1. Bands of Development

Meaning of a stage

Q We are set to deal with the stages of development. Can you say firstly what you mean by a stage?

PC Because my approach is geared to study the fundamental underlying processes of development through their holistic structures, a stage is defined as a sequence of development that is characterised by a unique coherent overall pattern.

What I have found utterly fascinating - and potentially of the utmost importance - is that all stages can be defined in a precise holistic mathematical fashion.

Indeed in this approach any stage of development is expressed in the most scientific manner by its unique holistic mathematical encoding.

So once again - when appropriately interpreted - the underlying structure of all stages of development is mathematical in this integral sense.

Q. Can you elaborate briefly once again on the holistic mathematical rationale of your approach to development?

PC Though it can be expressed in several related forms, perhaps the most basic is in terms of - what I refer to as the - the holistic binary digital system.

Just as in analytic terms the two binary digits 1 and 0 can be used potentially to encode all information processes, likewise in holistic terms the same two digits can be used to encode all transformation processes (such as the stages of human development). In holistic terms the digit 1 relates to oneness (as implicit in the recognition of all phenomenal form) and 0 to nothingness (as spiritual emptiness). In dynamic experiential terms form and emptiness (and emptiness and form) are truly interdependent. So the full awareness of emptiness entails the corresponding negation of phenomenal form. In this sense emptiness is nothing (in phenomenal terms).

Therefore from a (holistic) binary digital perspective, every stage of development can be interpreted in terms of a unique configuration of form (1) and emptiness (0).

Q. Is this distinction as between form and emptiness enough in itself to uniquely encode all stages?

PC No! however when allied to a further distinction (that applies in all developmental situations) it does indeed provide the basis for such a unique mapping. We will be illustrating this mapping in greater detail as we proceed. So it should be sufficient to state that all stages are conditioned by three fundamental polarities (which in turn can be given a precise holistic mathematical interpretation).

The first set of polarities relates (directly) to an internal-external distinction that operates horizontally between stages.

The second set of polarities relates (directly) to a whole-part distinction that operates vertically between stages.

The third set of polarities relates (directly) to the most basic form-emptiness distinction that operates diagonally i.e. simultaneously within and between stages (as for example instinctive psychophysical processes).

Once again what I find truly remarkable is that these three sets of polarities - which fundamentally condition the interpretation of all phenomena - can be given a fully coherent holistic mathematical rationale related to a circular interpretation of number.

Q. Can you briefly clarify this circular interpretation of number and how the three sets of polarities relate to it?

PC The conventional mathematical notion of number is linear whereby - for example - the natural numbers are represented by points obtained through marking out successive equal intervals on a straight line.

Indeed - quite literally - such an interpretation is thereby one-dimensional.

Now this linear (one-dimensional) definition is geared to a merely quantitative interpretation of number (i.e. where the qualitative dimensional aspect is reduced to the quantitative).

So for example the number 2² (i.e. 2 raised to the power of 2) represents a two-dimensional number, its quantitative value of 4 (i.e. strictly 4¹) is expressed in a merely reduced linear (one-dimensional) fashion.

This linear interpretation of reality - represented here through the common interpretation of number - is deeply embedded in our conventional notions of mathematics and science.

Though it possesses enormous advantages as an unambiguous means of preserving asymmetric distinction with respect to interpretation of phenomena, it can only do this by reducing the qualitative aspect (which is uniquely distinct) to the quantitative.

With respect to the fundamental polarities, the linear approach leads to clear separation, where for example, internal is differentiated from external.

In more general holistic mathematical terms the positive pole is clearly distinguished from its negative.

Linear (one-dimensional) interpretation is essential as a means of differentiating reality.

With reference to the stages of development, it leads to a discrete (hierarchical) approach. Here lower, middle and higher stages are clearly distinguished from each other, with the sequence of development assumed to be asymmetrical moving from lower to middle to higher stages.

However when it comes to proper integral - as opposed to differentiated - interpretation, a distinctive form of logic is required corresponding directly to the circular interpretation of number.

In my holistic mathematical approach, there are three degrees of integral interpretation corresponding to the two-dimensional, four dimensional and eight-dimensional circular interpretation of number respectively.

The nature of this circular logic can most easily be illustrated through consideration of the simplest case of the two-dimensional interpretation.

Let us take the simple two-dimensional case where a number raised to the power of 2 = 1.

In algebraic terms this could be expressed as x² = 1.

Now when we attempt to express the value of x in reduced linear (one-dimensional) terms, two equally valid answers arise.

In other words x = + 1 or – 1.

The holistic mathematical implications here are truly enormous, for it entails that when we attempt to express the nature of two-dimensional understanding (corresponding to a higher stage of development) in reduced linear terms (associated with the middle stages) it is rendered paradoxical.

What this means in effect is that positive and negative polarities - which are clearly separated in linear terms - are now seen as complementary (and ultimately identical) at the circular two-dimensional level.

Thus propositions, which in linear (one-dimensional) terms are considered to have an absolute validity, have a merely relative truth-value from the circular (two-dimensional) perspective.

The deeper implications of this relate to the fact that the dualistic distinctions we make in terms of conventional linear understanding are always based on an arbitrary choice of polar reference frames (where the opposite choice is equally valid).

For example if I walk along a main road in one direction, both left and right turns have an unambiguous interpretation.

Likewise if I walk in the opposite direction along the same road, again both left and right turns are likewise unambiguous.

So each of these directions - from which left and right have a clear meaning - constitute arbitrary polar reference frames. For example if the first relates to movement “up” the road, the second relates to the opposite i.e. movement “down” the road.

Again when each of these polar reference frames is considered as independent, then left and right have unambiguous interpretations, which correspond to (one-dimensional) understanding. However when we attempt to consider these reference frames simultaneously (i.e. as interdependent) then deep paradox results.

For what is a left turn (with respect to the first reference frame) is a right (in terms of the second); likewise what is a right with respect to the first is a left (in terms of the second).

Because all phenomenal understanding is fundamentally conditioned by our three sets of polarities, then deep paradox results in interpretation whenever we attempt to view these polar opposites as interdependent.

Therefore two crucial distinctions are necessary in the treatment of development.

1)     Insofar as differentiation is required, polar reference frames (in any context) are interpreted as separate (i.e. in a relatively independent manner) leading to unambiguous type linear interpretation.

2)     Insofar as the integral aspect is required, polar reference frames - that are considered as separate at the linear level - are now considered as dynamically complementary (i.e. in a relatively interdependent manner) leading to paradoxical type circular interpretation.   

Now I have illustrated the simplest form of circular logic with respect to two-dimensional interpretation. More precisely in my treatment this is defined as Type 1 Complementarity based on the complementarity of opposite real (conscious) polarities (Integral 1 approach). 

More refined forms of circular logic are associated with four and eight-dimensional interpretation respectively.

The four-dimensional interpretation incorporates both Type 2 and

Type 1 Complementarity in the circular appreciation of imaginary (unconscious) and real (conscious) polarities (Integral 2 approach).

The eight-dimensional interpretation then also incorporates Type 3 Complementarity with the other forms, where the circular appreciation of phenomenal form as simultaneously both real and imaginary becomes so refined as to be approach identity with emptiness (Integral 3 approach).   

So the crucial point is that the differentiated aspect of development is properly translated through linear (asymmetrical) type interpretation.

The integral aspect however is properly translated though circular (complementary) type appreciation. Considerable confusion therefore results from the attempt to translate the integral aspect of development through linear interpretation.

Q This then implies that the translation of stages must combine both linear and circular type interpretation. How then do you attempt to achieve this in your radial approach?

PC Basically, I define three general methods of interpretation.

1)     The (discrete) analytic method. Here - though dynamic interaction may well be admitted - the stages of development are considered in a somewhat unambiguous sequential hierarchical manner e.g. as proceeding asymmetrically from lower to middle to higher. Though there is indeed an important sense in which this is true, this properly relates to the differentiated aspect of development.

2)     The (continuous) holistic method. Here - though the separate identity of stages may be admitted - they are treated in a paradoxical simultaneous complementary manner. For example in this context lower stages are deemed to be dynamically complementary with higher (and in turn higher with lower). Indeed ultimately in this approach, unambiguous distinction as between higher and lower loses any meaning. This properly relates to the integral aspect of development. 

3)     The (discrete-continuous) radial method. Here the importance of both the differentiated and integral aspects is recognised (with their distinctive respective methods of interpretation). In this approach each stage is defined by a unique configuration of both linear (1) and circular (0) type understanding conforming again to the holistic binary system.

So once again each stage can be precisely encoded as to its fundamental structure in a unique holistic binary digital manner. 

Q I will attempt to summarise. You are saying that in your translation of the stages of development that two uniquely distinct logical approaches are required conforming to the holistic binary system. Thus the linear (1) is properly required for the differentiation of phenomena of form whereas the circular (0), indirectly represented by the negation (-) of posited (+) phenomena, is necessary for the (formless) integration of such phenomena. 

The linear approach in turn leads to a discrete hierarchical interpretation of development based on unambiguous (asymmetrical) distinction. 

The circular by contrast leads to a continuous complementary interpretation based on the paradoxical symmetrical balancing of polar opposites.

Furthermore with your radial method both of these approaches are combined, with a unique configuration of both defining the very nature of each stage. Is that it?

PC Yes! this is an accurate reflection. However it will require detailed application to the various stages of development before its rationale can become fully apparent.

The Stages of Development

Q Can you now briefly outline the stages of development comprising your developmental model?

PC At the most general level I define - what I refer to as - the Bands (which we will be discussing in more detail presently). There are 4 Bands in total (recently revised to 5).

Each of the Bands is then subdivided into 3 further stages (based on the 3 fundamental polarities) in what I refer to as the Levels. There are 12 levels (now revised to 15) and in many respects this represents the most important classification of stages.

Again based on the 3 fundamental polarities the Levels are further subdivided with respect to:

(a)   Stages of Self(hood) and Stages of Reality. (This relates directly to the horizontal internal-external polarities). From a linear perspective the Stages of Self(hood) would relate to the psychological and Stages of Reality to the physical aspects of experience respectively.

(b)   Stages as States and Stages as Structures. (This relates directly to the vertical whole-part polarities). Whereas the states would be identified with the spiritual aspect of experience (especially at more advanced levels), the structures would be more representative of the cognitive interpretation of these levels.

(c)   Stages as Body and Stages as Mind. (This relates directly to the diagonal form-emptiness polarities intimately underlying psychophysical development).

Bridging each of the levels is a major transition, which paves the way for movement to a more advanced level. So in terms of Transitions between Levels we have 11 (now 14) in all. 

Next we define the Sub-Levels with 3 sub-levels in each major level. Though these can considerably overlap in experience the first sub-level relates to the more concrete aspect of development (within a given stage). The second then relates to more universal formal development whereas the third vision stage involves more dynamic interaction as between the specific and general aspects of the stage.

Then we have highly significant, though generally neglected, stages - in what I term - The Directions (or Dimensions). The Directions in turn are closely related with Mirror Stages of development. The Directions are not explicitly recognised in terms of the linear understanding of the middle levels. Thus with such understanding, they are understood in somewhat unambiguous terms as possessing just one asymmetric direction. However with the circular understanding that properly unfolds with the more advanced spiritual levels, stages can assume many directions e.g. 2, 4 or 8 in my integral approach. Appreciation of these multiple directions is in turn enhanced through ever-more refined mirror stage understanding (which requires that rigid attachment to any conscious manifestation of stages is gradually eroded).   

Moving into ever more specific stages we then have the Modes. As always these are closely related to the 3 fundamental polarities. I define Primary and Secondary Modes (of which the Primary are key in pursuit of integration). The Primary modes relate to the affective, cognitive and volitional aspects of understanding. Though the precise way in which these interact can vary considerably, true integration requires that a certain balance be maintained throughout development (which is unique for each individual). The key Secondary Modes relate to artistic, scientific and spiritual understanding (and are closely related to affective, cognitive and volitional aspects respectively). The Secondary relate to various composite mixes of the Primary Modes. For example mature interpersonal relationships would require varying mixes of cognitive, affective and volitional understanding.

When the Secondary Modes are defined solely with respect to linear understanding we have the lines (or streams) of development. However, once again from an integral perspective the Primary Modes are more significant. Also their development must necessarily be understood in a radial manner (i.e. with respect to both linear and circular aspects).

All the above Stages can be defined with respect to Types (which tend to condition the actual manner in which development unfolds in specific cases). Of key importance here are the Personality Types with 24 distinct types defined (in my approach) which can in turn be placed in 3 major groupings.  As with all the other classifications of stages, I uniquely define all these Types once again in terms of the holistic binary number system (based on the mathematical translation of the 3 fundamental polarities).

Finally I also use the notion of Phases with respect to development, with each Phase defining a particular sequence of stages (usually within a main level or sub-level). The Phases can be particularly useful in terms of portraying the precise dynamics associated with each level. In particular I now use the Phases to describe the most mature expression of radial development.

Once again in must be appreciated that both the linear and circular methods of translation are used with respect to all of these stages.

This entails for instance that just as the part is contained in the whole e.g. a more specific mode contained within a more general level likewise the whole is contained within each part. Therefore the development of each level intimately depends on the manner in which all its “substages” enfold.

So though there is certainly a valid sense in which the development of each stage can be discretely explained, there is an equally valid sense in which all stages are simultaneously co-determined remaining thereby continuous with each other throughout development. And we will keep returning to this central truth.  

The Bands of Development

Q Can you now explain what you mean by the Bands of Development?

PC The Bands represent the most general classification of stages. There are four in all (recently revised to include 5).

In terms of the linear approach these proceed in ascending order from Lower (L) to Middle (M) to Higher (H) and then to Radial (R). In the most recent revision I now distinguish two Intermediate Bands. The first Intermediate Band bridges the Lower and Higher Bands (what I usually refer to as the Middle). The “new” Upper Intermediate Band bridges the Higher and Radial Bands. 

However in terms of the circular approach an important complementarity exists as between the Lower and Higher (and Higher and Lower) Bands. Also an important complementarity exists as between the Intermediate Bands and what is both Higher and Lower (and Lower and Higher).

Then it is in terms of the radial approach that these two other approaches can be reconciled.

So basically development starts with the emerging foetus from a situation where neither differentiation nor integration has yet taken place, representing the total confusion of form and emptiness (i.e. where phenomenal form is indistinguishable from emptiness).

Now the first major task - which is associated with the Lower Band - is to gradually differentiate the structures of development through movement away from a state of confused complementarity.

Therefore, though the beginning of instinctive development in the Lower Band is furthest removed from mature spiritual development in the Higher, in complementary terms these are most closely associated.

Thus rather than being at any particular stage as discretely defined, early development represents the confused expression of what in both Higher and Lower (i.e. where matter and Spirit cannot yet be meaningfully separated).

Likewise in complementary manner at the completion of the Highest Band, development now represents the proper integration of both matter and Spirit.

So the structures of the higher Band represent the mature expression of the same structures which remain entangled with each other in confused manner at the start of development. Thus from the appropriate circular perspective, the peak of contemplative development represents the mature integration of what is both Higher and Lower (transpersonal and prepersonal). In other words the balanced contemplative perspective has both transcendent and immanent aspects.

Thus the circular method of interpretation is most appropriate for translating the extreme points of both the Lower and Higher Bands. However as development approaches the first intermediate (middle) Band the linear (discrete) interpretation becomes more – though never totally – appropriate. This is due to the fact that the very success in differentiating discrete structures leading to the emergence of the mature ego, requires the gradual erosion of complementary type understanding (of a confused kind). So the continuous links that exist as between all Bands of development are significantly reduced at the Middle Band.

In other words the Middle Band represents the specialisation in (discrete) linear understanding.

However with the commencement of the Higher Band there is now the gradual return of complementary type understanding (this time of a mature kind). This leads to growing interpenetration as between the Higher and Lower (and Lower and Higher) Bands of the Spectrum. When such development takes an especially contemplative bent it can lead to significant erosion of the already developed linear structures. So though the Higher and Lower Bands (and Lower and Higher) can be significantly integrated in a dynamic complementary manner, there still remains a failure to successfully integrate these Bands with the Middle Band.

So the Radial Band - where both phenomenal activity and spiritual contemplation are mutually developed - is now concerned with growing ability to restore and preserve the linear structures of the Middle with the circular structures of integrated Lower and Higher Bands.

This leads to a twin approach where the relative independence of each level is combined with the interdependence of all levels.   

Q. Is radial development – as you define it – a quite rare occurrence destined to be limited to a very small number of practitioners? 

PC One has to remember that - by definition - that a certain continuity is preserved throughout as between all stages of development. Therefore everyone to some degree participates in radial development. Indeed at its most basic level the radial expresses the necessary interdependence as between the differentiated and integral aspects of development (which everyone participates in through living experience). 

However in practice for the vast majority, radial development can only operate in an attenuated form due to insufficient mastery - especially - of the Higher Band.

Thus in Western culture, normal development tends to plateau largely with the specialised linear understanding that characterises the Middle Band. Though some degree of development with respect to the higher more spiritually intuitive Band necessarily takes place it can remain confused to a considerable degree with the Lower Band.

Thus radial experience in so far as it can occur is largely defined by a heavy emphasis on the (rational) linear, with the (intuitive) circular aspect remaining significantly underdeveloped.   

Enhanced and Diminished Understanding

Q Can you now briefly elaborate on how the radial leads to a significantly distinctive interpretation of development when compared with the conventional linear approach.

PC The linear approach tends to treat each stage as relatively discrete so that the development is assumed to be largely completed before movement to the next stage takes place. This leads to a linear asymmetrical bias in the ranking of stages which, besides being somewhat elitist, is also quite erroneous.

Also because the linear approach is properly suited for interpretation of the differentiated aspect of development, this can lead to a somewhat distorted interpretation of the nature of integration.

Typically in the linear approach, each lower is integrated in a top-down manner through being subsumed in the higher stage. However for healthy development, integration must take place in both a top-down and bottom-up fashion (which the linear approach cannot properly accommodate).

Indeed the very essence of the linear approach is that – in attempting to preserve its unambiguous manner of interpretation - it necessarily suffers from dualistic distortion whereby one side of a polarity is always emphasised at the expense of another (which is equally valid).

We can readily see this bias with reference to our three polarities. Thus in terms of the first polarity, the structures of human development tend to be over-identified with the (internal) psychological aspect without sufficient reference to the (external) physical environment. This is usually associated in turn with the misleading asymmetrical assumption of development proceeding from matter to mind to Spirit. However properly understood in dynamic experiential terms, the structures of development apply equally in both a physical and psychological manner.

 

In terms of the second polarity we again see the mistaken emphasis on the merely holarchical nature of development where more advanced stages are seen with respect to their greater whole (or collective) nature.

However just as parts are spiritually reflected through the whole, equally the whole is reflected through each of its parts. So as development from one perspective can be seen as a journey to a more universal collective wholeness, from the alternative - equally valid - perspective it can be seen as the journey to a more intimate unique notion of partness.

Thirdly, in terms of the third polarity we have the mistaken emphasis with respect to the forward unfolding of stages on the transcendent nature of development (to the exclusion of the equally important immanent aspect). This can lead to an unduly otherworldly dimension to mystical experience which unfortunately typifies many traditional accounts.

So the key problem again with the linear approach is that because of its one-directional nature it always comes down in favour of just one side of a polarity (where the other side is equally valid). Not surprisingly this leads to considerable distortion in the interpretation of development from an integral viewpoint.

Q Let me go back to the first comment you make. I take your point regarding the discrete interpretation of stages through the linear approach. How does the radial approach deal with stages as both discrete and continuous?

PC Let me illustrate with respect to the standard treatment of development, which in its appropriate context is quite valid!

So we could say that first task of the baby infant is to successfully differentiate the bodyself. So this relates to a discrete stage of development. However - what is then often forgotten in interpretation - with the movement to more advanced discrete stages, this first task remains continuous throughout development. In other words through the greater perspective afforded by the more advanced, one must necessarily return to the early stage so as to accommodate it more fully in overall development. So properly understood in an integral context, the forward development towards each new “higher” stage always requires the backward return to earlier “lower” stages in a new enhanced form of appreciation.

Thus with the unfolding of each new higher stage we obtain an enhanced (top-down) interpretation of all earlier stages. In turn from the perspective of this new understanding of earlier stages we obtain a bottom-up enhanced interpretation of the higher stage.

If we apply this to the most general of stages i.e. the Bands this entails that associated with the unfolding of the Lower Band is the (default) interpretation of this stage i.e. the Lower Band interpretation of the Lower Band. However from the perspective of the Middle Band together with its default interpretation, we now obtain an enhanced top-down interpretation of the Lower Band. Again from the perspective of the Higher Band (besides its own default interpretation) we obtain an enhanced interpretation of both the Middle and Lower Bands. Finally with the Radial Band we have its own default interpretation together with enhanced interpretations of Higher, Intermediate and Lower Bands. (And once again from the perspective of revisited Lower Bands we can obtain an enhanced bottom-up interpretation of the more advanced!)

Indeed we could further elaborate by classifying these enhanced interpretations with respect to linear (sequential) and circular (complementary) understanding.

So for example, using the top-down direction to illustrate, the Higher Band gives - to a degree - an enhanced linear appreciation of the Middle Band (which sequentially precedes it). However it provides an even greater enhanced circular appreciation of the Lower Band (with which it is dynamically complementary).

Likewise in development because of the dynamic continuity of all stages, we can obtain a diminished appreciation of more advanced from lower stages (not yet revisited).

Thus someone for example, whose customary development largely plateaus with the understanding of the Middle Band, yet can obtain to varying degrees a diminished appreciation of more advanced levels. Again this diminished understanding can be of a linear (sequential) or circular (complementary) kind.

So again someone whose customary understanding is of the Lower Band can have to a degree a diminished appreciation in linear terms of the middle Band (which sequentially is the next stage).

However more normally such a person could have a diminished appreciation of the Higher Band (with which it is dynamically complementary).

Reconciliation of Linear and Circular Approaches

Q I know that this is a very subtle but important point. Since the linear and circular approaches are based on distinctive logical systems, how can we consistently relate them in experience?

PC To properly reconcile linear with circular understanding, we need to employ a more refined linear approach where development can take place in two asymmetrical directions (which are opposite in terms of each other).

To use the road analogy once again, in the one-dimensional linear approach, one direction along the road is taken as unambiguously “up” with the stages of development then portrayed in and ascending asymmetric fashion with respect to this direction.

However in the two-dimensional circular approach what is the “up” direction is now seen as entirely arbitrary. So if facing in one way we assign it as “up” again the stages of development can be portrayed unambiguously in an ascending asymmetric fashion with respect to this direction.

However equally if we initially face in the alternative manner along the road and assign this as “up” then once again we can unambiguously portray the stages of development again in an asymmetric fashion (with respect to this direction).

However though the ranking of stages in each case is quite unambiguous where each polar reference frame as direction is considered in isolation, when we try to simultaneously view both directions (as interdependent) deep paradox arises. So what is “up” in terms of the first frame is “down” in terms of the second; likewise what is “down” in terms of the first is “up” in terms of the second.

So the requirement for the consistent relating of the linear with the circular approaches is that we now define all asymmetric sequences in a bi-directional fashion. Though once again these sequences will appear unambiguously asymmetric with each arbitrarily defined polar reference frame (considered as separate) they become deeply paradoxical when these polar frames are considered simultaneously (i.e. as interdependent).

Whereas differentiated interpretation - in any context - is based on the interpretation of polar reference frames as relatively independent, integral appreciation is rightly based on consideration of these frames as interdependent.

Therefore to base any integral approach on a one-dimensional asymmetric method of interpretation is fundamentally mistaken.

Q I think I grasp what you are saying here. However to make its implications clearer, could you please demonstrate it with respect to the relationship between prepersonal, personal and transpersonal.

PC Yes! this would be quite instructive as prepersonal, personal and transpersonal equate well with the Lower, Middle and Higher Bands – as considered in linear fashion - in my approach. Interestingly however there is no equivalent here (with respect to the Radial Band), which by definition entails the interaction of both linear and circular aspects!

Thus the standard unambiguous asymmetrical treatment of the general stages of development as proceeding from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal, precisely represents the one-dimensional linear manner of understanding (as I define it).

Here again returning to my road analogy, one direction is taken as pointing “up” (even though it would be equally valid to initially fix “up” with the alternative direction).

So in fact in a more refined linear approach - which is consistent with circular interpretation - we can provide two equally valid interpretations of the movement from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal (which are in opposite directions from each other).

However to appreciate this requires a more subtle dynamic manner of viewing stages (than is customarily employed).

Properly understood when development commences, experience is neither prepersonal nor transpersonal (as discretely defined). Because the proper differentiation of structures has not yet unfolded, it is impossible to clearly separate these two opposite poles.

Thus correctly speaking, experience entails here the confused relationship of - what in linear terms we would define as - prepersonal and transpersonal.

More correctly it entails the confused relationship of both the transcendent (transpersonal) and immanent (prepersonal) aspects of experience.

Because differentiation of structures has not yet meaningfully taken place, the infant is unable to transcend present fleeting phenomenal experience. Likewise because no true integration has occurred, the infant is equally unable to make Spirit immanent in phenomena. In other words Sprit is still directly confused with matter. So even though the infant has a primitive sense of spiritual omnipotence (transcendence) this is directly confused with immediate phenomenal experience (immanence).

Subsequently in development - following the successful differentiation of structures - the transcendent and immanent directions now tend to separate (like the two ways of defining direction along our road).

So we have two choices in linear terms. We can identify the primitive experience of matter as prepersonal and then identify the transpersonal as the progressive movement away from this primitive experience towards a more refined notion of Spirit.

So here we have the traditional hierarchy that is portrayed in most linear accounts of development i.e. matter - mind - Spirit.

However equally we can identify the initial primitive experience of Spirit as prepersonal and then identify the transpersonal as the progressive movement away from this primitive experience towards a more refined notion of matter (culminating in the full integration of the bodyself).

So we have here the equal valid hierarchy of Spirit (confused) - mind - matter.

In other words in the first approach we are emphasising the spiritual aspect of transcendence (as beyond created matter). In the second however, we are emphasising the spiritual aspect of immanence (as within all created matter).

Now it is only when we clearly see development in terms of both polar reference frames that true circular understanding can take place.

For just as in the road analogy what is “up” in terms of one reference frame is “down” in terms of the other: and what is “down” in terms of one is “up” in terms of the other, likewise now what is “trans” in terms of one frame is “pre” in terms of the other; likewise what is “pre” in terms of the first is “trans” in terms of the second.

So from a circular (integral) perspective, what is pre and trans is purely relative depending on context.

However the proper appreciation of this point requires the radial approach where both (discrete) linear and (continuous) circular methods are used. And as we have seen the consistent relating of both of these methods requires the use of a more subtle bi-directional method of linear understanding.  

Q So briefly how would you describe the relationship of prepersonal, personal and transpersonal in terms of your radial approach?  

PC Again with the commencement of the Lower Band - because successful differentiation has not yet taken place - development properly represents the confusion of both pre and trans (and trans and pre). So the circular interpretation (with respect to confused complementary opposites) is especially relevant at this point. However as development proceeds and successful differentiation of structures takes place, trans and pre separate to a considerable extent. Though it is true that this separation can be taken in two equally valid opposite directions - which are transcendent and immanent with respect to each other - it is the very nature of (one-dimensional) linear understanding that only one direction is assumed valid. Thus even though pre and trans (and trans and pre) initially have a purely relative - though confused - meaning, now they increasingly assume a more discrete interpretation with pre separated from trans. We have already demonstrated how this is related to the arbitrary fixing of polar direction (e.g. in the conventional association of the forward direction of development with transcendence).

Thus development along the Lower Band is associated with the movement away from confused complementary, through the formation of somewhat rigid discrete linear notions.

Then with the Middle Band, where (one-directional) linear understanding undergoes specialised development, confused pre and trans notions become so disentangled that development is no longer seen as either pre or trans. In other words the Middle Band is associated with personal development.

However with the unfolding of the Higher Band both pre and trans (and trans and pre) once again begin to assume a growing complementary relationship (this time in a mature integral fashion). This then culminates in the pure reconciliation of both polar aspects through nondual contemplative awareness.

So the Higher Band is associated with the gradual movement away from unambiguous linear to refined circular type appreciation of pre and trans.

Finally the Radial Band is associated with the full mature restoration of both the circular nondual appreciation of pre and trans (as purely relative) and the linear interpretation as relatively discrete (in any given phenomenal context).

Q How does this relate to your notions of the enhanced and diminished interpretation of stages?

PC Well, if we take the first stage of the Lower Band i.e. the differentiation of the Bodyself, then this indeed has a certain discrete (linear) interpretation. However more correctly it represents but the default understanding of this stage.

Because the stages of development are also in varying degrees continuous with each other throughout development, the understanding and consequent interpretation associated with the this first band changes through the perspective offered by more advanced stages. This requires the continual return to earlier development with a view to its re-interpretation in a manner conducive to overall integration with later stages. Thus associated with the unfolding of each later stage is a new understanding and interpretation of all earlier stages (certainly in healthy integral forms of development).

So this re-interpretation of the very first stage continues - by definition - until the last (chronologically) is completed.

Therefore though it may make sense in discrete terms to refer to the differentiation of the body self as the first major stage, in integral terms this stage undergoes continual development associated with the unfolding of all later stages. Thus though the successful differentiation of the bodyself may be the first stage of development from a discrete perspective, its fully successful integration is likely to be the last (in continual terms).

Thus there is little sense in referring to this successful integration of the bodyself as the first prepersonal stage (when in fact it can only take place through advanced spiritual development). Thus it properly represents the most transpersonal stage (with respect to the immanent aspect of spirituality).

So once again for successful radial understanding - that is consistent with the true dynamics of development - we must keep switching as between linear and circular methods of interpretation (as appropriate).

Q Finally how does balanced integration take place that is both top-down and bottom-up in development?

PC Once again for satisfactory explanation, this requires a proper bi-directional method.

Now in the conventional linear approach, integration is misleadingly dealt with in a merely top-down manner where lower stages - which are taken to have been already largely completed in development - are subsumed in the highest stage.

However in the radial approach, interpretation is somewhat more refined. Here the development of each stage has both forward and backward interpretations (that are merely relative).

So when a new stage unfolds it can only be defined with reference to what has already happened in development. So what uniquely defines the new stage as distinctive is realised through comparison with previous stages.

In this sense one must look back from the most advanced stage to recognise its distinctiveness.

However the very process of comparing the most advanced with previous stages provides an enlarged perspective enabling a fuller appreciation of these stages.

Then in reverse terms when one now looks forward from these more fully appreciated earlier stages to the (chronologically) most advanced stage it again provides a new perspective, which likewise changes appreciation of this latest stage.

So the interpretation of this latest stage - as with all stages - entails perspectives, which are forward and backward (i.e. positive and negative) with respect to each other.

Thus the successful integration of stages in truth is bi-directional (in this vertical sense).

From one perspective we attempt to integrate earlier stages with the latest stage (from the perspective of the latest stage). This could be referred to as top-down integration.

However from the equally important opposite perspective, we attempt to relate the latest stage with earlier stages (from the perspective of these re-visited earlier stages). This could - relatively - be referred to as bottom-up integration.

Q Briefly how would you sum up so far!

The Bands provide the most general classification of stages. Though they are useful for illustrating many key issues of development they are too general to illustrate many of the important features of the holistic mathematical approach.

However with the introduction of Levels of Development in the next contribution this task should prove possible.