13 Structures and states have both primary (fundamental) and secondary (phenomenal) expressions.
The primary states entail a basic way of seeing reality that ultimately relates to a characteristic form of spiritual light. So just as with the electromagnetic spectrum we have energy of various wavelengths, likewise it is similar in terms of states in the Spectrum of Development.
So for example the waking state corresponds closely, in holistic terms, with the band of natural light. However beyond that we have bands of more passive energy (i.e. of longer wavelength and lower frequency) that would characterise dream and sleep states.
What is missing from most approaches however is the recognition that states associated with lower levels cannot be subsumed under the waking state
L3 (archaic) confused eternal state
L2 (magic) confused sleep state
L1 (mythic) confused dream state
L0, H0 (rational, personal)
H1 (psychic/subtle) mature dream state
H2 (causal) mature sleep state
H3 (nondual) mature eternal state
R1 (radial 1) mature interaction of eternal, sleep, dream and waking states (with some rigidities remaining)
R2 (radial 2) mature interaction of all states (with little rigidity remaining)
However the experience of reality entails both a manner of (spiritual) seeing and a manner of (phenomenal) interpretation which dynamically interact.
The primary structures relate to this manner of interpretation that provides an identifiable holistic pattern of organisation that uniquely characterises each level.
Though many approaches may be used to clarify the nature of such structures, I personally find the holistic mathematical approach the most rewarding.
In this approach, the underlying structure of each level is defined as a unique configuration of linear and circular understanding. This indeed represents the dynamic holistic interpretation of the binary system. So just as the (analytic) binary system can be used as a means to potentially encode all information processes, the (holistic) binary system can be likewise used to potentially encode all transformation processes.
To give some insight into this holistic binary approach to structure, I will give a brief outline associating each level with its corresponding binary configuration.
Now we have three fundamental polarities, which determine all relationships.
Diagonal - form and emptiness
Vertical - whole and part
Horizontal - interior and exterior
In development the diagonal polarities are first to be differentiated i.e. where the infant learns to distinguish the world of form as opposed to the void of nothingness.
Next the distinction between wholes and parts are differentiated and finally the distinction between interior and exterior.
So the middle level represents the successful differentiation of all three polarities.
The higher mystical stages then relate to the corresponding integration of these same polarities first in relation to interior and exterior, then in relation to wholes and parts and finally in relation to form and emptiness.
L3 (archaic) - greatly confused complementarity of diagonal, vertical and horizontal polarities.
L2 (magic) - differentiation of diagonal polarities; confused integration of vertical and horizontal.
L1 (mythic) - differentiation of both diagonal and vertical polarities; confused complementarity of horizontal.
L0, H0 (rational) - differentiation of diagonal, vertical and horizontal polarities.
H1 (psychic/subtle) mature (complementary) integration of horizontal polarities; differentiation of both vertical and diagonal.
H2 (causal) mature (complementary) integration of horizontal and vertical polarities; differentiation of diagonal polarities.
H3 (nondual) mature (complementary) integration of horizontal, vertical and diagonal polarities
R1 (radial 1) mature differentiation and integration of polarities (with some divisions remaining)
R2 (radial 2) mature differentiation and integration of polarities (with no divisions remaining)
In this approach there is full balance as between matching states and structures, which befits a dynamic interpretation based on matching complementarities.
Finally we could list the dynamic body/mind interactions (loosely referred to as bodies) representing the respective interactions of states and structures.
L3 state - confused eternal; structure - confused binary 3; body/mind- confused archaic
L2 state - confused sleep; structure - confused binary 2; body/mind - confused magic
L1 state - confused dream; structure - confused binary 1; body/mind - confused mythic
L0,H0 state - waking; structure - differentiated binary; body/mind - gross
H1 state - dream; structure - integral binary 1; body/mind - subtle
H2 state - sleep; structure - integral binary 2; body/mind - causal
H3 state - eternal; structure - integral binary 3; body/mind - nondual
R1 states - mixed; structures - mixed; body/mind - mixed (with some rigidity)
R2 states - mixed; structures - mixed; body/mind - mixed (with little rigidity)
Equally we can have secondary states and structures representing particular phenomenal manifestations.
For example experience entails a wide variety of secondary states often characterised by emotional feelings e.g. joy fear, delight, anxiety etc.
However a state can also relate to a cognitive or spiritual discipline e.g. a state of alert, a state of awareness etc.
Also we can experience in terms of a wide range of secondary structures. For example within all the great religions exists a set of teachings, practices, symbols, cultural and social institutions through which the fundamental structures of the mystical stages (that are broadly universal in a primary sense) are mediated.
One observation I would strongly make is that far too much attention is paid to these secondary structures rather than to proper clarification of their common universal features. This, for example, leads to difficulties in communicating experience as between the mystical traditions (as the secondary structures are somwhat unique in each culture). For example, just to take one interesting case, The Bardo Realms - which Ken Wilber incorporates in his model of development - represent the use of secondary structures to convey important spiritual truths. Though they might be deeply meaningful - say - for Tibetan Buddhists, they would carry very little resonance for Christians. Therefore it is a weakness of Ken's model that it relies on a culture specific interpretation of involution.
I have found that - due to lack of adequate primary structural development at the "higher" levels - that potentially vast new terrains of integral science have been left almost completely unexplored. My own intellectual energy therefore has been largely devoted to the task of developing a coherent scientific approach to understanding that is properly integral.