"In precisely the same way, we can say that at each point in evolution or remembrance (anamesis), a mode of self become merely a component of a higher order self (e.g. the body was the mode of the self before the mind emerged whereupon it becomes merely a component of self) This can be put in several different ways each of which tells us something important about development, evolution and transcendence
As the above passage indicates - in his summation of psychological development
- Ken Wilber shows a marked tendency to use one-directional statements
that are really only half-truths. From a dynamic perspective all movement
is bi-directional (in horizontal vertical and diagonal fashion).
Once again I wish to illustrate this highly important point with reference to the fundamental physical-psychological polarity.
In horizontal terms all science involves the psychological observer, who is subjective (interior), and physical observations that are objective (exterior).
So here the psychological pole is consistently viewed as interior and the physical pole as exterior.
This rigid one-way sequence is necessary so as to prevent dynamic interaction
as between poles. Thus in (conventional) science (exterior) independent
observations are simply recorded by the neutral (interior) observer.
However the directional sequence equally operates the other way.
Clearly the self is a physical body (as well as a psychological mind). Likewise the world is equally a psychological (as well as a physical reality). In other words we can only understand the world through the psychological constructs we impose on reality.
Thus from a dynamic horizontal perspective physical and psychological reality display both exterior (objective) and interior (subjective) aspects that mutually interact.
In static terms we can take the directional sequence two-ways.
If we fix the self as interior (mind), then the world is exterior (matter);
Equally however if we fix the world as interior (i.e. body) then the self is exterior (scientific constructs).
When we attempt to read dynamic (horizontal) relationships in terms of one-directional static sequences we basically misread the situation. If static analysis is be consistent with dynamic development then it must be bi-directional (in horizontal terms)
In vertical terms all science involves the psychological observer that is qualitative (whole) and physical observations that are quantitative (parts).
Again this rigid one-way sequence is necessary so as to prevent dynamic interaction as between (vertical) poles.
Thus is (conventional) science, quantitative (part) observations are
simply recorded by the neutral qualitative (whole) observer.
However once again the directional sequence equally operates the other
Clearly the self - as a physical body - is made up of quantitative parts. Also the world is a qualitative whole (in terms of conceptual constructs).
Thus from a dynamic vertical perspective, physical and psychological
reality display both quantitative (part) and qualitative (whole) aspects
that mutually interact.
In static terms we can therefore take the directional sequence two-ways.
If we fix the self as qualitative (whole mind), then world is quantitative (material parts).
Equally however if we fix the self as quantitative (i.e. the body as
material parts), then the world is qualitative (i.e. the reflection of
Again when we attempt to read dynamic (vertical) relationships in terms of one-directional static sequences we basically misread the situation. If static analysis is be consistent with dynamic development then it must be bi-directional (in vertical terms).
In diagonal terms all science involves the psychological observer that
is potential (invisible as mind) and physical observations that are actual
(visible as matter).
Once again this rigid one-way sequence is necessary so as to prevent
dynamic interaction as between (diagonal) poles.
Thus in (conventional) science actual (visible) observations are simply
recorded by the potential (invisible) observer. (In other words the mind
is viewed as an invisible film which simply reflects records actual observations).
However once again the directional sequence equally operates the other way.
Clearly the self - as body - is made up of actual (visible) phenomena.
Also the world ultimately is a potential (invisible) void. (This notion
is now even finding its way into modern physics!)
Thus from a dynamic diagonal perspective, physical and psychological reality display both actual (visible) and potential (invisible) aspects that mutually interact.
In static terms we can therefore take the directional sequence two-ways.
If we fix the self as potential (invisible mind), then world is actual (visible phenomena).
Equally however if we fix the self as actual (i.e. the visible body), then the world is potential (i.e. an invisible void).
Once again when we attempt to read dynamic (diagonal) relationships in terms of one-directional static sequences we basically misread the situation. If static analysis is be consistent with dynamic development then it must be bi-directional (in diagonal terms).
These three sets of polarities are inclusive (in terms of the dynamics
of all development).
Horizontal polarities (e.g. exterior-interior) relate to movement within
a given level.
Vertical polarities (e.g. quantitative-qualitative) relate to movement
Diagonal polarities (e.g. actual-potential) relate to movement both within and between levels.
Dynamic synthesis of reality requires the two-way interaction of these polarities (horizontally, vertically and diagonally).
Static analysis - to be consistent with this dynamic approach - must provide in linear terms (horizontally, vertically and diagonally) sequences that are opposite in direction.
This brings me back to Ken Wilber's approach. The passage is demonstrating a number of one-directional sequences (summing up his approach to development).
This - quite simply - is inconsistent with a true dynamic interpretation.
I am taking the second of these one-directional sequences
"What is identification becomes detachment"
Of course from a dynamic perspective it equally works the other way
"What is detachment becomes identification".
Let us first examine this from a horizontal perspective.
Again in dynamic terms the self is in relation to the world. In horizontal terms we have two poles here (exterior and interior).
In dynamic terms we identify with the exterior (objective) pole by detaching from the interior (subjective) pole.
Likewise we identify with the interior (subjective) pole by detaching from the exterior (objective) pole.
So as I type at one moment I am aware of the computer screen (in front of me) and the words that I type. Here my focus is on the (exterior) world (in relation to self). Insofar as I identify with this world externally, I detach awareness from (interior) self.
The next moment I am aware of the self (e.g. irritation due to a typing error). Now my focus is on the (interior) self (in relation to the world). Insofar as I identify with this self internally, I detach awareness from the (exterior) world.
Thus the very basis of this dynamic switching in experience - at a horizontal level - is the mutual interaction of identification and detachment.
The classic extrovert typically finds in easier to identify externally
(and detach internally); the classic introvert - on the other hand - finds
it easier to identify internally (and detach externally).
Thus if we are to read this dynamic (horizontal) situation properly in static terms we must make two statements (in opposite directions)
In vertical terms we also have two poles (quantitative and qualitative).
In dynamic terms we identify with the quantitative (part) pole by detaching from the qualitative (whole) pole; likewise we identify with the qualitative (whole) pole by detaching from the quantitative (part) pole.
Indeed this is the very basis of the highly important relationship as between cognitive (rational) and affective (emotional) experience.
In dynamic terms to identify with cognitive (quantitative) reality we
must be able to detach from affective (qualitative) reality.
When carried to excess this is extremely damaging. In conventional science so much focusing on the impersonal quantitative aspect of reality tends to blot out affective appreciation of its personal qualitative aspect.
Equally we identify with affective (qualitative) reality through detaching from cognitive (quantitative) reality.
Insofar as we identify with the scientific (impersonal) worldview, we must detach from the artistic (personal) prospective.
Equally insofar as we identify with the artistic we must detach from the scientific perspective.
Cognitive (control) and affective (response) are thus dynamically complementary in vertical terms.
Again if we are to read this (vertical) situation properly in static
terms we must make two statements (in opposite directions)
(I believe that it is in this important area of vertical complementarity is largely missing from Ken's work. He misinterprets the dynamic relationship as between cognitive and affective understanding and effectively reduces the affective to the cognitive).
In diagonal terms we also have two poles (actual and potential with two directions).
In dynamic terms we identify with the actual (phenomenal) aspect by detaching from the potential (formless) aspect; likewise we identify with the potential (formless) aspect by detaching from the actual (phenomenal) aspect.
It is important to grasp here that dual (actual phenomenal) and nondual (potential formless) aspects of reality are dynamically complementary.
In Western science this dynamic complementarity is broken through over-emphasis on the (finite) actual aspect of reality (matter).
In Eastern mysticism - to a lesser degree - this complementarity is also broken through over-emphasis on the ultimate nondual nature of reality (spirit). This is unbalanced, as the very appreciation of this (spiritual) nondual aspect is intimately dependent on the (initial) generation of (material) dual phenomena.
At its most complete reality can be expressed as the dynamic interplay of both dual and nondual aspects. This refined dual aspect (of radial reality) should therefore not be reduced to a nondual interpretation.
Once more if we are to read this (diagonal) situation properly in static
terms we must make two statements (in opposite directions)
I will end this piece finally by briefly describing the process by which
movement between levels takes place.
Remember a comprehensive approach combines both linear and circular elements (the qualitative binary system). Now in direct terms the linear aspect is associated with the consciousness and the circular with the unconscious respectively.
At the beginning of life both conscious and unconscious are undifferentiated. Experience is thus highly confused with no means of properly identifying with, or detaching from phenomena.
Now the "lower" levels of development (LL3 to LL1) are concerned with the gradual differentiation of the linear aspect. In dynamic terms this requires the identification with conscious interpretations of reality (through detachment from unconscious interpretations).
Thus the emphasis is one-way (i.e. to strengthen the conscious by screening out the unconscious). Two-way (confused) diagonal complementarity is already being screened out at LL3. Two way (confused) vertical complemenarity is screened out at LL2. Remaining two-way (confused) horizontal complementarity is screened out at LL1.
By L0 (the rational linear level) all (confused) complementarity has been largely screened out leaving a merely conscious (one-directional) interpretation of reality. Conventional science represents the specialised development of this approach (leaving no formal role for the unconscious).
Now consciousness - by definition - has just one pole (that is positive). To be conscious is literally to posit phenomena in experience.
However the unconscious - again by definition - has two poles (positive
and negative) and is dynamically neutral.
So the positing of phenomena creates an imbalance in terms of the neutral
unconscious which literally acts as a mirror for conscious phenomena. The
(unrecognised) negative direction of these phenomena is thereby repressed
in the (submerged) unconscious.
Thus the dynamic act of repression - in the most fundamental sense - is an automatic consequence of the very act of positing phenomena. (Clearly the more rigid is conscious experience, the greater the inevitable repression).
Thus the decisive requirement in terms of "higher" level spiritual developmentis the rediscovery of this mirror direction (that is reflected through the unconscious).
Now as I am demonstrating in my postings on Holophysics, I define HL1 (the circular level or subtle realm) precisely in terms of strengthening the mirror direction in relation to horizontal (exterior-interior) polarities.
I define HL2 (the point level or causal realm) precisely in terms of strengthening the mirror direction in relation to vertical (quantitative-qualitative) polarities.
Finally I define HL3 (The null level or nondual reality) precisely in terms of strengthening the mirror direction in relation to diagonal (actual-potential) polarities.
With specialised mirror development in relation to all three sets of directions, the unconscious becomes purely spiritual and transparent effortlessly reflecting phenomena simultaneously in both directions. It is this very process which enables intuition to be continually generated in experience (with consequent realisation of the present moment).
Radial Reality is then defined as the harmonised interaction of conscious and unconscious. Here reduced diverse (finite) phenomena and relationships are continually identified (through detachment from spirit), and transformed spiritual intuition equally identified (through detachment from matter).
So the dynamic interplay of identification and detachment now achieves its most balanced expression.
In conclusion, it should be clear that - from a dynamic perspective - conventional interpretations of psychological development are very inadequate (with a one-directional rather than a two-directional tendency).
The basic problem is rooted in the very notion of psychological structures.
We need to recognise the equal importance of mirror structures.
Development as between levels (and stages) can then be examined in true dynamic terms by showing how these confused mirror structures die out during the "lower" levels (and stages) and equally how properly differentiated mirror structures are developed at the "higher" levels (and stages).