2. Levels of Development (A)

Introduction

Q We are now ready to discuss the levels of development, which in many ways represent the most important classification of stages. Without getting into any real specifics for the moment, why do you consider the holistic mathematical approach as potentially so important?

PC What I have found quite remarkable is that the basic structures of development through and through are mathematical in a holistic sense. Therefore we can make enormous progress in our scientific understanding of development though adopting Holistic Mathematics as a valuable tool of integral scientific interpretation.

Q Once again I understand that you believe that Holistic Mathematics represents the qualitative - as opposed to quantitative - interpretation of mathematical symbols. Can you briefly enlarge on this point?

PC More correctly it represents the dynamic interactive interpretation of mathematical symbols where both quantitative and qualitative aspects are viewed as complementary. For example one significant implication of this (in horizontal terms) is that corresponding to every psychological structure at any given stage of human development is a corresponding physical structure with direct application to the natural world. Thus, strictly speaking - in our experience – physical reality has no meaning apart from the interpretations that we use to understand it. And as these interpretations continually change throughout the stages of development, thereby the natural world likewise changes.

However to facilitate communication in linear terms, it is perhaps permissible to refer to it as qualitative in contrast to the directly quantitative bias of conventional mathematics.

Q And your qualitative holistic interpretation is directly rooted in clarification of the mathematical notion of dimension.

PC Yes! I have stated before how conventional mathematics provides but a reduced linear interpretation of numbers (and by extension all important mathematical relationships).

So the key to unlocking the qualitative power of its symbols is through resorting to a fascinating alternative circular interpretation of number (which arises through the indirect attempt to express higher integral dimensions in linear form).

We have already seen how the two-dimensional expression of a number as 1 (i.e. x² = 1), leads to the paradoxical situation at the (one-dimensional) linear level of two equally valid opposite answers (i.e. x = + 1 or – 1).

The deeper holistic implication of this finding, in qualitative philosophical terms, is the existence of a corresponding unique system of interpretation that can properly accommodate such two-dimensional understanding. And as we will see later this very understanding scientifically defines the first of the higher levels of understanding.

However it does not end there for associated with all such integral higher-dimensional expressions of a number in terms of 1 are unique configurations with reference to their corresponding roots. Thus the holistic implication is that these configurations are inherently fundamental in terms of explaining the structure of all the more advanced stages of development (and also through complementary relationship the less advanced stages).

So hidden in the interpretation of these circular numbers are enormous philosophical riches that have scarcely yet been tapped.

Q So you feel you are on to something truly extraordinary here!

PC Yes! though I would readily admit that many others e.g. Carl Jung have  recognised this holistic importance of mathematical symbols, I do not consider that such understanding has been yet developed properly in any systematic manner.

Thus while fully realising that I am still only scratching at the surface of the immense riches waiting to be uncovered through the qualitative mathematical approach, at least in a general way I have demonstrated for myself its enormous potential significance.

Q. So you believe that the clarification of the stages of development - even to a considerable level of detail - can be expressed in a holistic mathematical fashion?

PC Indeed and much more importantly in a manner which is properly consistent with the true dynamics of development! For just as conventional mathematics is the language of analytic science (as its essential tool for differentiating reality) equally - when properly appreciated - Holistic Mathematics is the language of a more qualitative science (as its essential tool for corresponding integration of that same reality).

Lower Levels

Q. So what are the levels?

PC The levels - also referred to as waves - are the main stages through which development proceeds. Because of the continuity of stages, access is necessarily open to all levels. However for the vast majority of individuals the more advanced levels are rarely developed to any significant extent.

Once again in the radial approach, we use the holistic binary digits to encode levels, with each defined as a unique configuration of form and emptiness.

Though we will leave the deeper mathematical discussion to a later Chapter, suffice it to say here that each of the levels represents a special configuration of the three fundamental polarities, which condition all development processes.

L3 (Level 3) - Archaic

Q. So starting with the lower, what is the first level?

PC Remember that we always have two interrelated ways of looking at stages. From a linear perspective (whereby we differentiate as independent) we can indeed speak about discrete lower stages. However in circular terms (whereby we integrate as interdependent) these are necessarily continuous with all other stages. Then in radial terms we attempt to interpret the precise degree of linearity and circularity associated with each stage. And this configuration varies considerably throughout development.

As we have seen each Band has three levels. From the linear (discrete) perspective, the first of the lower levels is L3 i.e. (Lower 3). This is sometimes referred to as the Archaic Stage.

Initially when life begins in the womb all structures remain in a greatly undifferentiated state. Thus the three polarities - which condition all phenomenal experience - remain entangled with each other in a greatly confused form of primitive integration.

Thus the diagonal polarities of form and emptiness remain undifferentiated. This means in effect that in the most primitive type of infant experience, matter is still greatly confused with Spirit.

To an even greater degree, the vertical polarities of whole and part remain undifferentiated. This relates directly to the fact that the conscious and unconscious aspects of experience cannot yet be distinguished so that - in any context - the whole is confused with the part.

Finally the horizontal polarities of external and internal (with respect to either conscious or unconscious) remain undifferentiated.  This relates to the fact that the subjective and objective aspects of experience still remain greatly enmeshed with each other.

Q. Can we say anything about the situation before one is born?

PC One way of expressing this - using Christian imagery - is that everyone who is destined to be born eternally exists as a unique Archetype of the Creator, which we call God. In this sense in the mind of God, finite time has no reality and thus we eternally exist. Putting it another way phenomenal existence - before birth as it were - represents the total confusion of form and emptiness (where absolutely no differentiation of integration of phenomena structures has yet taken place).

In this dynamic sense we cannot view God the Creator as distinct from phenomenal reality in Creation. In other words in order to know, love be Himself/Herself, God must eternally create, for it is only through such creation that each life - as uniquely manifesting the Creator - can come to realise his/her/itself as God. However as this process may be approximated though never fully attained, finite creation must itself forever continue as the means through which infinite realisation is mediated.

So if we could realise ourselves fully as God in our human lives, creation itself would pass away. However, by the very nature of phenomenal reality this is not possible and creation is destined to continue indefinitely.

Q. So putting it in its proper context, each new life, in phenomenal creation, is on a journey towards realisation of a true absolute eternal identity (not confined to phenomenal space and time) which however can never fully be attained. Thus phenomenal creation must forever continue so that others which in truth - from the eternal perspective - are both You and I, can continue this same unending quest!

PC Yes! this is how I would understand it. Because of finite separateness we all exist in parallel universes which can never fully overlap. Thus I, in the realisation of being a unique individual, am thereby also conscious of a separateness and certain isolation from You (as another unique individual). However all seemingly separate universes ultimately coincide in the eternal present moment. Truly we are all in this together and our destinies are enmeshed with everything else in phenomenal creation past, present and future. There can even be a great comfort in this as we will all die with hopes and dreams unfulfilled. However sometime in the future someone else will experience that love, have that great insight, feel that wonderful joy, which eluded us in our own lives. But No! that person is truly You and I experiencing on behalf of you and I in that eternal “place” that we all truly share.

Q So - putting it in proper context - the stages of development represent the gradual unfolding in the realisation of our eternal destiny mediated through the veil of phenomenal forms? 

PC Yes! though of course from the finite perspective there can be enormous variations in the degrees of realisation taking place. However in a radial approach designed to interpret the full range of possible stages, development must be placed in its true eternal context.

Q. So returning to the lower levels, the first - which commences in the womb - is characterised by the great confusion of the three fundamental polarities?

PC Though the three polarities are interrelated, the first task is broadly confined to gradual differentiation of the most fundamental diagonal polarities of form and emptiness. This culminates in the awareness of the newly born infant of a distinct bodyself. In other words though the infant’s experience still remains at a very instinctive level (where conscious cannot be distinguished from unconscious reality) yet at the primitive level of the body, there is now a growing awareness of being a separate individual. Thus the early learning experience of the infant comes largely through the instinctive sensorimotor experience of the body.

So initially phenomenal awareness is very temporary and fleeting continually dissolving into the empty void from which it originates. However - at least with respect to the body - a more constant form of awareness now becomes established.

Q. So in discrete (linear) terms, L3 represents the first stage. How is it viewed in continuous complementary terms?

PC Well initially we start from the totally confused continuum of all stages which represents the potential - not yet realised - for development of these stages.

However though indeed a certain degree of linear development does initially take place (culminating in the successful differentiation of the bodyself), the continuous (circular) interpretation is valid here to a greater extent.

In other words L3 (Lower 3) is very closely integrated in confused fashion with H3 (Higher 3). So as we have already expressed earliest development properly represents the immature expression of experience that is both prepersonal and transpersonal in nature. So once again the omnipotent sense of the infantile ego represents a confused type of spiritual transcendence (as trans). Equally however the primitive identification of such spiritual energy with transient phenomenal experience represents a confused type of spiritual immanence (as pre). 

Of course the most immature is necessarily complementary with the most developed (mature) experience. 

Thus in structural terms the confused integration of the three fundamental polarities in continuous terms at the start of L3-H3 complements the mature integration of H3-L3 (i.e. where the bodyself is integrated with Spirit) at the later more advanced stage of development. However with this later development we are dealing with the considerably enhanced appreciation of the dynamic interaction of stages, whereas with earlier development (in chronological terms) we are referring to an unenhanced appreciation of a dynamic relationship that still remains greatly undifferentiated.

In other words before proper integration can take place in experience, proper differentiation must likewise occur.

Q. So you do not consider earliest infantile development as corresponding to a state of heavenly bliss?

PC Certainly not! However it is indeed true that the emerging infant can be flooded with a primitive form of spiritual experience (as by definition Spirit and matter remain very closely entangled with each other). However as the differentiation of structures associated with ego development proceeds, this confused trans experience tends to recede naturally (though the possibility of peak moments of genuine trans experience likewise tends to grow).

Q. Is there any complementarity here with your most advanced radial stages?

PC Good question! Clearly where linear and circular development are involved (though still suffering from confusion) there is a complementary link with the radial stages (where these are combined in a refined mature manner).

However complementarity here is mainly of lower and higher levels (L3 and H3).

L2 (Level 2) - Magical

Q. So moving on, let’s deal now with second of the lower levels. What is the key feature characterising development here?

PC I refer to second of the Lower levels as L2 (Lower 2). It equates well what is often referred to as the Magical Stage.

Following successful differentiation of the bodyself (associated with the diagonal polarities), considerable confusion still relates with respect to understanding associated with both vertical and horizontal polarities.

The task mainly associated with the second level is to proceed to successful differentiation of the vertical polarities of whole and part.

Now in basic terms, appreciation of whole notions is directly associated with the unconscious and part notions with the conscious respectively.

Thus the confusion, whereby the whole is identified with the part, arises in turn from a situation whereby the (holistic) unconscious still remains largely enmeshed in experience with the (analytic) conscious.

Thus when distinct phenomena consciously observed remain animated with holistic notions of meaning pertaining to the unconscious, magical properties thereby ensue. This in turn is associated with the lack of proper emotional boundaries so that affective experience at an individual level is imbued with a wider collective significance. 

However as the differentiation of structures proceeds at the second of the lower levels, the individual self (as a conscious locus of affective experience) gradually becomes detached from immature notions of unconscious origins and this culminates in the successful differentiation of the emotional self.

So, just as the linear differentiation of the diagonal polarities (of form and emptiness) takes place with the culmination of the 1^st level (L3), likewise the linear differentiation of the vertical polarities (of whole and part) takes place with the culmination of the 2^nd level (L2).

However confused complementarity still exists with respect to the horizontal internal-external polarities (and in truth in varying degrees with respect to the other polarities) as the process is never fully completed.

Q. Again in continuous terms what is the complementary nature of relationship existing here?

PC L2 (Lower 2) is vertically most complementary with H2 (Higher 2). One interesting implication of this is that peak moments of experience of this higher level may now become possible from the lower level. More correctly, peak moments of experience of the mature dynamic interconnection of H2 and L2 may become possible from corresponding experience of its confused nature. However because of insufficient lack of development of differentiated structures these moments will be difficult to sustain so that experience lapses quickly back to its customary level.

Q Let me get this clear! Because what is confused (immature) and not confused (mature) are complementary in experience, then the mature element can gradually be associated with its immature equivalent as development proceeds. This thereby enables peak moments of higher realisation to be obtained from what - in discrete terms - we would refer to as the lower levels. Is that so?

PC. Yes! though again it needs a certain quality of differentiation of structures to be able to properly sustain such peak moments.

In fact I would distinguish at least three varieties of such peak experience.

Firstly we have the normal confused peaking that takes place at the commencement of development (where pre cannot yet be distinguished from trans).

Secondly we have the occasional mature peak experiences of higher levels that however become quickly reduced through association with the customary experience of - in discrete terms - lower levels.

Thirdly however we have the possibility of extraordinary lucid peak experiences, even with someone whose customary experience is at a much lower level.

These I would associate most readily with a child destined for substantial mystical development, who can experience considerable illumination even at a very early age.

Here - because of the lucid intensity of these early mystical experiences - this child will implicitly realise that customary experience does not provide an adequate vehicle to explain their true meaning. They therefore can act as a considerable transforming catalyst in pursuit of higher stage development that is properly adequate to accommodate such peak moments.

However it would still be unlikely for such lucid experience to be associated with the default customary stage of L2.

Q. Would you maintain however that such lucid experience could be associated with the enhanced appreciation of L2?

PC Certainly! As development proceeds, not alone do we have the opening up of the new default understanding associated with each higher stage but also a new enhanced understanding of early stages. Thus it is more likely that a lucid peak realisation of H2 and H3 would be associated with the enhanced experience of L2 and L3 (allowing for a greater degree of development in differentiated structures).

Q. Would you also maintain the likelihood of valley experiences of lower from the customary experience of higher stages (in discrete terms)?

PC Definitely! It all remains a matter of degree. No one ever becomes so spiritually developed so as to outgrow all possibility of infantile confusion.

Especially in times of stress even the most mature spiritual adepts may be prone to occasional valley moments betraying an infantile nature.

However what is much more alarming is the possibility of extraordinary lucid valley moments even among spiritually advanced that can subsequently corrupt such developed powers. This I believe is very common among leaders of religious cults who can use their charisma and spiritual gifts for base material ends.

L1 (Level 1) - Mythical

Q. So moving on, what is the fundamental nature of the third - and most advanced - of your lower levels?

PC Again the second stage culminates with the successful differentiation of the emotional self. However though unconscious confusion giving rise to magical explanations of reality now recedes somewhat, it does not yet fully disappear.

So magic operating at the personal level gives way to myth operating at the more general level of experience.

Looked at another way the child is not yet ready to take full responsibility for his/her actions. So a displacement of responsibility is enabled through remaining immature unconscious elements in personality.

Now we should remember here, that much as we would like to believe that with the specialised development of adult reason that all myth and magic disappears, this is patently not the case. In other words the differentiation of specialised linear capacities in practice takes place to a considerable extent through the repression of the unconscious element which subsequently keeps influencing experience in a powerful - yet largely unrecognised - manner.

Q. Are you saying therefore that the remaining problem in development is that the child has not learnt to fully repress the immature unconscious?

PC In terms of Western culture this would be one important element. However there are always both positive and negative elements to development. Thus the successful differentiation of linear structures (with respect to all three polarities) is certainly a remarkable feat. However it would be foolish to deny - especially where such structures undergo specialised treatment - that it is often bought at the price of considerable repression of corresponding unconscious development.

Q. Are you implying therefore that proper integration cannot take place in early development?

PC Integration of a kind can and does take place. However it is integration mainly in service of successful differentiation of the ego. Though such integration may well be deemed compatible with the attitudes and aspirations of the culture, from another perspective it can seem somewhat unbalanced. Also too much repression of the unconscious - even if of a socially accepted kind - can subsequently set severe limitations on one’s ability to acquire true spiritual integration.

Q So what structure characterises the third of the level levels?

PC Just as the first two of these levels level culminate in the successful differentiation of the body self and emotional self respectively, the third culminates in the successful differentiation of the mental self.

In other words as the conscious mind is gradually disentangled from the undeveloped unconscious, it can obtain a more detached perspective on reality (where opposite polarities are clearly distinguished). So with the differentiation of the mental self a child is able to distinguish to a considerable extent (physical) objective from (psychological) subjective events.

This then increasingly enables the child to operate rationally - without undue subjective interference - on the impersonal physical environment.

However as with all stages, though a certain proficiency in this respect is required to define the level, the process is still far from perfect with mythic influences still continuing in varying degrees.

So with respect to our poles we now have linear differentiation with respect to diagonal, vertical and horizontal poles. In other words confused complementarity with respect to these poles is now considerably reduced, as the developing conscious takes over from the undeveloped unconscious in the formal understanding of relationships.

Put more accurately though confused complementarity is significantly reduced in explicit terms, implicitly it may still exist to a considerable extent especially with respect to affective - as opposed to cognitive - experience. 

However in formal terms, the interpretation of reality now occurs in a largely discrete linear manner. Though this means that greater stability with respect to the manner of understanding can take place, it equally entails that dynamic links with other levels of development are significantly reduced.

Thus in simple terms whereas discrete linear understanding relates to greater degrees of differentiation (within a given level), continuous circular understanding relates to greater degrees of integration (between the various levels).

Therefore though an important form of integration is necessarily associated with each of the lower levels, by its very nature it is but a reduced form that occurs largely in the service of increased conscious ability.

Q. Presumably you would say that proper integration cannot take place at these levels because the unconscious does not undergo sufficient development?

PC Yes! Of course some development of the unconscious does necessarily take place (which again can vary considerably depending on personality and life circumstances). But the first task of development is to gradually establish a stable ego identity, which largely depends on the successful differentiation of structures.

As I have said this inevitably entails a significant degree of unconscious repression. Now in an ideal world - with the ego sufficiently strengthened - one could then move on to the next task of gradually returning to the unconscious with a view to its mature development (through advanced spiritual development).

However in the very dynamics of experience this is unlikely due to the specialised attention now given to linear understanding.

As we will see shortly the middle levels of development are indeed associated with the specialised training in linear understanding. This then significantly reduces dynamic links with the various other levels of the Spectrum.

Q So in our Western culture development therefore tends to plateau with the middle levels?

PC I certainly believe so! The social demands to fit in with this culture can be so strong that the option of breaking with its expectations can prove extremely difficult. In any case even when people vaguely realise something important is missing from their lives requiring a spiritual answer, they can misinterpret the root cause in significant ways by still pursuing materialistic goals in search of meaning. 

Q. Is there any way of avoiding this dilemma while still living in Western society?

PC Fortunately, some remain very sensitive to unconscious dynamics despite all the attempts of the culture to deny its role with respect to formal understanding. Such people cannot readily adapt to conventional expectations and are more likely therefore to seek a radical spiritual answer.

Indeed - realising the important role of accepted intellectual truth in society - I am strongly motivated by the desire to incorporate this greatly neglected role of the unconscious in formal scientific understanding.

Q. What complementarity is still available at L1?

PC L1 (the last of the lower levels) is complementary with H1 (the first of the higher levels). So we can already see how the range of levels that interpenetrate with each other contracts somewhat as we approach the middle of the spectrum (that is associated with specialised linear understanding). However this interpenetration still remains very common and is responsible for explaining perhaps the most common type of peak spiritual experience.

In other words it is relatively common for someone whose customary experience is at L1 to have genuine peak experience of H1 (the first of the higher spiritual levels). Indeed especially lucid moments - which can act as a considerable catalyst in mystical conversion - tend to be associated with the enhanced form of L1 experience (that can become available at the middle levels). 

Middle Levels 

Q We now move on to the middle levels. Firstly what is the key characteristic associated with the middle levels?

PC The key characteristic here - certainly from the cognitive perspective - is the specialisation of discrete linear understanding. So the confused complementarity of opposites is now overcome (with respect to formal modes of interpretation).

However the complementarity related in turn to the mature development of the unconscious aspect of personality cannot yet be incorporated in understanding.

So the development of the middle levels - though quite remarkable with respect to consolidation of rational analytic ability - is somewhat one-sided from an integral standpoint.

Q What about affective and volitional aspects? Are these likewise dominated by linear understanding?

PC Interesting question! In some respects this could indeed be so. For example one can subscribe to a programmatic kind of morality that is cognitively based and attempt to control one’s emotions in line with the pursuit of rationally conceived goals.

However in practice considerable scope for survival of the irrational can remain with respect to both will and emotion. In other words the immature unconscious remains alive and influences one’s destiny to a far greater extent than customarily realised.

Q. Is this a bad thing?

PC Clearly where the unconscious remains undeveloped one loses to that extent a great deal of true control and freedom with respect to one’s life. So to this extent it is not good. However though still mainly operating at a prepersonal level it can help to keep open access to other levels (lower, higher and radial).

Q. So presumably because of complementary links, the prepersonal will always be linked to some degree with the transpersonal?

 

PC That would be a somewhat linear way of expressing it! More correctly there is always a degree of complementarity as between the confused relationship of pre and trans and the mature integral relationship. So even when experience primarily pertains to the lower, it opens up a pathway to some degree to the higher levels (e.g. through occasional peak experiences).   

However in practice this relationship as between pre and trans - operating largely at an instinctive emotional level - remains mainly of the undeveloped variety. In my own country, as in many others, the misuse of alcohol is a growing social problem. In a way, this expresses a desire for the peak moments of vitality properly associated with genuine spiritual attainment.

Unfortunately it operates in a blind and instinctive manner. So using the discrete linear manner of expression - though this may indeed express the desire for the transpersonal  transcending normal experience - it is pursued in an immature prepersonal fashion.

L0 (Level 0) - Concrete

Q. We have reached the middle levels, why do you not use middle level terminology to describe them?

PC Though now dealing with the middle levels, we use the terminology associated with both lower and higher levels so as to demonstrate the complementary features associated with these stages. So the first of the middle levels is L0, which is the ceiling, as it were, of the lower levels.

This stage - with respect to its cognitive aspects - is referred to by Piaget as concrete operational (conop).

The key characteristic of the level is that linear specialised analytic ability is now developed with respect to localised concrete type relationships. In other words in this context, the conscious mind becomes so detached that reason can be used with respect to specific empirical situations largely free of interference from the holistic unconscious.

However at deeper levels of the personality, the immature unconscious still holds considerable sway. So in terms of more general explanations of reality, the child is more likely to resort to mythic rather than rational answers.

In terms of structure, L0 starts from a situation where all three polarities have already been differentiated to a reasonable extent.

The specialisation process now commences, which at this level is mainly related to the horizontal polarities of internal (subjective) and external (objective) reality. So even here we can see another form of complementarity in that the last set of polarities to be properly differentiated (in preliminary terms) is the first to undergo mature specialisation in (discrete) linear terms.

We also have our customary complementarity in that the L0 (the ceiling of the lower levels) is matched with H0 (the ground floor of the higher levels).

So the lowest of the three middle levels is complementary with the highest (of these same levels). This illustrates how complementarity becomes greatly restricted in vertical terms at the middle levels (where - at least explicitly - linear understanding dominates understanding).

L0, H0 (Lower 0, Higher 0) - Formal 

Q. So what about this next stage?

PC We are now - in terms of lower, middle and higher levels - at the very centre stage, which represents the mostly purely linear (and thereby least complementary) of all the levels.

This is an extremely important point because with respect to intellectual discourse interpretation is heavily - and indeed often exclusively - based on the formal interpretations corresponding to this level.

Indeed this applies to a considerable extent with respect to development studies where the existence of more advanced stages (than the middle) is fully accepted.

Unfortunately, even here, the intellectual translation of higher stages is generally carried out from the understanding characterising the linear levels. This leads invariable to an unduly hierarchical account of the stages of development. 

Middle level interpretation especially characterises conventional science creating the erroneous impression that this provides the only valid paradigm for both theory and observation of reality.

However properly understood there is a unique paradigm (or rather metaparadigm) for interpretation associated with each level. Indeed in addition there are a whole series of both enhanced and diminished versions of all these paradigms when viewed from the perspective of different stages.  

Q. What is the key characteristic of the stage?

PC Specialised linear ability - again with respect to its cognitive aspect - now takes place regarding the understanding of more general abstract relationships, which is the basis of theoretical interpretation of reality. In the language of Piaget, this is the formal operational stage (formop). It is extremely important in science and mathematics. However it is equally important whenever logical deductions of a general kind are made.

In terms of our three sets of polarities, L0,H0 is defined by the specialised linear interpretation of the second set of vertical polarities i.e. whole and part.

Indeed it is the abstract ability to deal with universal wholes (without reference to specific parts) that defines the level e.g. with mathematical proof. And the great feature of the “whole” proof is that it can then be used to apply to any “part” within its field of application.

So the Pythagorean Theorem that the square on the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of squares on the other two sides constitutes a proof potentially applying to the “whole” (i.e. all triangles within its class). 

Then this “whole” truth - according to linear logic - can be applied to any actual concrete “part” instance. 

Q. Presumably however the price of this linear specialisation is the removal of any remaining notion of circular complementarity?

PC Certainly, this is so with respect to formal intellectual interpretation of reality (though implicitly circular notions may still operate). Also, strictly it represents the removal of confused complementary notions (as their mature counterpart will not have had sufficient opportunity to yet develop).

However it still is a vitally important point to consider that the kind of interpretation that we customarily impose on reality represents an extreme that substantially distorts the true nature of experience.

In other words in formal interpretation, (analytic) rational explanations of a (discrete) linear kind are used to the exclusion of (holistic) intuitive explanations of a (continuous) circular kind. In other words the conscious is emphasised at the expense of the unconscious aspect of reality.

So L0,H0 is complementary with itself and does not require the understanding associated with any other levels for its justification.

Q. Can you use the relationship between H0 (formop) and L0 (conop) to illustrate the nature of an enhanced interpretation of L0?

PC. When L0 (conop) first unfolds, we have the default understanding of L0 (i.e. the understanding of L0 from the perspective of the L0 level). As we have see this represents empirical analytic ability that is confined to concrete localised situations.

Then when H0 (formop) unfolds, this is likewise associated with the default understanding of H0 (i.e. the default understanding of H0 from the perspective of H0).

One of the problems associated with the initial unfolding of H0, is that it leads to a temporary dimming of L0 ability. Indeed for the theoretical specialist such a dimming may become quite marked leading to an inability to observe – in any appropriate context - the relevant facts.

However if one now returns to L0 (e.g. in search of empirical data) from the perspective of H0, it leads to an enhanced ability to literally see the data in a new light. In other words because of the general theoretical constructs already developed one is much more likely to be able to see new patterns in the data.

Now this enhancement is really working in both directions i.e. as H0,L0 is applied to L0 and in reverse L0 to H0,L0.

So in the first instance we have the enhanced interpretation of H0 (in the ability to draw deductions from the application of theoretical constructs to empirical data).

In the second case we have - in reverse - the enhanced interpretation of L0 (in the increased ability to induce general theoretical patterns from the empirical data).

Q. This seems quite remarkable for it implies that enhancement can come from above i.e. when a lower stage is understood from the perspective of the higher and also below i.e. when a higher stage is understood from the perspective of the lower?

PC Yes! This really represents an increased integrative power in understanding, which has both top-down and bottom-up dimensions. However bottom up integration here requires that default development has already taken place at the higher stage. If one for example attempts to induce general patterns from data without the proper development of formop, then it is likely to be of a somewhat diminished nature (i.e. where unwarranted generalisations are made from limited local circumstances).

However the question you ask is very instructive. Science indeed recognises the importance of induction and deduction respectively, which clearly points to a two-way integrative relationship between conop and formop (and formop and conop).

Q. We have been talking about these middle stages from a largely cognitive perspective. Briefly what about affective and volitional understanding at these levels?

PC My main concern in this context is to deal with the scientific task of interpreting development in a properly balanced manner i.e. that combines both (discrete) linear and (continuous) circular understanding.

However the other modes remain vitally important, for the proper functioning of the cognitive requires corresponding appropriate development with respect to affective and volitional.

I think however that it can be safely said that the dynamic complementarity as between lower and higher levels is much more likely to exist with respect to the two other primary modes.

In practice much of correspondence is likely - in discrete terms - to be of a largely prepersonal nature though, again, because of the dynamic interaction of lower and higher this also keeps open the possibility of occasional moments of genuine transpersonal awareness. This can indeed be very important for without it the quest for deeper spiritual meaning would be significantly lost.

However when the cognitive aspect is very dominant it can effectively force the other two modes to conform to it to a considerable degree.

Thus we see through the many pressures of modern living e.g. work and family responsibilities where one has to discipline emotion to fit in with many everyday demands. In this way the affective aspect is so conditioned to respond to linear type interpretation that it greatly loses its spontaneity. Also volitional decision-making can likewise be so programmed leading to a considerable loss of genuine freedom. Because of this customary conscious domination, the undeveloped repressed unconscious can then intrude through immature and damaging attempts at compensation e.g. promiscuous sex, drink, drugs and many other forms of irresponsible behaviour.     

H0 (Higher 0) – Vision-logic

Q. We now come to the most advanced of the middle levels. Once again what are its main characteristics?

PC This level - which is called the centaur or vision-logic - I refer to as H0 (Higher 0). In structural terms it is characterised by the specialised linear development of the diagonal polarities (i.e. form and emptiness).

We saw in the previous section how both enhanced appreciation of L0 (conop) and L0,H0 (formop) takes place through vertical two-way interaction of both stages (that represent part and whole aspects of reality).

Now we have a more subtle form of interaction between polarities that is diagonal. What this entails is that what is external for example for the higher is now understood as complementary with what is internal for the corresponding lower stage. So with diagonal complementarity we have the simultaneous interaction of polar opposites in both horizontal and vertical terms.

Interestingly just as the diagonal polarities in fundamental terms represent form and emptiness, likewise vision-logic understanding (the product of this level) is characterised by the flexible and creative relating of linear phenomena (form) that is sustained by a growing supply of spiritual intuition (emptiness).

In its most developed manifestations, vision-logic can lead to the ability to creatively synthesise vast networks of ideas (due to the considerable fusion of reason and intuition entailed).

So - even though its spiritual aspect may remain somewhat implicit - H0 really serves as the ground floor of the more advanced spiritual levels.

Q. I am puzzled as to this emergence of intuition given that H0 represents - from one perspective - the most specialised expression of (linear) reason?

PC Fortunately though the cognitive expressions of the middle levels do indeed represent the specialisation of (discrete) linear ability, both prepersonal and transpersonal aspects continue to interact to a much greater degree with respect to the affective and volitional modes.

Therefore in appropriate circumstances e.g. where peak experiences can remain common with respect to these other modes, the unconscious undergoes a degree of supporting development providing the necessary intuition to support the cognitive structures of this level.

However a key problem exists with respect to vision-logic, which is crucial in terms of further spiritual development. This relates to the fact that (rigid) linear modes of understanding are strictly incompatible with spiritual intuitive awareness. Therefore where spiritual intuition becomes strongly developed it can lead to considerable conflict in the personality deeply challenging the very basis of the linear worldview.

Q. So you would not accept the view that the integration of all previous stages takes place through vision-logic?

PC No! though I would accept that for a certain group of personalities successful integration may indeed appear to take place (without the contradictions inherent in vision-logic understanding ever surfacing to a great extent). However others will always remain more sensitive to these underlying problems. Therefore integration cannot take place without dealing with such issues that entails the unfolding of more advanced levels.

Q.  What is the nature of complementarity at this level?

PC H0 (vision-logic) is complementary with L0 (conop). What this means in effect that whereas H0 points forward to the higher levels (through the implicit generation of mature spiritual intuition at the deeper regions), L0 points back towards the lower levels (through the implicit survival of mythic type understanding in these same regions).

However it still represents a somewhat limited form of complementarity.

Q. Finally from what you say, you would not be very impressed with an integral approach to development based on the use of vision-logic?

PC It seems very clear to me that vision-logic (as conventionally understood) is inherently unsuited to this task. Of course if we want to know what integration looks like through a vision-logic interpretation, then it may indeed appear appropriate (for one viewing development from that level). However in terms of the interpretations of more advanced levels it is quite reduced.

The key reason is that - in formal terms - vision-logic is still based on linear (asymmetrical) notions of meaning. As we have seen this is properly suited for the task of differentiated understanding (within partially independent reference frames). However for the holistic task of overall integration the circular complementary approach is required (where reference frames are viewed as interdependent).

The radial approach is then designed to preserve both differentiated and integrated interpretation (the balance of which is unique for each stage of development).