Imagine a new Symphony with the main movement completely ignored and notes arbitrarily selected elsewhere played out of tune!

It would very difficult to recognize the original symphony from the discordant sounds thus created.

Likewise, I find it very difficult to recognize "The Dynamics of Development - a True Integral Approach " from Ray Harris's grossly misleading depictions in this article.

His particular style of piecemeal criticism completely ignores the context in which
the article is written and is therefore quite unsuited for its proper evaluation. Furthermore his truncated and somewhat biased style of representing various points greatly distorts their actual meaning.

Much of what he has written lacks overall consistency. In addition some of his stated concerns (e.g. his obvious preference for eastern spirituality) are quite irrelevant to the actual purpose of the article.

Furthermore his attitude throughout is unduly cavalier and full of bluster. He clearly has little resonance with what is on offer. Not surprisingly therefore he reveals through his comments a substantial lack of understanding of my actual position (which is considerably more subtle than he seems to imagine).

Altogether he is far too ready to bluntly dismiss a new vision which he does not appreciate rather than seek to re-evaluate his own preconceptions (in the light of this vision).

So he continually projects his confusion onto to the article without considering the possibility that its real source might lie in his own very inaccurate interpretation.

I will deal with Ray's criticism in detail. However first I will say a little more about the central aspect of my article relating to an extensive "Spectrum of Translation Methods" which I consider as fully necessary for successful intellectual interpretation of development.

(Remarkably this is never even alluded to by Ray!)

Central Issues

The purpose therefore of this first section is to provide further clarification of my integral approach (as outlined in the "Dynamics of Development - A True Integral Approach) while elaborating especially on the translation methods it proposes. In particular I concentrate here on the Analytic 3 method, which provides a necessary intellectual basis for moving from a merely differentiated to a true integral interpretation of reality.

Fundamental to this approach is the intellectual clarification of the nature of differentiation and integration in development.1 Though often confused with each other, they are actually qualitatively distinct processes that operate according to alternative logical systems. Therefore adequate intellectual interpretation of differentiation and integration respectively requires unique distinctive translations that adequately reflect both systems.

However in order to appreciate these two logical systems we must first understand the nature of both linear and circular notions of direction.

Linear and Circular Notions of Direction

From a linear perspective if I start on and go "straight ahead" I move unambiguously in a forward direction.

In other words as I proceed, I keep moving further away from the initial starting point.

Movement here is one-directional, sequential and asymmetrical.

It is one directional in that I move solely in one polarized fashion i.e. forwards.2

It is sequential in that that each stage of the journey unfolds in time.

Indeed this is the true meaning of linear in that such movement is measured against the one-dimensional arrow of time. So when I say that Ken Wilber adopts - in intellectual translation - a linear approach, I am referring to his customary manner of treating development as an asymmetric sequence of relationships unfolding in linear time.

Finally it is asymmetrical in that the forward necessarily excludes the backward direction. Therefore moving further away from the starting point excludes the opposite case of moving nearer to the same point.

However circular notions are very different.

The best way perhaps of appreciating this is to imagine a journey around the world where the destination coincides with the initial starting point. This journey will then trace out (approximately) a circular path.

Now here two directions of direction apply. Thus as I move further away from the starting point, I am thereby also moving closer to my destination (which is the same point).

By contrast movement here is bi-directional, simultaneous and symmetrical.

It is bi-directional in that I move in two directions (which keep switching as I change perspective). Thus when I view the journey in relation to the initial starting point, I see myself (progressively) as moving further away from this starting point. However when I switch my frame of reference and view the journey from the opposite perspective (the destination), I see myself as moving progressively closer to this goal.

It is also simultaneous for when I recognize that the end point is identical with the starting point, I can see that I am always moving in both directions (positive and negative). And what is positive and negative in this context is purely arbitrary depending on the reference point one adopts.

It is symmetrical in that one polarity is always balanced by its opposite. So in this context positive (forward) movement entails negative (backward) movement; equally negative (backward) movement entails positive (forward) movement.

So we have two very distinctive ways here of viewing direction. In the first (linear) approach, opposite poles are clearly separated with one direction automatically excluding the other. In the second (circular) approach, opposite poles mutually include each other where they are viewed as complementary.

This finding is vitally important for the translation of development, which at its most fundamental level is always based on the interaction of opposite poles.

For example, prepersonal (pre) and transpersonal (trans) comprise opposite poles.3

Thus from a linear perspective, trans stages exclude pre (i.e. development is viewed as either prepersonal or transpersonal). So opposite poles here are clearly separated.

From a circular approach however trans necessarily implies pre (and pre implies trans).

Thus opposite poles are now viewed as (dynamically) complementary.

Again with the linear approach, the development process is essentially defined in one-directional, sequential and asymmetrical terms.

By contrast with the circular approach, the development process is defined in bi-directional, simultaneous and symmetrical terms.

As development necessarily entails both approaches, the appropriate combination of both linear and circular understanding is required at all levels (the unique configuration of which depends on the level under consideration). As this is true in terms of the actual dynamics of experience, it is equally true therefore in terms of any adequate intellectual translation of such dynamics.

Relationship of Linear and Circular

What is now crucially required is to show how linear and circular notions are related.

To do this, I have used my example of the two drivers heading in opposite directions along a straight road (with no predefined notion of direction).

Now if we are unambiguously define movement in this context we have to arbitrarily fix it with respect to a polarized direction. So imagine that the first driver points in one direction and defines it as "up" the road (with the second driver accepting). Then when they both set off in opposite directions on their journey, one will go "up" and the other "down" the road in a mutually agreed fashion.

The linear interpretation of direction can be seen clearly here as an accepted - though arbitrary - fixing of a polar frame of reference (where the opposite frame could equally apply).

So if we were now to switch this arbitrary frame (by defining "up" the road in the opposite direction) and achieve mutual agreement, then we would have an alternative framework for unambiguously defining direction.4

Thus the first important point in moving from a linear to a circular approach to understanding is to clearly recognize that all (unambiguous) linear interpretations of direction result from a conventional - though necessarily arbitrary - fixing of the polar frame of reference.

For example if we look at the horizontal (exterior/interior) polarities of empirical science, we can see that reality is conventionally defined with respect to the exterior - rather than the interior - aspect.5 Thus objects are essentially viewed as existing "out there" independent of the observing mind.

However the crucial aspect to recognize in moving to a circular frame, is that all linear asymmetrical interpretations have an equally valid mirror interpretation when viewed from the opposite polar frame (as illustrated in the example of our two drivers). 6

This as we shall see is what I refer to as Analytic 3 understanding.

The vital step then in properly moving from linear to circular understanding is the keen recognition that in the very dynamics of experience we must continually keep switching our polar reference frames.

Thus for example from one perspective we are aware of the (exterior) world in relation to the (interior) self; from the equally valid opposite perspective the position is reversed and we are aware of the (interior) self in relation to the (exterior) world.

So with circular understanding both frames of reference are embraced simultaneously.

By its very nature the flexibility required for such understanding requires letting go of rigid dualistic notions. This thereby facilities the transformation to nondual intuitive awareness (where true reconciliation of opposites in experience takes place).

Implications for Translating Development

Now if we are to properly distinguish the nature of differentiation from integration in experience, we must clearly appreciate this distinction as between linear and circular understanding.

Differentiation in experience always entails the (temporary) arbitrary fixing of polar reference frames. Though enabling us to phenomenally understand in unambiguous manner, by its very nature it is unbalanced (as it always excludes the equally valid opposite frame).

Integration in experience, in any context, implicitly entails the simultaneous recognition of both polar frameworks (enabling some degree of unification to take place).

In the most general sense in any context, differentiation entails the separation of polar opposites; by contrast integration entails appreciation of their complementarity (and ultimate identity).

Therefore to translate the nature of differentiation and integration appropriately in intellectual terms, we must (explicitly) use both linear and circular modes of understanding.

This appreciation is vitally important, for in the dynamics of development, opposite poles are experienced to a degree as both separate and complementary (though the precise balance can vary considerably).

So as we have seen from a linear perspective, transpersonal stages exclude prepersonal (i.e. development is either prepersonal or transpersonal). Here opposite poles are viewed as separate. However from a circular approach, transpersonal necessarily implies prepersonal (and prepersonal implies transpersonal).

Here opposite poles are viewed as (dynamically) complementary.

The first interpretation where transpersonal and prepersonal are clearly separated, is suited to the differentiated understanding of development; the second approach where they are understood as complementary is suited to an integral understanding.

Finally the comprehensive approach - which includes both mature differentiated and integral appreciation - I refer to as Radial.

In outlining my Eight Methods of Translation, I distinguish clearly as between analytic translation methods (suited for differentiation), synthetic methods (suitable for integration) and radial methods (which harmoniously combine both differentiation and integration).

The great problem I see with Integral Studies at present is that they are conducted, in intellectual terms, though the use of largely analytic methods of translation. This inevitably results in a reduced form of integration that is full of imbalance and inconsistency from an overall perspective.

Though I do not doubt Ken Wilber's integral vision or his commitment to a true integral approach, I would find that from an intellectual perspective his approach is deeply flawed as he is largely using a sophisticated analytic method (vision-logic) which is based on defining (unambiguous) asymmetrical connections in development.

This, by its very nature leads to considerable imbalance (from an overall perspective).

In attempting to come to terms with this inevitable problem, Ken has the habit of offering in his writings various perspectives, which are in no way properly consistent with each other.

Unfortunately this variety of perspectives is often taken as representing a true integral approach, when in fact it actually demonstrates marked inconsistency and a lack of proper coherence.

I will deal with this point again later when offering my Spectrum of Translation Methods.

Dynamic Outline of Spectrum

However I would like to point briefly again to the nature of my manner of dealing with the Spectrum (which has led to a revelation that is truly fundamental in its implications).

The basic starting point is the clear distinction of the nature of differentiation from integration in experience.

As every stage of development entails in some measure both differentiation and integration, then an appropriate translation of these levels requires linear and circular methods of translation, which entails the use of two distinct logical systems.

By using the finding that there are three fundamental polarities in experience, I have been able to precisely map the structure of all the various levels and stages (using unique configurations at each level of both linear and circular logic).

From this dynamic perspective to development, in early infant development, linear and circular understanding are both greatly confused in understanding. In other words neither differentiation nor integration has yet properly unfolded.

The first key task is to gradually differentiate experience in a successful manner. Though appropriate integration must also necessarily take place at the earlier stages, the clear corollary is that it is largely defined in terms of an increasingly differentiated perspective.

So the "prepersonal" stages are structured in terms of initial confused configurations of both circular and linear understanding. As the (confused) circular aspect is removed, the specialization of linear understanding gradually takes place, which reaches its zenith with the (middle) personal stages. This in fact implies that the integration of the centaur - which represents the most advanced of the middle stages - is necessarily of a somewhat reduced nature being defined in terms of a specialized differentiated worldview.

The "higher" transpersonal stages then entail the restoration of circular understanding (this time in a mature manner free of confusion). So the emphasis here is primarily on the true integrated aspect of development.

This reaches its zenith with nondual reality. (Here experience is so dynamic that neither phenomenal circle nor line remain).

Finally I deal with radial reality which entails the interaction of both linear and circular understanding (which can be used in either a relatively independent or interdependent manner) depending on context. So radial reality represents the mature interpenetration of contemplation with (unattached) phenomenal activity.

Binary Encoding of Transformation

The fundamental revelation I mentioned is the clear realization that the entire Spectrum of Development (both in terms of its psychological and physical manifestations) can be precisely encoded in the terms of the dynamic holistic interpretation of the binary digits.

So linear understanding corresponds to the holistic interpretation of 1 (which quite literally as a symbol represents the line) and circular understanding corresponds to the holistic interpretation of 0 (which again as a symbol - with minor modifications - represents the circle).

We are all so aware of the digital revolution at present. (Our very participation on this forum is testament to its influence!)

Now the digital revolution is ultimately based on the important finding that all information processes can be successfully encoded using 1 and 0.

Holistic Mathematics - which I have been working on for many years - is based on the key insight that every mathematical symbol - that is given a static analytic meaning in conventional interpretation - equally has a dynamic holistic interpretation, with immense potential significance for a truly integral scientific appreciation of reality.

So the discovery that the binary digits can be used in a dynamic holistic sense to potentially to encode all processes of transformation, is just one wonderful example of the application of holistic mathematical principles. I believe that true appreciation of these principles has the power to literally revolutionize the way we scientifically understand reality in an integral manner.

Thus the holistic binary system can in future play the same role in encoding transformation processes, as the (analytic) binary system is already playing in terms of information. (Needless to say just as in analytic terms binary encoding of information should not be directly identified with the information it represents, likewise in holistic terms, binary encoding through the application of linear and circular logic, should not be directly identified with the transformation processes it represents).

So my own Spectrum is inherently based on a binary logic throughout. Far from this representing an undue simplification of development, it is potentially much more versatile - and I would say experientially accurate - than conventional translations.

Spectrum of Translation Methods

So I will conclude this section by once more highlighting "The Spectrum of Translation Methods" which distinguish as between analytic (differential), synthetic (integral) and radial methods.

Analytic 1

This linear approach reflects the appreciation of on conop and formop understanding based on a sequential asymmetric interpretation of relationships, that is applied in a limited partial setting (e.g. to a particular discipline). Thus it is geared for a specialized analytic appreciation within a narrow well-defined context.

Conventional scientific method is largely based on this Analytic 1 appreciation.

Analytic 2

This represents a more refined and intuitively based linear approach (vision-logic) which reflects mature centaur understanding. It can be applied in a more universal setting as a means of coherent interpretation of wide networks of relationships. In the hands of Ken Wilber it has led to an amazingly comprehensive multidisciplinary approach to knowledge.

However it is inherently flawed in the sense that - though it can indeed be inspired by authentic integral vision - it is still largely analytic being formally based on a decidedly asymmetrical interpretation of relationships (requiring the arbitrary fixing of polar frames of reference).

Thus in an overall context, vision-logic interpretation inevitably leads to imbalance and lack of intellectual consistency. For example the way that Ken approaches the four quadrants exemplifies this problem (as concisely outlined in "The Dynamics of Development").

Therefore the problem is rooted in the method of translation employed, which is inappropriate for the task.

Once again vision-logic as used by Ken Wilber is not properly suited as an integral approach.

Analytic 3

This represents the true bridge that connects linear and circular type understanding. Not surprisingly therefore it is based on the transitional understanding between each of the "higher" levels (H0 and H1; H1 and H2; and H2 and H3). 7

With this level of understanding, one can appreciate that all dualistic interpretation represents an arbitrary fixing of the polar frame of reference. Therefore an equally valid mirror image interpretation - which is opposite in direction - exists for every such interpretation. 8

For example if we take a definition of holarchy as entailing inclusion of lower in higher holons, then this has a mirror image alternative as the exclusion of the lower in the higher holons. Also, if we take holarchy as entailing the transcendence by the higher of the lower, it equally has a mirror image interpretation where the higher is made immanent in the lower.

So to define development as a holarchical process of transcendence and inclusion - as Ken typically does - is somewhat unbalanced. It equally represents a holarchical process of transcendence and exclusion.9 Likewise development can be represented as a "partarchical" process of immanence and inclusion and immanence and exclusion respectively. 10

The subsequent task for an integral approach is to translate the dynamic interaction of these various asymmetrical interpretations (which remain separated in analytic terms).

Now there is a fascinating example in Ken Wilber's writing, which I will use here to clarify the nature of Analytic 3 understanding.

In the Preface to the Second Edition of "The Spectrum of Consciousness", Ken says the following:

"Whatever we might call them, notice that we have two (illusory) movements of Spirit in the world: one is the getting lost, the other is the getting found; one moves from "oneness" to "manyness", the second from "manyness" to "oneness". And this is where the terms involution and evolution come in."

Now Ken here defines both terms in a manner that is actually consistent with their (dynamically) inherent complementary nature. However this important fact is not at all reflected in his asymmetrical treatment of development (which is unduly identified with the evolutionary aspect).

"These terms take on opposite meanings depending on whether we describe the process from the view of Spirit or the view of the individual returning to Spirit. For example evolution simply means to "unfold, unroll or open out". From the view of Spirit, then, evolution can be used to the unfolding Spirit into the manifest world, into maya. The entire manifest world "unfolds" out of Spirit, and thus the appearance of a manifest world - and Spirit getting lost in the world - can be called an evolution of spirit, a rolling out of Spirit. Spirit returning to itself would then be called an involution, an in-turning or re-turning to Spirit as Spirit.

But we can just as easily reverse these terms without in the least changing the actual meaning of events (and that is the issue I want to point out). Involution also means "to get involved, entangled, enmeshed." And using the term in this way, it is best to speak of involution as Spirit's descending into" and getting "lost" in or "entangled" in the manifest world."

Thus Ken is here defining evolution and involution unambiguously from the perspective of two polar reference points (taken separately).

From the view of Spirit (in relation to self) evolution can be used to refer to the unfolding of Spirit into the manifest world; from this perspective, involution is the reverse movement of the in-turning or re-turning to Spirit as Spirit.

However from the alternative reference frame of the self (in relation to Spirit) evolution is the in-turning or re-turning of Spirit to Spirit whereas involution is the unfolding of Spirit into the manifest world.

Provided we identify with just one perspective, interpretation remains unambiguous.

Now the crucial insight in moving from Analytic 2 to Analytic 3 interpretation, is the realization that both of these perspectives are necessarily involved in the dynamics of experience (and alternately keep switching between each other). So the very task of subsequent integration is the simultaneous combination of both perspectives.

Ken apparently never makes this dynamic connection and continues with the attempt to unambiguously define evolution and involution (in terms of just one reference frame).

So even though Ken switched this frame of reference early on in his writing (as regards the definition of evolution and involution) in each case he defined its meaning partially and unambiguously (within just one partial reference frame).

However with Analytic 3 understanding we realize that both reference frames necessarily apply in dynamic terms and therefore need to be simultaneously combined in terms of subsequent integral translation.

Thus when we fix our frame of reference with respect to one pole, we obtain an (unambiguous) asymmetrical interpretation.

Then when we switch the frame of reference with respect to the other pole, we get an opposite (unambiguous) interpretation.

Both interpretations are simultaneously valid in dynamic terms.

However Ken clearly misses the crucial insight here, which is vital to move to a true integral appreciation.

Though both asymmetrical interpretations - taken separately - are unambiguous, when combined simultaneously deep paradox results. And - correctly interpreted in dynamic terms - this is the very nature of actual experience (where switching as between opposite frames continually takes place).

Therefore in the dynamics of experience, both perspectives necessarily interact through the inevitable switching of polar opposites.

Thus from one perspective, I view the self (in relation to Spirit). From the equally valid opposite perspective, I view Spirit (in relation to self).

Thus I naturally keep switching in experience as between both interpretations (that Ken attempts to separate).

The clear implication of course is that in dynamic interactive terms, involution necessarily implies evolution and evolution implies involution. So what is evolution or involution in development is merely arbitrary depending on the relative perspective adopted.

However Ken appears not to see this. Otherwise he would not insist on undue identification of the process of development with respect to its evolutionary aspect (as defined by an isolated frame of reference).

So in dynamic terms, development is not just about evolution; it is always equally about involution. And what is evolution from one polar reference frame is involution from the opposite frame; likewise what is involution in terms of one frame is evolution in terms of its opposite.

The belief that the world evolves is simply due to an arbitrary fixing of reference (which is necessarily counteracted by its opposite mirror interpretation).

Thus in dynamic terms, when we define evolution with respect to its exterior aspect the world evolves (in relation to the self); the (interior) self then involves (in relation to the world).

However when we switch our frame of reference and define evolution with respect to the interior aspect, the self necessarily evolves (in relation to the exterior world); the world then involves (in relation to the interior self).

This is the true meaning of the famous phrase of Heraclitus.

"The way up is the way down; the way down is the way up." It refers to the merely arbitrary labeling of all polarized directions in the dynamics of experience. Once we switch the frame of reference in any polarized context - as continually happens in experience - a diametrically opposite dualistic interpretation becomes valid. However in conventional intellectual translation this crucial insight is not recognized. 11

Now, when we separate reference frames and define in each case with respect to the positive pole (as implied by conventional analytic understanding), then evolution will indeed appear to take place in relation to both exterior and interior aspects leaving us with the seemingly unambiguous conclusion that "all reality evolves".

However when we achieve the clear realization in experience, that in dynamic terms, reality necessarily both evolves and involves simultaneously (with both aspects having a merely relative meaning) we enter into "The Circle of Understanding" and growing realization of the ineffable present moment that continually IS.

The more general significance of this observation is that the same switching of opposite reference frames (as with evolution and involution) takes place in relation to all polar opposites in experience. It is therefore deeply intrinsic to the very nature of dynamic interaction at any level of reality.

So once again analytic understanding is based on an (arbitrary) fixing of one frame of reference. Though one may well attempt to integrate perspectives using an analytic perspective (as with vision-logic) it is necessarily limited by the fact that these perspectives themselves are all interpreted from a single reference frame (where opposite poles are separated).

So for example though a vision-logic stance does indeed recognize the existence of four quadrants, each is interpreted from the same reference frame. So development in each quadrant is defined unambiguously in terms of transcendent evolution i.e. where the "higher" stage transcends and includes the previous "lower" stage.

However an Analytic 3 approach is quite distinct where reverse mirror behavior takes place in opposite quadrants.

Thus if we define the Right-Hand quadrants in terms of inclusion, the Left-Hand are - relatively - defined in terms of exclusion.

Likewise if we define Upper quadrants in terms of transcendence, we define the Lower quadrants - relatively - in terms of immanence.

So in this context the holarchy in the Upper Right Hand will be one of transcendence and inclusion and the holarchy in the Upper Left-Hand one of transcendence and exclusion. The holarchy in the Lower Right-Hand quadrant is one of immanence and inclusion, and finally the Lower Left-Hand quadrant is one of immanence and exclusion.

So with an Analytic 3 interpretation, rather than having the same holarchical behavior represented in each of the four quadrants (leading to unambiguous notions of developmental direction), each quadrant represents a distinct holarchy which is balanced by its opposite (in horizontal and vertical terms) leading to paradoxical notions of interpretation.

Thus Ken's multi-perspectival approach (which he refers to as aperspectival) is very definitely not what is implied by Analytic 3 understanding.

The very point about integral understanding is that we combine both polar reference frames simultaneously. This leads to an entirely distinctive form of circular bi-directional understanding, which intimately alters our interpretation of every aspect of development. This requires the recognition of mirror image alternatives provided by Analytic 3 understanding for all asymmetrical relationships. It is the true intellectual starting basis for an integral - as opposed to a multi-differentiated approach (and is greatly missing from Ken Wilber's work).

Integral 1

This is based on the bi-directional understanding of poles where opposites are understood in a dynamic complementary manner. It reflects the refined cognitive understanding of H1 (the psychic/subtle realm). Unfortunately, proper understanding of these (indirect) cognitive structures remains a much-neglected area (even among those with a spiritual mastery of the level).

Integral 1 understanding is largely confined to horizontal polarities e.g. exterior/interior (that operate within a given level).

Strictly speaking - within its own context - integral understanding invalidates all that is dualistically true at the analytic level. Indeed in a spiritual context, the very purpose of integral understanding is to gradually lessen all rigid attachment to form so as to more readily embrace emptiness.

It is important to appreciate the true dynamic nature of this understanding, which involves the interaction of refined dual and nondual understanding.

It entails a new (circular) bi-directional mode of understanding, where increasingly refined reason and spiritual intuition interpenetrate.

In experiential terms, one is now better able to appreciate reality in a dynamic unobstructed fashion, where switching between opposite (horizontal) poles becomes very flexible.

This in turn enables the explicit growth in mirror understanding whereby one can appreciate that any asymmetrical dualistic relationship (in analytic terms) has an equally valid alternative explanation (from the opposite reference frame).

The simultaneous interaction of both explanations then creates paradox in terms of rigid dualistic understanding. This recognition thereby helps to lessen attachment to such understanding preparing the mind for a qualitative transformation in spiritual intuitive insight.

The growth in such insight in turn facilitates more ready appreciation of dualistic paradox at the (reduced) rational level. So refined reason and spiritual intuition mutually enhance each other in the unfolding of the transformation process. 12

So properly understood, the balanced unfolding of "higher" levels implies a major revolution in terms of one's intellectual understanding.

One implication is an entirely new scientific approach - which I refer to as Holoscience Ė which has the capacity to intimately affect all customary disciplines (e.g. philosophy, psychology, mathematics, physics, economics) 13 and to facilitate coherent overall integration of these disciplines).

I have already developed a brief outline for an Integral 1 holoscientific approach to Physics.

Such science has a qualitative rather than a (merely) quantitative emphasis. Because all physical relationship relationships - defined in terms of an exterior reference frame - have matching mirror image alternatives, this means that every well-known relationship in physics has a complementary psychological relationship that is structurally similar.

For example the uncertainty principle of quantum physics has a fascinating mirror image psychological explanation that throws considerable light on the nature of the existential decision. 14 Whereas, in the dynamics of understanding both "uncertainty principles" (physical and psychological) are necessarily involved, because of the emphasis on merely one aspect in physics, the full philosophical significance of what is entailed is thereby lost resulting in a limited and somewhat unbalanced understanding.

Likewise from the opposite perspective, every relationship defined in terms of an interior reference frame has an alternative complementary relationship in physical terms (which is structurally similar).

In this connection, I have been able to establish fascinating links as between the Black Hole of Physics and the psycho-spiritual Dark Night phenomenon, greatly enhancing my understanding of both phenomena.

So the discovery of such important complementary relationships between two disciplines that are considered largely separate (at an analytic level), leads to extremely creative linkages, greatly facilitating overall integration in understanding.

And once again this approach can be fruitfully extended to all disciplines leading to a holoscientific approach that is ideal for achieving integral understanding both within these disciplines. Most importantly it represents a form of understanding that is fully consistent with the emerging spiritual development and indeed can greatly enhance the unfolding of this process.

I will briefly conclude here by mentioning the implication of this bi-directional Integral 1 understanding for Ken Wilber's treatment of the four quadrants.

Ken's approach is somewhat rigid and dualistic (as typified by his use of vision-logic) where he attempts to make clear unambiguous distinctions. So perception for example is associated with the Right-Hand quadrants and interpretation with the Left-Hand; science is associated with the Right-Hand and psychological development with the Left.

However this approach is rendered somewhat meaningless from an Integral 1 perspective, where Right Hand and Left-Hand are dynamically complementary (and therefore mutually include each other). Thus science is understood to have a mirror interpretation that is Left-Hand, and psychological development a mirror interpretation that is Right Hand. So now, not only do psychological and physical mutually interact in experience but the intellectual interpretation adopted is fully consistent with such dynamic interaction.

So, there is a deep problem with Ken's approach to the four quadrants. Though it is inspired by an integral vision, his intellectual translation is unsuited for the dynamic treatment of quadrant interaction. Thus he attempts to analyze the process in a somewhat piecemeal and ultimately inconsistent fashion.

From an intellectual perspective, Ken confuses integration with multi-differentiation. Strictly speaking integration is not an all-level, all-quadrant affair as Ken keeps emphasizing; rather it is a no-level, no-quadrant affair that ultimately leads to nondual appreciation of reality (where all dualistic distinctions strictly lose their meaning).

(As the most comprehensive type of understanding - which I call Radial Reality - combines analytic and synthetic methods, it can be represented as an all-level, all quadrant and no-level, no-quadrant affair simultaneously. In other words here phenomenal form gives way freely to spiritual emptiness, and spiritual emptiness gives way to phenomenal form).

In the language of my Translation Methods, Ken Wilber is offering an Analytic 2 interpretation. However as there are eight distinct methods, this means that we can give eight distinct interpretations of quadrant interactions representing the various forms of understanding consistent with the various levels of the Spectrum.

So we need to get used to a much more enlarged perspective of intellectual inquiry, where it is fully accepted that a wide range of distinctive intellectual translations (all of which have a distinct - though necessarily limited Ė role).

In this context Ken is still attempting to offer something of a flatland approach (which is not directly suited for integral translation).

Thus it is meaningless to talk for example of THE pre/trans fallacy as if it has one valid explanation.

The implication of adopting the Spectrum of Translation Methods is that we need to give the pre/trans fallacy (as with all concepts) a wide range of interpretations. Each interpretation then has an important but necessarily partial validity that reflects the corresponding understanding of the level of the Spectrum to which it relates. 15

Integral 2

This is a more complex approach entailing the recognition of opposite polarities both in relation to vertical (as well as horizontal directions). It uses a very refined cognitive understanding that in its developed form is associated with the causal realm. (However once again causal realization in spiritual terms is not usually associated with explicit appreciation of its refined intellectual implications).

As well as attempting integration within a given level, one now increasingly attempts integration between levels. Thus it is only partially correct to identify the causal as a discrete stage; its true nature is much more dynamic and is vitally concerned with the integration of "higher" and "lower" (and "lower" and "higher") levels.

In scientific terms this leads - to what I refer to as an Integral 2 (or holoscientific 2 approach) which greatly facilitates the integration of disciplines with each other (reflecting the coherence of a unified spiritual vision).

In terms of my own work, Integral 2 understanding has been critical in the development of Holistic Mathematics. One key insight here has been the dynamic holistic interpretation of the "imaginary" notion which when combined with the "real" leads to a (mathematically) complex interpretation of relationships. This has been vital in scientifically clarifying the fundamental relationship of the quantitative to the qualitative aspects of reality that is central to integral understanding.

Again Ken Wilber' approach suffers very much from a lack of this vertical integration.

His formulation of the pre/trans fallacy represents one important example.

Rather than personal and transpersonal remaining separate at this stage, they are in this context experienced as increasingly complementary. It is this very appreciation that facilitates the successful integration of the "higher" and "lower" (and "lower" and "higher") levels of the Spectrum with each other.

Another example would be his undue emphasis on the developmental process as evolution. From an Integral 2 perspective this makes little sense. Development (and envelopment) are both seen equally in terms of evolution and involution, emanating as relative phenomenal expressions of a common spiritual center. (I have already dealt in relation to this point with the Analytic 3 translation that serves as the necessary step for the switch to this dynamic integral perspective).

A final example would relate to Ken's misunderstanding of the nature of quantum mechanics.

This results from an extension of his pre/trans interpretation.

Though one may certainly attempt a reduced interpretation of quantum mechanics, from a philosophical perspective, the paradoxical findings of quantum mechanics cannot be properly appreciated without corresponding "higher" level understanding (based on complementary opposites). In other words without "higher" level bi-directional understanding, the findings at the "lower" sub-atomic levels will remain non-intuitive.

So the "lower" relations call out for the "higher" understanding; equally the higher" understanding enables the appropriate "lower" level interpretation.

Integral 3

This is the most refined phenomenal understanding possible, which simultaneously attempts to unite horizontal and vertical type polarities. It is based - on what I refer to as - H3 understanding (the null level) which culminates in pure spiritual realization.

At Integral 2 there is some remaining separation; with Integral 3, this separation is eroded.

So as we simultaneously see the integration as between levels as (dynamically) inseparable from the integration between levels, then the very notion of level loses its meaning (And this happens with the completion of H3).

So if attempt to think in terms of levels, we must recognize that H3 simultaneously applies equally to all levels (both in relation to physical and psychological manifestations). This means that H3 does not so much represent a discrete level but rather the dynamic interdependence of all levels (leading to their full integration).

This I believe is more in tune with actual experience than some common interpretations of the mystical esoteric traditions.

For example I would have considerable reservations in referring to the culmination of H3 as nondual reality.

The term "nondual" directly implies its opposite (i.e. dual). So the very use of "nondual" to describe the ultimate, means in effect coming down in favor of one side of a polarity.

A more accurate interpretation, that properly reflects experiential dynamics, requires maintaining appropriate balance as between dual and nondual aspects.

Thus when experience is very pure (and free of attachment to phenomena) dual and nondual can interpenetrate without restriction. Thus form (dual) gives way freely to emptiness (nondual) and emptiness (nondual) likewise gives way freely to form (dual).

When this experience is without any rigidity or interference of attachment, it becomes so dynamic that phenomenal form is eroded from memory as soon as it arises. Thus form does not even seem to arise in memory. However strictly it is not the case that form no longer arises, but rather that it no longer seems to arise (due to its extremely short-lived nature). In this way the vital interpenetration of dual and nondual is maintained.

One refined intellectual consequence of this understanding is what I refer to as the dynamic "Theory of Everything".

This is the realization that relationships at all levels can be understood with reference to three fundamental sets of polarities that operate according to two logical systems.

The holistic binary system I have already mentioned, which has the power to precisely encode the entire Spectrum, is one important expression of this "Theory of Everything"

Radial Understanding

However development does not stop with the pure contemplative experience of H3. I have been especially influenced in this regard by the example of the great saints of my own Christian tradition. High levels of contemplation invariably served as the prelude to intense immersion in human affairs, now powered by the superhuman energy of their enlightenment,

This is what I refer to as radial understanding and requires the restoration of all phenomenal activity (that preceded spiritual realization) now in a clear unrestricted fashion.

Thus with radial understanding one-directional (analytic), bi-directional (analytic) and circular (integral) understanding (within and between levels) freely interpenetrate with nondual spiritual understanding.

This understanding has of course deep implications for any comprehensive intellectual translation of development

Radial 1

Here there is still some separation as between the restoration of one-directional linear activity and other forms of understanding. In the deepest sense one is still relearning to re-adapt in the light of true spiritual realization to the world.

In terms of intellectual translation therefore there would still be a gap in terms of one's ability to understand in both a holistic (integral) and analytic (differential) fashion. Understanding would tend to be still unduly contemplative.

Radial 2

Here the harmonious mutual interpenetration of all forms of understanding would reach an advanced level, always inspired by, and speaking of radiant Spirit.

Though some of the greatest mystics have undoubtedly reached this level, the full implications - in an applied intellectual context - have not been adequately developed.

It would be both wonderfully productive yet extremely creative and in our present transition in development this would undoubtedly have enormous implications for the way we interpret reality.

It would have the capacity therefore for a remarkably rich and varied multi-differentiated appreciation of reality that is equally fully coherent and integrated with authentic spiritual desire.


The acceptance of this basic finding that the mode of intellectual understanding varies at each level of the spectrum equally implies that the associated mode of scientific interpretation likewise varies.

This therefore means that - rather than attempting to give one correct interpretation for any given issue - we must seek to provide a much wider range of interpretations, each of which has an important though necessarily limited range of validity.

As we have seen analytic interpretation leads to an unambiguous (linear) asymmetrical treatment of relationships that is properly suited for translation of the differentiated aspect of experience.

Synthetic interpretation by contrast leads to a paradoxical (circular) bi-directional treatment that is properly suited for translation of the integrated aspect of experience.

Radial interpretation - which is the most comprehensive - incorporates both analytic and synthetic modes in mutual interpenetration.

The major weakness in Ken Wilber's work is the absence of a proper dynamic interface as between dual and nondual notions.

This reflects in turn the lack of appreciation in his work of the intellectual implications of an integral - as opposed to a multi-differentiated - approach.

Once again, I cannot emphasize strongly enough this fundamental issue (as it is not yet properly recognized). I firmly believe that it needs to be urgently addressed therefore by all who are interested in the pursuit of an integral approach to understanding that is properly balanced and consistent.


1 Integration is customarily used in a manner where it is confused to a degree with differentiation. This is perhaps inevitable given the specialized development in modern society of analytic type abilities.

If we are to avoid using merely reduced notions of integration in intellectual translation, it is vital therefore to properly distinguish from the onset its qualitatively distinctive nature.

In a direct sense integration ultimately relates to the formless aspect of experience and differentiation to form (though both aspects necessarily co-exist in experience).

As I suggest, in dynamic terms this formless aspect is related to bi-directional circular understanding. Though this takes place to a degree in all experience, it generally remains merely implicit.

The task therefore of successful intellectual translation is to make its inherently dynamic nature explicit, thus distinguishing it properly from the analytic modes, which characterize differentiated understanding.

There are deep holistic mathematical connections as between fundamental mathematical symbols and the nature of differentiation and integration respectively.

From one perspective differentiation is (directly) associated with the linear mode (1) whereas integration is associated with the circular mode (0). Thus these very processes which enable transformation in all holonic processes reflect the holistic interaction of the binary digits.

So just as all information processes can be (potentially) encoded through the analytic interpretation of the binary digits (1 and 0) all transformation processes can be likewise encoded in terms of the holistic equivalent of the same digits.

This simple insight in itself has enormous implications.

From another perspective (which is closely related in dynamic terms to the binary digits), differentiation and integration are directly associated with the holistic mathematical interpretation of the fundamental operations of addition (+) and subtraction (-).

Thus in dynamic holistic terms to differentiate in experience always implies the positing of phenomena (+).

Integration by contrast always implies their corresponding negation (-).

So the continual interaction of form with emptiness (and emptiness with form) is deeply related on the one hand to the most fundamental mathematical digits and on the other hand to the most fundamental mathematical operations (when given a dynamic holistic interpretation).

In order to avoid confusing integration with differentiation, I use the distinctive term "radial" to refer to the mature interaction of differentiation with integration in experience. In its most advanced mystical expression this entails the pure dynamic interpenetration of form with emptiness.

So phenomena are freely posited leading to form (differentiation) and dynamically negated leading to emptiness so that both aspects can interact without restriction.

2 This is an important indication of the value of holistic mathematical symbolism in giving a more precise universal explanation of polar interactions.

Though the description of poles can vary considerably in any context (e.g. exterior/interior, whole/part, higher/lower, and form/emptiness), in a general sense these can all be defined in terms of positive and negative aspects.

With analytic (dualistic) understanding the pole in any context which defines the frame of reference is always the positive pole; the alternative (excluded) pole is then the negative.

So with analytic understanding - by definition - the positive pole is affirmed and the negative pole denied. In other words the negative (excluded) pole is always to a degree repressed in the unconscious.

Dualistic understanding - if not addressed - is thus by its very nature unbalanced and ultimately unhealthy.

So in the most fundamental sense, dynamic repression is an inevitable consequence of dualistic understanding.

With integral (synthetic) understanding - which is bi-directional - both poles (positive and negative) are explicitly recognized in experience. To do so in an equal manner is thus the very essence of balance. When opposite poles are successfully combined in this complementary manner, (dual) form inevitably gives way to (nondual) emptiness.

So just as in analytic terms (+) 1 - 1 = 0; likewise in holistic terms (+) 1 - 1 = 0.

In other words emptiness represents the dynamic negation of form.

Equally however as in analytic terms 0 = (+1) - 1, likewise in holistic terms 0 = (+) 1 - 1.

So we have here the reverse aspect where emptiness gives way to form (in terms of flexible dualistic and mirror dualistic understanding).

3 The linear (asymmetric) approach tends to lead a discrete interpretation of development where "higher" stages are understood to follow in a somewhat unambiguous manner earlier stages that are deemed as "lower". Thus in Ken Wilberís approach, a transpersonal moral stage for example would be clearly distinguished from earlier prepersonal development.

However from a dynamic perspective, all stages are continuous and in a sense contained in each other (as an expression of their common spiritual ground and goal).

Because here an individual stage is never completed until all stages are completed, it is not possible to sharply distinguish "higher" and "lower" in development.

Thus the meaning of a stage is continually in transition.

Thus "higher" stages are intimately linked to "lower" and "lower" to "higher". So all stages are dynamically complementary in this sense.

Indeed this is the very meaning of the integration - as opposed to the differentiation - of stages.

The differentiated aspect related to the manner in which one stage is understood as distinct from another; however the integrated aspect relates to the manner in which they are seen as interdependent.

Thus the pre/trans fallacy in its classic expression is based on a discrete (rather than a continuous) interpretation of stages. (I am deliberately using well-known mathematical notions in a holistic manner). In other words it only properly relates to the differentiated interpretation of stages.

Kenís treatment of the pre/trans fallacy is especially inappropriate in terms of the more advanced (and indeed earliest) stages of psychological development. Mature spiritual development is largely geared to the true integration of experience where the successful interpenetration of "higher" with "lower" and "lower" with "higher" stages is especially relevant.

So it is meaningless to try and separate pre and trans in this context for they are fully complementary.

Likewise from an integral perspective, it is inaccurate to refer to the earliest stages of infant development as prepersonal (in discrete terms). More properly such stages represent considerable interaction between "lower" and "higher" and "higher" and "lower" though in a necessarily very confused manner.

In other words with such development the infant is not so much located at any discrete stage in development but rather moves throughout the Spectrum in an incoherent fashion. So pre and trans are in fact deeply complementary here also (in an extremely confused manner).

It is only with the specialization of differentiated development towards the middle of the Spectrum that the discrete interpretation comes into its own. Indeed this is most important the very rooting of the personality in the personal stages of development tends to considerably lessen interaction with earlier and later stages. This indeed explains very well why development tends to plateau so much at the personal stages. Quite simply the very kind of analytic understanding that develops here in a specialized manner, considerably impedes successful dynamic integration with the other stages.

It is thus a considerable fallacy to believe that proper mind/body integration can take place at the centaur level. At best a form of integration that enables successful adaptation (as conventional understood) to our somewhat fragmented society is possible.

The centaur cannot achieve true integration of mind and body for the simple reason that prepersonal and transpersonal are complementary in dynamic terms. Thus it requires the most advanced transpersonal awareness to successfully unravel the unconscious influences formed at the earliest stage.

Put another way if successful mind/body integration could be achieved at the centaur there would be no need for further spiritual development.

From a dynamic perspective Kenís pre/ trans fallacy is to my mind very flawed. Trying to so clearly separate pre and trans in development in the manner that he suggests could in fact place considerable impediments in the way of successful growth.

4 It is necessary here to make an important distinction.

Bi-directional can of course be used in a linear sense. Thus if I climb up a ladder and then climb down again, movement does indeed taken place in two opposite directions.

From this linear perspective there is no ambiguity about movement.

Insofar as Ken Wilber uses bi-directional notions he does so in this somewhat unambiguous fashion.

Thus Ascent and Descent in Kenís terms are based on the linear notion of direction that applies in the example of the ladder.

Indeed even in the section where he adopts the famous saying of Heraclitus (who employs a genuinely circular notion of direction) Ken attempts to explain it in linear bi-directional fashion.

Thus "the way is the way down" is interpreted as the way down is the reverse of the way up (in the way that coming down the ladder is the reverse direction of the way up). However this misses the very point.

Bi-directional in a circular sense has a very distinctive interpretation. Ultimately it relates to the arbitrary designation of all polar labeling.

Perhaps it might help to illustrate with another example.

Imagine a ladder suspended in space. In the previous example we were able to unambiguously define "up" (by using the ground as a reference point). However in deep space it would not be possible to do this.

So if we are to define direction it has to be done in a necessarily arbitrary fashion. So a person looking from one end might define "up" in the direction of the other end. However equally a second person could look from the other end defining "up" in a reverse manner.

So what would be "up" from the first reference frame would be "down" in terms of the other; likewise what is "down" in terms of the first would be "up" in terms of the second.

So in this sense (where we accept the arbitrary designation of polar directions) "the way up is the way down; and the way down is the way up".

Now the relevance again here for development is that all dualistic distinctions are made on a merely arbitrary labeling of polar opposites. So for example in terms of interior and exterior we can define reality for the interior self (relative to the exterior world; equally we can define reality - as in conventional science - for the exterior world (in relation to the interior self).

In the very dynamics of experience we keep switching as between these polar reference frames.

So strictly any unambiguous interpretation from one reference frame is rendered paradoxical in terms of the equally valid opposite frame.

This is what Heraclitus meant when saying "the way up is the way down and the way down the way up".

Differentiation always involves an interpretation from just one arbitrary polar reference frame and is thereby - if not addressed - unbalanced. Integration is thus about the reconciliation of these unbalanced dualistic perspective and is based on recognizing the complementarity (and therefore paradox) of all differentiated distinctions.

So in intellectual terms, to translate the integral aspect of experience we need circular bi-directional understanding.

This form of understanding - certainly in any clear manner - is effectively missing from Ken's approach (which is why I do not consider it a proper integral approach).

For example his deep reluctance to appreciate the need for dynamic regression as an essential element of authentic spiritual development - as with the "Dark Night" phenomenon - is rooted I believe in this failure to properly appreciate circular notions of direction.

Clearly when we look at direction in linear terms, regression will be seen as a lapsing back in development to earlier - and less enlightened - stages. However this again is to treat stages in a discrete differentiated manner.

However when we look at direction in circular terms, "lower" and "higher" (and "higher" and "lower") are understood as dynamically complementary. Thus the proper unfolding of a "higher" stage necessarily entails the return to its corresponding "lower" stage (as they are interdependent).

Thus if we are looking at the proper integration of experience - where the interdependence of all stages is recognized - then we must necessarily use circular notions of direction. In this case dynamic regression - as well as dynamic progression - is essential in development.)

5 Polar opposites fall into three different classes (the precise intellectual translation of which involves increasing complexity).

The simplest form is horizontal which operate within a given level. Common examples here are interior/exterior, objective/subjective, internal/external etc. In holistic mathematical terms they entail transformations that are translated in "real" terms (which from a psychological perspective entails consciously identified understanding).

The mature explicit development of such dynamic polar interactions is related to the H1 (the subtle realm)

The second type is vertical. Whereas in mathematical terms we can represent horizontal polarities as lying at opposite ends of a 180 degree straight line, vertical lie at right angles to the horizontal (i.e. at an angle of 90 degrees).

These are extremely important e.g. whole/part, quantitative/qualitative, space/time, cognitive/affective.

In psychological terms they facilitate transformations as between the levels and (sub-levels) of experience. They are literally complex in holistic mathematical terms and require the use of "imaginary" (as well as "real" notions).

(In psychological terms, the imaginary relates to the indirect manifestation of consciousness as the projected element of unconscious meaning).

Thus the reconciliation of conscious with unconscious understanding requires the experiential mastery of vertical switching as between polarities (such as the quantitative and qualitative aspects of experience).

This has deep implications for conventional science, which attempts to deal solely with the real world. This inevitably entails the attempt to interpret reality formally in (merely) conscious terms thus implying the reduction of the qualitative to the quantitative aspect of experience.

If science however is to successfully deal with "reality" it will have to move to a more refined complex formulation where "reality" is now understood in dynamic terms to involve both "real" and "imaginary" aspects which mutually interact. The translation of the "imaginary" mathematical notion in holistic terms and its relevance for whole/part (and part/whole) interactions is dealt with in the two articles "Translating Whole and Part 1" and "Translating Whole and Part 2" at

The mature intellectual appreciation of the interaction of vertical polarities would require the understanding of H2 (the causal realm).

The most complex of polarities entails diagonal opposites (which involves the simultaneous interaction of both horizontal and vertical understanding). So successful integration within and between levels ultimately requires mastery of these diagonal polarities. When one no longer can distinguish within a level from what lies without (other levels), the very notion of level loses its meaning, which entails experience of the nondual void.

The most common representations are form/emptiness, actual/potential, finite/infinite etc.

In holistic mathematical terms these have both a dual and nondual interpretation. The nondual interpretation is as 0 (i.e. the holistic interpretation of the void). The dual interpretation is in terms of equal "real" and "imaginary" values. Fascinatingly, in geometrical terms if we have a right angles triangle with a horizontal real and vertical imaginary sides of the same magnitude, the diagonal line (i.e. hypotenuse = 0). So diagonal polarities correspond to a 45 degree angle with both horizontal and vertical axes.

There is thus a deep holistic mathematical interpretation available for all of our most fundamental

philosophical notions.

The mastery of the dynamic interaction of these polarities would eventually occur at H3 (the null level) which culminates in nondual reality.

Unfortunately the appropriate intellectual understanding for these levels remains greatly undeveloped, despite the fact that a significant number of sages throughout the ages have undoubtedly acquired genuine spiritual mastery of them.

Perhaps the cultural environment did not require this form of exploration in the past. However I strongly believe that this is no longer the case and that if we are to successfully integrate modern technological developments with our psychological and social experience, then a radical transformation in the way we intellectually understand reality is necessary.

6 The appreciation if this can be beautifully seen in a holistic mathematical manner.

In geometrical term diameter at the center of a circle extends in two opposite directions to the circumference with lines of equal length. Thus, if - as is customary - we take the Right-Hand direction (i.e. the x axis) as positive, then the corresponding Left-Hand direction is negative.

Thus the circular circumference is connected from the origin (0) at the center of the circle by two equal lines that move in opposite directions.

Now we have precise holistic correspondents with these - analytically defined - mathematical notions.

Thus circular understanding is connected from the point at the center of being (i.e. nondual reality) by bi-directional linear understanding (that is equal in both directions).

Thus there is a continual dynamic interplay as between dual and nondual entailing both linear and circular understanding that emerge from and return to a common spiritual center.

Indeed we can understand the increasingly dynamic interplay as between this refined linear and circular understanding in holistic mathematical fashion.

As the rigidity of (dualistic) linear understanding is reduced, as one increasingly embraces circular understanding, the very lines shorten. Thus the bi-directional lines and the corresponding circumference gradually shrink to the common non-dimensional point where they are identical. In other words line and circle are reconciled at a nondual center without phenomenal identity (where neither line nor circle remain as distinct).

Likewise with the permanent attainment of nondual understanding, linear and circular understanding are reconciled (where neither remain as distinct expressions).

7 Strictly speaking, we have three forms of Analytic 3 understanding, which we can refer to for convenience as 3 (a), 3(b) and 3(c) respectively.

3(a) bridges the transition as between H0 (the rational linear level) and H1 (the psychic/subtle realm) and entails the appreciation of mirror image dualistic interpretations for horizontal polarities operating within a given level (such as exterior/interior)

3 (b) bridges the transition as between H1 and H2 (the causal realm) and entails the appreciation of mirror image dualistic interpretations for vertical polarities operating between levels (such as whole/part)

3 (c) bridges the transition as between H2 and H3 (the null level) and entails the appreciation of mirror image dualistic interpretations for diagonal polarities operating within and between levels (such as form/emptiness). This would be an extremely refined form of understanding leaving very little phenomenal trace in memory.

8 This mirror understanding is absent from Ken's treatment of the four quadrants. Thus he continues to view development in holarchial asymmetrical terms now extended to four quadrants.

The very basis for moving from a static analytic treatment to a dynamic synthetic approach is the recognition that every asymmetrical dualistic explanation is complemented by an equally valid opposite interpretation. Thus circular symmetry arises from the mutual pairing of equal (opposite) asymmetrical explanations.

9 Of course inclusion - as with all polar opposites - is in dynamic terms strictly relative. Thus what entails inclusion from one polarized perspective entails exclusion from the opposite perspective;

likewise exclusion from one perspective entails inclusion from its opposite. Thus for example, when the exterior aspect of a stage is posited and thereby included in experience, the interior aspect is correspondingly negated and excluded; likewise when the interior aspect is included, the exterior aspect is thereby dynamically excluded.

10 Partarchy is of course just another form of holarchy (where the direction of movement as between holons is reversed).

Thus if holarchy is defined in terms of the transcendence of the "lower" in the "higher", partarchy is defined - relatively in terms of the immanence of the "higher" in the "lower"

11 The implications of true circular understanding of opposites again has deep implications for Ken's approach for it no longer makes any sense making unambiguous distinctions such as perception being associated with the Right-Hand and interpretation with the Left-Hand.

Thus applying the phrase of Heraclitus, in dynamic terms perception is interpretation and interpretation is perception. Thus perception and interpretation necessarily both belong dynamically to all quadrants.

12 Of course the affective is equally involved. So more fully we could say that the spiritual, affective and cognitive mutually enhance each other at the "higher" levels.

Integral intellectual translation of an integral kind depends especially on the balanced interaction of the cognitive and spiritual aspects of the "higher" stages. However indirectly the affective aspect would also be involved, as the successful unfolding of each aspect increasingly requires a necessary overall balance being maintained between all of the primary aspects of development (at the "higher" levels).

The nature of the balance required is I believe unique to each personality. People can be naturally gifted in one aspect (and not necessarily in another) and yet find it possible to attain true spiritual realization. So for example if one is naturally gifted at a cognitive level, the supporting affective development required would enable one to limit the exercise of one's primary gift in the interest of overall personality balance. Without the necessary degree of affective development one would continue to identify too strongly with the cognitive aspect

13 I mention these especially as they are the fields with which I have been most engaged in my own work.

14 In the article "Quantum Mechanics and the Existential Decision" I deal with five well- known issues in quantum mechanics major establishing mirror image psychological explanations in all cases. This article and several other lengthy contributions illustrate the nature of an Integral 1 approach (as I define it) for Physics. These can be found at my web-site under "Integral Physics"

15 I have already done this in brief outline at my web-site in an article entitled "The Pre/Trans Fallacy - a Spectrum of Translations"