The linear (asymmetrical) approach to development is based on treating stages in a largely discrete manner (which is appropriate solely for understanding of the differentiated aspect).

Therefore with reference to the basic stages (which correspond to levels in my treatment), it is assumed that in development, each stage represents a certain competency which must be successfully attained before moving on to the next stage.
The implicit assumption therefore is that the nature of this competency is largely unaffected through later development.

Thus for example if we take the well known stage of formop, once this has been attained the assumption is that its nature remains basically unchanged - though its use may well be enhanced - with the unfolding of further spiritual stages.

However this interpretation makes very little sense from an overall integral perspective where all stages are understood as interdependent and thereby continuous.
From this perspective the very nature of a stage intimately depends on the context provided though its relationship to other stages and thereby continually changes.

Therefore all stages remain in continual transition (as to their very nature) throughout development.

Thus for a person who has achieved significant development of the "higher" spiritual stages, the nature of formop will be radically different from one whose development has largely plateaued at an earlier stage.

Now of course if we attempt to evaluate the nature of formop - in both cases - from the perspective of development which has largely plateaued at formop, no apparent difference will exist. However when viewed from the appropriate "higher" level, providing a much richer and subtler context for its appreciation, then it will indeed be very different. So whereas in the former case one may understand the truths of formop in a somewhat absolute fashion, in the latter case their appreciation will be much more partial and provisional.
 

The linear (asymmetrical) treatment of development significantly distorts the dynamics of development in another very important sense.
Typically when viewed from this perspective, it is assumed that with the unfolding of each higher stage, that the previous lower level (and by extension all lower stages) are included in this stage.

However strictly speaking, this is utterly misleading and indeed is likely to lead to significant repression of the lower levels.

Again we can begin to appreciate the nature of this problem by recognising that from the dynamic integral perspective all stages are truly interdependent. And interdependence means that that the "higher" is dependent on the "lower" (just as the "lower" is dependent on the "higher").
Therefore in correct dynamic terms inclusion always implies exclusion (and exclusion, inclusion) so that all stages are mutually included and excluded in each other in varying degrees.

Let us illustrate this important point with reference to the relationship between conop and formop (both of which are so important to conventional science).

Now in the linear (asymmetrical) approach, formop will be viewed as the higher and conop the corresponding lower stage (i.e. formop development unfolds after conop).
Therefore it may then be assumed that conop is thereby included in formop.

Now at first glance this may appear justified. For example, operating on the level of conop if I draw several right angled triangles, I may be able to show that in each case the square on the hypotenuse equals the square on the other two sides. However to show that this is generally true one needs formop providing a general abstract proof (which will apply in all cases).
So from this perspective, once the theorem is proven (formop) all the individual cases that can be demonstrated at a specific level (conop) are included in this general proof.
However - as I have repeatedly stated - while recognising the great value of analytic science - this represents an important form of reductionism where the (quantitative) parts are thereby reduced to the (qualitative) whole.

Now in dynamic terms, if one emphasises the value of theory (formop) over empirical research (conop), one eventually will lose the ability to operate properly at the concrete level. Indeed this is very common in science where theoretical specialists often become significantly out of touch with practical reality.

Thus when looked at - in this dynamic sense - one can readily see that conop is excluded in formop. In other words by concentrating on the general abstract truth one loses touch with specific concrete situations.
Now the way to address this problem is to see that the now developed formop is also included in conop. Thus by focusing more on specific concrete situations one can become better enabled to literally "see" where one's theories apply.

Thus in the first case conop is transcended and included in formop. However inclusion implies exclusion. Therefore equally in immanent terms, conop is thereby excluded in formop. In other words we gradually lose the power to induce - as it were - the general truth from the particular facts being led rather to deduce relationships between facts from the theory.

In the second case formop is made immanent and included in conop. However again inclusion implies exclusion. Therefore now equally in transcendent terms, formop is thereby excluded in conop. In other words by becoming reliant on concrete facts we lose the power to deduce concrete truths from general theories.

So in proper dynamic terms - which is the path to integration - the relationship between conop and formop (and formop and conop) is bi-directional where each is mutually included and excluded in each other.

Therefore when we attempt to approach development from a one-sided asymmetric perspective, we are quickly led to distort dynamics in a significant manner.

We can see how this is done in conventional science with respect to each of our three polarities.

Firstly in relation to horizontal polarities the emphasis is on inclusion (without equal emphasis on exclusion).

Thus in the conventional treatment conop is included in formop. However there is not equal emphasis on how conop is excluded in formop.

Secondly in relation to the vertical polarities the emphasis is on holism (without equal emphasis on partism).
Thus development is viewed as the movement to "higher" more collective wholes without equal emphasis on the corresponding movement to "lower" more unique parts.

Therefore the proper dynamic relationship is decidedly two-way. The unique nature of concrete facts depends on placing them in an appropriate context (which requires formop organisation). Thus whereas the collective whole appreciation (holism) requires moving forward from conop to formop, the unique part appreciation (partism) requires reverse movement backward from formop to conop.

Thirdly in relation to diagonal polarities the conventional emphasis is on transcendence (without equal emphasis on immanence).
Thus the "lower" stage is transcended (and included) in the "higher" stage. However equally the "lower" stage is thereby excluded from the "higher" stage in immanent terms.

So if we are to successfully approach development in dynamic terms we need - not one - but eight asymmetrical treatments.

Development that is defined in asymmetrical manner (in terms of inclusion) has a mirror interpretation (in terms of exclusion)

Development that is defined in asymmetrical manner (in terms of holism) has a mirror interpretation (in terms of partism)

Combining these two sets of variables gives us four distinct asymmetrical interpretations.

However each of these interpretations can be defined equally in terms of transcendence and immanence (yielding eight in all).

Now integral dynamic understanding comes from combining opposite asymmetrical interpretations in bi-directional fashion.

So in horizontal terms, inclusion - as illustrated - always dynamically implies exclusion (and exclusion, inclusion).

In vertical terms, holism always dynamically implies partism (and partism, holism).

In diagonal terms, transcendence always dynamically implies immanence (and immanence, transcendence).

The detailed dynamic nature of these relationships can be precisely provided in all cases through application of the holistic mathematical binary system (TOE).