8 - Dynamic Interaction Between Levels

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).

Thus 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.