- Radial Method
(Notes can be directly accessed by clicking on numerical links throughout text!)
In part 1, we dealt with the need to preserve the unique distinction of the differentiated and integral aspects of development through intellectual interpretation. Then we sought to demonstrate - through the radial approach - how these aspects could be consistently combined in an interactive manner.
However the proper preservation of both aspects requires that we employ in turn two uniquely distinctive ways of defining stages.
The differentiated aspect is directly related to the discrete (linear) asymmetrical interpretation based on the separation of polar opposites (such as lower and higher). The integral aspect is in turn related to the continuous (circular) interpretation based on the two-way complementarity of these same opposites.
The radial appreciation of stages then combines both interpretations requiring the subtle interplay of partially independent with holistically interdependent frames of reference.
Clearly from this perspective, Ken Wilber's approach - that predominantly relies on the discrete interpretation of stages - reduces the nature of integration in a significant manner.
He never really gets to grip with a key underlying issue in development viz. of how the partial understanding of development variables (as relatively independent) can be properly reconciled with their corresponding holistic appreciation (as relatively interdependent).
Discrete and Continuous Stages
In terms of the stage approach to development, both differentiated and integral aspects give rise to two distinctive interpretations.
The former leads to a discrete model of stages based on asymmetric distinction e.g. where prepersonal and transpersonal are clearly separated from each other. Thus from this perspective pre is not trans (and trans is not pre).
From the discrete (differentiated) perspective therefore - though it may be admitted that dynamic interaction necessarily occurs - prepersonal, personal and transpersonal are defined as somewhat distinct from each other.
This requires that prepersonal stages of development be largely completed before the personal can unfold. Likewise in turn the personal stages must properly unfold before (mature) transpersonal development can commence.
However from the continuous (integral) perspective, interpretation subtly changes.
Now all stages remain in transition throughout development.
Thus for example the nature of - what we identify (in discrete terms) as - the first prepersonal level, continually changes through integration with "higher" levels of development (in a bi-directional manner).
Thus it is only though the unfolding of the "higher" stages - and ultimately all stages of development - that we can properly unravel the prepersonal confusion inherent in the first stage.
What this implies therefore is that it is only through the successful unfolding of all development that we can fully understand any individual stage.
Therefore the first "lowest" prepersonal level (of instinctive body development) - as with all stages - remains in continual transition throughout development, ultimately requiring the unfolding of the "highest" transpersonal level (of pure spiritual awareness) before it can be properly integrated in experience.
Thus from this perspective the body cannot be totally integrated with Spirit (until Spirit fully unfolds in development).
Put another way full immanence of form (whereby Spirit is revealed within matter) cannot be attained without corresponding transcendence as emptiness (whereby the Spirit is experienced without matter).
However equally from the other perspective, the "highest" transpersonal requires the pure unfolding of the "lowest" prepersonal stage before it can likewise be fully integrated in development.
What this entails is that the transpersonal is - in effect - inherent in all stages from the first. So Spirit as transpersonal emerges initially from matter just as matter finds its final realisation in Spirit.
Thus the task of integration remains continuous throughout development.
Not alone does such integration take place (horizontally) within levels in a bi-directional heterarchical manner. It likewise takes place (vertically) between levels in bi-directional hierarchical terms (and indeed diagonally within and between levels simultaneously).
So therefore from one perspective we have top-down integration whereby the focus is on transcendence. Here matter (from below) is integrated through Spirit. However we equally have bottom-up integration whereby the focus is - relatively - on immanence so that now the Spirit (from above) is integrated through matter. 1
A discrete interpretation of stages leads necessarily to an unbalanced interpretation of integration, which typifies Ken Wilber's approach. Here integration is defined in a merely top-down fashion where lower stages (that are unambiguously appreciated) are ultimately assimilated from the perspective of higher transpersonal development.
However the problem here is that transpersonal is defined in a merely one-directional fashion as pertaining to the transcendent direction of Spirit. So immanence in effect is subsumed under transcendence.
Likewise the discrete (differentiated) approach leads to fundamental imbalance with respect to holarchy.
With holarchy, a holon is defined as a whole/part where every whole is also part of a higher whole. So when development is approached in this asymmetrical manner, it reveals itself as a progressive movement towards a more collective notion of wholeness.
However the dynamic understanding of a holon is bi-directional.
Therefore a holon (or rather onhol) can also be defined asymmetrically as a part that is also a whole (in the context) of other parts. From this perspective therefore, development can be seen as a progressive movement towards an ever more unique notion of partness.
Now we cannot hope to properly integrate the part with the whole (or the whole with the part) until we recognise both - relatively - opposite asymmetrical interpretations.
The proper incorporation of the continuous with the discrete interpretation of stages has far reaching consequences.
It implies that a balanced integral approach requires a radical re-interpretation of all development concepts in an appropriate bi-directional fashion.
For example not alone does this task require the more refined cognitive interpretation of stages "higher" than vision-logic but also entails that the very interpretation of vision-logic is continually transformed through the perspective of these "higher" stages. So vision-logic itself is in a state of continuous transition throughout "higher" development. (And of course this likewise applies to all other stages!).
Thus we have default vision-logic interpretation of the vision-logic stage i.e. the centaur.
However we can also have the enhanced integral 1 (subtle), integral 2 (causal) and integral 3 (nondual) interpretations of vision-logic, which provide it with an increasingly more coherent perspective.
Finally we can have increasingly enhanced interpretations of vision-logic from the even more comprehensive perspective of the radial stages of the Unitive Life (radial 1, radial 2 and radial 3). Of course we can also have diminished versions of vision-logic - whereby its nature is reduced - from stages lower than the centaur!
Nature of Bi-directional Understanding
Because it is so critical for the integral approach to development let me briefly elaborate once more on the nature of bi-directional understanding.
As I have stated, Ken Wilber's vision-logic defines direction (for any given developmental context) in an unambiguous one-directional fashion. However as we have seen - in terms of the dynamics of experience - two polar directions necessarily apply.
When life commences the structures of development - by definition - have not yet been differentiated. Therefore the best way to characterise early infant behaviour is in terms of a confused form of integration where both the pre and trans aspects of development have yet to be disentangled.
When we look at development from a linear (differentiated) perspective, we see it - like the driver interpreting movement within his/her own frame of reference - as proceeding forward unambiguously in one direction. This is enshrined for example in the conventional belief that each higher represents a transcendence of the previous stage.
However when appropriately understood - in dynamic terms - development is in fact bi-directional with both transcendent and immanent directions.
Therefore when we attempt to look at both of these directions in isolation, development again appears to be unambiguous.
Thus the unfolding of each (higher) stage can be seen to represent a growth in transcendence; however equally it can be seen to represent a growth in immanence.
Now if we attempt to combine both these partial reference frames in an analytic linear manner (as with our two separate drivers) development again seems unambiguous (i.e. representing a growth in both transcendence and immanence).
However when we consider both of these aspects as holistically interdependent - as befits integral appreciation - deep paradox results. Therefore if development moves forward with respect to the transcendent direction, it thereby moves - relatively - backward with respect to the immanent; likewise if development moves forward with respect to the immanent direction, it thereby moves backward with respect to the transcendent.
Transpersonal and prepersonal are synonymous in bi-directional terms with the transcendent and immanent aspects. Thus from an integral perspective, pre and trans have necessarily a merely relative meaning throughout development.
Let us now examine the nature of pre and trans (and trans and pre) from the perspective of a radial model, which incorporates both the differentiated and integral aspects of experience.
In early development pre and trans are very closely related (though in a highly confused manner).
Because proper differentiation of structures has not yet taken place, the infant is unable to meaningfully transcend and go beyond a limited ego identity to find its goal in Spirit; likewise it is not able to meaningfully go within this primitive sense of self to find Spirit as its very source.
However it is important to recognise the bi-directional nature of this confused integration. 2
The infant is not so much at a first stage (as discretely defined) but literally all over the Spectrum (whose structures are greatly entangled with each other).
Thus from a dynamic integral perspective, the nature of experience is both pre and trans (and trans and pre). Here the two spiritual directions of development (transcendence and immanence) are still identified with each other in an immediate experience (where Spirit is not properly separated from matter).
This easily explains - without the need for convoluted bardo type considerations - why the "earliest" stage is infused with immature transpersonal elements. Quite simply because of lack of differentiation, transpersonal (transcendent) and prepersonal (immanent) directions cannot be yet meaningfully separated from each other. So, from a dynamic perspective, what is pre is thereby also trans.
Now insofar as some differentiation of structures does unfold, we can also give the stage a limited discrete interpretation. 3
As development proceeds through the "lower" stages, the discrete aspect becomes more prominent through the development of more differentiated structures.
So prepersonal becomes increasingly separated from transpersonal (and transpersonal from prepersonal).
However it is the very nature of such differentiation that bi-directional notions become interpreted in an absolute (i.e. one-directional) fashion. 4
Because - through differentiation - the direction of development appears to be forward, then the immanent and transcendent aspects likewise are interpreted as forward.
In practice the immanent is often misleadingly subsumed under transcendence!
So with the middle level, differentiation achieves its most specialised development. Though integration necessarily takes place it remains largely implicit and reduced in intellectual terms to differentiated interpretation.
Thus the linear bias (of asymmetric sequential interpretation), which greatly characterises most intellectual discourse on development, is very much a product of the specialised understanding of the middle stages.
Actual development (especially "lower" and "higher" stages) does not accurately conform to such understanding. Rather the discrete (intellectual) interpretation of one level is inappropriately imposed on all levels thus greatly misrepresenting the true nature of experiential dynamics.
This is why for example a vision-logic interpretation makes little sense in the context of explaining all development.
Vision-logic is the product of just one level (the most advanced of the middle stages). Therefore if we strive to interpret overall development in terms of this interpretation, we inevitably distort its nature.
Thus if we are to do justice to the nature of development we must use the full range of interpretations associated with all levels. 5
We commonly refer to the middle levels as relating to the personal stages of development. Because of successful linear differentiation, the confused bi-directional nature of pre and trans (and trans and pre) largely ceases. Thus understanding is no longer prepersonal and transpersonal. In other words it is largely personal.
However there is a potential problem associated with such differentiation. Because complementary notions have now largely ceased, the middle can easily become cut off from healthy interaction with both the "lower" and "higher" levels. In this way we can lose contact with both our prepersonal roots and transpersonal destiny (where these terms have - ultimately - a merely relative meaning).
Extreme Interpretation of Pre/trans Fallacy
Thus there is a significant problem associated with the extreme interpretation of Ken Wilber's pre/trans fallacy.
If we fully separate pre from trans (and trans from pre) so that neither is confused with the other, then we thereby lose the very means of maintaining access from the middle to both the "higher" and "lower" levels of the Spectrum.
From a healthy dynamic perspective, it is always the remaining confusion with respect to these aspects that provides the catalyst for movement to a more mature understanding (where both aspects are no longer confused). Therefore we cannot achieve the more integral appreciation of the interdependence of pre and trans at "higher", without reference to remaining (undifferentiated) elements at the - relatively - "lower" levels.
Admittedly, linear (one-directional) differentiation is a vitally necessary aspect of development. However the maintenance of proper balance in understanding requires the incorporation of such unambiguous linear with the more paradoxical bi-directional notions (that typify actual integration).
"Higher" development entails the gradual unfolding of mature integral understanding in purer contemplative awareness of reality. However this is necessarily associated with refined bi-directional structures of form (which have been properly differentiated from each other).
So once again pre and trans become complementary in integral terms. What this entails in practice is that we achieve increasing dynamic interpenetration of opposite polarities first between levels (horizontally), then between levels (vertically) and finally both simultaneously within and between levels (diagonally).
The asymmetrical elevation of trans above pre (inherent in Ken Wilber's pre/trans fallacy) leads to an unbalanced interpretation of integration in a merely top-down fashion (where the lower are subsumed under higher stages).
However true integration is bi-directional and top-down and bottom-up (with both aspects having a merely relative meaning).
So to give a consistent interpretation of development - which is true with respect to its inherently dynamic nature - we must use a radial approach (that properly incorporates both the differentiated and integral aspects).
Consistency of Differentiated and Integral Interpretations
The question then arises as how to consistently preserve both discrete asymmetrical meanings with respect to all polarities in development while also recognising their complementary paradoxical nature. And in this context the polarities in question are pre and trans (and trans and pre)!
As we have seen, pre and trans relate essentially to the immanent and transcendent directions of development (with ultimately a purely relative meaning).
In dynamic terms we transcend and go beyond - literally without creation as it were - through corresponding negation of phenomenal identification (of what is within creation).
Thus we - ultimately - transcend in emptiness (as Spirit) through negation of form.
However from the equally valid alternative perspective we make immanent and thereby go within creation to discover Spirit as its source, by negating what is without.
Therefore we make Spirit immanent (in form) through negation of emptiness. 6
In earliest development we have the highly confused integration of matter and Spirit where the immanent direction has not separated from the transcendent (nor the transcendent from the immanent).
Then when we look at development in discrete (asymmetrical) terms - where they are separated - we can either portray higher stages as a progressive ascent in transcendence or alternatively as a progressive ascent in immanence.
However from this discrete perspective we can equally identify the higher stages of either aspect as transpersonal (representing the pure unfolding of Spirit). Then the lower (confused) aspect associated with each stage will be prepersonal.
Thus both the transcendent and immanent directions can equally be given transpersonal and prepersonal interpretations.
In dynamic terms the unfolding of the "higher" stage with respect to one aspect is always associated with the corresponding "lower" stage with respect to the other.
Thus if we identify the "higher" stage associated with the transcendent direction as trans then the immanent is - relatively - pre.
However if we now identify the "higher" stage associated with the immanent direction as trans, then the transcendent is thereby - relatively - pre.
Remember "the way up is the way down; the way down is the way up"! So in this context trans is pre and pre is trans with both terms having a purely relative context.
So therefore the radial link in maintaining consistency as between linear (differentiated) and circular (integral) understanding is the clear recognition that every asymmetrical interpretation has a mirror (reverse) translation, which is equally valid (through switching the polar reference frame).
Therefore though unambiguous discrete meaning can be validly preserved within each reference frame (considered in isolation) paradox results when we consider both interpretations as interdependent. The recognition of this paradoxical interdependence then paves the way for true (spiritual) integral appreciation.
Radial Model of Development
I will now briefly outline the basic nature of the radial model necessary for a more balanced interpretation of pre and trans.
Because this model incorporates both differentiated and integral aspects of development it maintains balance therefore as between the discrete (linear) and continuous (circular) classification of stages.
Linear Asymmetrical Interpretation
Looked at from a linear (asymmetrical) perspective, we have 12 main levels of development (3 Lower, 3 middle, 3 higher and 3 radial).
Starting with the earliest band the 3 lower (prepersonal) are simply L3, L2 and L1 (i.e. Lower 3, Lower 2, Lower 1). These equate well with the archaic, magical and mythic stages (in Wilber's terminology).
The middle band (personal) comprises L0 (Wilber's rule/role), L0,H0 (formal reflexive) and H0 (vision-logic) stages.
Then the three higher (transpersonal) - in ascending order - are H1, H2 and H3 i.e. Higher1, Higher 2 and Higher 3). These can be identified with Wilber's psychic/subtle, causal and nondual stages respectively (though I would be at pains to emphasise the structures as well as the states of these stages).
Finally, I include in addition three radial levels (Radial 1, Radial 2 and Radial 3). These entail the mature interpenetration of the higher and lower levels with the middle stages (and middle with higher and lower). In Christian mysticism these are sometimes referred to as the Unitive Life where deep contemplative awareness and committed active involvement are harmoniously combined!
So in linear asymmetrical terms the stages of development are ranked in ascending order L3 - L2 - L1 - L0, H0 - H1 - H2 - H3 - R1 - R2 - R3. (L0,H0 which serves as both the ceiling of the lower and ground floor of the higher stages is just one level).
Circular Complementary Interpretation
However we can also look at these stages from a circular (paradoxical) perspective.
Here we can define three sets of complementary relationships. 7
Firstly we have horizontal polarities (exterior and interior) within a given level.
So the exterior aspect is complementary with the interior (and the interior with the exterior) aspect. In other words in dynamic relative terms, development with respect to these two aspects takes place in opposite directions from each other.
Secondly we have vertical polarities (whole and part) between levels.
Again the whole aspect is complementary with the part aspect (and the part aspect with the whole) again unfolding in opposite directions from each other.
One implication of this is that all development has both holarchical (whole/part) and onarchical (part/whole) aspects, which dynamically interact with each other.
The basic principle in development is that the confusion of opposites implicit in a "lower" level (where they are not yet differentiated) is only properly unravelled at the corresponding "higher" level.
In vertical terms L3 is complementary with H3 (and H3 with L3); L2 is complementary with H2 (and H2 with L2) and L1 is complementary with H1 (and H1 with L1). Then L0 is complementary with H0 and L0,H0 with L0,H0. In other words the most middle of the levels is complementary with itself. This is precisely why, in dynamic experiential terms, over-specialisation with respect to the middle levels, leads to considerable isolation from all other levels ("higher" and "lower").
The diagonal polarities relate to the most fundamental manifestation of form and emptiness (and emptiness and form). In diagonal terms both horizontal and vertical aspects are simultaneously combined, so that for example the exterior aspect of a "higher" level is complementary with the interior aspect of the corresponding "lower" vertical level (and the interior aspect of the "higher", complementary with the exterior aspect of the "lower").
This enables L1 and L2 (and H1 and H2) to be fully integrated with each other, which results in the experience of L3 and H3 respectively. Once again in the "lower" stage all complementary opposites are initially greatly confused; in the corresponding "higher" stage they are fully integrated.
So with the reconciliation of the diagonal polarities, all "higher" and "lower" (and "lower" and "higher") levels can be integrated with respect to both heterarchical and hierarchical aspects leading to pure (nondual) contemplative awareness that dynamically interacts with extremely transparent fleeting (dual) phenomena of form.
Now the middle level (L0,H0) is the least complementary of all levels representing an extreme in the specialisation of (merely) differentiated understanding. 8
By contrast H3 (which dynamically includes L3) is the most complementary representing the integration of all "higher" and "lower" levels.
However what is least and what is most are likewise complementary. Therefore the least (i.e. what is most differentiated) is complementary with what is most integrated.
Therefore this final most complete integration (which equally represents the most complete differentiation) takes place with the unfolding of the radial levels.
During Radial 1, the combined integration (and differentiation) of the diagonal polarities takes place in a balanced manner.
With Radial 2, this is extended to include the vertical and finally with Radial 3 to likewise include the horizontal polarities.
So Radial 3 represents the most complete expression of both the active (differentiated) and contemplative (integrated) aspects of experience both within, between and (simultaneously) within and between all levels of the Spectrum.
Radial Link Connecting Linear and Circular Interpretations
The very special task of a consistent radial approach is to demonstrate the precise relationship as between the linear (differentiated) and circular (integral) aspects of experience, which requires a very subtle interpretation of asymmetrical understanding.
As we have seen in our discussion on Heraclitus, this entails - for any pair of polar opposites - the ability to appreciate all asymmetrical relationships in development from two equally valid opposite perspectives (where the polar frame of reference continually switches).
Let us apply this to the asymmetrical relationship as between pre and trans.
As with the drivers heading off in opposite directions, we have once again two unambiguous interpretations (defined by independent polar reference frames).
If we identify direction with the transcendent aspect, it proceeds - in linear terms - from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal stages.
Likewise if we switch the frame of reference from the transcendent to the immanent direction, it likewise proceeds - in linear terms - from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal stages.
Thus from this linear asymmetrical perspective, overall development likewise seems to proceed from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal stages with respect to both the transcendent and immanent directions.
This is because we are attempting to combine opposite poles in an independent fashion.
However, when we consider these poles as dynamically interdependent - which is necessarily the case in terms of the integral aspect - our two asymmetrical perspectives on development are forward and backward with respect to each other. (Remember the movement of the two drivers in relation to each other!)
Therefore what is pre from a transcendent perspective is trans from an immanent; likewise what is trans from an immanent is pre from a transcendent perspective.
In other words in dynamic interdependent terms, pre and trans (and trans and pre) are purely relative, the precise meaning of which is arbitrary in any particular context.
Thus we move from differentiated (linear) to integral (circular) appreciation by switching from a one-directional (sequential) to a bi-directional (simultaneous) interpretation of asymmetrical relationships. Likewise - in reverse - we move from integral to differentiated appreciation by switching from bi-directional back to one-directional interpretation.
We have now briefly clarified:
- the linear (asymmetrical) approach suited for interpretation of the differentiated aspect of stages.
- the circular (paradoxical) approach suited for interpretation of the integral aspect.
- the crucial transformation (which arises from suitable appreciation of mirror structures) enabling consistent interaction as between the differentiated and integral (and - in reverse - the integral and differentiated) aspects.
Outline of Radial Stages
We therefore have the ingredients (combining these aspects) to give a brief outline of a radial interpretation of the main stages (i.e. levels) of development.
L3 (Archaic) - Development starts from a state of totally confused interdependence of the three fundamental polarities.
Because of the lack yet of any differentiation of structures, therefore - with respect to the diagonal polarities - form (matter) cannot be separated from emptiness (Spirit).
Likewise differentiation of the vertical (whole and part) and horizontal (exterior and interior) polarities has not yet taken place.
Thus the first task of L3 relates to the gradual (linear) separation in experience of the diagonal polarities of form and emptiness, which in psychological terms is associated with the differentiation of the bodyself.
In terms of structure, the bi-directional (circular) approach mainly defines the interpretation of L3 in continuous terms. As yet the (linear) discrete interpretation of stages has but a limited role.
Remember that L3 is directly complementary with H3 (in confused fashion), which equally embraces all "lower" and "higher" stages!
So rather than the baby infant being at a 1st stage (as discretely understood), more accurately, development is continually all over the Spectrum in a very confused dynamic manner.
With respect to pre and trans, this implies that both aspects are likewise still very closely related to each other in a confused complementary manner.
In other words because so little differentiation has yet taken place, the infant is not able initially to meaningfully transcend the present state of form-emptiness confusion through the differentiation of Spirit (as separate from matter). Equally from the alternative perspective, it is not possible, in immanent terms, to differentiate matter (as separate from Spirit).
So transcendence and immanence - which represent to the two directions of Spirit with respect to both emptiness and form - cannot be meaningfully distinguished at the commencement of life. So likewise pre cannot be distinguished from trans (and trans from pre).
Again in continuous integral terms, the "highest" stage is synonymous with the "lowest" and the "lowest" with the "highest"! However we must repeat that we are here talking about a totally confused state of integration (where differentiation of structures has not commenced).
Insofar as (linear) differentiation does begin to occur at L3, it is with respect to the diagonal relationship between pre and trans. What this means in effect is that the infant learns to differentiate form from emptiness (through identification with the bodyself) without any clear distinction yet as regards vertical (whole and part) and horizontal (exterior and interior) polarities.
L2 (Magical) - This level in radial terms commences from a structure that is largely circular and bi-directional (in confused terms) with respect to both vertical and horizontal polarities but now linear to a degree, through successful differentiation, in terms of the diagonal polarities (i.e. form and emptiness).
In other words Spirit has in some measure been successfully separated from matter enabling the (preliminary) transcendence of form (through emptiness) and the corresponding making immanent in form of emptiness.
We now have in development further separation with respect to the vertical polarities (whole and part). In psychological terms the infant, through differentiation of the emotional self, is able to gradually distinguish a growing individual from a wider (confused) collective identity.
With respect to pre and trans we also get further (linear) separation. In other words with the slow emergence of the personal self, confused transpersonal and prepersonal elements in understanding can be gradually unravelled.
Though in linear terms, L2 acquires a stronger discrete identity (through the further differentiation of structures), in circular terms it remains complementary with H2. So the reason why pre and trans remain related to each other, in confused complementary manner, is because corresponding "lower" and "higher" levels (L2 and H2) are still dynamically related to each other in a similar complementary fashion.
L1 - (Mythic) - We start this level from a structure that is now somewhat linear and discrete with respect to diagonal and vertical polarities but still largely circular in terms of remaining horizontal (exterior and interior) polarities.
The main task now is to obtain further differentiation with respect to these remaining horizontal aspects. In psychological terms this is associated with differentiation of the mental self. Now finally with exterior separated from interior, the self is able to stand back as it were and achieve greater control of the external environment.
So L1 now has a much greater linear discrete identify. However while it us unfolding it remains complementary in dynamic terms with H1.
So with respect to pre and trans these likewise remain confused mainly in relation to horizontal polarities, while development at this level continues.
L0 - (Concrete Rational) - This is the first of the levels geared to explicit specialisation of linear differentiated structures (though implicitly integral bi-directional activity must to a degree remain).
At this stage linear activity largely relates to local empirical type relationships.
However mythic confusion - reflecting confused bi-directional activity - still operates at the deeper more general level of understanding.
So this really represents a transition stage as between the lower and middle levels.
Though it is certainly now possible to have lucid experience of a higher spiritual level, a child would find it difficult to articulate it successfully in terms of the default understanding of this stage. However with the enhanced understanding of L0 that becomes possible at more advanced stages, a more appropriate intellectual context for such an event would increasingly be made available.
L0,H0 (Formal Rational) - Development is now approaching the centre of the middle levels. This can equally be viewed as the "highest" of the "low" levels (L0) or alternatively as the "lowest" of the "high" levels (H0). 9
Here linear separation (in the differentiation of all structures) reaches its zenith.
Confused complementary understanding now largely ceases, and the specialised development of the linear structures (in particular with respect to the mental cognitive aspect) takes place.
However it is important to point out that because intellectual discourse is so heavily based on the linear (asymmetrical) modes appropriate to this level that such interpretation can greatly distort an overall appreciation of development (applicable to all levels). 10
With respect to pre and trans - in principle - insofar as this level is applicable, confused complementary elements now cease. So the level is neither prepersonal nor transpersonal (in confused fashion). In other words it is (merely) personal which indeed is typically how it is defined.
H0 (Vision-logic) - Just as L0 represents a transition stage as between lower and middle level understanding, in somewhat complementary manner H0 represents a transition stage as between the middle and higher levels.
Therefore though - in explicit terms - its structures are still linear, implicitly they can become imbued with the spiritual energy of states associated with higher levels.
This therefore enables a much more dynamic use of linear understanding, which can be applied flexibly in multi-varied developmental contexts in a very detailed and creative manner.
When such structures - as is the case with Ken Wilber - richly reflect the spiritual vision associated with higher levels it can lead to an approach that certainly gives the appearance of being truly integral (when viewed through the structural lens of this level). However when viewed through the mature bi-directional structures associated with the higher levels its lack of holistic consistency becomes steadily more apparent.
I have repeatedly made the point that vision-logic in structural terms is simply not adequate for an integral translation of development (that is properly consistent).
Again this is directly due to the fact that the vision-logic structures of this level are still geared to linear (asymmetric) appreciation that is directly suited for differentiated - rather than integral - interpretation. Once again the bi-directional structures directly associated with the higher levels are required for integral translation.
Though the basic rational asymmetric distinction of pre and trans still remains in terms of the cognitive interpretation of H0, because it allows for a more nuanced understanding many dynamic modifications may be allowed - which if properly incorporated - would render the base position untenable. Indeed as we shall see later this indeed is the case with Wilber's handling of the pre/trans fallacy.
H1 (Psychic/Subtle) - We now have the commencement of the mature (truly integral) stages of development. Because there is a necessary dynamic complementarity as between what is and what is not, the "higher" (integrating) necessarily bear a close relationship with corresponding "lower" (non-integrated) levels. And when we allow for the bi-directional relationship of the transcendent and immanent aspects of development we realise that "higher" and "lower" in this context have a merely relative meaning.
Just as the major task at L1 (its corresponding complementary level) was the disentangling of confused bi-directional understanding (with respect to the horizontal polarities), the appropriate task now is their reconciliation (in an integral fashion).
So here, mature circular appreciation of development commences.
One way of understanding this is in terms of the attempted reconciliation in development of (interior) stages of self and - relatively - (exterior) stages of reality.
With respect to pre and trans, complementarity is now established largely in heterarchical terms regarding horizontal polarities (exterior and interior).
An important implication of this dynamic understanding is that H1 (psychic/subtle) necessarily bears a very close relationship with L1 (mythic).
Thus for those who have a strong allegiance to the respective religious traditions, the psychic/subtle level may well entail the gradual refining in appreciation of mystical truths previously understood in a somewhat mythical fashion.
H2 (Causal) - This level commences from a state where mature bi-directional structures (with corresponding contemplative awareness) have been developed with respect to the horizontal polarities. However (rigid) linear elements will still remain in relation to both vertical and diagonal polarities.
The main task of this level - in structural terms - is to now achieve the circular integration of vertical polarities (whole and part). This in turn entails the important task of fully appreciating the bi-directional nature - in dynamic terms - of all hierarchies. This is not easily obtained as the strongly asymmetrical bias of present development studies demonstrates!
More subtly - as we shall see in a further discussion - this entails the proper balancing in experience of both structures and states with respect to all levels.
A much greater degree of mature circular appreciation now likewise applies to the understanding of pre and trans (and trans and pre).
Indeed the conventional interpretation of the pre/trans fallacy has a very limited value from this perspective.
This level (H2) is dynamically complementary with L2. However because of interdependence, this also entails considerable integration with H1 (and L1).
H3 (Nondual) - This entails circular complementarity with respect to all three sets of polarities (horizontal, vertical and diagonal), which equally entails the removal of remaining rigid elements with respect to linear understanding.
It provides the means of integrating all "higher" and "lower" levels both in heterarchical (in-out and out-in) and hierarchical (top-down and bottom-up) fashion.
Just as the middle level (L0,H0) represents the specialisation of (linear) differentiated understanding, this (dynamic) level entails the corresponding specialisation of pure contemplative awareness.
Pre and trans now obtain a purely relative meaning with respect to horizontal, vertical and diagonal polarities.
This represents the ultimate solution to the mind/body problem. Through deep (complementary) reconciliation of cognitive and affective modes (with respect to structures), the immanent and transcendent directions of Spirit are likewise reconciled (in a state of pure nondual awareness).
R1 (Radial 1) - The specialisation of linear (differentiated) structures takes place at the middle levels. The corresponding specialisation of the integral structures (culminating in a pure nondual state) takes place at H3. However this is not the end of development. The final task is the combined interaction of differentiated (dual) and integrated (nondual) structures and states in a comprehensive balanced manner.
In Christian mysticism, the summit of the (merely) active life would coincide with the spiritual understanding of the highest stage of the middle level (i.e. the centaur). The summit of (mere) contemplation would then coincide with the spiritual understanding of H3.
However it is well recognised that the most complete expression of the mystical life combines both the active and contemplative aspects in an immensely creative - yet productive - manner in what is often referred to as the Unitive Life. Again, with some qualifications, this involves the unfolding of various stages with their own characteristic dynamics.
Though there are many fine spiritual examples of this development - as for example in the lives of the great saints - remarkably little intellectual clarification of its precise nature has yet been undertaken. However it is only through such understanding that all "earlier" forms can be given a coherent adequate intellectual perspective.
One problem that can easily arise with pure contemplative development is that the middle levels - which represent the most dualistic form of understanding - can be significantly bypassed. Therefore, though substantial integration with respect to all "higher" and "lower" levels takes place at H3, the middle are not yet properly integrated with other levels. This in turn can lead to a significant reduction in activity (requiring dualistic involvement).
So the radial levels in general entail the gradual incorporation - both in differentiated and integral fashion - of the middle with all other levels (and of course - in reverse manner - these levels with the middle).
Just as the diagonal polarities are the last to be successfully reconciled before nondual integration (at H3), these same diagonal polarities are the first to be differentiated in a mature non-attached manner at R1. 11
In intellectual terms, R1 gives rise for example to a global view of reality where consistent balance can be maintained as between linear (differentiated) and circular (integral) aspects. It is ideal therefore for the task with which I am presently engaged i.e. scientific clarification of the fundamental dynamic structures with respect to all aspects of development.
That is why my stated aim is to provide a (preliminary) Radial 1 approach to development.
In relation to pre and trans one would now maintain balance as between the circular (where pre and trans are relative) and the linear perspective (where pre and trans have a discrete meaning in a partial asymmetrical context especially with respect to the diagonal polarities of form and emptiness).
R2 (Radial 2) - This stage enables the incorporation of analytical structures (relating to both the diagonal and vertical polarities) with mature bi-directional understanding.
It represents experience that is profoundly contemplative yet increasingly capable of immersion in active affairs in a creative and efficient manner.
In intellectual terms this would lead to an overall approach to development that is truly integral, yet capable of detailed analytical investigation with respect to various disciplines. Clearly as I would see my own approach as a preliminary attempt to clarify the structures of R1, it can only give a somewhat diminished impression of the more advanced stages of R2 and R3!
In terms of pre and trans this would lead to a greater balancing of circular (continuous) and linear (discrete) interpretations through the more detailed appreciation of partial asymmetrical contexts.
R3 (Radial 3) - This stage finally incorporates the analytical in terms of all three sets of polarities (diagonal, vertical and horizontal) with mature bi-directional understanding with respect to these same polarities. It represents therefore the fullest expression of both the contemplative and active aspects of experience (in terms of cognitive, affective and spiritual modes).
Thus the mature developed personality at this stage is capable - in an unattached dualistic manner - of the most specialised differentiated understanding, which yet is equally consistent with the permanent realisation of the most integral nondual state possible.
From an intellectual perspective this would entail not alone understanding that is both analytically superb (yet integrally profound) but also the ability to communicate such understanding in a committed personally engaged fashion.
At previous stages some gap exists as between intellectual expression and actual experience. However this is no longer the case. Here intellectual expression of the most perfect nature of development is accurately mirrored through the life of the person relating such experience.
With respect to pre and trans we would now therefore approximate complete balance as between differentiated (asymmetrical) and integral (bi-directional) appreciation.
I have been at pains to outline - in a necessarily brief manner - the dynamic structural configuration of all the major levels of development (which necessarily interact with corresponding spiritual states).
What is truly remarkable is that all these structures have a precise holistic mathematical interpretation. This clearly demonstrates that the fundamental structures of development are indeed mathematical (when its symbols are interpreted in an appropriate dynamic manner).
For example the linear (asymmetrical) and circular (bi-directional) logical systems represent the holistic equivalent of the binary digits (1 and 0). Even - in their symbolic notations (with very minor modifications) - 1 is represented as a line and 0 as a circle.
So just as all information can be (potentially) encoded using the analytic interpretation of the binary digits, likewise all transformation (processes) can be encoded using the corresponding holistic interpretation of the same digits. (And we have just been illustrating its use in the context of the transformation process we define as development!)
Likewise underlying all bi-directional development processes is the basic dynamic notion that positing (in any context) equally implies negation.
So we have here in turn the holistic equivalent of the fundamental mathematical operations of addition and subtraction (+ and -).
Just to give one more example at this stage! The holistic interpretation of an imaginary number has a vital role to play in the precise interpretation of the relationship between conscious and unconscious understanding.
Notice how conventional science - which is based on merely conscious notions - attempts to deal with the "real" world.
However once we incorporate the conscious with the unconscious aspect, the world must now be conceived in both "real" and "imaginary" terms.
So in a precise holistic mathematical sense, all "reality" is necessarily complex (i.e. with "real" and "imaginary" aspects).
These symbols intimately relate to the interpretation of number.
In analytical terms, number is the synonymous with the ordering of quantitative relationships.
Likewise in holistic terms, number (given its appropriate dynamic interpretation) is synonymous with the ordering of qualitative relationships. 12
Therefore the most appropriate scientific way of understanding all development processes is in terms of the holistic equivalent of fundamental number relationships.
So my own approach is directly based on making such a scientific approach explicit in the very manner we interpret development.
I have no doubt that when the holistic nature of disciplines such as Mathematics is properly recognised that scientific understanding will be truly revolutionised with the capacity to bring a proper integral approach to understanding. I am already discovering this in increasing measure. Thus my main intention in writing is to help others likewise discover this important truth for themselves.
However the first step is the clear recognition of how the interpretation of integration is quite distinct from differentiation!
1. If we look at each higher as a transcendence (in Spirit) of the previous stage, then - in asymmetrical terms - the lower will be subsumed from the perspective of the higher in a top-down form of integration.
Equally if we look at each higher stage as the making immanent (of Spirit) in the previous stage then - again in asymmetrical terms - the lower will be integrated from the perspective of the higher in a top-down manner.
However when we combine these two aspects of Spirit (transcendence and immanence) as interdependent, then what is forward from one perspective will be backward from the other (and vice versa).
Therefore in dynamic relative terms if transcendence is associated with a top-down form of integration, then immanence will be associated with the bottom-up equivalent.
However if we switch the frame of reference, then immanence will be associated with top-down integration and transcendence with its bottom-up equivalent.
Therefore both the transcendent and immanent directions of development are each associated with top-down and bottom-up integration (with "lower" and "higher" stages having a purely relative meaning).
Now clearly if - as with Wilber - one attempts to look at development unambiguously in terms of just one polar reference frame (defined by the forward direction of transcendence), the approach to integration will be unbalanced (and interpreted in a merely top-down fashion).
2. Once again there are two (spiritual) directions to development i.e. transcendence and immanence.
Therefore the unfolding of each stage can be characterised as a growth in transcendence (whereby the lower is transcended in a higher stage).
Equally the unfolding of each stage can be characterised as a growth in immanence (whereby the higher is made immanent in the lower stage).
However in dynamic interactive terms "higher" and "lower" are purely relative terms.
Therefore in the confused state of integration (before differentiation begins), the "lowest" is identified directly with the "highest" stage (and the "highest" with the "lowest"). Thus the experience of the baby infant is pre/trans (where the immanent direction is still entangled in undifferentiated manner with the transcendent) or alternatively trans/pre (where the transcendent direction is entangled with the immanent).
It is only through the differentiation of structures in development that pre separates from trans (and trans from pre) with the gradual unfolding of the personal ego.
However this is necessarily associated with the linear fallacy whereby what is dynamically complementary - entailing two directions, which are opposite relative to each other - is interpreted in an unambiguous one-directional manner.
Therefore because the direction of development (within differentiated independent reference frames) seems to be unambiguously asymmetric - from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal stages - we conclude that this is likewise true of overall development (though such reference frames are interdependent from an integral perspective).
This in turn explains why both prepersonal and transpersonal elements gradually die out as development moves towards the middle level (though in practice never entirely so). The (conscious) differentiated aspect of development tends to dominate thereby reducing the creative integral role of the unconscious.
3. The differentiation that occurs here is of the diagonal polarities i.e. form and emptiness (and emptiness and form).
This is customarily referred to - in psychological terms - as the differentiation of the bodyself.
Quite literally - through identification with this primitive body - the baby infant is now able to discriminate an existence (as form) that is distinct from nothing (as emptiness).
However considerable confusion still remains with respect to both vertical and horizontal polarities.
In other words the infant is not yet able to properly distinguish an individual self-identity from the collective identity of the mother i.e. representing the confusion of whole and part.
Even less is the infant able to clearly distinguish an interior sense of self from exterior manifested phenomena (as objects).
4. This is an extremely important point.
In confused bi-directional terms (which characterises the nature of integration for the baby infant) opposite poles cannot be yet distinguished from each other (due to lack of sufficient differentiation).
Initially the diagonal polarities cannot be properly separated so that the infant cannot even distinguish existence from non-existence.
So existence is confused with non-existence (and non-existence with existence).
However once differentiation takes place enabling the separation of the two poles, bi-directional gives way to (unambiguous) one directional interpretation.
Thus in linear terms the distinction of existence and non-existence as separate terms is identical with their corresponding distinction in reverse order (i.e. non-existence and existence).
However in dynamic circular terms the order of terms is vital; thus the process by which form is distinguished from emptiness gives rise to two (opposite) complementary directions i.e. where emptiness is distinguished from form (as transcendence) and where form - in reverse manner - is distinguished from emptiness (as immanence).
Put another way, with (linear) differentiation, opposites gradually lose their dynamic complementary nature so that a (relative) bi-directional relationship is interpreted in (absolute) one-directional terms.
So the root of the linear confusion arises from the attempt to consider interpretation with respect to opposite poles in a relatively independent manner.
Thus if two drivers move in opposite directions, within their independent frames of reference, each will move forward.
This is linear (one-directional) understanding. However to consider their movement as interdependent - whereby the drivers move - relatively - forward and backward with respect to each other - requires bi-directional appreciation.
5. Obviously one cannot give an intellectually coherent explanation of development from the perspective of an early stage of development (due to the fact that cognitive structures have not yet been sufficiently differentiated in experience).
However there is a crucial complementary link as between "lower" and "higher" stages. Therefore it requires the mature understanding of the "higher" stage to coherently interpret the confused dynamics of the corresponding "lower" stage.
This means in effect that it requires the refined bi-directional cognitive understanding of the "highest" level (i.e. H3 or nondual) to properly interpret the confused dynamics pertaining to the "lowest" (i.e. L3 or archaic).
Likewise there is a complementary relationship as between H2 (causal) and L2 (magic) and also H1 (subtle) and L1 (mythic). Therefore in each case the refined bi-directional cognitive understanding of the "higher" level is required to interpret the confused dynamics of the corresponding lower level.
Now the middle level (which from the perspective of the "lower", is L0 and the higher H0 respectively) is thereby complementary with itself. In other words H0 interprets L0 (which is the same level).
In other words the dynamic complementarity as between "higher" and "lower" levels ceases with the middle level (L0, H0).
Therefore the (linear) asymmetrical cognitive understanding, associated with this level is inherently unsuited for interpretation of the interactive dynamics of development (especially with respect to all other "higher" and "lower" levels).
Thus when we - for example - attempt to understand L3 from the perspective of a middle stage of development such as vision-logic, we severely misinterpret its dynamic nature.
As we have seen, Ken Wilber's limited asymmetric treatment of the pre/trans fallacy coincides from an inadequate interpretation of the pre/trans dynamics of the earliest stages of development.
He attempts to clearly separate both aspects though this is clearly inappropriate in terms of the (yet) undifferentiated nature of these stages.
Though he rails very strongly against the Romantic interpretation of early development, it seems to me that he is always dismissing a distorted misrepresentation of their position (due to a misguided attempt to translate the dynamics of such development solely through either/or asymmetrical type distinctions).
6. Clearly, we cannot negate pure emptiness as such. However - dynamically speaking - emptiness is always to a degree, mediated indirectly through phenomena of form (with which it is necessarily associated).
Therefore as long a degree of rigidity attaches to form (in direct phenomenal terms), likewise a degree of rigidity will attach to the experience of emptiness (through the indirect phenomenal manner in which it is mediated).
So in dynamic terms, form is complementary with emptiness, and emptiness with form.
In the purest expression of spiritual awareness this entails that immanence is complementary (and ultimately identical) with transcendence and likewise transcendence complementary (and ultimately identical) with immanence.
7. Just as there are three sets of polarities, equally there are three types of complementary relationships.
The first type - which I refer to as Type 1 complementarity - is based on polar aspects that are directly opposite each other.
In geometrical terms we represent polarities as the opposite ends of the horizontal, vertical and diagonal lines of the circle (drawn in the complex plane).
What this means in effect is that all phenomena have both a "real" (conscious) and "imaginary" unconscious interpretation which are correspondingly represented by the real (horizontal) and imaginary (vertical) axes respectively.
When we consider polarities (that are consciously understood) in a dynamic bi-directional fashion, Type 1 complementarity applies. This understanding is primarily associated with H1 (subtle level).
However when we consider the more subtle relationship as between polarities that are understood with respect to the relation between their conscious ("real") and unconscious ("imaginary") manifestations, Type 2 complementarity applies. This is associated in turn with H2 (causal level).
Finally when we simultaneously combine both aspects (conscious and unconscious) - which is the closest we can come in the phenomenal realm to pure Spirit - and then attempt to interpret the relationship between this "complex" diagonal pairing (i.e. both "real" and "imaginary") with either "real" (horizontal) or "imaginary" (vertical) bi-directional understanding (considered separately), then Type 3 complementarity is required. This most subtle form of intellectual understanding is associated with H3 (nondual reality).
Remarkably Holistic Mathematics - where mathematical symbols are interpreted with respect to their dynamic integral significance - provides a fully coherent scientific structure for these increasingly complex (yet spiritually simple) forms of understanding.
8. Needless to say complete specialisation of understanding (in discrete terms) cannot take place at any level. This is due to the fact that all stages bear a necessary continuous (i.e. complementary) relationship with each other.
Therefore we can never fully participate in just one stage (as - in the dynamics of experience - all other stages are necessarily involved).
However having said this it is certainly possible to experience reality predominantly from the perspective of just one level especially with respect to the modes of understanding (e.g. cognitive).
Thus the middle level (L0, H0) in our culture entails a considerable degree of specialisation of linear (i.e. asymmetric) type understanding in rational intellectual terms.
This is especially evident in the conventional interpretation of science.
Correctly understood such scientific understanding represents the cognitive interpretation of a particular level (i.e. the middle stages). However, equally valid notions of cognitive science apply at other levels (especially "higher" and radial).
Also, whereas conventional science is analytic (and from an overall perspective fragmentary), "higher" science is holistic (and properly integral).
And just as mathematics - in conventional terms - is the essential tool for analytic science, equally - what I term - Holistic Mathematics - is the essential tool for integral science.
Finally, Radial Mathematics - which combines both analytic and holistic interpretation in a balanced consistent fashion - is the essential tool for the most comprehensive scientific view of reality (i.e. radial).
However, normally specialisation does not take place to the same degree with respect to the other primary modes (i.e. affective and volitional) at the middle level.
Therefore it is quite usual for both prepersonal and transpersonal elements - which enable access to be maintained as between "lower" and "higher" levels - to be mixed up to a considerable degree with cognitive rational understanding.
This would apply very much for example to the manner in which religious truths are experienced at this level. Because - in dynamic terms - pre is necessarily related to trans (and trans to pre), the understanding of such elements can vary considerably.
Thus considerable confusion may relate to the manner in which a person understands religious myths (i.e. where pre and trans are not properly distinguished). However - equally - the same person may well be capable of deep moments of spiritual recollection (where pre and trans interact in a mature manner).
So properly speaking a person at a pure level of spiritual awareness does not experience trans as separate from pre. Rather pre is integrated with trans i.e. immanence with transcendence in a mature fashion (without attachment).
What this person is distinguishing therefore is not so much trans from pre (in a discrete manner) but rather mature understanding of the dynamic interaction of trans and pre (and pre and trans) from corresponding confused notions of such interaction.
Everyone is on a continuum where both aspects (i.e. confused and mature) are necessarily related to some degree.
At the early stages of development, confused notions greatly predominate, though occasional moments of lucid awareness may be well be possible. For the spiritually accomplished person - by contrast - integral notions will predominate. However - even here - occasional lapses into earlier confused notions (e.g. in moments of stress) may occur.
9. The middle of the middle levels - by definition - is complementary with itself. This means in effect that it is the least complementary (i.e. the most differentiated) of all levels.
Therefore when development becomes very specialised at L0,H0 (formal), this tends to limit (sometimes severely) the possibility of healthy dynamic links with other levels.
Of course in practice complete specialisation does not take place so that both prepersonal and transpersonal (reflecting the understanding of other stages) will be also to a degree experienced.
However it is still true that very little sustained development of "high" levels takes place in our culture.
Ultimately what is most and what is least are complementary. This entails that the middle level is ultimately complementary with the "highest" (and "lowest") levels of nondual contemplative awareness. In others the greatest degree of integration requires in turn the greatest degree of differentiation (and vice versa).
However this entails that a very advanced degree of nondual awareness is required to properly integrate very specialised development in dualistic type awareness.
And because such specialisation can greatly hinder the possibility of contemplative awareness, we have a very real dilemma.
Thus though dualistic development is important, we have lost the balance in our culture with the need for corresponding nondual awareness.
So perhaps if we were to initially sacrifice undue specialisation in such development, the possibility for authentic spiritual development could thereby be enhanced.
With the two other middle levels L0 (concrete) and H0 (vision-logic) a degree of implicit complementary is entailed in that L0 and H0 - which in turn are partially related to the lower and higher levels respectively - are complementary with each other.
10. Though vision-logic of the centaur can indeed be inspired by spiritual intuition giving it considerable synthetic ability, in formal terms its interpretations are made in a linear asymmetrical manner (that are applicable to a series of multiple - relatively independent - contexts).
The clear problem with such vision-logic from an integral perspective is - what I refer to as - the linear fallacy. In other words because the direction of variables may seem unambiguous within each partial context (considered separately) one may then generalise that the same lack of ambiguity applies to overall development.
For example - with respect to Ken Wilber's quadrant approach - because (from one perspective) each lower stage is transcended and included in a higher stage (when considered in a partial relatively independent context) then the unwarranted generalisation is made that in actual development (where quadrants are likewise relatively interdependent) - that all lower stages are transcended and included in a higher stage.
So the linear fallacy always relates to a failure to properly distinguish the interdependence of variables (where polar opposites dynamically interact in complementary manner) from independent analysis (where opposite poles are separated in an asymmetric fashion).
It is important to point out that the nature of vision-logic interpretation continually changes when viewed from the perspective of higher stages.
Let me briefly clarify this changing nature.
Vision-logic (from vision-logic stage). Here relationships - though potentially considerably infused with spiritual understanding - are formally interpreted in a linear asymmetrical manner with respect to each of the four quadrants.
Vision-logic (from H1 - subtle realm). Now all relationships are given twin interpretations with respect to horizontal polarities. Put another way each Right-Hand asymmetrical interpretation is seen to have an equally valid (mirror) Left-Hand interpretation (and likewise each Left-Hand a corresponding Right-Hand interpretation).
Thus now the identification of any event as Right-Hand or Left-Hand is understood to be merely arbitrary.
Vision-logic (from H2 - causal realm). Understanding is now considerably more refined so that all Upper and Lower quadrants are likewise understood to have (mirror) asymmetrical interpretations.
Even more subtly, these asymmetrical interpretations are now seen to have both "real" (conscious) and "imaginary" (i.e. unconscious) interpretations.
Vision-logic (from H3 - nondual reality). Understanding now reaches an extreme in terms of refined specialisation. As well as horizontal and vertical mirror interpretations, we now have now corresponding mirror asymmetrical interpretations in relation to diagonal polarities (which can be given a coherent complex mathematical formulation in dynamic holistic terms).
Also with this degree of refinement one can likewise appreciate the very subtle connections as between all three sets of polarities (and their mirror equivalents).
Vision-logic (from R1). This entails the balanced interpretation of the interaction as between diagonal asymmetrical poles with their complementary (nondual) expression.
Vision-logic (from R2). This entails the balanced interpretation of the interaction as between both diagonal and vertical asymmetrical poles and their complementary nondual expression.
Vision-logic (from R3). This entails the balanced interpretation of the interaction as between both diagonal, vertical and horizontal asymmetrical poles and their complementary nondual expression.
So in truth the nature of vision-logic understanding (in terms of multifaceted asymmetrical type appreciation) is considerably refined and modified through the more advanced stages of understanding. This enables it to operate in an environment that provides an adequate integral context while allowing much greater scope for continual refinement in understanding.
11. In some respects, radial unfolding mirrors the earliest stages of development as one is "born again" (in spiritual light).
Thus the first stage of early development (L1) relates to the differentiation of the bodyself.
Likewise with Radial 1 we have the differentiation of a new bodyself (that is equally fully integrated) in a mystical awareness of one's body as being identical with the entire physical Kosmos. One is still of course aware of having an individual body. However because of freedom from undue rigid attachment, one is able to seamlessly mediate as between this body and the world of form, so that the same Spirit (in both) is continually experienced. Thus in breathing for example one is not so much conscious of a separate ego self but rather of breathing in and out the very (spiritual) life of this Kosmos.
Again at L2 we had the differentiation of the emotional self.
Once more at Radial 3 we have the differentiation (and integration) of a new mystically inspired emotion. One can - as before - experience feelings in individual terms. However because of freedom from attachment such individual experience interacts freely with a global collective sense of feeling (in universal compassion for all creation).
Finally at L3 we had the differentiation of the mental self.
Now at H3 we have the full differentiation (and integration) of mystically inspired mind. One can have individual thoughts but now (free of all attachment) this freely interacts with a universal form of wisdom (where the common nature of all dynamic structures is clearly comprehended). And this understanding is now actively communicated in everything one does.
More importantly it can now be fully combined with the other primary modes (affective and volitional) in the most creative - most productive - life enhancing experience that is the fullest expression of creation's own desire for ultimate meaning (as both its common source and destiny in Spirit).
12. Strictly speaking in holistic terms, mathematical symbols express the dynamic complementarity of both quantitative and qualitative aspects.
Put another way holistic symbols now equally express both the structures of the physical spectrum (as stages of reality) and likewise the structures of the psychological spectrum (as stages of self).
And these structures - which can be expressed in a precise holistic mathematical form - are complementary in horizontal, vertical and diagonal terms.
In other words within each stage we have complementary horizontal structures relating to the physical and psychological aspects that are - relatively - exterior and interior with respect to each other.
Likewise with respect to corresponding "higher" and "lower" stages we have complementary vertical structures relating to physical and psychological aspects (considered in a relatively independent manner) that are whole and part (and part and whole) with respect to each other.
Finally - through combining horizontal and vertical aspects simultaneously - with respect to the exterior (or interior) aspect of a "higher" stage and the interior (or exterior) aspect of a corresponding "lower" stage we have complementary diagonal polarities (relating to the most fundamental understanding of physical and psychological aspects respectively) that are form and emptiness (and emptiness and form) with respect to each other.
When we look at mathematical symbols in an analytic (absolute) fashion, the physical and psychological
aspects are fully separated with a double correspondence relationship assumed to exist between them.
Therefore mathematical symbols can be understood as giving a fully objective interpretation of physical reality; however equally they can be seen as entirely subjective constructs used to interpret such reality.
When a static double correspondence is assumed to exist as between both aspects regarding the absolute nature of its truths, it is irrelevant as to which interpretation is taken.
Thus for example we can look at the Pythagorean theorem as an objective hypothesis with respect to physical reality or equally a subjective hypothesis (the logical consistency of which cannot be challenged). And in the analytical appreciation of mathematical symbols both of these interpretations are assumed to correspond with each other.