The very ability to move freely between different stages of the Spectrum ("high" and "low") comes from unrestricted dynamic interaction as between structures and states (and states and structures).
Now by its very nature conventional science - in formal interpretation - ignores this interaction as between both aspects. So the (spiritual) waking state is viewed as neutral with respect to corresponding rational structures (and rational structures neutral with respect to states).
This results in the interpretations of science becoming confined to the just one level of the overall Spectrum where specialised differentiated understanding operates (with all other levels effectively ignored).
However what is not clearly recognised is that a distinctive type of science is associated with each level of the Spectrum.
Thus if the analytic science of the middle (rational) level gives rise to a
meta-paradigm suited for differentiated understanding of reality, equally associated with each of the "higher" levels is a distinctive meta-paradigm that is properly suited for increasingly integrated understanding of reality.
With integral science, ceaseless interpenetration of (phenomenal) structures and (spiritual) states takes place in experience (which intensifies as the purity of spiritual insight increases).
So the phenomenal structures that integral science uncovers (based on the complementarity of opposites), increasingly reflect the states with which they interact (and in corresponding terms the states reflect the structures).
Ultimately in dynamic terms, with the most refined understanding (based on diagonal opposites), structures and states become identical with each other (in dynamic terms).
Whereas analytic science is based on asymmetric type cause-effect relationships, integral science is based on dynamic symmetric type connections as between complementary variables (establishing their mutual interdependence).
So whereas the symbols which are used in both types of science are superficially similar, their very interpretation differs being based on distinctive logical systems.
The most comprehensive type of science combines both analytic and inetgral type appreciation in what I refer to as radial science.
With radial science, for every analytic interpretation that can be given rational asymmetric expression, a corresponding integral understanding exists which provides an intuitively satisfying context within which the analytic interpretation can be appropriated. So for a proper comprehensive understanding of any relationship, both types of understanding are required. (I will illustrate this briefly in another note on string theory)