, systemic

Idem

Holistic commons

Integral, global- mind, high vision-logic, higher- mind (turquoise)

Integral

Idem

Integral meshwork

Illuminated mind para-mind (indigo)

Idem

Meta-mind and Over-mind (violet)

Idem

* pp. 22, 67n and 68b. Wilber 1995/2000; summarized in Hall 2005b, p. 44. Previously, Stage 9 was called Apsychic.@ In Stage 10, meta-mind was previously ASubtle,@and over-mind, ACausal.@

STAGES OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND THEIR REALITIES

Some Realities in different World Spaces:

1. Archaic, Instinctual (infrared).

2. Magical, Animistic (magenta): Demons, dragons, wizards, rage, lust, rocks, rivers, trees, curses, voodoo, ancestors, clans, huts, villages, horses, spearheads. The description of tribal consciousness by Clare Graves (1914-1986) is that it:

Ahas a name for every bend in the river but no name for the river.@

3. Egocentric, Power, Magic-mythic (red): Warlords, tribes, five elements (earth, air, wind, fire, ether), anger, envy, power, titans, domination, oppression, slavery, genocide, spirit as gods and goddesses of elemental powers.

4. Mythic, Ethnocentric, Conformist, Traditional (amber): Cathedrals, the righteous man, chivalry, salvation, charity, 2^nd person perspective, spirit as omniscient, an omnipresent, omnipotent Great Other.

5. Rational, Formal, World-centric, Pragmatic, Modern (orange): Atoms, electrons, protons, periodic table of the 100+ elements, skyscrapers, rockets, world-centric compassion, universal moral ideals, television, radio, 3^rd-person perspective, the square root of negative one, airplanes, automobiles, spirit as a Great Designer and/or Ground of Being.

6. Pluralistic, Multi-cultural, Post-modern (green): Pluralistic systems, the Internet and the World Wide Web, 4^th-person perspective, values commons, imaginary numbers, hyper-cars, spirit as deep ecology and human harmony.

7. Holistic, Low integral, Low vision-logic, Systemic (teal).

8. Integral, High Vision-logic, Global-mind, Higher-mind (turquoise): Gaian collective, strings, differential/integral calculus, n^th-dimensional hyperspace, 5^th-person perspective, quantum potential energy sources, spirit as planetary holarchy.

9. Para-mind, Illuminated mind, Trans-global mind (indigo): Luminous clarity and compassion of 6^th-person perspective, trans-planetary social ideals, mega-tribes, truth/goodness/beauty, the self seen in global gestalts, spirit as infinite Light/Love.

10. Meta-mind, Over-mind (violet): Brilliant clarity, infinite love and compassion of 7^th-person perspectives and beyond, including all sentient beings from their perspectives, trans-dimensional social ideals, spirit as radical interiority and infinite holarchy [pp. 251n, 258-259, 263n. Quote in Stage 2, is from Clare Graves (1914-1986), cited p. 250. For Graves, see also pp. 4 and 14 of the present document].

ZONES

Eight Zones: Integral perspectivism takes into account the eight primordial (fundamental) points of view (zones) from which any holon can be studied. Each zone situates the vantage point of the perceiving person. These eight zones are:

1. Four Domains: The Aquadrants@ of all holons.

2. Two possible Views within each Domain:

a. One view from the inside of the holon.

b. One view from the outside of the holon.

The Location of the Perceiver: At minimum, the location (Aaddress@) of a perceiver consists of:

1. His/her Degree of Development: His/her Aaltitude.@

2. The Domain engaged: His/her perspective, the Aquadrant@ from which he/she speaks.

3. The Point of View taken: Within any domain, his/her point of view B either from the inside or the outside the particular domain.

The Injunction: The location of the perceiver is at the same time a set of injunctions which will bring forth (disclose) the phenomena apprehended from his/her perspective (pp. 34-35, 39 and 69. For a further discussion of injunctions, see p. 19 of the present document).

Integral Methodological Pluralism: Integral Methodological Pluralism integrates the eight fundamental methodologies which have a unique vantage point on any holon B in this case, a human holon. These methodologies are:

The Subjective, Singular:

Zone #1: The AI@ from the inside B phenomenology, introspection, meditation, contemplation. (William James, 1842-1910).

Zone #2: The AI@ from the outside B structuralism, genealogy, the study of the patterns which the contents (experiences, phenomena) of the mind follow. These patterns are invisible to introspection, meditation or phenomenology in general. (Sri Aurobindo, 1872-1950; Jean Piaget, 1896-1980; Eric Erikson, 1902-1994; Jean Gebser, 1905-1973; Abraham Maslow, 1908-1970; Clare Graves, 1914-1986; Jane Loevinger, 1918-; James Baldwin, 1924-1987; Lawrence Kohlberg, 1927-1987; Carol Gilligan, 1936-; William Torbert, Robert Kegan; Don Beck and Chris Cowan, 1961-, in Spiral Dynamics; Charles Tart, 1937-, using systems theory).

The Inter-subjective:

Zone #3: The AWe@ from the inside B hermeneutics, mutual understanding.

Zone #4: The AWe@ from the outside B ethno-methodology, cultural anthropology. [Roman Jakobson, 1896-1982; Claude Levi-Strauss, 1908-; the genealogy (archeology) of Michel Foucault, 1926-1984].

The Objective, Singular:

Zone #5: The AIt@ from the inside B autopoiesis, cognitive science.

Zone #6: The AIt@ from the outside B neurophysiology, empiricism.

The Inter-objective:

Zone #7: The AIts@ from the inside B social autopoiesis.

Zone #8: The AIts@ from the outside B systems theory (pp. 35-37, 39, 98, 106 and 130-131, 134, 139-140, 162, 174n and 176. For structuralism, see also pp. 53, 55-57, 72, and 87n. For Spiral Dynamics, see also Wilber 2000; summarized in Hall 2006a, p. 13; and Wilber 2001; summarized in Hall 2006b, pp. 1-4. For Graves, see also pp. 2 and 14 of the present document).

Gaia:

1. Not an Organism: James Lovelock (1919-) suggested that Gaia (a word which he introduced) could be an organism. Integral perspectivism demonstrates that such is not the case. The word Gaia means the network (collective) of prokaryotic cells which circle the planet. Prokaryotic cells are early, primitive, single-celled organisms, contrasted with eukaryotic cells, which are Atrue cells.@ Gaia=s members are related to each other not as parts, links or strands, but by means of holarchical networks of communication:

From Zone #4: From the perspective of Zone #4, Gaia=s members are related by mutually resonating signifieds.

From Zone #8: From the perspective of Zone #8, Gaia=s members are related by holarchies of exchanged material signifiers.

2. Does not contain Life: Gaia not only is not an organism, but it also does not include life. It does not include the biosphere or any of its life forms, such as humans, mammals, reptiles, fish or plants.

In view of the fact that senior holons transcend and include their juniors, the Gaian prokaryotic holons are internal (not external) to all higher life forms. Mammals include Gaia. We are not in Gaia. Rather, Gaia is in us B and killing Gaia is suicidal to humans (pp. 35, 174 and 174n).

Zone Neglect Pathologies: A practitioner of any system which is focused on only one of the eight methodologies, might not be able to spot any dysfunctions in the other seven zones (dimensions) of his/her own being (p. 107).

Buddhism, for example, which specializes in Zone #1 techniques, cannot see narcissism, which is seen only in Zone #2. Authentic meditative states can be used to support pluralism. But because pluralism can support and activate narcissism, the entire meditative corpus of Buddhism can be used to support and prop up not only pluralistic but also narcissistic personality structures. Meditation can reinforce egocentrism (p. 106).

The Horizon Zone: A horizon zone (hori-zone) is the combination of three major perspectives (denoted as p) from which a holon can be seen B the location of the perceiver, the domain engaged, and the zone vantage point:

Meditation (introspection) is a first person=s view (1-p) of a first person=s awareness

(1-p) from the inside of that person (1p).

Spiral Dynamics, as applied to an individual, is a third person=s view (3-p) of a first person=s awareness (1-p) from the inside of that person (1p) (pp. 40-41 and 263. For Spiral Dynamics, see also Wilber 2000; summarized in Hall 2006a, p. 13; and Wilber 2001; summarized in Hall 2006b, pp. 1-4).

Integral Post-metaphysics: Integral Methodological Pluralism leads to a post-metaphysics which dispenses with the necessity of postulating the existence of pre-existing ontological structures, such as the Platonic; archetypal; Patanjali, 300 B.C.E.; or Yogachara (Vijnanavada, 450 C.E.) Buddhist.

Integral post-metaphysics replaces perceptions with perspectives. It re-defines the manifest realm as the realm of perspectives. The manifest realm does not consist of things, events, structures, processes, systems, archetypes, vasanas or dharmas. All of these are perspectives. None can be stated without first assuming a perspective (p. 42).

For example, the notion of Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), and the Buddhist notion that each moment is a momentary, discrete, fleeting subject that apprehends dharmas or momentary occasions, is a generalization of a 3^rd person (3-p) of the view of a 1^st person (1-p) of the reality of this first person (1p). Moments are not subjects prehending objects. The integral view is a perspective prehending a perspective (p. 42)

THE INTER-SUBJECTIVE DOMAIN

The Myth of the Given: The myth of the given [monological consciousness, Athe philosophy of the subject,@ what Jurgen Habermas (1929-) called Athe philosophy of consciousness@] is blind to inter-subjectivity.

Consciousness itself cannot see either Zone #2 or Zone #4, and is, therefore, deficient in and of itself. As Albert Salomon (1891-1966) put it:

AIt is not introspection but history which leads to the understanding of the inner state of mind of individuals@ [p. 176. Salomon (date of quote unknown)].

The characteristics of the myth of the given include:

1. The belief that reality is simply given, that there is a single, pre-given world that consciousness delivers to an individual, more or less as it is.

2. The belief that the consciousness of an individual will deliver truth. This belief is blind to inter-subjectivity.

3. The failure to understand that the truth which a subject delivers is constructed in part by inter-subjective cultural networks.

4. The belief that the mirror of nature (the reflection paradigm) is an adequate methodology (p. 176).

Examples of spiritual approaches which lack the post-modern message of contextualism, inter-subjectivity, constructivism and aperspectivism, include William James, 1842-1910; C.P. Snow, 1905-1980; Thich Nhat Hahn, 1926-; Fritjof Capra; Rupert Sheldrake, 1942-; Daniel Goleman, 1946-; Michael Murphy; and William Arntz et al, Directors of the film (2004), AWhat the Bleep do we know!?@ These authors, working in the subjective singular domain, specifically in its spiritual dimension, have not included in their work either Zone #2 (the objective view of the subjective singular domain) or Zone #4 (the objective view in the inter-subjective domain) (pp. 177-178, 249 and 252-255, 257-258, 260-261, 283 and 288n. For the myth of the given, see also pp. 12, 18 and 23 of the present document).

The Fundamental Nature of Inter-subjectivity: The domain of inter-subjectivity changes both the subject and object. The texture of inter-subjectivity brings forth worlds that can be seen and felt neither as merely subjective (and hence merely relative) nor merely objective (and hence merely universal). Inter-subjectivity is an indelible domain, an inescapable contour of a person=s being-in-the-world at every level of his/her existence. It constitutes one-fourth of the phenomena at any structural stage (level) (pp. 157-158).

Note: For the myth of the given, see also Wilber 1998; summarized in Hall 2006d.

Even Spirit has an interpersonal Face: Our own formless, primordial Spirit manifests itself in the world of Form in three domains. [Three instead of four because Wilber here combines the objective singular (AIt@), and the objective collective (Its@) domains].

All three faces of Spirit are vitally important. All three are dimensions of this very moment. Spirit at all structural stages (levels) appears in its three domains.

The three Faces of Spirit: The three faces of Spirit are simply faces of our deepest formless Self, the three faces of Primordial Self/Spirit as it first manifests.

Spirit in the 1^st Person: Spirit in the first person, Spirit in its subjective-singular domain, is the great Witness in us, the I-I of this and every moment, the Witness in which the universe arises. (Jesus of Nazareth, 1-36 C.E.; Hussein al-Hallaj, 857-922; Giordano Bruno, 1548-1600).

Spirit in the 2^nd Person: Spirit in the second person, Spirit in its inter-subjective domain, is the all-giving God before whom one must surrender in love and devotion and sacrifice and release. This inter-subjective face of Spirit (Zone #4) cannot be seen with introspection, contemplation, feelings or meditation. As is the case with Zone #2 which cannot be seen from Zone #1, Zone #4 of Spirit cannot be seen from Zone #3 (looking within). Its full significance and structure can only be grasped from a distance and over time.

Spirit in the 3^rd Person: Spirit in the third person, in its objective and inter-objective domain, is the Great AIt,@ the Great Web of Life, the Is-ness, the Thus-ness, the very Such-ness of this and every moment. It is the Great Holarchy of Being, of inter-connected planes and levels and spheres and orders, stretching from dust to Deity, from dirt to Divinity. It is the manifestation of Spirit in its material, objective mode (pp. 159-162 and 175. For the three faces of Spirit, see also p. 11 of the present document).

The Inter-collective is not an Organism: Societies are not organisms. The AWe@ is not a ASuper-I.@ The AWe@ is not another AI.@ Social holons are not made of organisms in the same way that organisms are made of cells. Rather, social holons are composed of individual holons plus their interactions.

Societies differ from individual holons in that they have:

1. No Dominant Monad: Societies (social holons, collectives) do not have a single, higher entity that directly controls and dominates all group members in 100 percent fashion B what Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) called a Adominant monad,@ an organizing or governing capacity which all of sub-components follow. Only individual organisms, such as dogs, have a dominant monad.

Where individual holons have a dominant monad, social holons have a dominant mode of discourse B a predominant mode of mutual resonance. There is a shared communication, a resonance among members of the group which allows the members to coordinate tightly but never fully control, their behavior.

2. No invariant Structural Stages: Social holons do not go through invariant (relatively fixed, mandatory) structural stages. They can change composition, and then their dominant mode of resonance (center of gravity) changes without, like individual holons, going through invariant structural stages.

There are phases and cycles in the development of collectives, but these are very loose and generic, and usually apply to horizontal development. Furthermore, they apply equally to egocentric (red), mythic (amber), rational (orange) and pluralistic (green) societies. They are horizontal phases, not vertical stages of development.

Once a society (or rather the dominant mode of discourse in that society) has developed to a particular level, then groups in that society do not have to repeat those stages, such as individuals have to B each newborn starting from the archaic stage of development.

3. An Absence of Domains: Individual holons have four domains, and their social dimension unfolds in stages correlative with their other three domains. Societal holons do not necessarily unfold in structural stages (pp. 145, 149-153 and 173).

PHENOMENOLOGICAL WORLDS AND KOSMIC HABITS

Phenomenological Worlds: Different phenomenological worlds B real worlds B come into being with each new level of consciousness development. Systems theory, for example, which comes into existence around high vision-logic/ the global mind (turquoise), cannot be seen by the rational/formal (orange) or lower levels of consciousness. The signifier Aglobally mutually interacting systems@ does not appear real until high vision-logic. It is only at that point that the signifier calls up the correct signified, and that the actual referent is then seen and understood (p. 168).

The world of Anaive empiricism@ lying around out there waiting to be seen does not exist. Naive empiricism itself does not exist until the rational/formal (orange) level of consciousness. Different worlds are brought forth by the structures of consciousness doing the perceiving and the co-creating. The referents of all signifiers exist only at certain developmental stages and states (p. 168).

The Great Chain of Being: The traditional Great Chain (Holarchy) of Being and Knowing is usually given as variations of the levels Amatter, body, mind, soul and spirit.@ The levels encompass both being (ontology) and knowing (epistemology), and are said to be eternally or timelessly given (Apre-given@), existing in a merely objective (ontological) fashion.

For example, the levels are conceptualized as Platonic archetypes, a collective memory, a Hegelian AIdea@ (Georg Hegel, 1770-1831), or a Husserlian Aeidos@ (Edmund Husserl, 1859-1938). The Chain represents the best way philosophers and sages could interpret their experience (reality), in their attempts to account for God, the soul, mystical one-ness, and a material world which seemed to be an illusion compared to the reality of an unio mystica.

According to Arthur Lovejoy (1873-1962), the Great Chain:

Ahas, in one form or another, been the dominant official philosophy of the larger part of civilized mankind through most of its history, taught in their several fashions and with differing degrees of rigor and thoroughness [by] the greater number of the subtler speculative minds and of the great religious teachers [both East and West] (pp. 232-233. Smith 1976, p. 4; summarized in Hall 2004).

Note: For the Great Chain of Being, see also Lakoff and Turner 1989; summarized in Hall 2005a. And Smith 1976/1992; summarized in Hall 2004.

The Great Chain modernized: The integral approach suggests the following modifications to the traditional Great Chain:

1. Matter: AMatter@ is not the lowest rung in the great spectrum of existence. It is the exterior form of every rung in the great spectrum. Matter is not Alower@ and consciousness Ahigher,@ but rather matter and consciousness are the exterior and interior of every occasion (pp. 213, 219-220 and 261).

2. Cultural and Social Networks: Every individual is nestled in systems of cultural and social networks which have a profound influence on their knowing and being. By focusing on the cultural (interior) aspects of an individual=s being-in-the-world, post-modernism has revealed that much of what any society takes to be Agiven,@ Atrue,@ and Aabsolute,@ is in fact culturally molded, conditioned and often relative.

The four domains (quadrants) of integral studies represent four inseparable dimensions of the being-in-the-world of any individual. Their fundamental nature is confirmed by the fact that every major natural language contains these domains as 1^st person (AI@), 2^nd person (AYou@/AWe@), and 3^rd person (AIt,@ AIts@) pronouns (pp. 223-224. See also the three faces of Spirit, p. 8 of the present document).

3. The Nature of Energy: The increasing complexity of gross form is the vehicle of manifestation for both greater consciousness and subtler energies.

The existence of subtle energies is presented as a hypothesis. Whether or not they turn out to be valid, subtle energies can be fully situated in the objective individual domain of a holon by means of three hypotheses:

a. Evolution increases the Complexity of Gross Form: In the exterior individual domain (as in all domains), evolution increases complexity via processes such as differentiation and integration.

b. This increasing Complexity of Form is correlated with both:

i. An increasing Interior Consciousness. The objective and subjective individual domains are correlated. This is what Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) called the Alaw of complexity and consciousness.@

ii. An increasing Subtlety of Energies. This, like form, is in the exterior individual domain. The increasing complexity of material forms is accompanied by increasingly subtle corresponding (signature) energy patterns (pp. 227-229. For complexity of Form, see also p. 20 of the present document).

A Modern/Post-modern Conception of Structural Stages: Modernity and post-modernity require that structural stages (levels of reality), such as described in the Great Chain of Being, be modified.

Structural stages should be conceptualized as:

1. In part constructed by the knowing Subject B that is, structures (levels) of human consciousness.

2. Grounded in objective Evidence B specifically having inter-subjective grounding, and not be either merely assertions (myths, tradition), or culture-transcending claims (the myth of the given).

3. Collective Forms which have developed in Time B that is, to have developed in evolution, in history, not asserted to be a-temporal forms existing in their entirety outside of history, outside of time, and existing even though some of their parts are not yet realized (awakened to) (pp. 233-234. For the myth of the given, see also pp. 7, 18 and 23 of the present document).

Kosmic Habits: All three of the above demands of modernity and post-modernity are met by interpreting the levels of the Great Chain as a set of Kosmic habits, Kosmic memories B in the terminology of Charles Peirce (1839-1914), Anatural habits@ rather than natural laws.

Each level first emerged when certain highly evolved individuals began to make responses from a higher level of consciousness B responses involving more consciousness, more awareness, more complexity than the norm at the time. At first, such responses took a relatively open and creative form, but as an increasing number of individuals shared them, and the new response consistently occurred, the new structure began to be laid down as a Kosmic habit, over time becoming Afixed.@ Henceforth, every newborn would be expected to develop to the new level.

Each level Atetra-evolved@ B that is, was laid down and evolved by means of factors in all four domains of human holons. Each became a habit of humanity, available to all future humans but independent of any one particular human born, and, therefore, not reducible to psychology.

Thus, all that is required to account for the creation of ever-higher levels of consciousness, is an autopoietic, dissipative-structure tendency in the universe B AEros@ (as an involutionary given, as one form of Spirit-in-action), what Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) called Aa creative advance into novelty, what others have called a Acreative allure@ (pp. 236n, 238-240, 241n, 246, 248, 272 and 286-287).

Around 550 B.C.E., the combination of a new rational, formal, world-centric stage (orange) and access to the causal state, initiated the worldwide explosion of growth in consciousness which we know today as the great Axial Age. This stage would really flower during what we know at the Western Enlightenment (pp. 245-246).

LINES OF DEVELOPMENT

Lines of Development: Types of intelligence develop in a relatively independent fashion from one another, each having its own sequential levels (structures). So far, there is no indication of an upper limit in development. These lines include:

Cognitive B Awareness of what is. This line is necessary but not sufficient for the growth of the other lines. One theory proposes that since this is so, the actual gradient (the vertical or y-axis) is the cognitive line.

Ken Wilber=s theory is that the gradient is consciousness per se. The Adegree of consciousness@ is the altitude of the line. The more consciousness, the higher the altitude B from sub-conscious, to self-conscious, to super-conscious. In this view, all the developmental lines move through the same altitude gradient, and that gradient is consciousness. The greater the degree of consciousness within a line, the Ahigher@ (the more developed) the line is. Consciousness is not anything itself, it is the degree of openness (emptiness), the clearing in which the phenomena of the various lines appear. It is not itself a phenomenon. It is the space in which phenomena arise. The lines also move through their own specific stages which cannot be reduced to one another. (Jean Piaget, 1896-1980; Robert Kegan).

Developmentalists view cognition as the capacity to take perspectives. They define cognitive development as an increase in the number of others with whom one can identify, an increase in the number of perspectives one can take.

Moral B Awareness of what should be. (Lawrence Kohlberg, 1927-1987).

Emotional (affective) B The full spectrum of emotions. (Daniel Goleman, 1946-).

Interpersonal B How the person relates socially to others. (Robert Selman, William Perry).

Needs B AWhat do I need?@ (The needs hierarchy of Abraham Maslow, 1908-1970).

Self-identity B AWho am I?@ (The ego development of Jane Loevinger, 1918-).

Aesthetic B Self-expression, beauty, art, felt meaning. (Abigail Housen).

Psychosexual B The entire spectrum of Eros B gross to subtle to causal.

Spiritual B Considering Aspirit@ as not only Ground, and not only the highest stage of any line, but as its own line of unfolding. (James Fowler III).

Values B What a person considers most important. (The work of Clare Graves, 1914-1986, popularized by Don Beck and Chris Cowan, 1961-, in Spiral Dynamics).

Kinesthetic B How should I physically do this? (Howard Gardner, 1943-) (pp. 23-24, 58-61, 64-65, 68-69, 72 and 113. For the spiritual line, see also pp. 69-70. For Spiral Dynamics, see also Wilber 2000; summarized in Hall 2006a, p. 13. And Wilber 2001; summarized in Hall 2006b, pp. 1-4. For Graves, see also pp. 2 and 4 of the present document).

STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS

States: States are directly available to awareness. The Vedanta Hindu school of philosophy gives five major natural states of consciousness B waking, dreaming, deep sleep, Witnessing (turiya), and Non-dual (turiyatita). The altered (non-ordinary) states include exogenous states (drug-induced) and endogenous states (trained states, such as meditative states). Heightened states, both ordinary and non-ordinary, are often called peak experiences (pp. 72-74 and 213).

Natural states and most altered states do not show development. Most states of consciousness are mutually exclusive. Some states can be trained, using attention development, and then they do unfold in a sequential fashion, following the natural order from gross to subtle to causal to non-dual states. These are called Astate stages@ to differentiate them from Astructural stages@) (pp. 75-76).

The Ken Wilber-Allan Combs Lattice: As peak experiences, all state stages are available at any structural stage. However, the experience will be interpreted according to the structural stage of a person=s development. Note that the structural stages beyond vision-logic (the centaur), have characteristics similar to those of the formless and non-dual states (pp. 90-91).

Table 2: Structural stages and State Stages^(a)

Structural

Stages

State Stages

which are

available

(Mysticism)

Archaic

Gross

(nature)

Subtle

(deity)

Causal (formless)

Non-dual

(non-dual)

Magic

Gross

(nature)

Subtle

(deity)

Causal (formless)

Non-dual

(non-dual)

Mythic

Gross

(nature)

Subtle

(deity)

Causal (formless)

Non-dual

(non-dual)

Rational

Gross

(nature)

Subtle

(deity)

Causal (formless)

Non-dual

(non-dual)

Pluralistic

Gross

(nature)

Subtle

(deity)

Causal (formless)

Non-dual

(non-dual)

Integral

Gross

(nature)

Subtle

(deity)

Causal (formless)

Non-dual

(non-dual)

Super-integral

Gross

(nature)

Subtle

(deity)

Causal (formless)

Non-dual

(non-dual)

^(a) pp. 5, 67n, 68c, and 90 and 93. The five stages used by Jean Gebser (1905-1973) were archaic, magic, mythic, rational and integral. Pluralistic and super-integral are Wilber=s additions.

Integral Philosophy: The integral approach takes into consideration the following aspects of any holon:

* All domains (the four perspectives B the AI,@ AWe,@ AIt,@ AIts@ of any holon B the four Aquadrants@).

* All stages (levels) of development within the four domains.

* All lines of development within these stages.

* All states of consciousness B the three normal states (waking, dreaming and deep sleep).

* All types of holons B the two types (male and female).

This is the Aall quadrants, all lines@ approach, abbreviated as AQAL (p. 18. For AQAl, see also p. 23 of the present document).

Figure 1, page 26 of the present document, illustrates stages of consciousness and major developmental lines.

Note::

For the domains, stages and lines of consciousness:

C See the previous work of Wilber:

Focussing on the collective level, Wilber 1995/2000; summarized in Hall 2005b.

Focussing on the individual level, Wilber 2000; summarized in Hall 2006a.

C See also Hall 2006e.

For the expression of stages of development in art, see Stokstad 2005; summarized according to levels of consciousness in Hall 2006c.

PEAK EXPERIENCES

Types of Peak Experiences: An ultimate peak experience in any realm is to be one with the phenomena in that realm. To experience one-ness with all phenomena arising in the:

* Gross-waking state is nature mysticism.

* Subtle-dream state is a deity mysticism.

* Causal-unmanifest state is formless mysticism. (Here, it is a lack of phenomena). * Gross, subtle, and causal states is non-dual mysticism.

The Interpretation of Peak Experiences: There is not, as William James (1842-1910) said, a Avariety@ of religious, meditative, or spiritual experiences which are provided to the subjective singular seen from the inside (1-p, 1-p, 1p, or Zone #1). There is a Avariety of interpreted@ such experiences. These experiences are always already set in contextuality and interpretation. The sequence of interpretative capacities is revealed by the subjective singular seen from the outside (3-p, 1-p, 1p, or Zone #2). A meditative experience per se does not exist. There is only a meditative experience plus the interpretation given to it by the person.

Examples of Interpretation of Peak Experiences:

Magic: At the magic structural stage, a subtle-state experience might be interpreted as an experience of Jesus as a personal savior who can miraculously alter the world in order to satisfy one=s own every desire and whim. Jesus is a Magician, turning water into wine, multiplying loaves and fishes, and walking on water.

Mythic: At the mythic structural stage, the same kind of subtle-state experience might be interpreted as a communion with Jesus the Eternal Truth-bringer. This stage is absolutistic in its beliefs, so you will either believe the Word exactly as written, or you will burn in hell forever. This stage is also ethnocentric, so that only those who believe in Jesus Christ as their personal savior can be saved.

Mental-rational: At this stage, Jesus Christ becomes a humanized figure, still fully divine and fully human, but now fully human in a more believable way B as a teacher of the universal love of a deistic God (who nevertheless knows where to draw the line). This stage is the beginning of the post-conventional, world-centric stage, and allows for the possibility that some can find salvation through Jesus Christ but that others might find equal salvation through a different path.

Pluralistic: A person at this stage interprets his/her experience through the lens of a relativistic, individualistic value system (green). Such persons are the authors of post-modern bibles.

Integral: The Integral Stage of Jean Gebser (1905-1973) is the opening to at least four higher structural stages of development, all of which insist on integrating the experience of Christ-consciousness with other expressions of the Holy Spirit around the world (pp. 68b and 68c, 92-93, 112 and 191).

THE CO-CREATION OF REALITY

Perspectives, not Perceptions: All real objects are first and foremost perspectives B not Aare seen from perspectives,@ but Aare perspectives.@ Objects come into being (are enacted, are con-structed, co-emerge) only at various developmental levels of complexity and consciousness. Whether they exist in some other way cannot be known. However, to assume that they do exist entirely independently of a knowing mind, is to subscribe to the myth of the given and the representational paradigm. It is metaphysical thinking, which egocentrically assumes a perspective-free universe, and which flounders when faced with evidence presented by modernity and post-modernity (pp. 252, 258, 260 and 271. For the myth of the given, see also pp. 7, 12 and 23 of the present document).

There is no Aapart from@ how a thing appears. There is simply how it appears, and how it appears, is always already as a particular perspective. This is true when the referent of a signifier is material, emotional, mental or spiritual (p. 252).

We cannot postulate a single, pre-given, a-historical world that is Asimply there@ and to which representational methods give various degrees of access. If we claim that our epistemologies are basically representational maps (mirrors of nature), then just as we today invalidate what was taken as knowledge 1000 years ago, so tomorrow, our descendants will invalidate our knowledge of today. Nobody ever has any truth, just various degrees of truth (or falsehood) (p. 249).

Examples:

1. Holarchical Planetary Systems: Complex, multi-dimensional holarchies, such as ecosystems, exist only in the world-space of the integral, high vision-logic, global-mind, higher-mind (turquoise), or higher. They Aexist@ (ex-ist, stand out, are known, are disclosed, are tetra-enacted) only in this world-space.

The Perceiver: The perceiver of an ecosystem is located in high vision-logic (turquoise), engaging the inter-objective domain (quadrant), from a 3^rd person perspective (zone) (3-p) (pp. 249-251, 260 and 266).

The Perceived: The perceived ecosystem is located in high vision-logic (turquoise), in the inter-objective domain (quadrant) (p. 255).

2. Atoms: Atoms are disclosed (exist) beginning around the rational/formal (orange) to the integral (turquoise) structural stage (world-space) (p. 252).

3. Santa Claus: The perceiver of Santa Claus is located in the magical, animistic (magenta) word-space. Santa Claus can be seen (cognized) by subjects at that level B provided, of course, as always, that their inter-subjective experiences have loaded their background with the necessary surface structures (p. 260).

The Meaning is the Injunction: The discussion of AZones@ (p. 3 of the present document) revealed that injunctions bring forth (disclose) the phenomena which are apprehended through each of the eight perspectives from which a holon can be seen.

Similarly, the Kosmic location of a speaker (perceiver) who makes a positive assertion about the existence of an entity, contains within itself the injunctions (paradigms, exemplars, enactions) which another person must perform in order to have the same location as the speaker and hence having a chance to perceive the referent.

The fact that the location of a statement is also the injunction by which it can either be verified or disproved, is true for any assertic (ontic, positive) statement in any domain of a holon, whether that holon is spiritual, cultural or scientific.

This means, for instance, that in spiritual thought, in order for a statement to have any referential (actual) meaning, any assertic statement about Spirit must be replaceable with an injunction as to how to verify that statement. Part of any reality is the means of its enactment. Any language other than injunctive is metaphysics.

The meaning of a statement is also the means of its enactment. Positive realities cannot be asserted without also specifying the injunctions which will enact the world-space wherein they are stated to exist (ex-ist). Levels of reality are actually levels of consciousness (pp. 258, 267-269, 269n, 271 and 273. For a discussion of injunctions, see also p. 3 of the present document).

It is in this way that integral post-metaphysics replaces metaphysics with critical philosophy, ontology with world-space, and epistemology with injunctions (p. 273).

SPIRITUAL REALITIES

Spiritual Realities re-defined:

Enlightenment: Integralism defines Enlightenment on a sliding scale. This must be so to account for:

1. The Evolution of Consciousness: Consciousness evolves, as manifested by the increasing span of awareness with each structural stage.

Enlightenment is the realization of one-ness with:

a. All stages (AVertical Enlightenment@).

b. All states (AHorizontal Enlightenment) up to their highest limits then in existence B that is, all states which have evolved thus far, which are in existence at the time in history when the person seeks Enlightenment (pp. 115, 141, 241, 244, 246 and 248).

2. The Evolution of Form: Form evolves, as manifested by its increasing complexity over time.

For all Enlightened persons:

a. Emptiness (the Timeless, Un-born, Un-manifest, Un-dying, Godhead, Dharmakaya) is the same, no matter the time in history. It is neither created nor co-created.

b. Form becomes increasingly full with historical time. Persons living later in history experience a fuller version of form.

At any given time in history, including at present, Enlightenment must include those levels in the Kosmos (Kosmic habits) which are at the time being laid down.

As the world of Form evolves, Enlightenment means to have evolved and developed up the highest levels then in existence.

Since the objective singular and the subjective singular domains are correlated, the greater the exterior complexity of material form, the greater the interior consciousness which can be enacted within the form (pp. 17-18, 112n, 227-228, 242-243 and 248. For a discussion of increasing complexity of form, see p. 11 of the present document).

AGod,@ AEmptiness,@ Anirvikalpa samadhi@: Only from the stage or state from which the signifier is spoken, can one ascertain the Arealness@ of the signified B and hence see the actual referent. The virtually unanimous conclusion of those who bring awareness to, for example, the causal state, is that the signifier AEmptiness@ has a real referent. The conclusion of those whose awareness is stable at the non-dual state, is that the signifier AGodhead@ has a real referent. In other words, if one wants to know if something is real, one must get in the same state or stage from which the assertion was issued, and then look for oneself (pp. 168-169).

Different Gods at different Stages: Many spiritual realities, for instance a patriarchal Jehovah, exist at some of the lower levels (stages) of consciousness (of being and knowing), and hence are called into question by those at higher levels. Spiritual realities, however, are aspects of every level B those at the higher levels embracing a greater span (and, therefore, being more Areal@) than those at lower levels. The Aproof@ God=s existence does not come up as an issue. There are only levels of God. A AGround@ (ultimate reality) can be magic, mythic, rational or pluralistic, and within each of these structural stage, it can be seen as a version of the state stages of gross, subtle, causal and non-dual (pp. 265-266).

Spiritual signifiers, just like any other signifier, have their referents only in a structure and state of consciousness.

THE WORLD TODAY

The World: Of the present world population:

* 60 percent (between 50 and 70 percent) are at the ethnocentric (amber) or lower levels of development (that is, ethnocentric or lower in any of the lines of development).

* 40 percent are stable at the world-centric, post-conventional levels of development.

The Modern West: The modern West is generally at the rational/formal level (orange). In Western culture today, the following approximate percentages prevail. Of the population,

* 36 percent are at the conformist, ethnocentric, mythic, traditional (amber) level of consciousness development.

* 65 percent are at the world-centric, post-conventional levels of development.

C 45 percent at the post-conventional, rational, formal, world-centric, scientific, pragmatic (orange) level.

C 18 percent at the pluralistic, relativistic, individualistic, multi-cultural, post-modern (green) level B a level acquired by a significant percentage of the population during the 1960's.

C 2 percent at the integral, high vision-logic, global-mind, higher-mind (turquoise) level [pp. 183 and 245-246. I have proportionally adjusted Wilber=s percentages so that they add up to 100. The three levels below the conformist (the archaic, instinctual (infrared), the magical, animistic (magenta), and the egocentric, power-driven (red) are not mentioned, and neither is the holistic, low vision-logic (teal ) which is between the pluralistic (green) and the integral, high vision-logic (turquoise) levels].

Structural Stage Clashes: In the world at present, people at the ethnocentric level (amber) or lower, who are at best conventional, conformist, and with a role-based identity, clash particularly with those who have developed to the modern rational/formal(orange), and to some degree with those who have developed to the post-modern pluralistic, relativistic, individualistic (green) levels B both of these levels being post-conventional, world-centric, and with an identity which is person-based. The vertical-level clash is the single greatest source of friction in the interior domains now present in the world (pp. 179-180 and 245).

East and West: Non-dual consciousness is the union of Emptiness and Form.

The East:

Emptiness: The East focuses on Absolute Subjectivity, Consciousness as such B or more accurately pure Emptiness (the paper on which the four domains of holons can be drawn).

Form: The East, however, is caught in the myth of the given, and the Aphilosophy of the subject.@

The West:

Emptiness: The West tends to deny Absolute Subjectivity.

Form: The West focuses on Form, but the world of Form it conceptualizes is not comprehensive.

To be adequate, the framework should include the four domains of any holon, and within each, all stages of development, all lines of development, all states of consciousness, and the two types of holons (AQAL) (p. 288n. For the myth of the given, see also pp. 7, 12 and 18 of the present document. For AQAL, see also p. 16 of the present document).

REFERENCES

Unless specified otherwise, all page numbers refer to:

Wilber, Ken. 2006. Integral spirituality B a startling new role for religion in the modern and post-modern world. Boston, MA: Shambhala/Integral Books.

Specified references are:

Hall, Francoise,

2004. AOn Being B Isomorphisms between Science and Tradition.@ September 4 (20 pages, unpublished).

2005a. AThe Great Chain of Being.@ February 13 (6 pages, unpublished).

2005b. AA Transpersonal View of War B War as a Substitute for Cosmo-centrism and Immortality during the Egoic Stage in the Development of Consciousness.@ November 5 (103 pages, unpublished).

2006a. AIntegral Psychology.@ January 22 (16 pages unpublished).

2006b. AAn Integral Vision.@ March 12 (21 pages, unpublished).

2006c. AThe History of Western Art B A pictorial Representation of the Evolution of Consciousness.@ March 25 (103 pages, unpublished).

2006d. AThe Integration of World Cultures.@ May 31 (26 pages, unpublished).

2006e. AThe Dimensions of Consciousness B Levels and Domains (with a Focus on War). June 17 (47 pages, unpublished).

Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989. More than cool reason B a field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago.

Summarized in Hall, Francoise, 2005a. AThe Great Chain of Being.@ February 13 (6 pages, unpublished).

Salomon, Albert (1891-1966), quoted by Donald Nielsen, 1992. ASalomon=s Ark B Experience, History, and the Life of the Mind.@ Paper presented at the Albert Salomon Memorial Conference, Graduate Faculty, New School for Social Research, New York, N.Y., December 4. Printed in the International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 1993, Vol. 6, No. 4, June, pp. 573-583.

http://www.springerlink.com/index/Q466385683658G07.pdf. Posted May 20, 2005. Accessed November 3, 2006.

Smith, Huston. 1976/1992. Forgotten truth B the common vision of the world=s religions. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins/HarperSan Francisco.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2004. AOn Being B Isomorphisms between Science and Tradition.@ September 4 (20 pages, unpublished).

Stokstad, Marilyn. 2005. Art history. 2^nd Edition, Revised. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education.

Summarized in Hall, Francoise, 2006c. AThe History of Western Art B A pictorial Representation of the Evolution of Consciousness.@ March 25 (103 pages, unpublished).

Wilber, Ken.

1995/2000. Sex, ecology, spirituality B the spirit of evolution. 2^nd Edition, Revised. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Summarized in Francoise Hall 2005b, AA Transpersonal View of War B War as a Substitute for Cosmo-centrism and Immortality during the Egoic Stage in the Development of Consciousness.@ November 5 (103 pages, unpublished).

1998. The marriage of sense and soul B integrating science and religion. New York, N.Y.: Random House/Broadway Books.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2006d. AThe Integration of World Cultures.@ May 31 (26 pages, unpublished).

2000. Integral psychology B consciousness, spirit, psychology, therapy. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2006a. AIntegral Psychology.@ January 22 (16 pages unpublished).

2001. A theory of everything B an integral vision for business, politics, science and spirituality. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2006b. AAn Integral Vision.@ March 12 (21 pages, unpublished).

***