In the qualitative binary approach that I have introduced on this Forum, dualistic and nondualistic understanding (rational and intuitive understanding) are both sides of the same coin. Thus we cannot meaningfully have one without the other.
Einstein’s famous formula E=MC2 demonstrates that matter and energy (in physical terms) are interchangeable.
It is very similar in spiritual term. Spiritual energy (as pure radiance) is interchangeable with psychic matter (as phenomenal experience). Indeed the true task of life is the unleashing of the enormous power inherent in all phenomena. As dynamic interaction in experience accelerates (phenomenal) symbols greatly lose their rigidity to become increasingly transparent and reflectors of a pure spiritual light. (We cannot generate this psychic energy without corresponding psychic material).
Eastern mysticism in general is weak when it comes to adequately describing this most comprehensive stage of human development.
By concentrating on the intuitive nondual reality it fails to adequately reflect the equally important dualistic aspect.
Now I refer to this final life stage as the radial level. It is not really a level as such but rather represents the successful integration and differentiation of all previous levels. Until it is reached however it will appear as a level.
Perhaps it would best be referred to as "radial reality". In terms of my holistic mathematical approach, horizontal, vertical and diagonal polarities are represented by lines that are literally radii of a circle (corresponding to the eight roots of unity).
These lines go out (in positive and negative directions) and return to the centre.
Now we have eight radii in all. What is fascinating is that four of these (representing horizontal and vertical polarities) are lines of unit length. The other four (representing the diagonal lines) are of zero length. (Once more we have the binary system at work).
What is even more fascinating is that the diagonal lines can be given an alternative dualistic interpretation (as lines with equal real and imaginary co-ordinates). This then provides the basis for the (separate) horizontal and vertical polarities.
So in dynamic terms, reality – at its most advanced state – must be seen in terms of both integration and differentiation. Opposite poles come together to be intuitively integrated in (diagonal) nondual fashion. They then separate once more and are rationally differentiated (in both horizontal and vertical fashion). So the essence of reality here is not so much its nondual aspect but rather the ceaseless interaction of both dual and nondual aspects.
Concentrating on the nondual aspect is like concentrating on the flames of a coal fire (without the coal).
Without replenishing this material the flames will subside and the energy generated from the fire lost. Likewise when one concentrates on the nondual aspect of reality (without corresponding emphasis on dualistic activity), spiritual experience loses its dynamic quality and becomes limp and lifeless.
This is why I personally find the Eastern approach very deficient at this point. Even when it concedes the reality of the world of forms it does not – in contrast to the Western approach – sufficiently emphasise this aspect.
So if we look at the complete spiritual journey we can identify three major journeys or life stages.
The first journey (J1) – representing conventional development – is outwards towards mature rational understanding. (In terms of my approach this spans all levels from LL3 to L0).
This represents (rational) linear specialisation where opposite poles of experience are differentiated (1).
The second journey (J2) - representing esoteric spiritual development - is the inward journey towards mature intuitive understanding. (In my approach this spans the levels from L0 to HL3).
This represents (intuitive) circular specialisation where opposite poles are integrated (0).
The final and most truly centred journey (J3) involves the dynamic balance of both aspects in the marriage of contemplation with activity.
This represents both (bi-directional) linear and circular understanding in ceaseless interaction (1 and 0).
So it is only at this stage that the qualitative binary system reaches its fullest expression.
The scientific paradigm (West) is based on the specialised dualistic understanding of J1 (1).
The mystical-spiritual paradigm (East) is based on the specialised nondual understanding of J2 (0).
The most comprehensive paradigm is based on the dynamic (qualitative) binary understanding of J3 (1 and 0). Once again this marries both dualistic and nondual understanding.
From one perspective, J3 is the most dualistic of the (life) stages. Because of a refined non-possessive form of attachment to phenomena one can now freely engage in worldly activity.
From another - equally valid - perspective, J3 is the most nondual of the stages. Because of mature detachment from (separate) phenomena one permanently experiences reality in holistic intuitive terms.
Both aspects necessarily are of equal importance.
As I have stated J3 is well exemplified by the spiritual heroes (and heroines) of Western spirituality.
Once the goal of self-transformation has been reached, the spiritual vision dramatically changes with a renewed desire to serve the wider needs of humanity.
So the end of one important journey in life serves as the beginning of another.
Mother Teresa of Calcutta - who died recently - illustrates this point very well. Though obviously gifted with a strong spiritual disposition, till her initial vocation she developed in the normal conventional manner (J1).
Her entry to a convent symbolises the start of the second journey (J2).
Then as a nun, Mother Teresa lived for many years a relatively protected life teaching in a middle-class school.
This provided the appropriate background for intense development in her spiritual life.
Then in her early 40's she received - what she herself described as a - vocation within a vocation to serve the poorest in society.
This undoubtedly signalled the completion of J2 and the entry on the final comprehensive journey (J3).
Thus she spent half of her chronological life from this perspective of J3.
Though - like any human being - she is not above criticism, the authenticity of her spiritual faith and total commitment to the poorest of the poor have served as a shining example to countless numbers of people.
Clearly - during this time, Mother Teresa experienced nondual reality. However equally she was involved in a very practical way in her life work setting up her missionary centres world-wide. This required considerable human and administrative skills and a capacity for detail (representing dualistic understanding).
So again radial reality involves both dual and nondual aspects and - most importantly - the dynamic interaction of both aspects.
Nondual reality as a term properly only applies to HL3 which precedes radial reality.
I also have deep reservations regarding the conventional linear approach to stages of development (especially when these incorporate spiritual transformation). Besides being very misleading from a dynamic point of view, it inevitably fosters an elitist attitude.
My own approach therefore is deliberately designed to be more dynamic showing a balance as between linear and circular aspects.
Thus referring to the main levels in linear terms, development starts at LL3 (Lower Level 3 of sensori-physical development) and proceeds through the "lower" levels to L0 (the rational linear level).
It then continues from L0 through the "higher" levels to HL3 (Higher Level 3 of nondual reality).
However radial reality - which represents both the full differentiation of each stage (separtely) and integration of all stages (combined) cannot be described in this approach in terms of a distinct level or stage.
From a circular perspective each level is defined in terms of horizontal, vertical and diagonal polarities respectively.
From the horizontal perspective we can view each level in terms of "real" external (objective) and internal (subjective) aspects of experience which are positive and negative with respect to each other. The external aspect is emphasised in Western culture; by contrast the internal aspect is emphasised in the Eastern mystical tradition.
From the vertical perspective we can view each level in "imaginary" qualitative terms (in contrast to the "real" quantitative aspects). From this perspective each "lower" level is complementary with its corresponding "higher" level.
The quantitative aspect forms the basis of the conventional scientific approach.
The qualitative aspect - by contrast - is highlighted in the Eastern spiritual tradition (and in Ken Wilber's holarchical approach).
Finally from the diagonal level we can view each level in "infinite" potential and "finite" actual terms. Maintaining appropriate balance requires equal attention to both horizontal and vertical aspects.
Again - especially in formal accounts - the transcendent "infinite" dimension is emphasised over the "finite" immanent.
The key aspect in my treatment of radial reality is the linear differentiation and circular integration of all levels.
Thus in "real" horizontal terms - apart from L0, all levels have positive and negative polarities.
Thus if one is at a given level say HL3, this can be represented as +3 and -3 (allowing for the relativity of both poles in linear terms).
In dynamic terms these two directions literally cancel out leaving 0 (nondual reality). This is intuitive realisation of the eternal present.
Again in "imaginary" vertical terms from a qualitative holistic perspective, all levels apart from L0 - have positive and negative polarities.
Thus if one again is at Level 3 this will have positive and negative polarities
(HL3 and LL3). This can be represented in linear terms as +3i and -3i.
In dynamic terms these again literally cancel out leaving 0 (nondual reality).
This is intuitive realisation of the immediate present.
Finally all levels in "complex" diagonal terms - apart from L0 - have positive and negative polarities (combining horizontal and vertical directions).
Again if one is at Level 3, this will have positive and negative (complex) polarities.
These could be represented in linear terms as (+3+3i) and (-3-3i), or alternatively (+3-3i) and (-3+3i).
In dynamic terms these again literally cancel out leaving 0 (nondual reality).
This is intuitive realisation of both the eternal and immediate present.
The essence of radial reality is the successful differentiation of all levels of the spectrum (in bi-directional dualistic fashion) with progressive integration of these levels (in circular nondual fashion).
Hierarchical rankings of spiritual progress in terms of advancement to "higher" levels only have meaning before radial reality (and then only in a qualified sense).
However such rankings cease to have meaning with the full development of radial reality. Thus if tempted to believe that one has reached the "highest" spiritual level HL3, then one quickly becomes aware of the full extent of fallen human nature (LL3) because in dynamic terms these are vertically complementary. Thus in the Christian tradition the greatest saints have invariably regarded themselves as the greatest sinners (i.e. capable but for the grace of God of the greatest evil).
So the correct psychological attitude requires that "advanced" spiritual favours be accepted with the deepest humility.
Because one necessarily uses all levels to some degree in understanding in a certain sense everyone is already operating in terms of radial reality.
What varies greatly however is the extent of this realisation.
Conventional human development rarely goes beyond the first life stage or journey (i.e. J1). Thus understanding tends to peak with L0 (the rational linear level).
Now access to all other levels remains open to a limited extent. However the very dynamics of development in reaching L0 means that such access will be greatly restricted.
At the very earliest level of LL3 (sensoriphysical), no differentiation has yet taken place. Ironically this means that the infant remains integrated - in confused manner - with all levels at this time.
Advancing to newer levels means an increase in linear differentiation. However this leads gradually to dissociation from other levels in the spectrum.
Thus when the infant reaches LL2 (phantasmic-emotional) by differentiating the diagonal polarity (separating phenomenal reality from the void), confused integration with LL3 and HL3 is cut off (though still remaining with all other levels).
The infant then reaches LL1 (rep-mind) by differentiating the vertical polarity (placing "quantitative" objects in "qualitative" dimensions). Confused integration with both LL2 and HL2 (in addition to LL1 and HL1) is now reduced.
Finally the child reaches L0 (conop, formop, vision logic) by differentiating the remaining horizontal polarity (separating "inner" self from "outer" objects). Confused integration with both LL1 and HL1 (in addition to all other "lower" and "higher" levels) now largely ceases.
So a considerable price is paid in terms of the differentiation of rational consciousness. Access to all other levels of the spectrum is greatly reduced. (The fact that this does not happen entirely is due to the fact that complete specialisation never actually takes place).
However it is remarkable - especially in the scientific world - how the understanding of L0 (the rational linear paradigm) dominates all other levels. This leads to a great deal of reductionism.
One of my own chief concerns is to demonstrate the true nature of scientific understanding associated with each of the other levels.
Now with the differentiation of "higher" level structures the reverse process of reintegration (this time in a mature fashion) takes place.
Thus the differentiation of the structures of HL1 (the subtle realm) leads to a bi-directional linear understanding of the horizontal polarities. This in turn paves the way for (horizontal) integration - in mature fashion - of HL1 and LL1.
The differentiation of the structures of HL2 (the causal realm) leads to a bi-directional linear understanding of the vertical polarities. This in turn paves the way for additional (vertical) integration - in mature fashion - of HL2 and LL2.
Finally the differentiation of structures of HL3 (nondual reality) leads to a bi-directional understanding of diagonal polarities. Again this paves the way for additional (diagonal) integration - in mature fashion - of HL3 and LL3. The total fusion of opposites (in horizontal, vertical and diagonal fashion) is the intuitive spiritual realisation of nondual reality.
So the very process of differentiation of "higher" levels (in bi-directional terms), paves the way for corresponding integration of these levels with all other levels.
Radial reality brings all levels together in increasingly dynamic fashion.
This allows for the unary differentiation of L0. It also allows for the bi-directional (linear) differentiation of all other levels (in horizontal, vertical and diagonal terms) with their corresponding (circular) integration.
Ultimately the failure to fully realise radial reality is due to confused understanding. In my own interpretation of the situation, this reflects the dominance of the unary approach (which fundamentally misrepresents the true dynamic nature of reality).
We badly need to move over to the far richer binary approach (which enhances the very process of transformation).
However correctly understood the nature of the binary approach requires an appreciation of "mirror" understanding
I hope to return to the very important topic of "mirror" psychological development in future weeks.
PS. There are a number of topics now that I hope to return to in future weeks.
I have not finished my special considerations of the pre/trans fallacy.
I wish also to demonstrate some exciting connections as between physics and transpersonal psychology.
Finally I intend to return to "mirror" understanding.
I think that a typical "Easterner" would say that you misunderstand non-dualistic understanding, which is (he/she would argue) on a completely transcendent hierarchical level relative to dualistic understanding.
...Eastern mysticism in general is weak when it comes to adequately describing this most comprehensive stage of human development.
This may be because Eastern mysticism does not see what you describe as the most comprehensive stage of human development. Would you agree? Either way, how does one become certain that X stage is the most comprehensive one? Or do we just take certain things as axiomatic?
Regards,
Bogdan
Thank you for your relevant comments.
When I say that dualistic and nondualistic understanding are both sides of the same coin, I mean that they are complementary.
Of course I recognise that the two types of understanding are entirely different in a qualitative sense. However it is still important to realise that they are complementary and essential to each other.
In other words the very dynamics of understanding require that we can only integrate what has been first differentiated. Dualistic understanding must necessarily precede nondual understanding.
However equally the dynamics of understanding require that we can only differentiate what has been - in some sense - integrated. Thus nondual understanding is the correct basis for dualistic understanding.
To maintain other than the above position is to come down in favour of one side of a polarity (which is unbalanced).
Certainly in the Western culture, there is too much emphasis on dualistic understanding through differentiation of experience (and not enough on corresponding integration).
However equally - though it is a big generalisation - in Eastern spirituality, there is over-emphasis on the goal of nondual understanding, through the integration of experience,(and not enough on corresponding differentiation).
Again I know that I am simplifying the situation greatly but Western culture largely concemtrates on the (analytical) differentiation of reality (duality). Eastern spirituality emphasises by contrast the (holistic) integration of reality (nonduality).
What I refer to as the most comprehensive stage is based on the dynamic interaction of both these worldviews i.e (analytical) differentiation and (holistic) integration(dual and nondual).
As it includes - but yet goes beyond the other two more restricted paradigms - I believe it is fair to refer to it as a more comprehensive stage.
You are of course right. My conclusions are based on my basic premise which is the ultimate equality of opposite poles of experience.
I see this balance repeatedly broken in Eastern spirituality. Hence my criticism!
Regards,
Peter
I have considerable misgivings regarding the use of the term "nondual reality" as a description of the final comprehensive stage of mystical development.
Spiritual energy (as pure radiance) is interchangeable with psychic matter (as phenomenal experience). As dynamic interaction in experience accelerates (phenomenal) symbols greatly lose their rigidity to become increasingly transparent and reflectors of a pure spiritual light. (We cannot generate this psychic energy without corresponding psychic material).
Eastern mysticism in general is weak when it comes to adequately describing this most comprehensive stage of human development.
What varies greatly however is the extent of this realisation.
I hope to return to the very important topic of "mirror" psychological development in future weeks and connections as between physics and transpersonal psychology.
-- Exciting stuff. I would like to think that the figure 8, which 00 on its side, symbolizing infinity, fits in here. Nothing/Everything. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all? Lets be fair to one another, because truth be known, we are only talking to the mirror. Peter, Great work. Keep it up. Conrad, Ken W., Laurence, Izzy, (All). Keep the juices flowing. Its all fantastic...
Juriel,
I greatly welcome your contribution and believe that your difficulties reflect - as so often is the case - a differing perspective.
However I do feel that I have to defend myself against what I believe is an unfair criticism.
My stated purpose on this Forum is to introduce "Holistic Mathematics" which I believe has immense potential as atrue scientific basis for integrated studies.
As with conventional mathematics the approach is necessarily abstract. However as others do yet appreciate the value of a fully-fledged qualitative approach to Mathematics, I think it is perfectly valid for me to concentrate on this area. For example my critique of Ken Wilber's work is based consistently on a qualitative interpretation of the binary system.
Actually my approach is based intimately on personal experience and this I believe is it's very strength. More than ideas, I am trying to communicate total conviction through all my contributions.
It takes a high degree of understanding of concrete experience before one can abstract universally valid principles.
My existential account of the spiritual journey is outlined in "Transforming Voyage". The mathematical structure flowed naturally from this experience. This is why I am so confident of its value.
In my opinion the correct approach is one of dynamic balance as between all polarities giving an essentially centrovert approach. There is far too little emphasis - in my opinion - on the active dimension in Eastern spirituality.
Juriel, thanks again for your interesting contribution.
In conclusion I thought you might appreciate a more personalised account of the "radial level" from "Transforming Voyage"
I searched for you constantly
But love always eluded
Continually appearing
In false disguises
Turning away from the world
To escape all illusion
I journeyed in darkness
Alone at night
Then weary and dispirited
Every feeling dead
With no hope of finding you
In grief I slept
When at last dawn broke
There was a faint movement
In the depths of my soul
And you had been sleeping
Quietly at rest there
In a most secret place
And now awakening
You poured through me
With sweet inspiration
And exquisite tenderness
Swelling my heart
With joy and love
And you showed me a world
Newly created
Everywhere filled
With a sensuous presence
The sky, the mountains
The forests, the lakes
Tapestries of richest colour
Sounds of sweetest music
So many glorious shades
Of light and beauty
Reality wonderfully reborn
In your radiant image
Now all things
Were clearly illumined
In a mysterious fire
Strangely visible
And matter like
Insubstantial shells dissolved
Transformed through love
Growing brightly in the flames
And when my heart
Uniting with your's
Softly melted
All creation was consumed
In eternal ecstasy
As the flames subsided
A great calm descended
Enfolding a night
So peaceful and serene
And having unveiled
Your great mysteries
You were now once more
Within me
Hidden yet present
Absorbed into my soul
There you fondly embraced me
In closest intimacy
And in the silence
Of the night
Nature gently stood still
Softly caressing the darkness
Now captivated by love
Peter,
First and foremost, I wanted to let you know that I think your quest and ideas are great. I am no match for you on your own playing field. My points are just brought up as questions/difficulties. From my perspective, they are meant to refine your theory, not dismantle it.
From my perspective, this whole forum is an attempt to language our common nature, as best we can. All threads are open, yet only few are able or choose to interact with the various parties. I find myself unique in that I am at least willing to engage anyone who is "engaged". So, I will continue to engage you as far as I am able.
Actually my approach is based intimately on personal experience and this I believe is it's very strength. More than ideas,I am trying to communicate total conviction through all my contributions.
-- Is it possible that your theory is "True", but only for you and not all? Is it possible that your theory is true and false at the same time? I should think that it is and can be both, at the same time.
It takes a high degree of understanding of concrete experience before one can abstract universally valid principles.
Juriel,
I appreciate what you are trying to do in terms of engaging others on the Forum.
Indeed, I found the thread "Swords" that you initiated on the Forum earlier in the month to be fascinating.
Everyone has to choose how to participate in the Forum. I took the view early on that my best contribution would be to stick to Holistic Mathematics. I believe that it is valuable in its own right as a scientific basis for consciousness and integrated studies (which of course are directly associated with Ken Wilber).
Also I have been using it to critique some of Ken's well known notions (e.g. the pre/trans fallacy and his four quadrants proposal).
Though I do follow other threads with interest I do not as a rule participate in them. This is partly due to time constraints and also because I think it best to concentrate on my central purpose. However I greatly welcome the different role Juriel, that you have chosen.
You raise an interesting point about the truth of my "theory". All theories are of necessity limited (including my own). However when viewed from the appropriate perspective they still can have great value. Obviously mathematics is highly important in conventional terms. However it cannot substitute for other forms of valid experience. It is not for example of great help if I want to appreciate Shakespeare.
I would say the same applies at the holistic level of spiritual experience. I see that the qualitative mathematical approach - that I am introducing - has immense potential in terms of providing a coherent structure for holistic relationships. Of course it cannot substitute for other valid approaches e.g. direct experience, affective appreciation etc. However I get the strong impression that people do not yet recognise the full significance of what I am saying. If a qualitative mathematical approach is adopted it has the capacity to revolutionise integrated studies. So I see my task as that of winning over participants to its value.
In regard to what you refer as the "crux of the issue" i.e. the old matter of the one and the many, I still disagree with your position (where you want to come down in favour of one side of a polarity). It is true that the multiple forms (of manifest reality) depend on the (formless) source. However equally the (formless) source depends on the multiple forms. We cannot say that one pole is more important than the other.
However I do agree with you that Eastern spirituality tends to emphasise the (formless) source as primary. I think it is unbalanced in this regard and it explains why comparatively little emphasis is placed there on the value of the active mystical life.
The spiritual "stars" that I most admire are those who are both deeply contemplative (in touch with the formless source) and also extensively involved in worldly affairs (in touch with multiple forms). For me this represents life at its fullest.
Juriel, you have an attractive engaging style and are right to challenge me on what are indeed important points. For my part l have enjoyed trying to answer the challenge.
Regards,
Peter
Peter,
I understand most of what you have said. So I will give it a rest. I really am no mathematician. My realm is the inner world. The psychology of it all.
It is possible that we are saying the same thing but do not have an "interface" that allows for a sense of reciprocity. I wonder if you have ever explored the i-ching. It would seem to be an interesting place to explore, since it essentially uses a primitive mathematical system to identify states of "change". The metaphysical is somehow made manifest in the process. Is it random or is it a mirror of what is and what is to come?
regards.
Juriel
I have enjoyed the exchange and been touched by the honesty and enthusiasm of your communication.
I can see that you ideas mainly as a catalyst for dialogue. For you meaning essentially lies within this interaction.
Again I want to say how much I enjoyed the "Swords" thread. It started out as a somewhat unpromising adventure. Then happily you were joined by a couple of fellow travellers (Izzi and Jonathan) leading to some marvellous explorations of meaning.
No, I do not think we are far apart. Perhaps I am now seeing a part of myself reflected through your own approach. We both see meaning as lying in the process of life itself.
I was moved to write a brief poem "Words" this afternoon. I hope you like it. (As it was inspired by our dialogue it is as much yours as mine!)
We search truth with words
Oblique mirrors of light
Reflecting outwards and inwards,
Transforming yet reducing
Consoling sometimes hurting
Great landscapes of meaning
Elusive to decipher;
Sometimes alone without words
In darkness and silence
Now mystery is revealed
A new light full shining
Then slowly concealed;
Once again we need words
To search for fresh landscapes
We must dance with these mirrors
Yes, dance or soon die
Regards,
Peter