Each emergent holon transcends but includes its predecessor(s). Each newly emergent holon, as we have seen, includes its preceding holons and then adds its own new and defining pattern or form or wholeness (its new canon or code or morphic field). In other words, it preserves the previous holons themselves but negates their separateness or isolatedness

In other words it preserves their being but negates their partiality or exclusiveness. To supersede," said Hegel, "is at once to preserve and to negate"

Another way to express this is: all of the lower is in the higher, but not all of the higher is in the lower. For example, hydrogen atoms are in a water molecule, but the water molecule is not in the atoms (we might say the molecule "pervades" or "permeates" the atoms but is not actually in them just as all of a word is in a sentence but not all of the sentence is in a word.

" Sex and Ecology P.51

The statement Ken makes here "all of the lower is in the higher, but not all of the higher is in the lower" is not strictly speaking true.

When Ken says that "hydrogen atoms are in a water molecule" he is using the reductionist approach of conventional science (where the quantitative part aspect of holons is solely recognised). The unique qualitative aspect of each hydrogen atom is not contained in this quantitative definition.

Now if we look on the water molecule in its true qualitative (whole) aspect, then the quantitative (part) aspect of the atom holons is not included.

The important thing to remember is that in dynamic terms we can only include by equally excluding. Again if the quantitative aspect of the hydrogen atoms is included in the water molecule, then the qualitative aspect is thereby excluded; if the qualitative aspect is included then the quantitative aspect is excluded.

Exactly the same reasoning applies when we look at the relationship of the "higher" to the "lower". This time we can only exclude by equally including.

Thus the quantitative appreciation of the atoms depends here on the qualitative appreciation of the water molecule (we differentiate "lower" reality from the perspective of a "higher" whole); the qualitative existence of the hydrogen atoms lkewise depends on the quantitative appreciation of the molecule.

Thus the correct dynamic relationship of "lower" to "higher" holons (and "higher" to "lower") is one of radical symmetry.

Ken gives an asymmetrical interpretation of evolution that is one-way i.e. where the movement is from "lower" to "higher" holons;

Here the (collective) holistic aspect is favoured above the unique parts; "all of the lower is in the higher, but not all of the higher is in the lower". This is the transcendent view of creation.

However we can - and should - equally take the reverse asymmetrical interpretation where the movement is from "higher" to "lower" holons (though the "higher" are now seen as "lower" and the "lower" as "higher").

Here the unique (partial) aspect is favoured above the (collective) whole; "all of the higher is in the lower, but not all of the lower is in the higher". This to coin a word is the prescendent view of creation; more commonly it is understood as the immanent view.

Blake's famous line says it all: "To see a whole world in a grain of sand" (Note that all of the "higher" is here seen in the "lower". The "lower" is not however all in the "higher" because the uniqueness of the grain of sand would then be lost).

Wilber's bias in his holarchical approach is towards transcendence; he thereby misses the equally important immanent approach (what might be called "partarchy").

Of course both holarchy and partarchy should be seen in the context of an ever present central moment (where evolution begins and ends).

So again movement in dynamic vertical terms is always two-ways and relative. In dynamic mathematical terms this is expressed simply as the relationship between "positive" (higher) and "negative" (lower).

The movement from "lower" to "higher" equally involves the corresponding direction from "higher" to "lower". Thus the very process which enables us to integrate the "higher" level whole (through inclusion) is equally the process which enables us to differentiate the "lower" level parts (through exclusion).

So we do not move in one-direction only (from "lower" level to "higher" level); we equally move from "higher" level to "lower" level. ("Higher" and " lower" are of course themselves relative terms).

Thus expressed in one–way static terms we can say:

Every emerging holon transcends and includes its predecessor; (individual parts are transcended in a new collective whole);

Every emerging holon prescends and excludes its successor; (individual parts are only identified through separation from the collective whole).

We now additionally have a dynamic two-way relationship as between quantitative and qualitative aspects of holons. In holistic mathematical terms this is the relationship as between "real" (quantitative) and "imaginary" qualitative aspects. (This leads to a remarkable correspondence as between the "complex" number system in mathematics and the true underlying nature of reality which is equally "complex").

Again the very process which involves movement from quantitative to qualitative equally involves the corresponding movement from qualitative to quantitative. Thus again we do not move in one direction only from quantitative to qualitative; we equally move from qualitative to quantitative; and both of these movements are themselves complementary.

So when we combine the quantitative (real) and qualitative (imaginary) aspects with the "higher" (positive) and "lower" (negative) aspects and correctly reduce this dynamic interaction - in static terms – we get four equally valid statements.

Every emerging holon transcends and includes its predecessor in qualitative terms; (the "quantitative" parts of predecessor are transcended in the new qualitative whole of successor).

Every emerging holon prescends and excludes its successor in quantitative terms; (the "quantitative" parts of predecessor are made immanent through separation from "qualitative" whole of successor).

Every emerging holon transcends and includes its predecessor in quantitative terms; (the "qualitative" parts of predecessor are transcended in the new quantitative whole of successor).

Every emerging holon prescends and excludes its successor in qualitative terms; (the "qualitative" parts of predecessor are made immanent through separation from "quantitative" parts).

The qualitative nature of a holon refers (directly) to its unique (sensible) identity; the quantitative identity refers (directly) to its common (rational) identity.

In correct dynamic terms evolution is perfectly symmetric. This means that in intuitive terms the present moment alone exists. In rational terms this must be expressed symmetrically as the balancing of polar opposites (in all directions).

Now Ken treats evolution strictly in asymmetrical fashion. (as the movement from "lower" to "higher" holons which is a one-directional static approach.

Now this is only partially true (even in static terms). It is equally valid to treat evolution as the asymmetric movement from "higher" to "lower" holons in one-directional terms.

Thus Ken’s holarchical approach is very one-sided and highly questionable.

This leads to an unfortunate persistent bias in his thinking. For Ken spiritual development is portrayed as the movement through progressively "higher" psychological stages (trans).

He fails to emphasise that it equally involves immanent movement through "lower" physical stages (pre).

Thus understood from a correct spiritual perspective (in what I refer to as Holoscience) the understanding of physics is as much transpersonal (and prepersonal) as psychology. The mystery of creation is mirrored equally through both the lowest physical and highest psychological holons; indeed they mutually reflect each other.

I have identified before what I consider the fundamental weakness in Ken Wilber’s approach.

Ken excels in the sophisticated use of the (linear) one – directional reason which exemplifies the centauric vision logic stage. However he mistakenly associates this as an integrated form of understanding. More correctly it is a flexible multi-differentiated approach (which Ken demonstrates to the nth. degree). However on close examination it reveals major inconsistencies.

Now Ken has a tendency to almost bully the critical fallacy of his readers into submission through the sheer scope of his knowledge and the constant citing of "experts" to support his views.

However there are major structural flaws in his work all revealing the same basic problem.

Personally I consider that vision logic - which is the most advanced expression of the rational (differentiated) approach - is unsuited to the task of holistic integration of reality. By its nature it cannot get to grips with the inherently dynamic nature of relationships and in the end misrepresents the very nature of such relationships.

Holistic Mathematics was specifically designed to deal in a precise scientific manner with dynamic movement. Ken never satisfactorily reconciles reason (the direct mode of differentiation) and intuition (the direct mode of integration). This as I have demonstrated - and hope to continue to demonstrate - requires the use of a more subtle bi-directional form of reason that is inherently dynamic. This incorporates mirror understanding as an essential component.

The very essence of this understanding is the realisation that a sequence of connections that seems to be moving in one direction is - in dynamic terms – also moving in the opposite direction. This ultimately leads to the intuitive realisation that in dynamic terms no movement at all takes place.

Thus if an (exterior) object is positive in direction with respect to the (interior) observer then the (interior) observer is – in relative terms – negative in direction with respect to the (exterior) object. Thus a dynamic holistic appreciation of the event involves (rationally) both positive and negative directions. Intuitively it involves realisation of the present moment (through successful fusion of these opposites).

This bi-directional understanding is the essential bridge as between rational and intuitive understanding. However use of this two-way movement (horizontally, vertically and diagonally) is greatly lacking in Ken’s work.

This is well exemplified by his treatment of the pre/trans fallacy.

For Ken movement here takes place unambiguously in one directional linear terms i.e. from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal.

But in dynamic terms movement is bi-directional. So movement must equally be take place from transpersonal to personal to prepersonal. (I have gone into these issues in detail in my posts on the pre/trans fallacy). Prepersonal and transpersonal are relative terms which necessarily imply each other.

So "trans" necessarily – in dynamic terms – implies "pre".

Transcendence through inclusion in a "higher" whole implies prescendence (i.e. immanence) through exclusion in "lower" parts. In other words the dynamic process that enables us to integrate "higher" wholes is the same process that enables us to differentiate "lower" parts. (It is wrong therefore to assume that "lower" holons are somehow pre-given).

Emergence in creation continually takes place at both "higher" and "lower" levels. The 20th century discovery of the quark is a good example of this "lower" level emergence. It would be wrong to suggest that quarks pre-existed in nature before this century (as the very notion intimately depends on 20th century mental constructs).

Again ever holon transcends (and includes) its predecessor;

Equally every holon prescends (is made immanent)and excludes its successor.

We can only identify in understanding the "higher" whole aspect (of a holon) with reference to its "lower" part aspects; equally however we can only identify the "lower" part aspects (of a holon) with respect to the "higher" whole aspect. To take any other position is reductionist.

And indeed "higher" and lower" are themselves relative. It is conventional to identify "higher" with the whole aspect and "lower" with the part aspects; however the reverse is equally valid.

So we could say that we can identify the "lower" whole aspect (of a holon) with reference to its "higher" parts; equally however we can identify "higher" part aspects (of a holon) with reference to its "lower" whole aspect;

To conclude the mistake that Ken Wilber makes is in starting with "lower" level holons and moving in a one-way "higher" holarchical direction.

Thus the emphasis is continually on evolution as transcendence and inclusion (in "higher" level terms). However in correct dynamic terms both the "lower" level and "higher" level aspects arise simultaneously (as relative expressions of the present moment).

So the very process which involves transcendence and inclusion (through transformation to new "higher" levels) is the same process that involves prescendence (immanence) and exclusion (through transformation to new "lower" levels e.g. quarks and superstrings).

In dynamic terms evolution moves in both directions simultaneously the intuitive realisation of which is the the present moment.

In reduced rational terms we can render evolution asymmetrically in two directions;

(a) in terms of holarchy: the progressive movement from "lower" level to "higher" level holons.

(b) In terms of partarchy: the reverse regressive movement from "higher" level to "lower" level holons (which is seen as progressive becuase "higher" and "lower" terms are now switched).

The very experience of nondual reality greatly depends on keeping these two approaches in balance.

Hey Peter,

Hope you are doing well! Your posts continue to simply amaze me, I consider myself somewhat familiar with transpersonal and integral studies, and find very little out there that compares with the work you are doing. Please keep up your great endeavor, it is very much needed today.

I do have a few questions, though, but realize very well that I still can not quite get my arm’s around even half of all that you're saying, so forgive me if you’ve already gone over some of this.

Q: What would be the mirror psychological understanding of the scientific idea of the big bang, maybe something like the dawn of self consciousness’?

Q: Since Wilber’s development graphically begins at the big bang, starting with ground unconsciousness (encompassing all deep structures existing as potentials ready to emerge, via remembrance at some future point) and arising through differentiation to causal and ultimate realms, do you believe that this pattern of change can equate with your patterns between self and world, moving from LL3 to HL3. That is, what I’m trying to get at is the starting point, or the ending point, relatively speaking, and am trying to determine if you feel your idea of immanent world is the same as Wilber’s idea of ground consciousness? I assumed this before, but now am not too sure.

Q: Continuing the same line of thinking above, if you view the Ground of Wilber as the same as your World, then where does the idea of emergent unconscious fit in - - those deep structures which have not yet emerged, those deep structures (relative to the Self) which are unconscious, but not repressed. If I follow you correctly, then it seems that what is deep relative to the Self, would be surface relative to the World, and what is surface relative to the Self would be deep relative to the World. But does this make sense, I think I’m missing something here?

Basically, if we apply bi-directional evolution, then it seems that if consciousness emerges, from the perspective of the Self, then it submerges from the perspective of the World, and of course vice versa. This I think Wilber would completely disagree with, hence his one directional schema, but in order to agree with you, Peter, then it seems we must say that emergent unconsciousness are those deep structures that are BOTH UNCONSCIOUS AND REPRESSED. Again, something Wilber would disagree would as well, it would defeat his pre/trans. arguments. Not sure if this is still a question, but would like to hear what you think.

Q: In terms of mirror understanding, you discussed the psychological counterpart to Einstein’s finding. Do you think it would be correct to equate energy and matter with emergent and submergent structures (both deep and surface), relative of course in either physical or psychological terms?

Just a few thoughts for now, take care - -

phil.

Another question just came to mind, Peter:

Q: In terms of bi-directional evolution and mirror understanding, specifically your ideas and Einstein’s regarding the equivalency of matter and energy, does it not follow that when we are alive relative to the Self, we are dead relative to the World, and when we are dead relative to the Self, we are alive relative to the World?

Regards,

phil.

Sorry, thought of another question, hope I’m not causing an overload:

Q: You stated it would be wrong to suggest that quarks pre-existed in nature before this century, since "the notion intimately depends on 20th century mental constructs." This is difficult to grasp, I believe you are establishing self-development along the lines of modern idealism, that is, a Hegelian variation of some type which progresses through increasingly more complex "notions", continuing as a dialectical process, toward the Absolute, until consciousness achieves knowledge of itself. Now I realize this would only be true from the perspective of the Self, and would equally be regressive from the viewpoint of the World, but what I’m a little confused about is the evolution of the idea toward the Absolute Self.

Are you saying that prior to the idea of a quark, it simply had never appeared, meaning it was precended and excluded, that is, immanently a part of the world; and, now, due to the quark becoming a mental construct, an idea or notion, this "thing in itself" has now become transcended and included within the Absolute, Conscious, Self, yet simultaneously lost from the embrace of the Immanent, Conscious, World? Are you saying, then, that nothing exists except ideas; and, more, do you draw a distinction between that which exists and that which is real?

Thanks Peter,

phil.

Phil,

I hope you find some food for thought in these responses to your excellent questions..

You ask about the Big Bang. Now I must say that I have some difficulties with the current conventional status of the Big Bang. Admittedly, there appears to be substantial evidence to support it, but scientific knowledge is always provisional and I would not be surprised to see interpretations change somewhat in the next few decades. What I dislike most is the rather linear interpretation of reality it implies with a definite starting point in time to the universe. (From a dynamic perspective the universe must be conceived in terms of micro-macro interaction of dynamic polarities). Cosmic identity is the simple realisation that one is the universe (inseparable from all that is). So correctly speaking the universe always begins and ends in the present moment. The Big Bang therefore in the deepest sense is still present with only a relative meaning in time. In terms of conventional science I favour the notion of death and rebirth leading to a more cyclical interpretation of the universe involving continual expansion and contraction. The Big Bang would then represent the decisive turning point in our latest expansionary phase.

Now in attempting to answer your question, I would start with the fundamental ground state (which is also the goal state). This is the pure undifferentiated void representing the potential for all manifest existence. The Big Bang can be seen as a secondary phenomenal expression of this void.

I believe that the value of my own approach is in providing a satisfactory mathematical interpretation for this pure void state which I define in terms of just three dynamic symmetries. These are based on a holistic geometrical interpretation of the eight roots of unity. This involves a circle of unit radius with lines (radii) drawn from centre (in both directions) horizontally ("real" axis), vertically ("imaginary" axis) and diagonally ("complex" axes) at equal distance from horizontal and vertical.

This ground state can be represented as the total confusion of these symmetries (where they are fully complementary but undifferentiated) and has no phenomenal meaning. In physical language space-time is totally curved. The horizontal "real" axis represents matter, the vertical "imaginary" axis dimensions and the diagonal "complex" axis the fundamental forces. (In this holistic mathematical interpretation the physical forces are simply expressed as the interaction in the four quadrants of matter and dimensions). In this ground state the forces do not (actually) exist because no separation (of polarities) along the diagonal line has yet taken place. Dimensions likewise do not exist because separation has yet taken place (along the vertical line). Finally matter does not exist because separation has not taken place (along the horizontal line).

Now all this has a mirror psychological interpretation as the fundamental ground (of psychological existence).

Again we have here totally confused complementarity in horizontal, vertical and diagonal terms. As no separation of polarities has taken place, psychological space-time is completely curved.

The spiritual forces (i.e. the four principle modes of spirit) along the diagonal line are as yet totally confused. These could be expressed as outer transcendence (world), inner transcendence (self), outer immanence (world), inner immanence (self). (Outer and inner transcendence mirror the gravity and strong forces; outer and inner immanence mirror the electromagnetic and weak forces respectively).

There is likewise total confusion in relation to the vertical line. The psychological experience of dimensions (rooted in conceptual ability) has not taken place; finally total confusion in relation to the horizontal direction exists with material phenomena not yet appearing in experience.

The beauty of this mathematical translation is that we can express both the physical and psychological void precisely in terms of three mathematical symmetries (that have a dynamic complementary interpretation).

This dynamic symmetry (though hidden) underlies all subsequent phenomenal expressions of reality.

The Big Bang is customarily associated with initial separation along the diagonal line, firstly with the gravity force. This unleashes enormous amounts of energy which becomes converted extremely quickly into primitive matter particles. Thus the diagonal polarities (actual and potential) begin to separate. In holistic mathematical terms these are finite and transfinite respectively.

The world of (actual) form now begins to separate from its (potential) fundamental ground.

A complementary pattern takes place in relation to psychological development,

with separation initially along the diagonal line. Again this is associated with the unleashing of spiritual energy which again extremely quickly is reduced in terms of the first glimmerings of psychological phenomena. The spirit cannot be properly accommodated, as immanence (emerging Earth) and transcendence (emerging Heaven) are confused with each other. This pattern commences in the womb and continues through early infancy.

So I would see all this earliest psychological behaviour as representing the extreme confusion of "pre" and "trans". The infant tries to grasp eternity through directly confusing "pre" (immanent matter) with "trans" (final spirit). Indeed I would see this dialectic between "pre" (physical source) and "trans" (spiritual goal) as the essential dynamic of earliest infant behaviour.

A similar relationship exists in the physical world as between energy and the most primitive life forms. Again this dialectic as between "pre" (energy) and "trans" (matter) is the very dynamic of physical evolution.

The earliest physical "structures" could be described as superstrings. Now in holistic mathematical terms, the simplest way of representing transformation processes is in terms of the qualitative binary system (1 and 0). Superstrings are really a more static representation of this binary system. We have open strings and closed strings (1 and 0) that can interact in various ways. The vibration of the strings leads to the generation of the fundamental forces and particles. In holistic mathematical terms, forces and particles are formed through the interaction of these qualitative binary digits (which is very similar). Now the main difference is that I would not give any distinct phenomenal interpretation to these digits whereas in Superstring Theory they are so described (misleadingly in my opinion!)

Now once again there has to be a mirror psychological interpretation to strings. Thus earliest phenomenal activity can be seen as the primitive interaction of actual phenomena and potential reality the differing vibrations of which generate the earliest primitive phenomena.

I have been able to use this model to provide an explanation for the dimensional problem in Superstring Theory.

Clearly in earliest experience the objects and dimensions have no separate meaning. Such experience represents a confusion of dimensions and matter phenomena. So the four dimensions have not yet separated. So the way to understand "dimensions" here is in terms of different configurations of the four confused states. If we take all possible permutations (or arrangements), we get 24 configurations. When we add in two for the original purely symmetric states (1 and 0) we come up with 26. Now one of the earliest string theories is only consistent in 26 dimensions.

These dimensions are a great mystery in science. I believe the answer is very simple. These dimensions at this level simply represent differing configurations of the – as yet confused – four dimensions. Each configuration represents a distinct "dimension".

Now the mirror connection with psychology is that these "dimensions" also represent confused configurations of the four dimensions. Again we have 24 (with two additional representing 26). Now what is fascinating is that each of these represents a distinct personality type.

I realised some time ago that the well known Myers-Briggs Type Indicator could be extended to 24 personality types. So each personality type can be viewed as representing a unique way of experiencing space and time. Clearly one’s basic personality type is laid down at this very early stage (in the womb) corresponding to superstring activity.

Interestingly the more generalised theory of superstrings is only considetnt in 10 dimensions. This corresponds to the more generalised version of personality types (as mirrored in Jung’s original approach).

The most recent version of superstrings is now arguing for 11 dimensions (9 + 2). This could be equated directly with the Enneagram personality structure (which again can be seen as different psychological configurations of space and time). So there - are undeniably in my mind - important links as between the dimensional world of Superstrings and Personality Types (both of which represent differing configurations of the 4 dimensions).

Indeed I suggest that the most fruitful way of organising "Particle Types" would be in terms of the exact same structure for personalities.

Of course to finish up on the Big Bang, we can only interpret it properly when opposite polarities, horizontal, vertical and diagonal have been properly fused and integrated.

Again the holistic mathematical structure of the fully differentiated void (nondual reality) will be the same as the ground state i.e. three fundamental symmetries (with complementary physical and psychological interpretations). These "high" fused (i.e. integrated) structures are then used to interpret "low" confused structures. Only now can the meaning implicit in the undifferentiated void be made fully explicit.

What I refer to as radial reality would then represent the full emergence of the Big Bang - this time in refined spiritual light. The correct dynamic way therefore of interpreting the Big Bang is as something always present (with a relative interpretation in time)

Before leaving this topic I wish to emphasise the implications of this mirror approach.

It means that the earliest psychological structures represent direct understanding (in confused fashion) of the corresponding nature of physical reality. Thus the earliest level of life represent confused identification with the physical Big Bang (LL3 in my terminology). The next level (LL2) represents confused identification with the world of superstrings. The final lower level (LL1) represents confused identification with the world of quantum mechanics and relativity. Each structure in psychological terms has by definition a correspondent in physical reality.

L0 represents identification with the physical world (as it appears through the lens of rational science).

The "higher" psychological levels represent the integrated identification with corresponding "lower" physical levels. The understanding to deal with the paradoxes of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and Relativity is formed at HL1. The understanding to deal with the superstring level of LL2 comes with HL2. The understanding to deal with the Big Bang and ultimately the fundamental void comes with HL3.

So just as we have many different levels in terms of psychological understanding, equally we have corresponding different levels in terms of physical nature.

Clearly there are many people throughout history who have reached the "highest" levels of understanding. However the intellectual translation of such understanding - directly suited to science - has not been attempted.

I believe that this will become an important issue in the 21^st century.

(I had written a post on "Time and the Big Bang". I considered it too abstract at the time for posting.

However following your question I will probably post it anyway).

Your second question is also very interesting.

No, I do not think my fundamental ground is the same as Ken's.

I would see it in more circular terms as both the fundamental ground-goal. (It is appropriate to refer to this as the fundamental ground provided one realises that it includes the other pole).

I believe that there is a consistent problem with Ken's approach that comes from trying to treat evolution in one-directional fashion. So Ken - and I am necessarily simplifying here - starts with the fundamental ground of existence (which he identifies as pre) and then moves towards the final goal (which he identifies as trans). This then creates a problem in terms of nondual reality so "trans" now suddenly also becomes "pre". In other words the transcendent view of evolution is equally an immanent one. Unfortunately he does not show us how this happens.

We have the opposite problem at the beginning of Ken's process. Again Ken realises that spirit is spirit without polarities (i.e. trans is equally pre). However this presents him with a difficulty in defining early development solely in terms of "pre". So somehow he has to get trans off the stage quickly. Thus he uses his Bardo interpretation (from The Tibetan Book of the Dead) - somewhat unconvincingly in my opinion - to do this.

So there is a double problem in Ken's approach. He does not explain satisfactorily how the transpersonal aspect of spirituality is initially lost at the beginning of development; equally he does not explain how the immanent aspect is restored at the end. Again this arises from adopting an overall approach that is too linear.

I would say that the simple answer is that the initial fundamental ground is also goal.

Now I agree with Ken that this is a completely undifferentiated state (that cannot be equated with true union). However it points and continues to point throughout development both ways i.e. towards the (physical) ground and (spiritual) goal of existence. In other words in dynamic terms it remains both "pre" and "trans".

Thus the ground unconscious is also a goal unconscious (that is initially undifferentiated). Now I agree with Ken that the emergent unconscious is without repression. However once structures emerge in consciousness, repression occurs.

Now this is where I believe that my own interpretation begins to differ sharply from Ken's.

In my approach the very development of consciousness inevitably entails repression.

Remember in unconscious terms polarities are balanced. Now the very act of consciousness creates an imbalance. As one direction is posited in consciousness, the reverse (complementary) direction becomes cut off and negated returning to the unconscious as a repressing agent. Thus in this primary dynamic sense, consciousness equals repression. As both affective and cognitive structures begin to develop in consciousness this necessarily entails repression. Cognitive development requires the repression of "pre" experience in the blocking of the unconscious (pointing to the physical source). Affective development requires however the complementary repression of "trans" experience (pointing to the spiritual goal). This is why at the "higher" spiritual levels, the rigidities of "higher" cognitive (trans) experience are removed through integration with "lower" affective (pre); likewise the unduly instinctive nature of "lower" pre is removed through integration with "higher" "trans".

I cannot see how one can properly distinguish affective and cognitive development without recognising this dual "pre" and "trans" interpretation.

I believe that there is a more fundamental point to make here.

Ken specialises in the use of what he refers in the use of vision-logic (which really is a flexible sophisticated use of rational linear thinking). This corresponds to L0 in my model (the only level where dynamic complementary relationships are not at work).

The trouble from Ken's point of view is that complementarity exists in terms of all of the other levels ("lower" and "higher"). Horizontal complementarity operates at LL1 and HL1 . Horizontal and vertical complementarity operate at LL2 and HL2.

Horizontal, vertical and diagonal complementarity operate at LL3 and HL3.

Thus in a very real sense, one tends to misrepresent the nature of all these other levels when they are interpreted in terms of the understanding of L0. All the difficulties I have with Ken's approach spring from the attempted imposition of a method at levels where it does not strictly apply.

Emergence in conscious terms necessarily means submergence (through repression). Yes you are right Phil. When I posit consciousness of the world I thereby repress unconscious understanding of self; I then posit consciousness of the self and repress unconsciousness understanding of the world. Thus one pays a heavy price through the - very necessary - differentiation of consciousness. By the time we reach the rational linear stages we have become greatly cut off from both our unconscious origin (Earth) and unconscious destination (Eternity).

The "higher" stages are then concerned with the restoration - this time in a mature integrated fashion - of both Heaven and Earth (trans and pre). Once one looks at the very dynamics of spiritual development it becomes impossible to deny the importance of the "pre" element. The return to early stages in the mature integration of personality with its shadow is an inevitable part - due to earlier repression - of "higher" development. Once one accepts that the very act of consciousness in dynamic terms entails repression then this becomes easy to accept.

I am not saying that the emergent unconscious (as potential for development) is repressed. I am saying however that once conscious structures emerge that this inevitably entails repression. This is the very reason why in our culture very little emergence of the "higher" level structures takes place. The clear light of remembrance is largely blotted out (through repression).

So I would interpret the very dynamic of early infant behaviour as the confused interplay of ground and goal (of pre and trans). The infant grasps for Heaven but completely confuses this with Earth.

(Your point about emergence of self implying submergence of the world seems to be amount to the point about the positing of consciousness necessarily entailing repression. In dynamic terms the positing of consciousness of the world (in relation to self) entails repression (in the submerged unconscious) of the self (in relation to the world). Equally positing of consciousness of self (in relation to the world) entails repression of the world (in relation to self). Thus in practical terms the development of (linear) reason inevitably entails considerable loss in unconscious energy).

I like your point regarding energy and matter and its relationship to emergent and submergent structures.

I would be inclined to identify energy with intuition (nondual) and matter with phenomenal consciousness (dual).

Thus matter would certainly equate with emerged structures. What is more interesting however is that there must be correspondents in physical terms to our other notions of the unconscious e.g. submerged unconscious.

Physical reality has its unconscious it its fundamental ground. So in structural dynamic terms we should look at physical nature in the same way as in psychology.

Thus for example there will be a correspondent in physical terms to the submergent unconscious. I would see this as very relevant to interpretations of the Black Hole that involves a highly concentrated form of repressed matter. Just as repression is inevitable (psychologically) in the positing of phenomena, equally it is inevitable

(physically) in the formation of matter.

So the point you make is a fascinating one. Accepting the complementary structural dynamics of the physical and psychological worlds would open the way for the generation of all kinds of important new insights.

Eventually a common language applicable equally to both physics and psychology would emerge greatly enhancing appreciation of these complementary relationships.

In relation to your next question, you are perfectly right. In dynamic terms being alive relative to the world means being dead to the self and being dead relative to the self means being alive relative to the world.

This can be most easily be expressed in terms of the qualitative binary system (the simplest method for encoding transformation states).

We continually interact in dynamic fashion with the world. Thus when the self is in an on state (1), in dynamic terms the world is off (0);

Likewise when the world is in an on state (1) then in dynamic terms the self is off (0).

Reality at all levels represents the ceaseless interaction of these binary states in the continual interplay of death and rebirth).

As you are no doubt aware, these ideas are deeply relevant to quantum physics.

What essentially is required to understand quantum mechanical relationships is an inherently dynamic approach (which appears paradoxical in rational linear terms.)

For example in the famous case of Schrodinger's Cat (where the poor creature has a 50/50 chance of being killed by uranium), the accepted correct interpretation is that until the outcome is observed the cat must be defined as both dead and alive.

The paradoxes of Quantum Mechanics invariably arise from trying to interpret an inherently dynamic (two-directional) interactions in reduced (one-directional) static terms.

I think a good way of visualising your point is in terms of the cosmic self. In breathing in, one is absorbs the life of the universe; in breathing out one gives life back to the universe. This type of cosmic identity reaches its purest expression in mystical ecstasy where expiration (breathing out) and inspiration (breathing in ) become instantaneous. One dies (expires) each moment only to be wonderfully reborn (inspired) the same moment.

So death and life are two sides of the same coin. Indeed in dynamic terms death is life. It is only by dying fully that one can be truly open to the experience of eternity.

Not surprisingly great mystics like St. John of the Cross were filled with great joy at the thought of impending death seeing it as the cutting of that final thread separating them from eternal glory.

"Each moment dies to live for all eternity;

and all eternity dies so that each moment may live"

Your last point is a fascinating one. Again these sort of issues are deeply relevant to modern physics.

Of course Phil there are a variety of interpretations which all have a limited amount of validity.

The problem about conventional science is that it requires a mindset where one looks at reality (independent of observing mind). From a dynamic point of view this is invalid. Therefore a quark - dynamically speaking - has no meaning independent of mind; the very recognition of quarks depends intimately on our mental constructs.

Again a quark strictly is not matter. Rather it represents a dynamic mind-matter interaction. (Holons at all levels have interior-exterior aspects).

When one tries to find out what existed before the 20^th century one is getting back to the old mindset of trying to define a quark (independent of mind). Everything we speak of is in our present experience. We cannot meaningfully abstract to see what things would look like outside this experience.

However science involves the attempt to view reality in one-directional objective terms.

Now this necessarily requires a distortion in understanding and provides a kind of truth that has only a limited partial validity.

.

Thus any objective statement we make about reality is only a half-truth.

The reason for this is that an equally valid interpretation (in the opposite) direction is also possible.

From a philosophical perspective, particle physics is a good example of materialism. Here a quark is viewed as an object phenomenon (independent of mind).

However one can equally take up the idealist stance and argue that a quark is simply a projection of mind.

Because in dynamic terms a quark is necessarily a mind-matter interaction, then in static terms we can give two equally valid interpretations (as matter or as mind).

When correctly understand therefore the dynamic viewpoint I am outlining is not an idealist one.

Matter and mind once more reflect dualistic polarities which have no meaning (except in terms of each other). So the dynamic perspective is both materialist and idealist (or alternatively neither materialist nor idealist).

Conventional science is strongly materialist. This mindset is leading to huge philosophical difficulties e.g. in quantum mechanics where this stance is no longer strictly tenable.

Thus at a static level all scientific explanations have mirror explanations (which in essence are psychological).

When we combine this science and mirror science we get into the dynamic level where physical and psychological understanding increasingly interpenetrate each other.

I do not question the great value of conventional science. (I am a great fan of it myself!) However in terms of an integrated worldview it is greatly limited.

What I am trying to do is show how one moves from the present position to this more dynamic integrated approach.

In conclusion Phil, I found your questions immensely valuable in clarifying my own thoughts. Inevitably these responses will generate further questions.

A good answer is another good question.

Regards,

Peter

Peter,

Thank you for taking the time to so thoroughly answer my questions, your thoughts have indeed become invaluable to me. While reading through your post’s, insights continually go off like little firecrackers, as if something has come to light for the first time. What you offer more than anything is perspective. There is so much information out there, but unless it can be placed in its proper perspective, information can become a very dangerous thing. I used to think Wilber offered the grandest, coherent perspective available, but in light of your thoughts, Wilber is clearly limited, and the possible danger’s of such a limited perspective become quite evident: elitism, anthropomorphism, excessive vision-logic, and a quagmire of incompatible linear and spiritual thought’s. Peter, you simply must get everything down in one book, your understanding is simply too beautiful not to be displayed in its entirety, not to mention numerous scientific, social, economic, psychological, and so on, possibilities.

I need to allow all that you have said to soak in for a few days, at least, before I can really question intelligently all that you have said; more, I need to go back and read the super-string/personality types post. So, I’ll just make some comments for now, with the intent of engaging your thoughts more deeply in the future.

It is now apparent, in terms of the difference between Wilber’s Ground and your Ground/Goal, if I have understood you correctly, that Wilber begins at your LL3 level (radial), with the differentiation of complex, diagonal forces, as compared with your dynamic symmetry. More, although Wilber will conclude with claims of always already, it just doesn’t really make a bit of since in relation to his linear quadrants. But with your presentation, specifically the idea of Ground/Goal, one can see what Wilber is trying to say, yet can not, due to his strictly linear presentation. I particularly like to think of it this way, the World’s Ground is the Self’s Goal, while the Self’s Ground is the World’s Goal, that is, the World begins where the Self ends, and Self ends where the World begins. I found it fascinating how you connected classical science with L0, quantum with LL1, superstring with LL2, and Big Bang with LL3 and then showing their mirror psychological understandings - - simply brilliant. Ideas of personalities and dimensions along vertical development is hard to understand, but I need to read that superstring post. Also, I would really like to see a few examples of particle types organized to be the exact same mathematical structure for personality types. I agree with you that will be an important issue in the 21st century, and you are now obviously leading the way.

Thank you for clarifying your ideas regarding emergent and submergent consciousness, as well as discussing some of my thought’s regarding being alive and dead. I didn’t even see the connection with Schrodingers’s Cat, which is an experiment I’ve never quite been able to grasp the meaning of, but you showed me how I was basically saying the same thing in psychological terms, how ironic? Anyway, that clarified a lot, and I also loved that little quote by St. John of the Cross, a very poetic statement of bi-directional understanding.

Regarding idealism, I’ve been reading some Kant and Hegel lately, also Dr. Paul Brunton, and have slipped into a very idealist view of reality. That is, I’ve been feeling as of late that nothing exits except the ideas formed by the mind, granted this says nothing about what is real. It is hard for me to see this contrasted by materialism, I think due too an inability to get beyond the individual ego, into the collective. I still view ideas as coming from within me, something I am beginning to realize is just an obvious mistake. I disagree with scientific realism, but am finding it hard to imagine that everything is completely a projection of the mind - - again, still too stuck in the individual, but am working on it.

I am basically just babbling Peter, letting your ideas sink in, and will get back to you some time in the future after due reflection. But I do have one thought that I find interesting. In terms of the circular level and its connection with the quantum, there appears to be a property of reversibility between the Self and World vertically speaking. But I thought only in Classical physics all trajectories are reversible. Wilber and Jantsch seem to base a great deal upon this principle in terms of dissipative structures resulting in autopoiesis. Which, again, is irreversible and produce a one directional evolutionary framework, granted only in regards to the self. Yet it seems that circular thinking depends upon classical reversibility and not quantum irreversibility. I’m really not sure why this is a question for me, I feel like there is something obvious that I have missed, but would like to know what you think.

On that, I better get going, thank you so much again.

Happy Holidays,

phil.

Phil,

I greatly appreciate your encouraging remarks.

After working most of my life for an audience of one, you cannot know how much your support means to me.

Also, I want to assure you that the process works both ways. Your own highly intelligent responses have proved the catalyst for many exciting new ideas during the past few days.

I intend therefore to continue with this round of posts going through the various stages of each "higher" level identifying the mirror psychological equivalents to notions in physics (appropriate to each stage).

The next posting - relating to the (interior) conop stage of HL1 will deal with several issues in quantum mechanics. I hope in each case to demonstrate its mirror psychological reflection).

I am becoming increasingly convinced that most of the well known paradoxes in quantum mechanics melt away when looked at in the correct manner. It simply requires use of a different kind of logic (that unfolds at HL1).

You sum up my position on Ken Wilber very well indeed. I do of course recognise his outstanding contribution to the field of consciousness and integrated studies!

The point you raise about the reversibility of trajectories is very interesting.

Remember there is a difference as between the holistic and analytical approaches to physics.

Clearly both quantum and classical notions of reversibility relate to actual phenomenal investigation.

The holistic approach fundamentally relates however to the hidden symmetry underlying all manifest relationships.

Now this symmetry is expressed rationally - at the circular level - in the form of (horizontal) complementary polar opposites.

Reversibility - in this dynamic holistic sense - relates to the equal status of these opposite poles (exterior and interior).

Thus in terms of holistic directional movement a positive (exterior) direction is always balanced by a negative (interior) direction.

This essentially means that we have always (equal) opposite perspectives (i.e. bi-directional) in the static interpretation of reality. This cannot be equated directly with phenomenal notions (in either classical or quantum physics).

Regards,

Peter

PS Phil, I am very flattered indeed that you attributed that "quote" to St. John of the Cross when in fact it was my own!

Peter,

I’ve been a little busy as of late, so am not able to offer as much here as I would like, but I’m looking forward to your future posts. Also, am going to try and make some time to read through your web-site, I know there is so much more to your ideas then I’ve been able to grasp. Your work is very exciting, though, and I look forward to when we can discuss it some more. So until then, take care Peter, and thank you yet again for your insights.

Phil.