Kevin,

It is a pleasure to read such a well informed post and I agree with

most of what you have stated.

The only real difference appears to be that while you interpret

Ken's linear approach as a small problem I see it as presenting a

major difficulty.

Clearly in his wide ranging synthesis, Ken displays marked

analytical ability. Also - as you state - he shows deep insight into

the intuitive nature of nondual reality. However he does not

reconcile the rational with the intuitive worldview.

Ken uses what I would call a closed (one-directional) linear

approach. This is suited to the static analysis of partial systems.

However as his work relates to the dynamic synthesis of holistic

systems this (closed) linear approach is inappropriate.

Human behaviour involves the dynamic interaction of opposite poles,

The one-directional linear approach fundamentally misrepresents such

movement.

Let me try and illustrate this important point. If I take my car out

on the road, I have a choice of moving in two directions. When I go

up the road (holding my starting point fixed), I move forward (in

space and time). Equally when I go down the road (again holding my

starting point fixed), I again move forward (in space and time).

Thus though the two journeys are in opposite directions, from the

(absolute) linear standpoint the movement in both cases is in the

same direction (i.e. forward).

However if we now adopt a two-directional approach (by abandoning a

fixed frame of reference) movement becomes relative. Thus if the car

moves forwards in the first direction (relative to the second), then

the car moves backwards in the second direction (relative to the

first). In dynamic relative terms, positive movement implies

negative movement; (likewise negative movement implies positive

movement).

Thus in terms of the dynamics of human behaviour progression entails

regression; transpersonal entails prepersonal. Because of the use of

a closed linear approach this understanding is largely missing from

Ken's work.

Therefore when we represent dynamic behaviour in static linear

terms, we always have two interpretations which are equally valid.

If we say that the direction of growth goes from prepersonal to

personal to transpersonal, then it is equally valid to say the

direction goes from transpersonal to personal to prepersonal.

Thus to move from reason to intuition we must use this

two-directional approach. When we try to relate both directions (in

rational terms) this inevitably generates paradox, which opens the

way for true intuitive understanding (where paradox is reconciled).

My main objection to Ken's approach therefore is that rigid

(one-directional) understanding - especially when used in relation

to the "higher" stages of spiritual development - sets severe limits

experientially to true intuitive understanding. In fact it is

inconsistent with such understanding.

there are stages beyond - what is termed nondual reality.

I personally do not see nondual reality as a final state but rather

the beginning of the most complete stage of development.

For convenience, we can divide the "fully developed" life into three

stages.

The first - well covered in Western psychology - involves the

differentiation of consciousness and the specialisation of

(analytical) reason.

The second - well recognised in Eastern spirituality - involves the

integration of consciousness (through the development of the

unconscious) and the specialisation of (holistic) intuition. Nondual

reality represents the culmination of this specialised intuitive

development.

However the final stage involves the harmonised development of both

(specialised) reason and (specialised) intuition in what in

Christian terms represents the marriage of contemplation (spiritual

intuition) with activity (worldly reason). This final complete stage

of mystical development is not just a transformation of the self but

likewise a transformation of the world.

It is the understanding of this level that should form the standards

by which other stages is judged.

Surprisingly however, little attention East or West has been given

to appropriate intellectual clarification of this most comprehensive

stage of development.

Regards,

Peter

Hey Kevin? PostMaster 10:11:28 AM 10/23/97 (2)

Re: Hey Kevin? Kevin Downey 01:53:58 PM 10/25/97 (0)

Re: Hey Kevin? Kevin Downey 01:53:20 PM 10/25/97 (0)

Re: Re: Nice Job! Kevin Downey 02:46:28 AM 10/23/97 (0)

Re: Re: Nice Job! Kevin Downey 02:43:17 AM 10/23/97 (0)

Re: Re: Nice Job! Kevin Downey 02:29:39 AM 10/23/97 (0)

Re: Re: Nice Job! Kevin Downey 02:26:58 AM 10/23/97 (0)

Re: Re: Nice Job! Kevin Downey 02:26:17 AM 10/23/97 (4)

Calling All Stations Peter Collins 06:15:05 AM 10/24/97 (3)

Re: Calling All Stations Kevin Downey 02:07:13 PM 10/25/97 (1)

Re: Re: "Let's wait a while...Oh! A few years. (all) BBC

01:36:33 AM 10/26/97 (0)

Re: Calling All Stations Keith 11:22:18 AM 10/24/97 (0)

Post A Followup!

Name:

E-Mail:

Subject:

Message: