5. Levels of Self: Levels of Reality (A)

Introduction

Q. We are now moving on to deal with three important subdivisions that apply to all stages of development 1) the breakdown as between stages of self(hood) and stages (or planes) of reality 2) stages with respect to structures and states and 3) stages with respect to both body and mind.

In this discussion we are concentrating on the first of these divisions. Can you briefly clarify the distinction as between the stages of self and reality?

PC This distinction relates initially to the (horizontal) polarities of internal and external, that operate within a given stage of development.

Thus taking the levels to illustrate - as we will continue to do in this discussion - we can basically look at any particular stage in two ways

(a) in (internal) psychological terms or (b) in a - relatively - (external) physical manner.

However as we shall also see later there are important vertical and diagonal implications with respect to this distinction between stages. So for example in vertical terms it requires the understanding of the “higher” level (with respect to both the physical and psychological aspects) to unravel the structural confusion inherent in the complementary “lower” level.  So H3 would be used to interpret the structures of L3, H2 the structures of L2, H1 the structures of L1 and H0 the structures of L0.

Likewise in diagonal terms we combine complementary opposites in both horizontal and vertical terms simultaneously. So for example we could use here the psychological structures of a “higher” level - say H3 - to interpret the physical structures of a complementary “lower” level (i.e. L3).

In more precise holistic mathematical terms, the distinction as between stages of self and stages of reality is characterised directly by Type 1 Complementarity (corresponding to Integral 1 understanding). Here the internal aspect is understood as complementary with the external (and the external with the internal).  However because of an inevitable interaction with the other key aspects of stages, ultimately understanding with respect to all types of Complementarity (Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3) is required to fully appreciate the dynamics associated with any one aspect.

Q Can I briefly interject here! You say that the distinction as between what is psychological and physical is relative. What do you mean by this?

PC In standard scientific terms - based on the linear mode of understanding - we tend to make clear unambiguous distinctions as between self and the world. Here we tend to view the psychological self as internal (i.e. in here) and the physical world as external (i.e. out there). The self (as observer) is then considered as somewhat neutral with respect to the physical world (as observed). In other words the linear mode of understanding entails the freezing of dynamic interaction as between these two polar aspects.

However when we reflect on it, the external world (as observed) has no meaning independent of the mental constructs (used by the observer). So in this sense there is an inevitable internal psychological dimension to all interpretation of physical reality. Likewise our subjective experience (as psychological) ultimately can have no meaning independent of our interaction with physical events. So again - in reverse fashion - there is an external physical aspect to all internal subjective experience.

Strictly, we can only make dualistic distinctions as between what is internal and external through arbitrary fixing of the polar frame of reference. Thus if we fix the psychological frame as internal, then - in relative fashion - the physical frame will then be external. However this always implies that the physical frame could equally be fixed as internal (mental constructs) in which case the psychological frame would then be - relatively - external. So, our psychological reaction to the world intimately depends on the structures we use when viewing this reality.

Q So can you briefly distinguish the linear, circular and radial methods of treatment with respect to stages of self and stages of reality?

PC Well the linear mode of interpretation tends - as we have seen - to make an unambiguous (absolute) distinction as between what is internal and external leading to the view, as in physical science, that we can be passive observers of reality. In other words physical reality - from this perspective - essentially is not altered through our interpretation of it. Though this viewpoint strictly breaks down at the sub-atomic level, scientists for the most part still attempt to cling to the linear mode of interpretation in dealing with this reality.

The linear approach is most appropriate for an analytic understanding of reality (within a fixed mode of interpretation).

The circular mode of interpretation is based on the clear recognition of the relative nature - in this context - of what is internal or external. In other words these poles are understood as complementary opposites. This leads to a somewhat (circular) paradoxical interpretation of experience that ultimately is of an empty spiritual nature (i.e. without form).

The circular approach is most appropriate for an overall holistic understanding of reality (where interpretation dynamically evolves). 

The radial mode then flexibly combines both linear and circular aspects enabling understanding that can be analytically detailed (within a limited frame of reference) yet maintain an authentic degree of holistic integration from the overall global perspective.

The various stages then represent unique configurations with respect to the three modes.

Thus the lower levels start from a point where both linear and circular modes of understanding are very confused. As the three levels successfully unfold in development, a more mature type of linear understanding emerges (through gradual removal of confused circular elements).

The (lower) middle levels largely represent the specialisation - especially with respect to the cognitive aspect - of the linear mode of understanding (as demonstrated by the conventional scientific viewpoint).

The distinction as between the internal and external aspects of reality is here most pronounced.

The higher levels - again when they successfully unfold - represent the growing development of spiritual intuitive understanding. This indirectly facilitates the circular (paradoxical) mode of understanding where the distinction as between internal and external becomes much more refined. When it is especially associated with the more contemplative type of development it can lead to a diminishing role for the linear mode.

The (upper) middle levels then represents the specialisation of mature spiritual intuition (associated with an increasingly holistic overall perspective).

Any remaining distinction as between internal and external (and external and internal) now largely disappears.

Finally the radial levels - again when they successfully emerge - entail the most complete type of experience where both linear and circular modes combine in both a creative and productive manner.

These levels are associated with a very flexible multi-faceted type of understanding where a deepening contemplative awareness of what is empty and spiritual happily coincides with detailed recognition of the relative importance - in so many contexts - of phenomenal form.

Thus, at the pinnacle of radial development a suitably gifted person can maintain a mature sense both of self and the world while equally remaining continually absorbed in pure awareness of (empty) spiritual reality.

Lower Levels

Q. You have a basic criticism of most standard treatments of development. Can you enlarge?

PC Yes! It seems to me that in accounts that too much attention is placed on the (internal) psychological aspect with the stages largely understood as relating to the self. In other words from the commencement of development as the new born infant - or perhaps even earlier with the foetus in the womb - the focus then firmly placed on all the interior stages necessary to obtain a mature adult identity.

Q. And this is not the case!

PC Well it is certainly part of the story. However we could equally start with the physical world (that is in relation to the self) and trace out all the stages towards its full realisation. In other words the stages of development apply to both the (physical) world and the (psychological) self. So the self is always in relationship to its physical environment (and vice versa) with development entailing a continual change with respect to both aspects.

Thus ultimate personal realisation of the psychological (in the pure experience of Spirit) cannot be divorced from ultimate impersonal realisation (with respect to physical reality).

And again these can be interchanged as both internal and external poles have both personal and impersonal aspects! Just as the self in experience reaches its Omega point in Spirit (through relationship with the world) likewise the physical world reaches its Omega point in Spirit (through relationship with the self). And in the pure nondual realisation of Spirit these polar distinctions pass away to lose any residual meaning.

Therefore in an effort to maintain balance, I will deal with both the psychological and physical structure associated with each level (both of which have a well-defined holistic mathematical rationale). In this context horizontal complementarity exists at every level. Therefore if we - for example - can identify the (internal) psychological structure of a given level, we can thereby equally identify the (external) physical structure of reality at that same level (due to this complementarity).

  

 

L3 (Lower 3) – Archaic

 

 

Q Describe firstly if you will the psychological aspect of this stage (of self).

 

 

PC We have to an extent already dealt with this in our discussion on the lower levels. Once again development starts from a state whereby neither form nor emptiness can be distinguished with each other. Not surprisingly therefore earliest development is characterised by a great deal of confusion.

So, neither the physical nor psychological aspects can be properly disentangled throughout this time.

 

However when the stage eventually culminates with respect to the successful differentiation of the bodyself, an infant is now able to distinguish physical and psychological reality - at least with respect to the body - where experience remains at a very instinctive level. For example a baby may be able to distinguish what gives pleasure or alternatively causes pain. In this way the body slowly becomes both psychologically and physically separated with respect to the wider environment. However because conscious and unconscious are still quite undeveloped, both aspects remain confused with each other to a considerable extent.

 

 

So we have here in psychological terms a very primitive state of development where the various structures remain greatly entangled with each other. However with respect to the bodyself - which corresponds with the most fundamental diagonal polarities of form and emptiness - differentiation takes place. Thus at a sensorimotor level the infant can begin to successfully distinguish form - in the instinctive phenomenal events associated with the body - from emptiness.

 

 

Q From your complementary approach this first stage should also be telling us something very important about the structures of physical reality. How can this be? Sure early infant experience can be of no relevance to contemporary physics?

 

 

PC It is certainly true that if we take the default understanding of the first level (i.e. that experienced by the baby infant) it can have little relevance, as the infant clearly lacks the cognitive capacity to mentally reflect on the world in a sustained manner.

However we must remember that an enhanced appreciation of earlier stages is afforded though the integration afforded by latter stages (which operates in both a top-down and bottom-up manner).

Therefore in complementary terms the most mature experience of the earliest stage L3 (where all polarities are greatly confused) is enabled through two-way integration with the highest H3, where this confusion is unravelled. Therefore we can obtain great (diagonal) insight into the fundamental physical structures of reality through the enhanced appreciation of L3 (afforded through integration with the psychological structures of H3).

 

Q How do physical notions such as forces relate to the holistic mathematical language based on three fundamental polarities (that condition all phenomenal existence)?

PC I have found the mathematical language associated with the eight roots of unity (especially in relation to the complex roots involved) immensely helpful in terms of coming to a properly integral appreciation of the nature of both physical and (complementary) spiritual forces.

I have dealt with this before at length in an earlier discussion.

The complex roots – which define the fundamental diagonal polarities – can be given two interpretations.

From the perspective of form they have a complex structure (with real and imaginary parts of equal magnitude).

From the perspective of emptiness the diagonal lines are indeed null lines (with no magnitude).

Now when we look for example at the nature of physical light, its intrinsic nature is represented through the two perspectives.

Thus from the perspective of form, light manifests itself in a complex manner. Its real aspect can be observed in terms of particles (where its complementary identity as waves remains imaginary and hidden).

Equally its real aspect can be observed in terms of waves (where its complementary identity as particles now remains imaginary and hidden).

Thus from a dynamic interactive perspective what is real and imaginary with respect to the manifestation of light is arbitrary (depending on context).

From the perspective of emptiness, light travelling at its own speed is purely infinite remaining continually in the present moment. Once again its finite identity can only be manifest through interaction with other particles (not travelling at the speed of light).

In principle - from a holistic mathematical perspective - all four forces share the same fundamental characteristics (and are diagonally complementary with each other).

The two principle forces are the electromagnetic (of which natural light is an important example) and gravity. The other two forces which are the weak and strong respectively can be then seen as internal manifestations of these same two forces respectively.

We can also show a remarkable complementary structural identity with the spiritual forces.

Just as the first stirrings with respect to evolutionary matter are associated with the phenomenal identification of physical forces (where matter and emptiness separate), likewise the first stirrings of human evolution are likewise associated with the phenomenal manifestation of spiritual forces (where the infant’s inherent spiritual desire for meaning begins to assert itself).

Corresponding directly to the electromagnetic force (e.g. physical light) we have - with respect to Spirit - the immanent aspect (where light becomes spiritually manifest within matter). Likewise corresponding to the gravitational force we have the transcendent aspect where the focus is more directly on the dimensional framework (within which matter is contained).

As with the physical, the spiritual forces can be viewed from the two perspectives whose holistic structure is provided through the four complex roots explaining the diagonal polarities.

Thus from the perspective of form the immanent aspect has both a real manifest (particle) identity spiritually reflected through matter and an imaginary (wave) identity that in this context remains hidden. In other words when the focus is directly on the phenomena revealed (within dimensions), the dimensions then remain hidden.

However this focus continually switches in dynamic interactive terms so that at the next moment the immanent aspect has a real manifest (wave) and an imaginary hidden (particle) identity. In other words when the focus is directly on the more generalised dimensional framework, material phenomena - in this context - remain hidden.

One very practical implication of this is the manner in which the interaction of perceptions and concepts continually takes place in experience. At one moment the light - that literally enables us to mentally see - is made immanent through the phenomenal matter of perceptions. So the particle aspect of spiritual light is made real (while the dimensional aspect remains hidden). However at the next moment the light is made immanent through the conceptual framework (with which phenomenal matter interacts).  In this context the concepts literally provide the dimensional framework containing phenomena!

So now the wave aspect of spiritual light is made immanent in real terms (while the particle aspect - as revealed phenomena - remains imaginary and hidden).

So again what is real or imaginary is arbitrary (depending on context).      

From the perspective of emptiness (where the diagonal polarities are represented as null lines) spiritual light is purely infinite existing in the present moment (which is continually renewed). Indeed one could say that spiritual light “travels” an infinite distance in zero time.

As with the physical forces, the 4 spiritual forces can be looked as diagonally complementary with each other i.e. corresponding to Type 3 complementarity.

So the immanent aspect has both an exterior and interior type manifestation. Likewise the transcendent aspect has both exterior and interior manifestations.

Q. This is quite startling for it entails - if you are correct - that not alone are the four physical forces and also the four spiritual forces exactly complementary with each other i.e. physical and spiritual respectively (according to Type 3 complementarity) with a well-defined holistic mathematical structure, but that they are likewise exactly complementary with each other (in this same manner).  Presumably however when we try to look at such issues from an analytic perspective these relationships do not seem apparent?

PC Precisely! The original symmetry of forces (both physically and spiritually) relates directly to the plenum-void (where dualistic distinctions have no meaning). However from a phenomenal perspective these symmetries – both physically and spiritually - break down considerably. Thus we cannot “see” the original state from the perspective of analytic type understanding (which is necessarily dualistic). However we can approach this state from the perspective of holistic type appreciation, considerably informed by contemplative awareness, which already provides a certain direct experience of that state.

Q Presumably you would believe that from your holistic perspective it is not really possible to separate physics from psychology. In other words we are always dealing with psychophysical (or alternatively physicopsychic) reality?

PC Indeed! And we must remember that at the earliest level (L3) the links between both are at their closest (though in a very confused fashion). Furthermore we need the refined understanding of the corresponding highest level (H3) to properly “see” into and thereby unravel such confusion.

When we reflect on it, the world of the baby infant operates directly on an instinctive psychophysical level (precisely because the infant is not yet able to properly differentiate physical from psychic reality).

However equally we should remember that in structural terms it is exactly similar (in a complementary manner) regarding the nature - of what we consider - physical reality at this stage.

In other words, properly understood, the emerging universe is directly of a physicopsychic nature. Now clearly this is not reflected in the conventional manner of trying to understand the earliest stages of the Universe, where scientists attempt to understand relationships in a purely physical manner.

So once again the four forces are not just physical at this stage but equally of a psychological (and ultimately spiritual) nature.

For example we should not look on the breaking of the original symmetry (where all forces are unified) as simply an emergence of the gravitational force. Equally we should see it as the first attempts of nature to achieve spiritual transcendence.

Q. I know that most people would find this hard to appreciate, as they would doubt the spiritual capacity of matter at such an early stage of evolution. However I suspect that you consider that interpretation here needs to be much more refined?

PC Indeed! Remember the very capacity to interpret the earliest stages of evolution requires self-conscious individuals with the capacity for reflection on the earliest stages of their own inherent evolution in nature.

So we can never properly divorce our reflections on the origins of evolution (necessarily taking place at a much more advanced stage) from these origins.

Thus we cannot properly speak about the origins of evolution (before human life emerged) but rather the origins of evolution through conscious reflection (after human life has emerged).  

And as the evolution of the universe has now led to this stage where we can reflect as humans on its origins, therefore the spiritual capacity that we can bring to such refection was thereby always inherent in such evolution.

Q. From the psychological perspective, the first level (L3) culminates with the successful differentiation of the bodyself. What is the corresponding development in physical terms?

PC Once again strictly speaking the psychological perspective is psychophysical. Likewise the physical perspective is properly physicopsychic in nature.

The very differentiation of the bodyself is tied up with the gravitational force in the discovery of body mass and density, limitations on physical movement etc. 

The corresponding differentiation from a physicopsychic perspective would entail the first stable emergence of differentiated matter in what physicists would refer to as strings. However such strings equally reflect the first successful physical transcendence by nature as matter begins evolution on its journey towards Spirit.

L2 (Lower 2) – Magical

Q. Once again we will start from the psychological perspective. What are the key structural features of this stage?

 

PC As we have seen with the successful completion of the first main stage (level 3) we have the stable differentiation of the bodyself. Here the diagonal polarities separate to a sufficient to enable form (with respect to the body) to be distinguished from emptiness. In other words the experience of the infant now enters the phenomenal realm of space and time.

The next stage then relates to the gradual separation of the vertical polarities of whole and part, where quite literally, whole become increasingly distinguished from part notions with respect to form (though initially considerable confusion remains). Put another way, the (real) conscious begins to separate from the (imaginary) unconscious though a considerable overlap remains in evidence for some time. In psychological terms this is associated with the gradual emergence of an (individual) emotional self that is distinct from the wider confused (collective) notion of the earlier stage where this self is strongly identified with that of the mother.

Quite literally this is a magical time. Because the (actual) conscious initially still remains considerable confused with the (potential) unconscious, the (part) phenomena of experience are still strongly imbued with a spiritual animistic interpretation of a collective (whole) nature.

A magician may delight in creating the illusion that phenomena can be made to disappear into emptiness at will and then perhaps reappear out of that same emptiness.

At this stage however because of the strong overlap of matter (conscious) and Spirit (unconscious), the infant believes literally in the magical illusions continually created by mind.

Such experience remains therefore of a primitive instinctive nature.

In fact there is a deep connection here with the holistic notion of prime numbers.

Numbers have both quantitative and qualitative (dimensional) characteristics.

With prime numbers these aspects are completely separated. In other words a prime number cannot be expressed in terms of a combination of factors (which would represent higher dimensional characteristics).

In complementary terms, primitive (i.e. instinctive) behaviour represents a situation where object phenomena (as quantities) cannot be properly distinguished in experience from their (qualitative) dimensional background of space and time. Therefore with an instinctive response, space and time quickly collapse, as it were, in experience in an immediate identification with the phenomenon experienced. Therefore the instinctive behaviour properly does not belong to the rational scientific world of space and time but - expressed in holistic mathematical terms - to a much earlier prime experience (where dimensions are confused with the phenomena experienced).

   

Q. This is indeed very interesting. What however can we say about physical reality at this stage of development?

 

PC In terms of contemporary physics, this would relate approximately to the world of strings (and membranes). However because scientists attempt to view this reality through the linear cognitive structures of the middle band they thereby obtain a reduced view of its nature (certainly from an integral holistic perspective). In other words one of the reasons why such physics seems so strange and counter-intuitive is precisely due to the inappropriate cognitive lens through which it is viewed.

We must keep remembering that - from an integral perspective - there is an essential complementarity in horizontal vertical and diagonal terms as between physical and psychological reality.

Thus if we start from the more familiar psychological perspective and accept that earliest development is characterised by considerable entanglement of the conscious and unconscious, then a mirror image equivalent thereby exists for a basic description of physical reality (at the corresponding infant stage).

This entails that corresponding to conscious and unconscious we have both material (as observable) and immaterial (as hidden) aspects to physical reality with all particle interactions representing a dynamic interaction between both.

Now clearly at the earliest stage the material and immaterial aspects are very difficult to disentangle with the first success coming at the level of - what we refer to as - strings. Strings in this context, which operate in a highly dynamic (instinctive) manner, constitute the “affective” nature of matter. So the holistic aspect of matter whereby interdependence is maintained as between discrete “parts” is rooted in the immaterial aspect of reality.

And of course by this simple switch of emphasis - which is fully complementary with psychological understanding - paves the way for an acceptable accommodation of the spiritual dimension within physics.

Again the failure to accept this derives simply from an inadequate reductionist approach to matter (based merely on linear modes of understanding).

There are other obvious connections that can be made. Physicists tend to represent strings - somewhat unrealistically - in terms of lines that can bend or loop in various ways (as they interact with other strings). In more holistic terms, we can say that at the earliest stages of material development, both linear (whereby particles maintain independence) and circular aspects (whereby they remain interdependent with all other particles) are very closely associated. So this immediately creates problems for the conventional scientific viewpoint based on establishing clear separation as between various phenomena.

In fairness, physicists recognise that the level of strings, space and time (as dimensions) are inextricably embodied within the strings though they have considerable problems in properly illustrating how this is the case. However this necessarily follows from the holistic perspective where linear and circular aspects remain - by definition - greatly entangled.

What distinguishes primitive instinctive behaviour, when viewed in the appropriate manner, is that space and time indeed become directly embodied in the fleeting phenomenal events experienced by the child. In other words an instinctive reaction is so immediate that no clear separation of the event from its dimensional background can take place. So because the event cannot be properly differentiated in space and time, it is highly unstable and quickly passes to give rise to other fleeting events. Likewise we have the same structural nature with respect to strings, which have no fixed material identity but quickly keep alternating as between material and dimensional characteristics.  

Also string theorists sometimes speak of a mirror universe to that of strings. Again this follows directly from the complementary approach.

Thus in holistic terms if the physical aspect (as external) constitutes one universe, its mirror relates to its psychological interpretation (as internal). And these “two” universes remain inextricably linked.

It must be stressed that a holistic view of physical reality is quite distinct from its analytic counterpart. Though ultimately when combined with the analytic (in a radial approach) it has the capacity to lead to a much more enriched understanding (in both holistic and analytic terms), its main benefit is in terms of preserving and appropriate integral manner of understanding reality i.e. where physical and psychological understanding are truly seen as complementary.

Q. Could you be implying that the infant worldview is somehow compatible with the world of string reality?

PC In the qualified sense, where we take an enhanced interpretation of infant structures that is exactly what I am saying.

In other words, associated with each stage of development (as psychologically considered) is an appropriate scientific perspective for viewing reality (at an appropriate level). And associated with this stage of infant behaviour is a holistic model of the fundamental nature of physical reality at a very early stage of development.

Now the reason why this does not seem intuitively obvious is due to the fact that conventional science attempts to use middle level cognitive interpretations, that are appropriate for interpretation of the stable physical relationships of the macro world, to explain behaviour at all levels.

Quite simply if we attempt to understand for example quantum or string reality through conventional linear interpretation, the holistic integral view of reality is thereby lost.

So it could be of considerable benefit to start looking at earliest infant behaviour from this new perspective. In other words embodied in such behaviour are the same structures, which determine the nature of reality at its most fundamental level of existence. However, it must be always remembered that it takes the corresponding development of the high level structures of H3 (with which this world is complementary) to properly decode the meaning inherent in these earliest physical relationships.

Q This is an amazing view! You are implying that in its behaviour the baby infant is playing out the same kind of interactions that govern physical reality at a corresponding early stage?

PC Precisely! Again I would go further and suggest that the very fact that this does not seem immediately obvious is due to the faulty conventional manner in which we attempt to divorce physical reality from psychological experience.

Q. So you deliberately intend your holistic mathematical approach to apply equally to physical reality (as to psychological structures) in a holistic TOE that embraces both?

PC Yes! Once again I stress that we have horizontal, vertical and diagonal links in complementary terms that when properly appreciated provide the basis for integrating the physical and psychological aspects of reality.

Thus within each level, horizontal complementarity exists. Each (unique) psychological level of development is associated with a (unique) level of physical reality.

So the very nature of physical reality changes as we proceed through the stages of development. As psychological interpretation changes, physical reality likewise changes. In reverse fashion through interaction with changing physical reality our psychological constructs likewise change. So once again it is a two-way process.  

Also there are vertical links. Thus it requires the understanding of the highest level (H3) to properly unravel the dynamics of the earliest stage (L3). Thus this enhanced understanding is required for interpretation of both the psychological dynamics of the infant and the physical dynamics of the deepest layers of sub -atomic reality. Thus in vertical terms the higher aspect (as stage of self) is needed to interpret the complementary lower stage; likewise the higher aspect (as stage of reality) is again required to interpret its complementary lower stage.  

Finally there are diagonal links where the higher with respect to one aspect is used to interpret the complementary lower stage with respect to the alternative aspect. So for example understanding of the highest level (as stage of reality) could be used to unravel earliest infant confusion (as stage of self).

Q. Putting it another way you are saying that what we view as the (subjective) self has an important complementary aspect as physical matter; likewise what we view as (objective) matter has an equally important complementary aspect as (subjective) being. In other words Spirit is always inherent in matter (at whatever level); likewise Spirit - in terms of finite experience - is always embodied in matter. Is that correct?

PC  That would indeed be a neat summary of my position. Seen in this light the attempts of matter to organise itself into higher form particles and structures represents a most primitive manifestation of the evolutionary drive of the Spirit (within matter). Within this inherent spiritual drive or motivation, evolution in nature would not be possible.

As human beings our bodies are made up of the same material elements that constitute the cosmos. However the Spirit within us (i.e. within matter) has now reached such a degree of refinement in evolution that we are able to self-consciously reflect on this great potential within us.

Not alone indeed can we successfully reflect on this issue but we also have the power - that is made especially manifest in some specially chosen individuals - of actualising this spiritual potential to an extraordinary degree. However correctly seen this realisation of Spirit, is a realisation on behalf of all created matter (indeed of all created matter) mediated through a particular individual.

Q. Presumably your conviction is that a truly integral scientific viewpoint must successfully incorporate both psychological and physical reality (at all levels). And if we are to do this, we need to develop a language of interpretation that is deliberately designed to preserve the complementary nature of both aspects?

PC Indeed! Though I would go further and stress again that the underlying structure of both aspects (physical and psychological) is purely mathematical in a holistic sense. So in the realm of phenomenal interpretation this provides the most appropriate scientific interpretation possible of the universal nature of all reality.

Q. Before we leave this level, can we discuss a little more the holistic nature of space and time appropriate to both psychological experience at this stage and the physical world that is thereby interpreted?

PC In holistic mathematical terms space and time (and the contained phenomena) have both real (conscious) and imaginary (unconscious) aspects, which overlap to a considerable degree.

In more precise terms this corresponds to the prime nature of both matter and dimensions (where prime is used in its true holistic mathematical sense).

The implications of this are far reaching for the understanding of prime numbers as it entails that two logical systems are required for their proper interpretation.

In other words, as well as the linear (rational) system used in conventional mathematics, we also require the circular (intuitively paradoxical) system corresponding to the higher spiritual stages of understanding.

Indirectly this has already entered (conventional) mathematics with the realisation of the importance of complex mathematical notions (i.e. combining real and imaginary numbers) in attempting to unravel the mystery of the primes. However a deeper philosophical appreciation of the significance of the imaginary notion - which truly relates to a distinctive logical system relating to unconscious dynamics - is still greatly missing.

In psychological terms the real aspect of dimensional understanding (of space and time) relates directly to the conscious and the imaginary to unconscious understanding respectively. In physical terms the real aspect relates directly to what is material and manifest while the imaginary relates to what remains immaterial and invisible respectively.

In the dynamics of experience when dimensional experience is conscious and real, phenomena are unconscious and imaginary (with a potential for existence); then when the phenomena are actual and real, the dimensions in turn are unconscious and imaginary. In this manner experience keeps switching as between phenomena and dimensions (and dimensions and phenomena).

It is exactly complementary in physical terms. Thus when objects are real (and material) dimensions are imaginary (and immaterial); then when the dimensions are real the objects are now imaginary. So truly both the dimensions of space and time and object phenomena arise through mutual dynamic interaction of what is real (material) and imaginary (immaterial).

However when we try to understand these dynamics in solely (linear) rational terms, this interactive aspect breaks down with object phenomena then largely understood as located within somewhat fixed dimensions.

Q. So presumably at the macro level of reality, where linear interpretation abounds, phenomena now appear - literally - so “real” that we abandon the notion of the imaginary that is vitally important in explaining how phenomena and their dimensions (of space and time) dynamically interact. Thus we attempt to view stable “real” objects within a framework of stable “real” dimensions (with little interaction between both)?

PC Precisely! And though this manner of interpretation has indeed a certain level of validity at the macro level, it is quite inappropriate in holistic terms as an overall explanation of the nature of reality.

L1 (Lower 1) – Mythical

Q. Can we now move on to L1 (the most advanced of the lower levels). Can you once again explain the nature of this stage firstly from the psychological perspective?  

PC At the earlier two levels (L3 and L2) substantial differentiation took place with respect to both diagonal and vertical polarities. The diagonal polarities (of form and emptiness) separated with the emergence of the bodyself and the vertical (of whole and part) with the emergence of an (individual) emotional self (that can be distinguished from the wider collective environment).

However considerable overlap of the horizontal polarities (internal and external) is still likely to remain reflecting the fact that the conscious is not yet fully differentiated from the unconscious aspect of experience.

This remaining overlap is reflected in mythical type experience. At the earlier magical stage the child still confused Spirit directly with natural phenomena. 

By now experience Spirit has become sufficiently differentiated from matter that such phenomena are now given a distinct stable identity. However confusion still exists with respect to the manner in which Sprit itself is symbolised through phenomena of form.  In other words with mythical experience, where symbols are used to represent Spirit, there always remains a degree of literal confusion (whereby the formal symbol is confused with Spirit).

Of course myths are extremely important in religion where they serve as a bridge between the prepersonal world of the still undeveloped unconscious and the transpersonal world of Spirit. Indeed they are rarely fully outgrown due to the fact that in our culture the mature development of the unconscious is greatly restricted.

Looked at from another perspective, the existence of myth reflects a certain lack in development whereby inner responsibility is transferred to a degree on to some external symbol, which thereby is given an exaggerated (and unwarranted) significance. So the prevalence of myth directly points to a lack of sufficient differentiation with respect to the horizontal polarities (internal and external).

Q. And again what is the holistic significance of this level from the physical perspective?

PC L1 is associated in physical terms with the more visible manifestations of sub-atomic reality.

So at this level, reality in physical terms is in truth bi-directional with both positive and negative aspects (that are formally identical). And indeed this has been long recognised in physics through the identification of antimatter particles (that complement their matter counterparts).

Q. So how in dynamic terms would you describe particle interaction at this level?

PC As we saw earlier, what is a left or right turn on a straight road is purely arbitrary depending on the initial frame of reference. Likewise what is matter or antimatter is purely arbitrary depending again on the initial frame of reference.

Now when switching between reference frames is perfect, everything happens simultaneously in a present moment (without space time characteristics). Indeed in such circumstances, phenomena do not even arise. Thus if switching between matter and anti-matter particle phenomena was perfect, then such phenomena would cease to exist (being converted into pure energy). However because at this level of organisation, matter has now achieved a certain stability, dynamic interaction is thereby impeded enabling the continuing existence of matter (in space and time). Thus though a certain amount of interaction still takes place (reflecting alternating reference frames through the interaction of matter and anti-matter) we now tend to view this interaction in linear (i.e. one-directional) terms where we identify solely matter particles.  

Q. Are you saying that physical reality is composed of both matter and anti-matter?

PC Yes indeed! However the more linear our interpretation the more we interpret this reality solely in terms of matter. However as we probe more and more into the sub-layers of physical reality, dynamic interaction increases to such an extent that linear interpretation ultimately breaks down altogether.

Thus we could accurately interpret the state of emptiness with the potential for physical existence as identical with both matter and anti-matter (where pure dynamic interaction with respect to opposite reference frames takes place). So, in this pure state, neither matter nor dimensions arise.  

Q. Are their other ways in which this confused interaction between internal and external takes place with respect to the physical world?   

PC Normal physical observation i.e. at the macro level of reality is based on the clear differentiation of external and physical poles. Thus, in scientific terms the (detached) observer is viewed as neutral with respect to observed reality.

However at the sub-atomic level of reality this clear distinction is no longer possible where the act of observation (as internal observer) interferes with what is observed (as external reality). 

There is also a very real sense in which physical reality at this level has mythical features.

Though there are still lingering disputes, scientists now broadly accept the principle of non-locality with respect to quantum reality whereby a particle can influence the behaviour of another particle even at a considerable distance.

Indeed Einstein referred to this sceptically as “spooky action at a distance”. However, myths in their way also refer to “spooky action at a distance” e.g. in the manner in which the Gods of ancient religions are believed to influence human affairs. Thus, though seemingly separate, human events are mysteriously interconnected with a divine order.

Likewise at the sub-atomic level, a mysterious holistic interdependence is evident where particles are interconnected with each other.

Now, the problem with primitive myths is that a somewhat deterministic symbolic manner is used to convey this interdependence. Likewise in physical terms we can attempt to explain the holistic interdependence of particles in a deterministic manner. In this context the belief in local causes at the sub-atomic level of reality itself represents but a primitive myth (of which Einstein was one of its most steadfast defenders!)

Q. Presumably there is a vertical dimension here in that the confused relationships of L1 can only be unravelled though mature understanding of H1?  

PC As always the vertical (and diagonal) is intertwined with the horizontal. Thus in vertical terms we can only properly unravel the holistic dynamic nature of both the psychological and physical aspects of reality at the lower level (in this case L1) from the perspective of the understanding of the complementary higher level (i.e. H1).

Likewise in diagonal terms the physical aspect of the lower is complementary with the psychological aspect of the higher (and the psychological aspect of the lower with the physical aspect of the higher). So for example we can use understanding of the psychological structure of H1 to unravel the corresponding physical structure of L1.

Then through use of these vertical and diagonal connections we can then properly appreciate in horizontal terms how the physical structure of L1 is complementary with its psychological aspect.

Middle Levels

Q We now come to the middle levels where with which I suspect most people will more readily identify, Can you explain briefly why this is the case?

PC The middle levels are based - especially with respect to cognitive understanding - on the clear differentiation of the three polarities that we have mentioned thus enabling the scientific worldview (as conventionally understood).

Thus in diagonal terms, form is distinguished from emptiness enabling the clear separation of rational from spiritual type enquiry.

Then in vertical terms, whole is clearly distinguished from part, which greatly enhances the analytic approach that science favours. In effect the whole is treated in a reduced quantitative fashion here (where it is treated merely as the sum of the parts).

Finally in horizontal terms, internal (psychological) is clearly separated from external (physical) reality. So here the (subjective) observer is interpreted as capable of taking a detached impersonal view of what is (objectively) observed.

Now in important ways this approach has proved of the utmost value in terms of furthering our knowledge of the world. However when understood from a wider perspective it represents but just one limited type of valid scientific enquiry (where interpretation takes place according to the understanding that characterises the middle band). However equally valid forms of enquiry, that are generally more suited for integrative type appreciation, are associated with the other bands (especially the more mature understanding that characterises the higher and radial bands).

Q. Even though the linear level of interpretation is designed to be unambiguous is there not a central paradox inherent in this very thinking i.e. in the belief that a totally detached view can give us an interpretation of reality (as it really is)?

PC In fairness even within the conventional scientific paradigm there are considerable differences in philosophic interpretation possible. So at one extreme we would have the out and out realists who would hold this view that you articulate.

However there would be others - while vigorously defending the scientific method - who would recognise that all we can hope to achieve are mere representations with an approximate relationship to this reality. There are even some that might admit (as at the quantum level of reality) that there is an inextricable dynamic link as between observer and what is observed. However these would still defend the practical benefits of the scientific approach (whatever the philosophical difficulties). What is common to all these perspectives however is the belief in one paradigm - or rather metaparadigm for science - which is based on the linear type understanding that characterises the middle band. 

With conventional scientific interpretation therefore the dynamic interaction as between opposite polarities is frozen in explicit terms (though implicitly some degree of interaction must necessarily place). In effect therefore though the structures of self are still necessary (as means of interpretation) they become robbed of any genuine subjective quality. In this manner they are enabled to formally convey (in impersonal neutral terms) the external structures, which they represent.

In other words there are always two ways of interpreting a scientific preposition (which in formal terms are identical).

(a)   as a relationship between external physical phenomena (represented by internal mental constructs).

(b)   as a relationship between internal mental constructs (which refer to external physical phenomena).

So once again the structures of self are merely used in scientific interpretation to obtain neutral interpretation of corresponding structures of reality. Thus complementarity between both aspects, which presumes inherent dynamic interaction, thereby ceases (though of course in actual experience some degree of complementarity must implicitly remain).

In this manner we can fruitfully place the conventional scientific metaparadigm in its proper perspective as a special limiting case where the interaction as between the fundamental poles (that condition all phenomenal reality) is formally frozen in interpretation.

However other important scientific metaparadigms arise when we explicitly allow for interaction between these poles.

 

L0 (Lower 0) – Concrete

Q. What are the key structural aspects here from a psychological perspective?

PC With respect to specific concrete aspects of experience a child now can differentiate  - at least in terms of cognitive ability - the three fundamental polarities. So (rational) form can now be distinguished from (spiritual) emptiness; (collective) wholes can be distinguished from (individual) parts and finally - which is the chief characteristic of this stage - internal psychological can be distinguished from external physical events. So we have here, with respect to the more immediate local aspects of experience, the differentiation of the mental self where objective is understood as clearly separate from subjective reality.

Thus, because one can increasingly take a detached view of the world, this enables one to operate rationally on this reality thereby exercising a considerable degree of mental control.

So the psychological aspect relates directly to rational mental constructs of a linear kind, which are now developed with respect to the interpretation of concrete sense phenomena.

Q. And what are the corresponding structural aspects from a physical perspective?  

PC Well this corresponds directly to the real physical phenomena that now arise in experience (corresponding to the mental constructs used for their interpretation).

So the essence of the understanding of this stage is that there is a direct correspondence as between the psychological and physical aspects of experience i.e. where the concrete phenomena of experience appear to correspond directly with the mental constructs that are used for their interpretation. Indeed this is the very reason why phenomena now appear “real” as they correspond to direct conscious interpretation of a rational kind (free of interference from the more intuitive unconscious).

In other words because of the seeming correspondence as between the physical and psychological aspects of reality they become largely separated from each other.

This leads to two related positions:

(a)   where physical reality is given an independent existence (that is detached from subjective interpretation)

(b)   where in turn mental constructs are given an independent existence (that is detached from objective phenomena). 

However at the this concrete stage development is largely with respect to the first position i.e. where objective reality - with respect to concrete phenomena -assumes a more independent existence.

Q. What are the main limitations of this stage?

PC Though linear understanding now develops considerably with respect to concrete phenomena (where opposite internal and external poles are largely separated), at the deeper level of experience these poles still remain largely entangled with each other. Therefore mythic type explanations e.g. with respect to religion still largely dominate more universal interpretations of experience.

It is also important to remember that because of the diminishing influence of complementary type relationships, though admittedly of a confused kind, this leads to a certain narrowing of experience (which becomes progressively identified with the understanding appropriate to the middle band). In other words maintaining links between the higher and lower (and lower and higher) bands requires complementary type appreciation. It is indeed appropriate that the confused relationship between the fundamental polarities (which characterises earlier development) becomes gradually disentangled. However, in the absence of more mature understanding, this can unfortunately lead to a considerable restriction in the range of levels experienced.

L0,H0 (Lower 0, Higher 0) – Formal

Q We have now approached the most central of the middle levels. Once again - in terms of your holistic mathematical approach - what are the key structural characteristics of this level from a psychological perspective?

PC Though the degree of development can vary considerably, this level is characterised by the specialisation of the linear approach - especially in relation to scientific type appreciation - with respect to the three fundamental polarities).

Unlike the previous stage where linear understanding is largely confined to more localised interpretations of a concrete kind, the linear approach can now be extended to universal type reasoning of a very abstract form.

Indeed such abstract possibilities are made possible through the increasing detachment of opposite poles e.g. whole and part, which the stage makes possible.

Because of the great possibilities for ordering reality through the universal principles revealed by abstract thought, reason is then seen as a powerful means of controlling reality.

So there is a supreme (unrecognised) paradox regarding the nature of such linear type reason. Though it is based on the supposed independent objectivity of the external world, it is equally based on a powerful belief in the power of subjective mental constructs (of an internal kind) to order this physical reality.

Though implicitly the opposite poles must remain interdependent to a degree in experience, explicitly the scientific approach is based on the clear separation of these poles whereby dynamic interaction with respect to both is frozen.

For example a scientist does not (normally) accept that observed (external) reality is changed through (internal) mental interpretation. Equally from the opposite perspective subjective hypotheses are not assumed to change through application to observed phenomena. 

Q And what about the physical aspect! Presumably it is very closely related to the psychological at this stage?

PC The physical aspect now assumes a direct correspondence with the psychological i.e. as the (external) reality corresponding to the (internal) mental constructs used for its interpretation. And because this reality is assumed to be neutral with respect to its interpretative constructs, it becomes considerably detached from them thereby attaining an independent identity.

And this is commonly what is meant by “reality” i.e. the assumed independence of objective phenomena.

 

Q So you would maintain that conventional science - though admittedly both important and useful - as a means of interpreting reality is of a highly reduced nature? 

PC Yes indeed! Once again this reduced nature is most powerfully explained in the manner in which science treats the three fundamental polarities.

Thus in relation to internal and external, because they are separated they are assumed to be independent of each other. Though in actual experience, opposite poles dynamically interact (necessarily changing each other) yet from a formal perspective, science attempts to maintain their independence. Thus in the most fundamental sense, scientific interpretation thereby distorts actual experience.

Also in relation to whole and part, science again attempts to maintain their independence. Indeed there is a critical logical confusion in operation here, which is not commonly appreciated.  

      

The very method of science is based on the belief that what is proved true in the general case, thereby universally applies to every specific case that falls within its appropriate class.

Indeed this fallacy can be seen to be deeply operative in “the queen of the sciences” i.e. mathematics.

For example because the Pythagorean Theorem - that in a right-angled triangle the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of squares on the other two sides - has been proven (for the general case) it is assumed that it thereby applies to any specific case.

However strictly speaking this does not logically follow for the general result applies to “all” cases in general (i.e. what is potentially infinite) and none in particular. Thus to apply what is true for the potentially infinite to what is finite and actual requires making the basic assumption that infinite notions are compatible with finite. So essentially here the infinite is reduced to the finite and this notion fundamentally pervades scientific interpretation.

I am not of course saying that there is no role for such reductionism. Rather in pointing out its nature, I am highlighting the limited nature of scientific interpretation (that is appropriate solely for the middle band). This then opens the way for other extremely important scientific approaches - associated with the spiritualised “higher” and radial levels - that are more properly suited for integral type appreciation of reality.

Finally in relation to the 3^rd of our polarities, form and emptiness, science basically reduces emptiness to form. In other words by concentrating solely on objective phenomena, it thereby defines reality in terms of form. Thus it is not possible using conventional scientific method to incorporate spiritual truth within this reality. Though many practicing scientists remain committed believers, their spiritual beliefs cannot be properly integrated with such science so that both continue to operate in largely separate worlds.  

Q What about affective and volitional experience at this stage! Surely this level cannot be identified solely with the cognitive aspects of conventional science?    

PC Good point! The extent to which specialised rational understanding develops,  can vary enormously depending on factors such as personality, education, cultural background etc. However it is only fair to say that Western society has been particularly influenced by linear scientific thinking, which then tends to affect our approach with respect to many areas of life.

Thus in an increasingly technological society, greater pressure is put on people to specialise in rational type thinking in order to cope with the expectations of this world. Then conscious emotional experience becomes largely controlled by rationally determined needs e.g. education and work. Moral choices can also be considerably influenced by cognitive type criteria.

With life then dominated at a conscious level by linear type reason, the unconscious can attempt to compensate in an immature and ill-understood manner. Thus many of the escapes of modern society in conspicuous consumption, alcohol, drugs, promiscuous sex etc. reflect imbalances where (developed) reason at a conscious level and (undeveloped) intuition at an unconscious level become related in experience in a very uneven - and often unhealthy - manner.  

So to conclude though specialisation of linear type scientific reason is very welcome at this stage and has led to enormous advances in society, overspecialisation is somewhat unhealthy leading to imbalance with respect to both affective and volitional modes and restricting conscious experience largely to the stages of the middle band.  

H0 (Higher 0) – Vision-logic

Q How firstly does vision-logic differ from the previous (formal) stage?

PC H0 (Vision-logic) in one important sense represents a more developed creatively enriched expression of cognitive development where reason is now considerably influenced in its operation by a more developed form of spiritual intuition that offers considerable enlarged dynamic possibilities for the use of such reason e.g. in the ability to synthesise concepts with relevant data in a vast network of interlinked ideas.

However there is a certain inevitable paradox regarding the nature of vision-logic that however is not properly realised at this (default) stage. In other words though the implicit use of intuition points to a reality where opposite polarities are fully complementary and ultimately without form, vision-logic is still formally based on the linear use of reason (where opposite poles are clearly separated).

Put another way, though vision-logic may indeed point to an integral spiritual vision (that transcends all dualistic distinctions), its formal manner of expression remains strictly speaking inconsistent with such a vision it that it is based on the hierarchical understanding fostered by unambiguous dualistic distinction. In other words the vision-logic of this level - by its very nature - is not properly suited as an intellectual means of interpreting the overall holistic integral nature of reality.

Q Briefly what corresponds to the physical aspect of vision-logic?

PC As vision-logic is associated with the first mature development of spiritual intuitive understanding, the physical aspect corresponds likewise to the (external) world that is now implicitly viewed in this light. However, though there may well be a growing appreciation of the limitations associated with dualistic distinction  in formal intellectual terms, vision-logic is still based on the clear preservation of such distinction. So once again the scientific worldview of vision-logic is strictly incompatible with the spiritual vision associated with it.

Indeed it is the conflicts associated with vision-logic that can act as a considerable catalyst for the need for the “higher” spiritual awareness associated with the more advanced stages of development.

However with many personalities - especially those already well grounded in the linear levels - the conflicts inherent in vision-logic are never likely to surface to any great extent. Therefore these can maintain an acceptable level of integration while remaining at this level and continue to live out a productive and creative existence.

Q. And what about the psychological aspect?  

PC Once again from an (internal) psychological perspective we have the relationship between emerging spiritual intuition on the one hand and mental constructs – which though a more fluid and flexible nature – still remain largely of a linear kind i.e. where opposite polarities are clearly separated.

So again we can see the inevitable correspondence as between how the (external) world appears to understanding and the (internal) constructs which are used to interpret this world.

However because of the greater degree of intuition available - which itself reflects a certain (implicit) harmonisation of opposite polarities - a greater of dynamic interaction with this world becomes possible.

Of course a variety of different experiences can be associated with vision-logic. For example with the extrovert the physical aspect is likely to be more developed whereas for the introvert the psychological aspect is likely to be more prominent (leading to greater exposure to existential type problems).

Q. Finally what about development of the other modes at this level?

PC Though I have concentrated more on the cognitive expressions of this level (because of the emphasis on the need for a more coherent scientific approach to development) for many the affective and volitional modes could be more significant.

However the same basic dilemma arises in that a dualistic means of interpreting phenomenal forms comes into growing conflict with emerging intuition (expressive of spiritual emptiness).

And where the unconscious intuitive element is strong, this conflict is likely to be especially severe raising the need for the more advanced development of the "higher" stages.