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
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,
leading to relative movement.
The one-directional linear approach fundamentally misrepresents such
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
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
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.
I particularly liked your comments on "higher" holons implying that
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
The first - well covered in Western psychology - involves the
differentiation of consciousness and the specialisation of
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
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.
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!
Read Follow UpsPost a FollowupKen Wilber Forum