I have stated before that associated with each of the major levels of the Spectrum is a unique method of translating reality. A full interpretation therefore of any notion requires the full Spectrum of translations. I am now briefly going to illustrate this Spectrum through application to the pre/trans fallacy.

As the translations of the earlier "prepersonal" give rise to confused interpretations, I will confine myself to those of personal and "transpersonal" levels.1 Finally I will outline the most comprehensive types which unfold, during - what I refer to as - Radial Reality.

I distinguish eight such translation methods in all, which fall into three distinct groups.

  • Differential Methods
  • These are based on the logic of form (requiring the clear separation of polar opposites in experience). They are analytic in nature and give rise to a linear (one-directional) interpretation of events. When related to development they are directly suited for differentiation of the various stages which are understood to unfold in a sequential holarchical manner (from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal).

    I distinguish three such methods, which carry increased subtlety of interpretation (Differential 1, Differential 2 and Differential 3). The first two are based on the middle and the third on the important transition to the "higher" levels.

  • Integral Methods
  • These are based on the indirect rational interpretations of the logic of emptiness (where polar opposites in experience are understood as dynamically complementary). They are synthetic in nature and give rise to a circular interpretation of events. They are directly suited for integration of the various stages of development which are understood to simultaneously exist - though in a necessarily limited fashion - at every stage. From this perspective, prepersonal and transpersonal are always connected through personal development in a bi-directional fashion.2 In a qualified sense, at any stage of development we have simultaneous access to all stages. However, whereas in early life these connections take place in a very confused manner, at the "higher" spiritual stages, connections are made in an increasingly integrated fashion.

    Again I distinguish as between three Integral Methods which vary considerably in subtlety (Integral 1, Integral 2 and Integral 3). These can be roughly equated with the translations of the three "higher" transpersonal levels (psychic, subtle and causal respectively).

  • Radial Methods
  • These combine the logic of form and the logic of emptiness and are both analytic (one-directional) and synthetic (bi-directional) in nature. When applied to development they enable one to maintain the independence of each stage (linear) with the relative interdependence of all stages (circular). In other words they involve both the differentiation and integration of experience in a mature fashion.

    I distinguish two Radial Methods (Radial 1 and Radial 2). These can be equated in their most complete form with the translations of what in Christian mystical terms is called the Unitive Life.

    Most formal interpretations of reality depend heavily on the Differential Methods - usually Differential 1 - and are predominately based therefore on the logic of form.

    This necessarily leads to a basic confusion of the process of differentiation with that of integration (or alternatively integration with differentiation). This should become more apparent as I apply the various methods to the interpretation of the pre/trans fallacy.


    Differential 1

    Most of the controversy surrounding the pre/trans fallacy relates to the opposing arguments of the Romantic and Idealist camps.3 As is usual in these circumstances, there are both important truths and limitations associated with each position. However they cannot be adequately reconciled within this framework of translation.

    The Romantic approach places the primary emphasis on integration. However it necessarily reduces the equally important process of differentiation to that of integration.

    It is not therefore able to properly distinguish confused prepersonal from mature transpersonal states of development.

    In the Romantic view the differentiation of structures entails the loss of the primary state of fusion (through repression). "Higher" development is interpreted as the attempt to recover the initial state of union through the undoing of this repression.

    Again the problem about this position is that it cannot properly balance the two processes of integration and differentiation in experience. Because it places the emphasis on a primary state of union, the differentiation of structures is interpreted mainly as a loss and a movement away from integration. So adult spiritual development is seen as a restoration of this original unity.

    Now there is certainly an important sense in which this is true. However it is far too one-sided. The necessary requirement for the differentiation of structures - as the means of moving away from the initial confused state of union - is not sufficiently recognized.

    So prepersonal are not properly distinguished from transpersonal states in this view.

    Ken Wilber makes this valid point very cogently. However he over-emphasizes the differentiation of structures.

    So Ken is at pains to point out that transpersonal and prepersonal are distinct and should not be confused. However in his holarchical approach to development, he tends to reduce the process of integration to that of differentiation.

    Again, the linear view emphasizes that stages of development are distinct and unfold in a sequential fashion.

    However the circular view emphasizes that all stages are simultaneously present in some measure (at any given stage).

    So the real task is to reconcile these two views without reductionism.

    In early development there is confusion in terms of the two processes.

    Differentiation of structures is initially necessary to move away from this confused state. However integration is equally necessary at a later stage to counteract unbalanced differentiation.

    This is a very important point. Basically the move from "prepersonal" to personal development places the emphasis on the differentiation of separate structures. Though integration also takes place (with each stage) it remains largely implicit serving to support the primary task of differentiation.

    In Western Society, mature personal development typically leads to a highly differentiated form of understanding (which is unbalanced). Experience then tends to plateau with very few attaining to the "higher" spiritual levels.

    Those who possess the "mystical" temperament are generally particularly sensitive to the imbalance caused by this extreme development. They experience a deep need for true integration requiring authentic "transpersonal" growth.

    So from the (linear) differential perspective, transpersonal are distinct from prepersonal stages (and prepersonal from transpersonal). This is what Ken Wilber strongly asserts.

    However from the equally important (circular) integral perspective, "transpersonal" are (structurally) closely similar and indeed ultimately identical to corresponding "prepersonal" stages (which ultimately have a purely relative meaning). So both of these views must be maintained and the task of development is the attempt to achieve their reconciliation.

    Ken Wilber’s view of the pre/trans fallacy is strictly only valid in terms of the (linear) differentiation of stages.

    So clearly here, transpersonal should not be confused with prepersonal (reductionism). Equally prepersonal should not be confused with transpersonal (elevationism).

    However from the equally valid (circular) interpretation of stages, "transpersonal" are necessarily complementary with "prepersonal" (and "prepersonal" with "transpersonal"). Indeed with nondual reality they are identical.

    So from this perspective the pre/trans fallacy represents a failure to recognize that:

  • "transpersonal" are necessarily complementary with "prepersonal" and
  • "prepersonal" are necessarily complementary with "transpersonal" states.
  • However these two views cannot be reconciled within a merely analytic method of translation (which is not sufficiently subtle).

    As Ken Wilber is basically using a differential approach, his (linear) interpretation is more valid (in terms of this method of translation). However it is very one-sided and becomes untenable with the application of subsequent methods.

    Once again to sum up, integration and differentiation operate according to two different logical systems.

    In terms of a differential approach these are necessarily confused.

    Either we attempt reduce differentiation to integration (Romantic) or integration to differentiation (Idealist).

    However in terms of a Differential 1 approach, the Idealist position is logically more coherent than the Romantic (as by definition it is properly suited to the task of differentiation).

    Differential 2

    This leads to a more sophisticated treatment of stages4 where polar distinctions are made in horizontal, vertical and diagonal terms.

    Horizontal polarities emphasize subjective-objective distinctions.

    Thus every stage of development can manifest itself (horizontally) in these two ways i.e. in terms of both interior and exterior reality. Full development of course entails that both directions be specialized. However understanding in our culture is largely reduced in terms of its objective manifestations.

    Vertical polarities emphasize the extremely important whole-part (collective- individual) manifestations.

    Every stage of development equally can manifest itself (vertically) in these two ways i.e. in terms of both collective whole and individual part manifestations. In psychological terms the vital interaction as between affective and cognitive modes involves these vertical poles. In dynamic terms therefore, the ability to switch as between whole and part (and part and whole) distinctions involves the interaction of both affective and cognitive understanding.

    Again in our scientific culture understanding is largely reduced in terms of the cognitive aspect.

    The four quadrants allow for both horizontal and vertical directions.5

    Diagonal polarities emphasize the most fundamental finite (material) and infinite (spiritual) distinctions.

    So each stage has a phenomenal (material) and empty (spiritual) manifestation. Alternatively we could say that all stages have both dual and nondual characteristics. In their dual (phenomenal) aspect they are relatively distinct. However in their nondual (spiritual) state they are interdependent with all others.

    So this diagonal switching (both within and between stages) is the basis for the more limited horizontal and vertical switching.

    The linear approach to development now requires a more sophisticated treatment of stages, which are subdivided into their horizontal, vertical and diagonal aspects.

    This does not create any fundamental problem in terms of the pre/trans fallacy of the previous method.

    The exterior aspect of each stage is still logically interpreted as unfolding in a one-directional sequential fashion. Therefore in holarchical terms, the exterior aspect of formop for example unfolds later in development than the corresponding (exterior) aspect of conop. Likewise the interior aspect of formop unfolds later than that of conop.

    (However when we later look at these relationships in true dynamic fashion crucial paradoxes appear).

    So the Differential 2 approach allows for the subdividing of stages with polarized directions (horizontal, vertical and diagonal) leading to a multi-linear view of development.

    The pre/trans fallacy – as outlined by Ken Wilber still holds in its more multifaceted expression.

    So it can now be stated as:

  • the confusion of the transpersonal directions of higher stages e.g. exterior or interior, with the corresponding aspects of prepersonal lower stages (reductionism).
  • the confusion of the prepersonal directions of lower with the corresponding transpersonal directions of higher stages (elevationism).

    Differential 3

    This involves an extremely important breakthrough where every dualistic interpretation of reality is understood to have an opposite mirror explanation, which is equally valid.

    This is simply the result of expressing relative movement in static absolute terms.

    I have used the example of two drivers heading in opposite directions from each other on a motorway to highlight this crucial point. Driver A will interpret movement in a positive direction. So as he goes forward with respect to B, B relatively goes backward with respect to A.

    Likewise Driver B (from the opposite perspective) will interpret movement in a positive direction. So as he goes forward with respect to A, then A goes backward relative to B.

    So in dynamic relative terms A and B move in positive and negative directions with respect to each other.

    So when we attempt to express this in dualistic unambiguous terms, two equally valid interpretations are involved:

  • A goes forward in relation to B (and B goes backward relative to A)
  • B goes forward in relation to A (and A goes backward relative to B).
  • Now this logic equally applies to the polarized distinctions of development.

    In dynamic terms all movement is relative (in both a positive and negative direction).

    Therefore when we express this in dualistic terms two equally valid interpretations are possible.

    Therefore in the context of pre and trans, two opposite interpretations of development are equally valid.

  • From one polarized perspective (e.g. exterior aspect), we can take development as moving unambiguously from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal.
  • Equally from the other polarized (interior) perspective we can again take development as moving unambiguously from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal.
  • However relative to each other, these go in both a forward and backward direction (in circular rather than linear fashion).

    If we plot the development of the exterior aspect through stages on a straight line (moving out horizontally from a central point), the development of interior aspects can be plotted on the corresponding straight line moving in the opposite direction to the left.

    So the horizontal aspects (interior and exterior) unfold in positive and negative directions with respect to each other. The vertical and diagonal aspects also unfold in like manner.

    This has major implications.

    It means that - in dynamic terms - progression in development necessarily entails regression (and regression entails progression). However this must be understood in circular rather than linear terms.

    Likewise it entails that holism necessarily involves partism (and partism involves holism). So it is misleading to portray development in holarchical linear terms as the movement towards a collective whole. Development must be equally portrayed as the opposite movement towards unique parts.

    Finally it entails that transcendence necessarily involves immanence (and immanence involves transcendence).

    So again it is misleading to portray development as an evolutionary growth in transcendence; equally it should be portrayed - relatively - as an involutionary growth in immanence.

    So when one attempts to portray development using a one-directional approach, it necessarily distorts interpretation (through the need to come down in favor of one polarized aspect).

    So from a dynamic circular perspective, it is unbalanced to portray development in progressive terms (without equal emphasis on regression).

    It is unbalanced to portray development in holarchical terms (without equal emphasis on partarchy).

    Finally it is unbalanced to portray development in transcendent terms (without equal emphasis on immanence).

    Thus in terms of linear translation, the Differential 3 approach leads to the recognition of mirror image interpretations (with equal validity) for all dualistic explanations.

    So from this perspective it is misleading to portray development as going (unambiguously) from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal stages. Two opposite interpretations are now equally true:

  • a movement from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal. Here development goes from the confused prepersonal understanding of the "lower" through the differentiated personal to the integrated transpersonal understanding of the "higher" stages.
  • a movement from transpersonal to personal to prepersonal. Here development goes from the confused transpersonal understanding of the "lower" through the differentiated personal to the integrated prepersonal understanding of the "higher" stages. In other words from this perspective the instinctive shadow self (prepersonal) is only successfully integrated into the personality through "higher" development.
  • In dynamic terms prepersonal and transpersonal aspects of understanding are necessarily intertwined at both "lower" and "higher" development. However whereas at the "lower" stages this dialectical interplay takes place in a largely confused fashion 6, at the "higher" stages it becomes properly integrated into experience.

    So from a dynamic perspective the sharp differentiation of personal structures at the middle level can prove very problematic. Because it significantly erodes this two-way interaction, it can greatly reduce ability to subsequently access either the "lower" or the "higher" levels.

    The pre/trans fallacy of this Differential 3 translation arises from the failure to realize that:

    (1) from a dynamic (circular) perspective pre and trans are purely relative, and

    (2) that in (reduced) linear terms, dynamic relationships as between pre and trans can always be given (reduced) opposite interpretations that are equally valid. 7

    Integral 1

    This is based on the dynamic two-way complementarity of opposite polarities in horizontal terms. It properly unfolds with the first of the "higher" spiritual levels H1.

    So object can no longer be clearly separated from subject (or subject from object).

    Indeed what is subject and what is object have now a purely relative meaning. In experiential terms this gives rise to a directly intuitive form of understanding where these opposite polarities are increasingly reconciled (in direct fashion).

    In rational terms it leads to a (circular) bi-directional interpretation where dualistic paradox is explicitly recognized.

    So in terms of this translation, pre and trans (and trans and pre) are understood to be dynamically complementary in experience.

    Evylyn Underhill brings out this dialectical nature of pre and trans in her classic book "Mysticism" (dealing with the evolution of spiritual consciousness).

    A sharp contrast is drawn as between the exterior and interior aspects of stages.

    The exterior aspect tends to be associated with progression; the interior aspect by contrast is associated – initially at any rate - with regression.

    In Underhill's account the first stage (of H1) is the concrete based "the Awakening of the Self".8 Here there is a plentiful flow of illumination and the aspirant appears to make great progress in relation to spiritual activities. So this is clearly identified as a "trans".

    However a subtle form of ego attachment now starts to take hold whereby truth is identified too rigidly with the (exterior) phenomenal symbols by which the spiritual light is mediated.

    This leads to a need for a counteracting interior aspect (so as to be weaned from this attachment).

    In Christian ascetic terms this is referred to as purgation. It involves much darkness and inner suffering and an opening up of the shadow self. Everything is now thrown into reverse with much of the progress of the previous stage seemingly undone. So from the aspirant’s point of view – in contrast with the previous stage - this seems profoundly pre, as the exterior aspect still serves as a reference point. However when one gradually identifies "progress" with true inner development it appears as trans. So pre and trans already acquire a relative meaning.

    Development then moves on to more formally based stages again with exterior and interior aspects.

    The exterior aspect is referred to by Underhill as "The Illumination of the Self". This is a deeper more refined experience where concepts acquire a subtle archetypal meaning. Bathed in this new life the aspirant is inclined to believe that great progress now takes place in the spiritual life.

    Once more however this leads to secondary ego attachment to (exterior) phenomenal symbols which necessitates the need for development of the reverse interior aspect. This unfolds in the "The Dark Night of the Soul" and involves profound loss due to a massive erosion of phenomenal attachment. So again, as deeper shadow conflict is opened up this initially seems to the disciple as profoundly pre. However, eventually through switching to an interpretation from the interior (rather than exterior) perspective, it is accepted as authentically trans.

    So this dialectical treatment of stages highlights the purely relative nature of pre and trans (in horizontal terms). What appears as pre or trans depends on the frame of reference adopted. If an exterior frame is used to define trans, then the interior aspect appears as pre; however if the interior aspect is now used as reference point, then the exterior appears as pre. Ultimately the pure relativity of pre and trans is realized through direct intuitive experience (free of phenomenal attachment).

    So the Integral 1 Method points to this circular nature of pre and trans which are dynamically complementary (and ultimately identical) in horizontal terms.

    This same state of affairs also applies at L1. Once again pre and trans are dynamically complementary (in horizontal terms) but in a confused fashion. In other words at L1, the child is still not able to properly separate objective from subjective and still understands bi-directionally (in an undifferentiated manner).

    So in dynamic terms we cannot have prepersonal understanding without transpersonal (nor transpersonal without prepersonal). At "lower" levels, considerable interaction takes place between both aspects, but in a very confused manner. Again at "higher" levels this interaction is evident (this time in an increasingly integrated fashion).

    However it remains a crucial point. The personal levels of development – if literally achieved – by definition lead to the end of this dynamic interaction (i.e. where experience is neither pre nor trans).

    However this considerably cuts off any means of accessing the "higher" levels. On the other hand, it equally cuts off any means of revisiting and healing "lower" shadow conflicts.

    Fortunately pre and trans elements (which are always interlinked) are never completely eliminated in experience. However the fact that so few attain to "higher" levels in our culture clearly points to the considerable extent through which this dynamic interaction is lost with the advent of personal development.

    So in terms of Integral 1, the pre/trans fallacy can be stated as the failure to recognize:

  • the horizontal complementarity (exterior and interior) of pre and trans in

  • an integrated fashion at the "higher" level of H1.
  • the corresponding complementarity of horizontal polarities (in confused fashion) at L1.
  • that the "higher" understanding of H1 is necessary to interpret the confused understanding of L1.9 (In rational terms this method requires a bi-directional interpretation).

    Integral 2

    This is based on the additional dynamic two-way complementarity of vertical polarities, which properly unfold with H2.

    At the level of H1, the dialectical interplay is between exterior and interior aspects of stages.

    At H2 however the interplay is primarily as between whole and part aspects.10 This entails the vital relationship as between affective and cognitive modes of understanding.

    So the very switching from recognition of whole to part (and part to whole), requires the interplay of cognitive and affective modes.

    Thus if understanding is overspecialized in terms of either mode, it sets severe limits to this interaction.

    Again this dialectical interplay is brought out well in Christian mysticism where a clear divide opens up between the "lower" affective and "higher" cognitive self.11 Spiritual intuition is mediated through the increasingly subtle symbols of the "higher" rational self. However the inevitable repression – though refined – of the affective mode leads to a corresponding swing to the "lower" instinctive self with the projection of intimate fantasies of a physical nature.

    So during this time one is very sensitive to imbalance at either extreme causing very large swings in experience. Again the problem is only solved through achieving sufficient detachment from the projections of either pole.

    Again one initially identifies transpersonal development with the "higher" spiritual projections; thus the corresponding projections of the physical self are viewed as prepersonal. However one gradually learns to accept that these two extremes are fully complementary. So what is trans from the cognitive is pre from the corresponding affective perspective; likewise from the opposite affective stance, what is trans is now pre in cognitive terms.

    Once more, this bi-directional paradox – now operating at a vertical level – is reconciled through direct intuitive awareness (where attachment to polar distinctions ceases).

    We cannot now look at a "stage" in static homogeneous terms as it represents a two-way dialectical interplay as between opposite directions.

    In horizontal terms this takes place within each stage as the interaction of objective and subjective (i.e. exterior and interior) directions.

    In vertical terms, the interplay takes place between affective and cognitive (i.e. individual and collective) directions. This in turn is the dynamic basis for smooth swirching between the levels of development.

    So in terms of Integration 2, we can define the pre/trans fallacy as the failure to recognize the following:

  • from an authentic mystical perspective pre and trans (and trans and pre) are vertically complementary in a mature integrated fashion.
  • in terms of earlier psychological development that pre/and trans (and trans and pre) are vertically complementary in an immature undifferentiated fashion.
  • the mature mystical understanding is necessary to properly interpret
  • the confused infant behavior. The translations of HL2 are therefore needed to

    properly interpret the experience of LL2.

    Integral 3

    This is based on the additional diagonal polarities, which properly unfold with HL3.

    It leads to an extremely refined intuitive from of experience involving bi-directional rational understanding in relation to horizontal, vertical and in addition diagonal directions.

    The diagonal directions represent the most fundamental distinction between finite (phenomenal) and infinite (empty) experience.

    It is not strictly true that phenomena cease to arise at this level; rather attachment to these phenomena is so greatly refined that they disappear from memory as soon as they are generated.

    This is a very important point and necessary to maintain the true dynamic nature of experience.

    Spiritual emptiness is not strictly speaking devoid of phenomena; for without the continual generation of such phenomena this emptiness could not be attained.

    Rather phenomenal generation is so dynamic (because of the reduced friction of non-attachment) that the mind is able to empty itself as soon as they arise.

    Thus direct spiritual awareness is inseparable from refined bi-directional understanding operating in horizontal, vertical and diagonal levels.

    Diagonal polarities could be defined as the simultaneous interpretation of horizontal within stages and vertical movement that is between stages).

    To move within and between stages at the same moment – which is paradoxical – ultimately entails no movement at all. So one increasingly comes to rest in the deep spiritual present from which all phenomena fleetingly arise in experience.

    So pure integration culminates with the spiritually emptiness of H3 (where the separate identification of phenomena greatly ceases).

    In rational terms, a proper integral approach is based on bi-directional understanding that embraces horizontal, vertical and diagonal directions of experience.

    So in terms of Integral 3 we can again state the pre/trans fallacy as the failure to recognize that:

  • pre and trans are dynamically complementary in diagonal terms (simultaneously involving both horizontal and vertical directions) at H3. This takes place in a mature manner.
  • pre and trans are dynamically complementary again in diagonal terms - this time in an immature undifferentiated fashion - at L3.
  • the mature bi-directional understanding of H3 is necessary to interpret the undifferentiated bi-directional experience of L3.
  • Thus it is particularly inappropriate to use a linear method of translation to interpret the earliest stages of development.

    Radial 1

    This is based on the mature understanding of the (early) Unitive Life and involves the harmonious interplay of both analytic (linear) and synthetic (bi-directional) methods of interpretation.

    So we are able to properly incorporate both linear and circular interpretations of pre and trans.

    From the linear perspective, stages of development are distinct and unfold in a holarchical fashion.

    However from a circular perspective there is a two-way dialectical interaction within each stage (horizontal), between stages (vertical) and both within and between stages simultaneously (diagonal).

    Thus from a linear (differential) perspective we recognize that pre and trans (and trans and pre) are – relatively - distinctive terms (which should not be confused).

    However equally from a circular (integral) perspective, we recognize that pre and trans are complementary in horizontal, vertical and diagonal terms.

    Thus the pre/trans fallacy at Radial 1 consists in a failure to see that both linear and circular interpretations are equally necessary. This can take two forms:

  • an emphasis on the linear (differential) without an equal emphasis on the circular (integral) interpretation. One recognizes that pre is distinct from trans (and trans from pre). However one does not equally recognize that pre is complementary with trans (and trans with pre).
  • an emphasis on the circular (integral) without an equal emphasis on the linear (differential) interpretation. One accepts that pre and trans are now complementary terms. However one does not accept that they are also distinct.
  • The main limitation of Radial 1 is that these distinctions are still not sufficiently flexible. There is still an undue emphasis on phenomenal characteristics.

    Radial 2

    This is based on the advanced understanding of the Unitive life where differential (one-directional) and integral (bi-directional) interpenetrate to a considerable degree.

    Though very refined distinctions can be made, understanding is now very spontaneous (without undue attachment to such distinctions). The pre/trans fallacy would consist of:

    1) the conscious need to make phenomenal distinctions regarding the linear (differential) or circular (integral) interpretations.

    So fundamentally Radial 2 represents a form of understanding that is purely simple. Once again it is consistent with the capacity to make the most refined intellectual distinctions (but in an increasingly non-possessive fashion).


    The interpretation of a concept cannot be adequately filtered through the lens of any one translation method.12 The full Spectrum of Methods (involving differential, integral and radial approaches) is required.

    I have briefly illustrated this point with reference to the pre/trans fallacy. A comprehensive discussion of its various translations would of course entail considerable detail (that is not possible in this short article).

    However the basic point is clear. A distinct "fallacy" is associated with each translation method. This finding has direct relevance for many crucial issues in development (personal and cultural).13


    1.  I enclose inverted commas around transpersonal and prepersonal and other opposite terms (such as higher and lower) when I wish to suggest their (circular) complementary meaning.

    2. In psychological terms, personal development commences with the first differentiation of structures. Thus with "lower" development differentiated personal necessarily co-exist with confused undifferentiated structures (involving the bi-directional interaction of "prepersonal and "transpersonal"). When we identify "lower" development - in linear terms - as prepersonal it distorts its true dynamic nature.

    3.  For convenience I am referring to the stance adopted by Ken Wilber in his well-known formulation of the pre/trans fallacy as Idealist.

    4.  Stages are often used in developmental psychology in a somewhat loose sense (including what I refer to as levels and sub-levels). However because of the popularity of the term 'stages', I am continuing to employ it here.

    5.  Ken Wilber's quadrants correspond to my terminology of horizontal and vertical directions in their linear (one-directional) interpretation. However Ken does not formally include correspondents in his approach to the fundamental notion of diagonal directions.

    Likewise he does not properly interpret the quadrants in a circular (bi-directional) fashion. (This is necessary to create paradox in terms of all asymmetrical interpretations).

    6.  In dynamic (circular) terms, a stage of development has a paradoxical interpretation involving continual switching as between opposite poles. Again this takes place in horizontal, vertical and diagonal terms.
    Horizontal switching enables the dynamic interaction within stages (subjective and objective).

    Vertical switching enables interaction between stages (affective and cognitive). One of the great problems with rational development (of the middle stages) is that the affective mode is largely reduced to the cognitive. This then tends to greatly confine experience to this limited range of the spectrum (cutting off access to both "higher" and "lower" bands).

    7.  This is the means to transfer from differentiated (asymmetrical) to integrated (symmetrical) understanding.
    Each dualistic interpretation and its mirror explanation are asymmetrical (in isolation). However when paired together they are symmetrical (as they are complements of each other). Thus bi-directional understanding is vitally necessary to create paradox in terms of all dualistic explanations. This prepares the mind for a qualitative transformation through intuitive insight (where the paradox is directly reconciled).

    8.  Just as we have concrete (conop) and formal (formop) based structures at the middle level (L0,H0),
    equally we have concrete and formal based structures at H1 (with a subtle interpretation). However
    unlike (L0,H0), both horizontal directions (exterior and interior) are now sharply differentiated.

    9.  In experiential terms the interaction works both ways. Whereas the integrated "higher" are
    necessary to interpret the confused "lower" stages, equally without the confusion of the "lower",
    there would be no need for integration of the "higher" stages.

    10. Strictly speaking the crucial relationship as between whole and part (and part and whole) cannot betranslated in "real" scientific terms (as wholes are inevitably reduced to parts).

    The relationship of whole and part (and part and whole) involves both "real" (quantitative) and "imaginary" (qualitative) aspects. So we now need a more refined "complex" as opposed to "real" scientific approach.

    11. This vertical dialectic is brought out very well in the "The Spiritual Canticle" of St. John ofthe Cross. However even here there is an imbalance in interpretation. St. John - following the conventional Christian emphasis - maintains that the "lower" (affective) are brought into conformity with the spirit through the "higher" (cognitive) structures. However this ultimately views emotion as inferior to reason. Properly interpreted, both "higher" and "lower" are equally harmonized through the spiritual center of personality.
    12. Obviously the Spectrum of Translations can be applied to all concepts in any field providinga greatly extended range of interpretations (that are valid within a limited focus). When properly grasped this has the potential to lead to an enormous extension in the field of intellectual inquiry.For example mathematical concepts do not have just one valid meaning but a wide range of partially valid interpretations (most of which are scarcely recognized). This insight led me to the development of Holistic Mathematics (which provides the interpretation of mathematical symbols through the three Integral Methods).

    13. Transpersonal" is necessarily intertwined with "prepersonal" in child development (from a dynamic perspective). Though this interaction is necessarily confused, brief moments of striking lucidity are certainly possible even (at an early age) indicating a latent mystical capacity.With mature mystical development, again "transpersonal" and "prepersonal" are necessarilyintertwined. In other words authentic spiritual insight is necessary to access the hidden layers of the shadow personality. The shadow in other words cannot be fully incorporated into the personality without "higher" level development.

    Also it would be a mistake to regard indigenous "prepersonal" as necessarily inferior to specialized rational cultures. Though confused elements of understanding may well be evident, it is certainly possible that such cultures can maintain a better overall sense of integration and more awareness of spiritual values.

    A rational culture may well be at a "higher" level of development in respect to the cognitive line (from a differentiated perspective). However other lines may not be properlyy developed so that overall integration remains at a low level.

    So it would be misleading to rank development solely in terms of differentiated cognitive development.