Basically it represents the dynamic undoing of consciousness and serves as the vital bridge between rational (dualistic) and intuitive (nondual) understanding.
When we combine mirror with conventional understanding, experience is inherently bi-directional containing positive and negative polarities.
Once again these polarities can be examined in relation to horizontal,
vertical and diagonal directions.
The very process of "higher-level" spiritual understanding can be investigated precisely with respect to the progressive development of mirror understanding in respect to these three directions.
For the moment I am confining myself to the horizontal direction which
deals with exterior (objective) and interior (subjective) polarities.
The transition from L0 (the rational linear level) to HL1 (the circular level or subtle realm) involves the intense development of mirror understanding in relation to the horizontal direction.
In other words it involves the undoing of the merely positive dualistic understanding of L0 in the development of mirror understanding. This as we have seen leads to the creation of psychic anti-matter (in relation to both conop and formop structures). It is the very fusion of both directions (matter and anti-matter) that leads to the development of intuitive understanding.
I dealt with some of the implications of this changing worldview last week. Basically it leads to a dynamic holistic appreciation of reality where the physical and psychological aspects become increasingly complementary. Not surprisingly therefore it paves the way for the integration of physics (and by extension all science) with (transpersonal) psychology.
Before moving on, I will give one final important illustration from contemporary physics.
Physicists are interested in the study of the material universe. Now the approach they adopt is invariably dualistic (where objective reality is viewed independently of the investigating mind).
From a dynamic viewpoint this is untenable. Reality at all levels is now bi-directional involving exterior (objective) and interior (subjective) polarities.
Physics predicts the existence of a mirror universe. Now when approached dualistically this gives rise to various science fiction type speculations as to the nature of this alternative universe.
However in dynamic terms this "mirror" universe should come as no surprise.
Creation is now seen more correctly as necessarily representing the integration of positive and negative polarities. Thus in dynamic terms we do not have a universe (positive) as such but rather the continual interaction of the universe and its mirror (i.e. positive and negative polarities). It is only when we try to understand in static dualistic terms that this dynamic understanding splits into two "separate" universes.
In this post I am moving on to the first of the "higher levels" (HL1) again concentrating on its implications for physical science.
I refer to this as the circular level and it equates with the subtle realm.
However I am using here a more Western type approach more useful for scientific interpretation.
I maintain contact with the familiar methodology used in terms of the rational linear level (L0) by using again three different sub-levels.
The first corresponds to the more superficial sense based structures of conop (rule-role).
However "higher" conop has now two directions. We must examine here the positive (exterior) direction and it’s mirror (i.e. the negative interior direction).
The second corresponds to the deeper conceptually based structures of formop (formal-reflexive).
Again this will be examined in terms of positive (exterior) and negative (interior) directions.
Finally we have a level – corresponding to the centaur (vision logic) at the linear level - where the horizontal directions are intuitively reconciled.
The whole defining characteristic of HL1 is the specialisation of the horizontal polarities of experience i.e. where explicit understanding of both the positive (exterior) and negative (interior) aspects of understanding is obtained.
In this posting I am dealing with the first stage of sub-level 1 (and then with specific reference to its scientific implications).
I believe that it is important with this – as with all the stages – to portray accurately – in experiential terms – the nature of its progression.
There is in fact a profound cyclical quality to these stages. For convenience
I break each stage into five phases.
Once again this opening stage corresponds to a more intuitively refined version of conop representing the development of concrete supersensory understanding.
It opens with an outpouring of pure spiritual illumination (intuition). In religious terms this is typically associated with conversion (after a long struggle) towards a "higher" spiritual principle. In more secular terms it can arise from a special type of romantic attraction where ones beloved essentially serves as an affective archetype of Divine reality (e.g. Dante and Beatrice).
This peak experience of pure illumination lasts but a short time.
The next phase - still highly illuminated - represents an attempt at consolidating this new worldview. One translates – usually at a very rapid pace – all one’s experience through the light of this new intuitively inspired vision.
In affective terms phenomenal images now serve a double function. In part they are still understood in dualistic terms. However they are also understood – the degree of which depends on the intensity of the preceding purification – as archetypes of an eternal universal order. Thus they tend to become somewhat elusive and spiritually transparent.
In cognitive rational terms one translates outer reality in terms of the dynamic complementarity of opposites leading to a markedly different scientific appreciation of reality. This cognitive translation is of special relevance for my present purpose.
Thus the second phase though slightly less spiritual is very exciting
and life enhancing.
However by its very nature it leads to he gradual build up of difficulties
which surface during the third phase. Because ones psychic energies are
increasingly identified with this new intuitive worldview, one starts to
lose touch with former linear experience. This then starts to create problems
in terms of customary responsibilities and relationships.
During the fourth phase these problems intensify. One may now feel increasingly isolated. Also as the initial light fades one becomes more rigidly attached – to secondary phenomena.
Thus problem comes from identifying specific symbols (e.g. religious)
too narrowly with universal archetypes thereby becoming unduly attached
to them. One now fights a rearguard action to keep this stage alive.
The fifth and most decisive phase involves a form of radical surrender.
One now accepts that because of undue attachment a new level of purgation
is necessary setting the scene for the opposite mirror stage.
So we return now to the cognitive translation of phase 2 of the stage (which is particularly relevant for scientific purposes).
Due to an attitude of detachment from dualistic symbols - this is more holistic and intuitive than previous stages. So one has a greater appreciation of macro physical reality which is interpreted in terms of the complementarity of horizontal polarities. In other words one forms a dynamic relative worldview where (objective) physical understanding is mirrored through (subjective) psychological understanding.
This leads for example to a fascinating parallel (psychological) interpretation of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity.
To illustrate this I will take three of its main findings.
Probably the most famous formula in physics is E = MC2 (the equivalence of mass and energy).
Through this Einstein demonstrated that matter and energy are interchangeable). Matter can be transformed into energy; energy can be reduced to matter.
Now there is a direct parallel in terms of psycho-spiritual experience. Psychic matter (as phenomenal objects) is interchangeable with psychic energy (as pure intuition). Thus phenomenal experience can on the one hand be transformed into intuitive energy; on the other hand this energy can once again be reduced in phenomenal terms.
Indeed this is perfectly illustrated in terms of the dynamics of the stage itself.
We start with peak illumination (i.e. pure spiritual energy). This arises from the mirror transformation during the transitional stage of dualistic understanding.
We then have the gradual reduction of this pure energy in phenomenal terms. In other words we translate reality phenomenally in terms of this energy. Experience at this stage is very dynamic involving the interaction of (psychic) matter (rational sense contents) and (psychic) energy (spiritual intuition).
Gradually as the stage unfolds the spiritual energy is largely reduced to matter. Intuition now fades and rigid attachment sets in.
So we have a marvellous psychological counterpart to Einstein’s famous finding. All phenomenal matter contains vast amounts of potential spiritual energy. Indeed the whole purpose of the mystical quest is to convert this "dead" matter into spiritual energy.
Stephen Hawking has described his quest as the unleashing of "the fire in the equations". I am suggesting that this can only come through the (explicit) integration of physics and psychology.
Einstein also showed that the speed of light is absolute and forms the reference point for relative interpretations of movement in space and time.
Indeed Einstein’s theory derived from initially wondering what would it be like to travel on a beam of light.
Again this has direct parallels in psycho-spiritual terms.
Spiritual light is absolute and is the true reference point for all relative psychological experience of space and time.
What would it be like to travel on a beam of spiritual light? Well just as Einstein found with physical light time would not pass. In other words we would remain in the eternal present.
Thus in terms of spiritual light itself, there is neither space nor time. These only arise from the experience of phenomena (and only find their true meaning or reference point with respect to the absolute present light).
Physical light – like spiritual light – is highly elusive. In itself it is transfinite (travels an infinite distance in zero time).
However it does acquire a finite meaning when associated with relative phenomena. As we know this finite aspect of physical light manifests itself in two ways.
It can display itself as particles; equally it can display itself as waves. Which aspect is revealed depends on the (physical) measurement.
Spiritual light is equally transfinite. We could equally say that it travels an infinite distance in zero time (All eternity is but a single moment!).
However it does acquire – like physical light – a finite meaning when associated with relative phenomena.
Again this finite aspect of spiritual light manifests itself in two ways.
It can display itself as particles. This in fact is the immanent aspect of spiritual experience (Blake’ famous line "To see a world in a grain of sand" sums this up very well. Here the spiritual light is made immanent in a physical particle).
Equally it can display itself as waves. This is the complementary transcendent aspect of spiritual experience. (Indeed it is fascinating how HL1 – which represents the specialisation of the transcendent aspect of spiritual experience – literally unfolds in cyclical wave form. HL2 – in my treatment - by contrast represents the specialisation of the immanent aspect which is the point (particle) level. Thus what one finds in spiritual terms regarding the nature of light (i.e. its transcendent or immanent aspects) depends on the means of measurement (i.e. the type of developmental approach adopted).
What is even more fascinating is that the precise structural characteristics of light – both its finite and transfinite aspects - are perfectly described by the diagonal lines
(representing the complex solutions of the geometric representation of the eight roots of unity).
Thus creation - in its most complex manifestations – can be translated with perfect (holistic) mathematical precision as a reduced expression of unity.
This realisation that reality at all levels can be precisely translated in (holistic) mathematical fashion I consider a decisive breakthrough and exceptionally important.
All the other findings – which are interesting and important – in their own right are really just illustrations what is the vital key to understanding it all (what I refer to as – "The Theory of Everything"). What some on the Forum see as an "abstract" mathematical approach, I see as possessing incredible beauty, power and versatility.
This is why I am always at pains to bring people back – literally to the root of it all (viz. the eight root of unity) which provides the appropriate mathematical context for precisely interpreting - in holistic format - horizontal vertical and diagonal polarities.
Reality - at every level - is fundamentally structured in this mathematical sense. As I continue to demonstrate the exciting connections that flow from this approach I am confident that even the most sceptic of participants will appreciate that Holistic Mathematics - as a new dynamic mode of understanding - represents a significant contemporary development.
The final aspect of Einstein’s theory I wish to mention is the finding that space and time – far from being separate – comprise a continuum i.e. space-time. This naturally follows from the understanding that measurements in space and time are truly relative.
Of course physics and psychology also comprise a continuum (though scientists are extremely reluctant to accept this). Perceptions and concepts provide the psychological means through which we experience space and time.
The basis of dualistic understanding – especially is science – is to view all perceptions against the background of fixed concepts (i.e. spatial sense phenomena against a fixed background of time). This is an extremely important point. The concept is viewed – in dualistic understanding as invariant with respect to multiple perceptions. This in turn provides the mindset for the view that we can have "fixed" theories of reality.
However in dynamic terms this is invalid. The concept changes every time we relate a perception to it. (We can never step into the same river twice!). Thus our understanding of concepts continually changes. As in dynamic terms truth has no meaning (in the absence of experience), this necessarily means that all understanding (including mathematical) is strictly relative.
Now this is where I have to take strong issue with Einstein. Though he brilliantly uncovered the relative nature of the macro physical universe, he never accepted the complementary psychological corollary i.e. that understanding of nature is necessarily relative and uncertain. This truth is rooted in the very way we experience concepts and perceptions.
Thus in psychological terms, Einstein remained a dualist all his life. He really was an absolutist in this sense (trying to view the physical Universe independent of mind) Thus he spent his final 30 years vainly searching for his unified field theory that would finally unlock its remaining secrets.
Remarkably once we confine ourselves to the underlying symmetries of nature - and not its asymmetrical phenomenal aspects - this unified field theory simply reveals itself as a reduced mathematical expression of unity (i.e. The Theory of Everything).
Also this holistic explanation has complementary aspects applying equally to physical reality and (psychological) consciousness.
The work of Teilhard de Chardin is also very much relevant to this stage.
Though lacking – in a narrow sense – the same predictive value of Einstein’s work, de Chardin took a broader view of evolution where physical and psychological aspects are necessarily interrelated.
Indeed I found one of his ideas at an earlier age particularly helpful. This was his view of two types of energy i.e. tangential and radial. Tangential energy would bear close comparison with what we understand as physical energy. Radial energy would equate with spiritual energy. And of course he saw evolution as moving progressively forwards towards this spiritual energy through the development of the noosphere.
(Indeed I refer to the final comprehensive stage of life as radial reality which would represent an especially evolved development in the noosphere).
I have stated before in discussing the pre/trans fallacy that all polarised terms are necessarily complementary. As "higher" and "lower" are polar opposites then the stage HL1 (Higher level 1) has a complementary relationship with LL1 (Lower Level 1).
However whereas exterior (objective) and interior (subjective) poles are properly differentiated and fused at the "higher" level, these poles are undifferentiated and confused at the corresponding lower level (rep-mind).
Indeed an element of this confusion still survives at the "higher" level whereby - one identifies spiritual meaning too rigidly with archetypal symbols.
Thus one to some degree still confuses spirit with matter.
Dealing with this confusion requires revisiting LL1 (through the corresponding mirror stage).
This is an extremely important point (which is overlooked by Ken Wilber). It is only through the (integrated) fusion of a "higher" stage that we can appreciate the (unintegrated) confusion of the corresponding "lower" stage. Fusion and confusion are themselves complementary and only have meaning in terms of each other. Thus in dynamic terms trans necessarily implies pre and pre implies trans.
So the development of HL1 necessarily entails a close dynamic relationship with LL1 (with which it is complementary). I will develop this more in the next posting.
However before leaving this stage I wish to make clear that the scientific perspective I am portraying is very different from the customary model.
It represents what might be called holoscience (holistic science) which is concerned with the dynamic process underlying science (rather than analytical prediction). It is based on the inherent unity of opposite poles e.g. object and subject. One might say that it provides an enhanced philosophical appreciation of the issues raised by scientific discovery. Also – and very important – it provides the necessary intuition to properly interpret scientific findings.
Finally because it is based on a truly integrated approach it is potentially highly creative using a novel perspective to generate fresh insight. (One of my own recent interests is Superstring Theory. I have no formal training in this field. Yet I have used the intuitive holistic approach to find - what I consider are - satisfactory explanations to key difficulties (e.g. the dimensional problem and the provision of a physical appreciation of the nature of superstrings.) Furthermore, in my interpretation, these findings are fully integrated with psychological understanding of reality.
In a comprehensive scientific approach the holistic and analytical aspects work in tandem. Superstring Theory is very long on analytical endeavour and extremely short on intuitive understanding. Holistic science is especially valuable therefore in redressing the imbalance in this context.
As I have stated, holoscience is very different from its analytical counterpart. Its very purpose - in a horizontal context - is to establish complementary connections as between (objective) physical and (subjective) psychological relationships. The reason we find it hard to see such relationships in practice is because we insist in looking at reality (especially in a scientific context) in a one-sided dualistic manner.
I can foresee a time in the future when new findings in physical science will not be fully accepted until their complementary psychological interpretations have been clarified. Only with this complementary appreciation will we then be able to lay claim to truly integrated understanding.
I am already trying to introduce the nature of this integrated understanding on the Forum.