5 - Interpretation of Lower by Complementary Higher StageObviously 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 (psychic/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 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 Wilberís 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).