Q We now move on to the second of the key distinctions as between the
major stages (i.e. levels) of development which relates to states and
structures. Can you briefly explain?
PC As we have seen the distinction regarding
levels of self(hood) and levels of reality relates to the first of the three
key polar distinctions applying to all stages i.e. external and internal
respectively.
These operate mainly within levels with
respect to the physical and psychological aspects of understanding
respectively. So at all stages of development we have the (internal) self in
relation - to what is initially perceived as - the (external) world.
In more precise holistic mathematical
terms this first set of polarities is governed by Type 1 complementary
(relating to horizontal polarities that are directly opposite each other).
One of the problems however with
reconciliation of opposites in relation to this first type of complementarity
is that it does not distinguish properly as between two other key aspects (that
apply to all stages). Thus every stage is also characterised by a general state
(which is formless) and a particular manner of structuring experience
(resulting in manifest phenomena). And this
relationship as between states and structures is inherently of a dynamic nature
enabling flexible interchange as between the different stages.
Now the key point is that whereas states
(of themselves) tend to be somewhat unstable leading to rapid fluctuation as
between the various levels of development, structures by contrast tend to be
rigid confining development to a particular stage.
For example this is very evident in
terms of the conventional scientific approach.
Here interpretation is firmly rooted in the
understanding that mainly characterises the middle band of development. Though
the (conscious) waking state is implicitly required for such science, its
interpretations solely relate to the structural forms compatible with the
middle stages. So the very neglect here of the necessary interaction as between
structures and states enables a more rigid type of understanding conforming to
a very narrow band of the overall spectrum.
By contrast the experience of earliest
infancy - because of the lack of developed structures - is largely
characterised by the rapid fluctuation as between immature states (so that pre
is directly confused with trans experience).
So a balanced relationship as between
states and structures is vitally necessary.
With insufficient development of the
(phenomenal) structures associated with the various levels, experience will
tend to be unduly unstable and states led, rapidly fluctuating as between
various stages.
On the other hand with insufficient
development of the (formless) states associated with these same levels,
experience will tend to become unduly rigid, consolidating within a narrow band
of the overall spectrum.
As we have seen this problem is very
much true of the conventional scientific worldview, which is formally based on
the mere structural interpretation of the phenomenal forms associated with
linear type understanding.
Q How would you define states? I must say I find the term somewhat
confusing!
PC Yes! the term can indeed be used in a
number of different ways. However - as befits this holistic approach - I am
using it in a universal sense. So in this context it refers to the general
background spiritual disposition informing the fundamental nature of phenomenal
understanding, which then unfolds as structures, corresponding to each of the
main stages (i.e. levels) of development.
Of course the term states can be used in
a much more specific manner relating to the variety of ways - affective,
cognitive and volitional - through which everyday experience is filtered.
For example one can have various states
of pleasure and pain relating to the affective aspect. Other states could be
more cognitively based such as concentration and discipline and yet others corresponding
more directly to the volitional aspect e.g. meaning and good will. And these
states are in now way exclusive with respect to each aspect. So for example a
state of joy could relate in various ways to the manner in which the affective,
volitional and cognitive aspects intermingle in experience.
Also the term “states” can be used to
refer to the more visible manifestations of behaviour with no direct
correlation to the three modes (affective, cognitive and volitional) just
mentioned.
For example one could be in a state of
drunkenness which relates largely to the physiological effects of too much
alcohol. However, as we shall see, the corresponding psychological changes
induced can bear an interesting relationship with the holistic definition of
states that we will be using in these articles! Also one’s home could be left
in an untidy state which again relates more to a direct physical impression.
So once again the manner in which I use
the term refers to the general spiritual disposition that characterises each of
the major levels of development. This state is then associated with a basic holistic
structural pattern of phenomenal organisation appropriate to the level in
question.
Thus the key point that I would
emphasise is the inherently dynamic nature of structures and states, which
characterises experience within each level and that furthermore enables
movement as between the various levels.
Q So you would not accept the usual approach in development studies
where states are considered somewhat independent of the structural forms
characterising the various levels?
PC No! I would see this unduly static
approach as a major problem which reflects very much the structural
understanding that informs the middle levels. Unfortunately even when the
experience of other levels - especially higher - is recognised in such an
approach, the predominant method of intellectual interpretation still remains
largely rooted in the understanding of the middle levels.
So as we have seen with conventional
science, formal interpretation of phenomena, under its various manifestations,
is based solely on the structural understanding of the middle levels. Though
clearly a characteristic conscious state i.e. waking is necessary to comprehend
such science, it is not believed to influence the structures arising.
Thus though implicitly - even here - we
have a dynamic interaction comprising structure and state, explicitly the state
is considered neutral with respect to the structural interpretation (and
thereby ignored). Even with vision-logic,
which is the highest form of middle level understanding, this divorce of
structure and state is still in evidence. Put another way such vision-logic by
its very nature is unable to handle the inherent dynamic interaction as between
both aspects that occurs throughout development.
Q So you are saying that both states and structures are inherently in
dynamic interaction throughout development and that therefore the stages of
development e.g. the major levels thereby must necessarily entail an
appropriate interaction as between both these aspects.
PC Precisely! The rapid fluctuation of
states can indeed lead - for example - to an experience of higher levels that
remains somewhat immature (due to the lack of sufficient development of
corresponding structures). However, a temporary manifestation of
the appropriate structure is still required to accommodate the corresponding
state!
So in dynamic terms, prepersonal and
transpersonal (and transpersonal and prepersonal) are always in dynamic
interaction with each other. However, when development is especially immature,
the trans element remains unstable and therefore cannot be sustained except for
a very short period of time. So higher trans levels, mainly induced through the
rapid fluctuation of states, quickly collapse to their complementary pre type
(largely due to the insufficient development of appropriate structural
development of the various levels)
However we can have the opposite problem
when - as with conventional scientific understanding - structures become
largely identified with a limited band of overall development. Here, at least
with respect to conscious understanding, states now become largely robbed of
their dynamic quality and remain powerless to substantially shift structural
understanding through the various levels. So cognitive interpretation, as we
have seen, then becomes largely identified with the structural understanding of
just one band of the overall spectrum.
Q How do you view the standard classification in terms of sleep, dream
and waking states?
PC I have no problems with this provided
that the appropriate dynamic interaction as between the various aspects is duly
recognised. Remember that in my approach, I designate 15 overall levels (recently
upgraded to 18) each of which is characterised by a distinctive state! So we
must recognise therefore that a unique configuration of states is required in
each case to properly distinguish the levels. And when we look at these stages
in detail, I will attempt to clarify the dynamic configuration in each case.
From a psychological perspective, sleep,
dream and waking relate to the unconscious (sleep), the overlay of unconscious
and conscious (dream), and conscious (waking) states respectively. So the state
underlying any particular level relates to a distinctive manner in which the
conscious and unconscious aspects of personality are related.
Indeed this leads to an important
distinction that needs to made regarding - to what I refer to as - the day and
night experience of states.
From one extreme, the day time
experience is largely identified with the conscious (waking) and the night time
experience with the corresponding unconscious (sleep) states respectively.
However various degrees of overlap are possible. So for example the dream state
can be associated with day time experience (such as fantasy and imagination as
in daydreaming). The sleep state can also be associated with day time
experience as for example with deep spiritual contemplation. Then the dream state is also very commonly
associated with night time sleep and even occasionally the waking state can
also be associated with night time activity (as in the case of lucid dreams).
So in our later discussion of each level
we will distinguish both the (characteristic) day and night experience of
associated states.
Of course we must keep bearing in mind
the twin manner of viewing levels as, from one perspective, relatively discrete
and independent of each other, and yet from an equally valid perspective, as
relatively continuous (and interdependent with all other levels).
However my main reservation regarding
the use of sleep, dream and waking terminology is that it is not sufficiently
universal. Ultimately in the holistic mathematical approach, we identify the
underlying structure applicable to all relationships (or - if one prefers -
holons). So the holistic mathematical task now is broadened to finding an
acceptable manner of also identifying the fundamental nature of all states with
respect to these relationships. Thus, whereas we can readily identify the
sleep, dream and waking states with human and animal beings we cannot
satisfactorily extend this to all holons. For example how would we apply such
states to the sub-atomic realms of matter?
So we will see later, how a more
abstract - though universally applicable approach - can be devised in holistic
mathematical terms that can be equally identified with both the structures and
states underlying all levels. Furthermore enshrined in this approach is the
particular type of complementary relationship that inherently exists as between
the integration of structures and states (i.e. Type 2 complementarity).
Q Though you will deal with this in more detail later, you believe that considerable
confusion exists as to the precise nature by which the experience of peak
states takes place. Also you would maintain that it is equally important to
deal - as well as peaks - with the valley experience of states. Can you briefly
clarify this point?
PC There are two important aspects
explaining the relationship between states (and structures). From the
continuous (integral) perspective, all states are related to each other through
complementary relationships. Thus the state relating to the highest level is
(directly) complementary in bi-directional fashion with that corresponding to
the lowest; the state corresponding to the second highest complementary with
the second lowest and so on. Thus in terms of my own delineation of levels, H3
(nondual) is directly complementary with L3 (archaic), H2 (causal) with L2
(mythic) and H1 (subtle) with L1 (mythic).
Now this seems to leave out the middle
and in a certain sense because these are the most discretely defined levels, here
complementarity is considerably absent. However, because a complementary
relationship ultimately exists as between the most continuous (interdependent)
and most discrete (independent) of levels, with radial development a
mature complementary relationship is now forged as between the middle and both higher
and lower levels in a bi-directional manner.
However from another perspective - based
on the discrete differentiation of stages - each level has a relatively
independent identity (that distinguishes it from other levels). In general, the
discrete aspect of stages increases as we move from the lower to the middle
levels. Then as we move from the middle
to the higher levels, the continuous (complementary) aspect once again
increases this time in a mature fashion. Finally with the radial stages we then
have the mature interaction of both discrete and continuous aspects.
In earliest childhood (at the L3 level),
because differentiation of structures has not yet properly unfolded, a very
close - though utterly confused - relationship exists as between the lowest
(L3) and highest (H3) levels.
So properly speaking, using pre and
trans terminology, we have here experience that is both pre and trans (and
trans and pre) though in greatly confused manner. In other words to make a
distinction as between the confused relationship as between pre and trans and
the more mature expression associated with authentic spiritual experience, some
differentiation of structures is necessary thus enabling the corresponding
differentiation of states.
So it is not really possible for a young
infant at the level of L3 to experience a genuine trans state (because of the
lack of sufficient differentiation of structures) though it is certainly possible
where an enhanced experience of L3 is involved i.e. when revisited from a more
advanced level.
When development - in infancy - proceeds
from L3 to L2, a largely confused complementary relationship also directly
exists as between L2 and H2.
However because some meaningful
differentiation of structures will by now have taken place, a distinction exists
as between the habitual confused relationship of pre and trans and occasional
moments where a purer more spiritual state may temporarily unfold. In other
words it is possible therefore for a child to now have a peak experience of the
higher level, though because of insufficient differentiation of structures,
this state is likely to quickly collapse and become identified with the
habitual more confused relationship.
However when development reaches L1,
because significantly more differentiation will now have taken place, greater
separation as between the confused and mature complementary relationship of pre
and trans states can now be made in experience. In other words it would be
quite usual for more meaningful peak experiences of H1 to arise from one whose
habitual experience remains at L1. Of course once again when we allow for the
enhanced experience of lower levels (where experience is habitually at the
middle levels) richer peak experiences of the various higher levels can thereby
arise.
Such peak experiences therefore give
access on a temporary basis to the spiritual nature associated with higher
levels.
However we can distinguish yet another
type of peak experience of an extremely lucid kind which is more likely to
arise with children who have a special talent for the mystical. Such an
experience - may and often does - occur at a very young age and can have a
subsequent significant transforming effect on personality. Thus, though the
initial experience cannot be sustained (because of lack of sufficient development
of the appropriate transpersonal structures), when the return to the habitual
(confused) prepersonal stages takes place, the child in varying ways realises
that these offer a somewhat inadequate interpretation of what has taken place.
So the authentic desire to truly realise what has been already experienced (in
a temporary manner) can then act as a considerable catalyst in terms of the
rapid further development necessary to enable the more permanent attainment of
such experience.
However, as well as peak we can also
have valley experiences. The first type - relating to earliest childhood -
coincides with corresponding peak experience. Because in dynamic terms, such
early experience is best characterised as the confused entanglement of higher
and lower stages of the spectrum (that have not yet been properly
differentiated from each other) we can equally view it as a confused peaking of
the higher from the lower or alternatively a confused valley of the lower from
the higher stage.
Then when substantial development of the
higher spiritual stages takes place, we can still have occasional examples of
the confused valley experience of lower stages e.g. in times of stress. In
other words prepersonal and transpersonal always remain in dynamic relationship
with each other with varying degrees of maturity and confusion in evidence. So
therefore the transition to the mature relationship i.e. where higher and lower
stages – and lower and higher – become properly integrated with each other, is
never totally attained.
As the advanced spiritual experience of
these stages becomes more stabilised, valley experiences - even when they occur
- tend to be less prolonged with the “higher” equilibrium, after any temporary
upset, becoming quickly restored.
However the most interesting type of
valley experience (of an especially lucid kind) can again occur as with the
peak variety with those who have a special gift for the mystical. However in
this case even though the person may have already attained a substantial degree
of authentic spiritual progress, such a valley experience in the form of a
strong temptation e.g. for sex, money or power can act as a strong negative influence
on what has already been attained. In this context, various charismatic leaders of
religious cults who - though undoubtedly blessed with many gifts - have become
greatly corrupted through the process of achieving control over others.
Q So we will now go through the various levels in some detail showing
how relationship as between structures and states. Can you comment again
briefly in this context on the nature of the radial approach?
PC In a certain sense both structures
and states have a well-defined discrete meaning whereby associated with each
major stage, as linearly defined, is both a distinct structure and state
respectively.
However, these two aspects operate
equally in a complementary continuous fashion.
So for example the state of a lower
level (say L1) is complementary in two-way manner with the state of the
corresponding higher level. In other words, pre and trans bear a complementary
relationship with each other in both a confused (undifferentiated) and mature
(integral) fashion. In early childhood, this relationship is mainly of a
confused nature though to a limited extent a temporary mature element may occasionally
manifest itself. Then in reverse fashion from the perspective of someone
advancing in authentic experience of the higher spiritual stages, the
relationship is mainly of an integral kind though again temporary valley
moments of a confused nature may intrude.
What is often misunderstood however is
that the structures of the various levels also bear an important complementary
relationship with each other. So undifferentiated structures of a lower level,
in like manner bear a complementary two-way relationship with structures of the
corresponding higher level (again as the confused relationship between pre and
trans). In like manner the differentiated structures of both higher and lower
levels bear a complementary relationship (in a mature integral fashion). So
once again someone predominantly operating from the mature development of a
higher level can integrate its structures (in two-way manner) with the
corresponding structures of the complementary lower level.
In general terms, the complementarity as
between various states and structures considered in a relatively independent
manner is of the Type 1 kind.
However the complementarity of states
with structures (and structures with states) is of a more complex Type 2 nature
and we will look at this more closely as we proceed.
It might help to think - before
integration - as states being of an extremely fluid nature moving easily in a
vertical manner as between all (still undeveloped) stages.
Appropriate structural development
within a given stage creates the opposite tendency to confine development
horizontally to the experience of the given stage. So in earliest development -
when structures are still largely undifferentiated - the vertical fluidity of
states tends to win out. However as structures are gradually consolidated
through the lower and middle stages, the fluidity of states is greatly reduced.
So as we have seen, the intellectual development of the middle levels (which
defines conventional notions of science) is formally without any reference to
states.
However with higher level development,
leading to the integral – as opposed to differentiated - development of
structures, there is a much greater appreciation of the manner in which states
and structures interact in bi-directional fashion with each other.
So, too much emphasis on the
(differentiated) structures of a given level tends to consolidate development
rigidly with the experience of that level. In other words both top-down and
bottom-up integration with other levels is greatly impeded.
Too much emphasis on the other hand on
the (undifferentiated) states of all levels renders experience too fluid, with
rapid interaction taking place as between the various levels but without
sufficient consolidation of the structures of a given level taking place. So as
always, proper balance is required.
Lower Levels
Q Can we say anything about the
state before life begins?
PC This
is a fascinating question. I would see my reflections here as broadly similar
to that of the Flemish mystic Ruysbroeck, with the eternity before (finite)
life begins as a state of potential being, whereby the image or archetype of a
person eternally exists - as it were - in the mind of God (i.e. as pure
Spirit). However for life to become present in finite creation, the phenomenal
veils of structures of form must unfold. This likewise serves to activate the various
finite states through which all life passes.
Then when
these are fully actualised (requiring death) only then can the eternal state of
pure being be realised. So we have the mere potential for being (before finite
life begins), as an eternal state of undifferentiated nothingness, and fully
actualised being (after finite life) as an eternal state of fulfilment
respectively. And from the perspective of eternity - where only the present
moment exists - both of these co-exist as God (where pure being is continually
created from pure nothingness).
From this
perspective, finite creation remains necessary as the very necessary means through
which human - and indeed all created - beings can continually realise their
eternal potential (as inseparable from God).
Therefore
though we can henceforth validly speak of finite states and structures (which
unfold through the process of human development) we must remember that these
are always anchored in eternity.
L3 (Lower 3)
- Archaic
Q So let us deal now with the
first of the main stages (i.e. levels) and look into the nature of both states
and structures involved!
PC At the
commencement of life, form is indistinguishable from emptiness. Alternatively
structures, in the identification of phenomenal form, are indistinguishable
from states (as the empty conditions underlying such identification).
However,
when the very first primitive differentiation of structures takes place, which
starts in the womb, some distinction - though still very minute - necessarily
takes place.
In terms
of states we now have, from the circular continuous perspective, the confused
relationship between all levels. So conscious cannot be properly distinguished
from unconscious aspects of mind. Equally sleep and waking states cannot be
properly distinguished.
However
from the linear discrete perspective, we now have the preliminary rooting of
experience in a recognisable first stage. So we have the beginning of conscious
life for the infant which can be identified with the waking state.
So in
correct radial terms, we have the interaction of both the continuous
interpretation of stages where all states (sleep, dream and waking) are greatly
confused with each other and the discrete interpretation where one state
(waking) now undergoes starting differentiation. However for some time the
confused continuous interpretation predominates. Thus though an outside
observer (e.g. parent) may well be able to recognise when an infant is awake as
opposed to sleeping, the infant will not be clearly capable of making the same
distinction.
As regards structures, we likewise have twin
interpretations. Thus in circular continuous terms, the structures of all
stages are still strongly embedded with each other (in a largely
undifferentiated state).
In holistic mathematical terms, I refer to this as the
confused complementarity of the three fundamental polarities (diagonal,
vertical and horizontal).
However in linear discrete terms, again we again have
the preliminary rooting of experience in a discernible first stage (culminating
in the differentiation of the bodyself).
Again in holistic mathematical terms this is
characterised by the separation of the diagonal polarities (where form - in the
basic identification of the bodyself - is now distinguished from the wider
environment).
So we can see perhaps here how the states and
structures of this first level are related. In integral terms, all states are
still related to each other in a highly confused manner so that the infant
cannot properly distinguish sleep, dream or waking states; likewise all
structures are related to each other in a similar fashion with horizontal,
vertical and diagonal polarities still embedded with each other.
However with successful differentiation, we now have
the emergence of a relatively discrete first stage characterised by a conscious
waking state. Equally this first state is characterised by a new discernible
structure (in the differentiation of the bodyself).
Q Yes! I
can see the importance - from the radial perspective - of relating both the
structures and states of each level (also showing the relationship with all
levels).
However,
though both states and structures are initially very closely related, when they
undergo some differentiation, their capacity to act in a relatively independent
manner from each other likewise increases. Would you agree?
PC Certainly! And it would be generally true here that
whereas states in natural terms tend to be more flexible switching rapidly as
between the various levels, structures - as they undergo greater
differentiation - tend to be more rigid (confining development to a limited
range of stages).
However it is important to remember that they must
always to a degree be related to each other. Therefore the peak experience for
example of the state of a higher level, also necessarily requires temporary
experience of the corresponding structure of that level. In other words in
dynamic experiential terms, a stage always entails the interaction between
appropriate states and structures (which are necessarily related - to a degree
- with all other stages).
Thus the popular characterisation of peak experiences
purely in terms of states, I would see as gravely mistaken from a dynamic
perspective. However it is equally true,
that with subsequent significant development with respect to the structures of
the higher level, that experience can now be better consolidated with that
stage (with the corresponding state therefore attaining more permanency).
Also whereas the initial peak experience of a higher
stage may customarily be seen to be states led, it can likewise on occasion, be
structures led. For example an early lucid insight into new scientific,
artistic or religious ideas may in fact entail the temporary structural
understanding of a higher level.
Q Can you
briefly characterise the dynamic nature of pre/trans experience at L1 (with
respect to both states and structures)?
PC The very use of the terms pre and trans is itself
problematic as - in linear terms pre necessarily precedes trans - whereas in
correct experiential terms this is not necessarily the case.
So it would perhaps be better in our discussion here
to substitute the terms immanent and transcendent for pre and trans
respectively.
At the beginning of infant development - because so
little differentiation has yet taken place – the immanent and transcendent
poles still remain strongly enmeshed with each other (in a confused
undifferentiated manner). Thus from one perspective, the baby infant acts out
of a primitive sense of transcendent omnipotence while from an equally valid
alternative perspective directly confuses such omnipotence with fleeting material
phenomena (in a primitive sense of immanence).
Once again, because the linear differentiation of
stage structures (and states) is still so limited, a discrete distinction as
between lower and higher (and higher and lower) stages has little meaning.
So from the circular integral perspective,
transcendent and immanent (and immanent and transcendent) directions of
development remain to a strong degree directly entangled with each other. Using
conventional language, pre and trans (and trans and pre) are still directly
confused with each other.
This confusion equally pertains to both states and
structures. So, the baby infant operates largely from a primitive sleep state
(which is not yet properly distinguished from waking).
In terms of structures, the three fundamental
polarities of experience remain greatly entangled with each other. So
(phenomenal) form cannot be properly distinguished from (spiritual) emptiness;
the whole - in any context - cannot be distinguished from part; finally
internal cannot be distinguished from external.
So at the commencement of human life, the first stage
cannot be meaningfully distinguished from any other stage. However as
preliminary differentiation gets underway (culminating in a distinct bodyself),
L3 does indeed acquire to a degree a linear discrete meaning as a separate
stage (i.e. the first major level).
Again this entails development with respect to both
states and structures. So the waking state now becomes better distinguished
from sleep; likewise in terms of structure, the diagonal polarities of form and
emptiness undergo initial separation. This entails for example that in the
context of the body some meaningful separation of both transcendent and
immanent aspects of experience can take place. In other words the infant no
longer directly confuses transcendent Spirit (emptiness) with the material
body.
Though the confused complementary relation as between
all stages is thereby lessened to a degree through this successful
differentiation, it still remains to a considerable extent.
The relationship as between transcendent and immanent
(and immanent and transcendent) now becomes more refined. Again at L3, the
integral relationship between both is still largely of a confused
undifferentiated nature.
However because some meaningful separation has now taken
place, this opens up the possibility of occasional peak experiences as between
both aspects (where a mature relationships can temporarily exist). However,
once again this peak relationship, when it occurs, will apply to both states
and structures.
So the ability to sustain a temporary peak experience
of a higher state implicitly requires the corresponding higher structure (and
vice versa).
Also it is important to bear in mind that these peak
experiences can operate in two directions. So we can have the bottom-up peak
experience (of a higher stage from a complementary lower stage). However
equally we can have the top-down peak experience of the lower from the
temporarily experienced higher stage.
It is not really likely however that a baby infant
could have meaningful peak experiences of H3, from the default perspective of
successful differentiation of L3, as the degree of differentiation achieved
would still be very limited.
However as enhanced experience of L3 would be possible
from the perspective of successful completion of more advanced stages, it would
indeed be possible to have a temporary peak experience of H3 - more correctly
the mature two-way integral relationship of L3 and H3 - from the enhanced appreciation
of L3.
Q. So you
are saying that once the successful differentiation of major stages gets
underway, the integral relationship between pre and trans (and trans and pre)
becomes considerably subtler. So whereas initially the two-way relationship
between both aspects is of a largely confused nature, the possibility of
occasional peak experiences (of a more mature kind) increases as the level of
successful differentiation increases. In this way we can see how the successful
differentiation of stage structures is ultimately necessary to likewise obtain
the pure mature integration of all stages (where the immanent and transcendent
aspects of Spirit can be united in a pure fashion)!
PC Yes! However correctly balancing both the
differentiated and integral aspects of development requires a much more dynamic
and refined approach than generally employed. This is why I consider the radial
approach so important in this context as it is deliberately designed to
preserve the distinctive aspects of both the discrete (linear) and continuous
(circular) approaches without reducing one to another.
Thus the correct way to appreciate the relationship as
between pre and trans (and trans and pre) is to recognise that both discrete
(linear) and continuous (circular) elements are involved.
This entails a two-way dynamic in experience containing
elements that are both confused (i.e. undifferentiated) and mature (i.e.
properly integrated) with each other.
For someone customarily experiencing reality from the
lower levels (as discretely understood) the experiential two-way dynamic as
between pre and trans will largely comprise confused elements though temporary
peak moments of a more mature kind may indeed arise. However for one whose
customary experience is of the more advanced spiritual levels, the experiential
two-way dynamic will largely be of a more refined integral kind, though
temporary valley moments of a primitive kind may also arise.
Q Finally,
how would you distinguish the day and night experience of states and structures
at this first level?
PC There would be very little distinction at the first
stage. Once again the infant is not able to clearly distinguish waking from
sleep from dream activity. In fact early infant experience tends to keep
switching regularly as between sleep and waking states.
However insofar as a distinction can be made there
would be more evidence of genuine conscious activity during the waking state.
Thus the successful differentiation of the bodyself (as structure) would relate
more to the conscious aspect of this state.
L2 (Lower 2) -
Magical
Q So can you outline now the
nature of the states and structures that apply to the second of the lower
stages?
PC Though
of course some waking activity is evident at L3, relating to preliminary conscious
development of the infant, the first of the lower stages is still of a largely (undeveloped)
unconscious nature where a (confused) sleep state dominates.
However
coinciding with the continued differentiation of structures at L2, culminating
in the differentiation of the emotional self, likewise the underlying state changes
with greater interaction as between conscious and unconscious taking place.
This
leads to the emergence of an involuntary dream state which continually pervades
the waking life of the infant. It thereby accounts for the characteristic
magical quality of the stage, where overall holistic meaning is still largely
confused with the specific phenomena associated with events.
So the
infant still operates out of a primitive form of animism with objects, as it
were, possessing mental characteristics that behave in tune with the infant’s
wishes.
The dream
state itself once again coincides with the corresponding (fundamental)
structural pattern of the stage whereby the vertical polarities (i.e. of whole
and part) are not yet sufficiently differentiated from each other. Thus,
especially at the beginning of the stage, considerable confusion as between
whole and part is still in evidence.
However,
all going well as the stage proceeds culminating in the differentiation of the
emotional self, considerable - though not complete - progress is made with
respect to the differentiation of these two poles. In other words as the degree of conscious
waking activity increases in the life of the infant, there is a corresponding
reduction in the (confused) dream state associated with magical explanations of
reality.
Now there
is an important vertical complementary as between the L2 (magical) and H2
(causal) stages both in relation to underlying states and structures.
As we
have seen L2 is characterised by an (involuntary) dream state where objects are
seen to possess magical qualities.
H2 is
likewise characterises by an (involuntary) dream state. However in contrast to
L2 this is of a mature - rather than confused - nature as the pure projected expression
of the unconscious, where object phenomena now are revealed as transparent
archetypes of Spirit.
Likewise
in structural terms L2 is characterised by the largely confused relationship of
the vertical polarities of whole and part. In complementary fashion, H2 is
characterised by the truly integrated nature of these same polarities where the
whole is seen to be spiritually contained in the part.
Also
because some meaningful differentiation of structures will already have taken
place for the infant at L2, this opens up the possibility of occasional peak
glimpses, as it were, of the more mature experience - with respect to both
states and structures - of H2. However these will tend to be very short lived
quickly collapsing to the customary confused experience of L2.
However
as the process of integration in experience continually entails the revisiting
(and reinterpretation) of earlier stages, it certainly is possible that a lucid
experience of H2 could be obtained from the enhanced experience of L2 (where it
is revisited from the customary default experience of a more advanced stage).
Q You believe that L2 both the
state and structure of L2 also have significant implications for interpretation
for the interpretation of physical reality (at its deepest sub-atomic levels).
Can you briefly enlarge on this important point?
PC I have
mentioned before that conventional science - which is well-suited for the
interpretation of everyday macro reality - is based on the clear separation of state
and structure that is so characteristic of the middle levels. In other words,
the truth of such science is formally based on a phenomenal structural
interpretation of reality (which is perceived as neutral with respect to the
conscious waking state necessary for its understanding).
However
at the lower - and higher - levels of reality there is a necessary dynamic
interaction as between the states and structures of these stages.
And as
the structural nature of sub-atomic reality corresponds to these lower levels,
suitably interpreted from the complementary higher stages, both state and
structure aspects are necessarily involved.
So the
inherent dynamic nature of quantum reality is due fundamentally to the fact
that specific phenomena lose their independent discrete identity and can only
be meaningfully interpreted in the context of an overall holistic pattern
(representing an underlying state). This for example is especially true of
virtual particles, which as phenomenal structures are exceedingly short-lived
and therefore highly expressive of the underlying empty (sleep) state from
which they originate.
It is
also very true of string reality where again the strings (as basic phenomenal
structures of form) are understood in some way to contain the dimensions of
space and time (though conventionally these are understood as separate). In
other words what this really implies is that we cannot meaningfully separate
(phenomenal) structures (of form) from their underlying (empty) states at these
levels.
It is
important to bear in mind the complementary nature of the stages of development.
We can say in a certain sense, that within physical nature at its most dynamic
sub-atomic levels (corresponding to L2), structures (as identifiable parts) are
necessarily confused with states (as an overall dimensional context for
interpretation). However the understanding associated with the corresponding
higher level is required for suitable interpretation. Thus to properly understand
the nature of sub-atomic reality in an intuitively satisfying manner (where
structures correspond with states) requires scientific appreciation that is
based on H2 (causal) level understanding.
Q I believe that you have taken
this even further directly into mathematical understanding in an attempted new
interpretation of prime numbers. Though this is necessarily a big area can you
give us a flavour here of your current thinking?
PC Yes!
In many ways a comprehensive understanding of prime numbers has proven well
nigh intractable using the conventional type analytic appreciation of the
middle levels.
Many
years ago, it struck me when attempting to develop my ideas on Holistic
Mathematics, that there is a deep - though not properly recognised - relationship
as between the nature of prime numbers and the meaning of primitive instincts
(in psychological terms).
The very
nature of such instincts is that conscious and unconscious aspects of behaviour
are necessarily confused with each other.
Thus the
important point here for Mathematics is that the true appreciation of the
nature of prime numbers necessarily goes beyond conventional means of
understanding based formally on mere rational type interpretation.
Let me explain this point further. In conventional
terms, prime numbers are considered in discrete terms as the basic building
blocks of the number system i.e. the number structures from which all other
structures are derived.
So here we have prime numbers viewed as independent
parts.
However there is another equally important aspect to
prime numbers, in their distribution, where they are intimately dependent on
the natural number system.
We might meaningfully refer to this holistic feature
as the corresponding state aspect of prime numbers.
So there is a linear aspect to prime numbers (as the
basic building blocks of the natural number system) and a circular aspect
(where holistically they are intimately dependent on the natural number system).
Therefore we need two distinctive logical systems used
in conjunction with each other to properly appreciate the nature of prime
numbers.
Linear (either/or) logic is the basis of Conventional
Mathematics i.e. analytic type appreciation.
Circular (both/and) logic is the basis of Holistic
Mathematics i.e. integral type appreciation as for example in deriving the
overall structures of development.
Then the mature combination of both linear and
circular logic comprises - what I refer to as - Radial Mathematics, which is
necessary for both a quantitative and qualitative appreciation of prime
numbers.
In terms of my delineation of levels, each of those
(marked 2) are especially relevant for the understanding of prime numbers. The complementary relationship of L2 and H2
is especially appropriate for the appreciation of the holistic nature of prime
number behaviour in complex terms (as in the dynamic appreciation of the nature
of primitive instincts). This enables one to unravel the qualitative
(philosophical) nature of prime numbers.
The middle level M2 (which I also refer as L0,H0) is
directly relevant to analytic type appreciation (as the independent building
blocks of the natural number system).
Finally, R2 is directly relevant for radial type
appreciation of prime numbers (where both independent and interdependent
aspects are preserved in quantitative and qualitative terms). In the context of
the Riemann Zeta Function (especially important in terms of prime number
behaviour), I have already provided a preliminary account of my proposed radial
approach to prime numbers in the previous Chapter!
One important clue as to the need for the radial
approach is the mysterious way in which complex numbers have become so important
in the attempt to unravel the quantitative nature of the primes.
And as Roger Penrose keeps repeating in his various
books, the behaviour of complex numbers is truly magical! This is exactly what
one would expect in terms of their holistic philosophical appreciation (as the
“higher” H2 interpretation of “lower” L2 behaviour).
A complex number of course has two parts i.e. a real
aspect (corresponding directly to conscious interpretation) and an imaginary
aspect (corresponding indirectly to unconscious interpretation). However in a
mathematical approach that is qualitatively real and thereby based formally on
mere rational appreciation, the imaginary aspect can only be incorporated in an
indirect reduced fashion. So, the philosophical qualitative significance of
imaginary numbers (as pertaining to an alternative circular logical system) cannot
be addressed within present mathematical appreciation.
Put another way, at best though complex mathematical
techniques may indeed in time be successful in unravelling many of the
quantitative mysteries of primes, they will of themselves never be able to
throw light on their true philosophical appreciation.
So once again conventional mathematics pursues mere
quantitative interpretation of results that remains largely divorced from true
qualitative appreciation.
And in the end this is unbalanced and doomed to
substantial failure.
So not only must complex numbers be employed for
greater appreciation of the quantitative nature of the number system, but in
qualitative terms a complex means of interpretation must also be employed. In
other words a radial approach is required that combines both analytic (real)
and holistic (imaginary) type appreciation.
So my basic point is clear. A fundamental revolution
in approach is needed in Mathematics so as to preserve both the quantitative
and qualitative aspects of understanding (in what I refer to as Radial
Mathematics). Indeed this is necessary even in the pursuit of better
quantitative results, for the very intuitions needed to guide creative
mathematical work implicitly depend on qualitative type appreciation.
Thus, creative new means of tackling mathematical
problems often dry up because of lack of corresponding qualitative type
understanding. (I believe this is largely true with respect to attempts to
solve the Riemann Hypothesis!)
However the main benefit of a new approach is that it
would vastly enlarge the overall scope of mathematical understanding in ways
that currently can scarcely be imagined.
Q. So
putting it another way you are saying that a comprehensive appreciation of
prime numbers – and indeed ultimately all mathematical relationships - requires
the understanding of more advanced levels of the spectrum where a dynamic
interaction as between both states (in the underlying intuitive appreciation)
and structures (in a more complex type of logical appreciation) are necessarily
involved! And most importantly with such understanding, both the reason and
corresponding intuition required are complementary. So without the appropriate
intuition (as state) you cannot really appreciate the complex reason involved
(as structure).
And
because conventional mathematics formally ignores this relationship between
state and structure it remains confined to the understanding of a very narrow
range of middle level stages (where the intuition implicitly available can only
support just the “real” type of reason i.e. linear!)
PC Yes, that puts it very well indeed! We could add
that ultimately in fact three types of complementarity are involved
(horizontally within levels, vertically between levels, and diagonally
simultaneously within and between levels). However this should suffice for the
moment.
Q. It just
struck me from what you say that the physical nature of reality (at deeper
sub-atomic levels) is inseparable from true appreciation of prime numbers. So
this again is a good practical reason why we need a more comprehensive
appreciation of the nature of prime numbers!
PC In fairness e.g. in relation to current researches
on the Riemann Hypothesis this is already recognised to a degree (though
without adequate philosophical appreciation of why this should necessarily be
the case)! However I can see little or no appreciation of how prime numbers are
vitally relevant in terms also of psychological behaviour.
And of course once again from a holistic mathematical
perspective, the physical and psychological aspects of reality are necessarily
complementary (in horizontal, vertical and diagonal terms).
Q.
Continuing this theme, we hear of the relationship between strings as a kind of
cosmic musical symphony and also phrases such as “the music of the primes”. Can
you give some indication as to why this musical analogy is considered so apt in
these two cases?
PC Firstly this tends to support the view that the
underlying structure of both prime numbers and physical strings is similar.
When one reflects on it music is made up of discrete
notes which also form a continuum in relation to each other. In musical terms
any individual note in isolation is somewhat meaningless. So it is the precise
relationship of notes and chords to each other that largely determines the
quality of the musical experience.
So we have an analytic component (in the independent
“parts” as separate notes) and a holistic component (in the “whole”
relationship of the notes to each other).
As we have seen it is quite similar with prime numbers
where from one perspective we have separate numbers as “parts” which comprise
the building blocks of the natural number system and also a “whole” component
(in the distributional relationship of these primes with respect to the natural
number system).
So in a musical arrangement, the meaning of each note
does not solely reside in its own separate identity (but rather its
relationship to the overall piece).
Likewise the meaning of the overall piece is not
something that can be holistically separated from the contribution of each
individual note. So in this way the parts are in the whole and the whole in the
various parts.
Properly seen it is similar with prime numbers where
the primes (as parts) are contained in the natural number system (as whole).
However equally the whole (again as natural number system) is in a sense
contained in each prime number (as part) in the manner in which the primes are
distributed.
Putting in another way prime numbers can be viewed as
quantities (implicitly raised to the power of 1) or dimensional qualities
(where 1 is raised to a prime number power). However these two ways of viewing
primes, entail alternative logical systems that are linear and circular with
relationship to each other. This implies a complex system (entailing both real
and imaginary numbers)
It is quite similar in relation to the physical
reality of strings. Here each string can be looked as a kind of separate object
quantity. However equally because of the strong interdependence between strings
they likewise holistically comprise the dimensional world in which they exist.
And once again these two ways of viewing strings entail alternative logical
systems that are linear and circular with respect to each other.
The great problem however is that the metaparadigm
that informs both conventional scientific and mathematical understanding is
based merely on linear type logic.
Thus though complex numbers as quantities can indeed
be admitted in Mathematics and Physics, it necessarily occurs in a reduced
manner (where their qualitative nature is not properly recognised). So what is
urgently required is a complex logical metaparadigm in - what again I call - a
radial approach explicitly entailing both real (conscious) and imaginary
(unconscious) modes of understanding.
Thus once again Radial Mathematics comprises the
mature sophisticated interplay of both (conventional) Analytic and Holistic
Mathematics respectively yielding an interpretation that is both quantitatively
and qualitatively satisfactory. Therefore in relation to any hypothesis, not
alone is the rational demonstration of a satisfactory proof required (quantitatively)
but equally an intuitively satisfying philosophical appreciation of why the
result is true (in qualitative terms).
I would go much further. Many important problems in
both Mathematics and Physics will not be properly resolved, even from the
conventional quantitative perspective, until a more comprehensive radial type
approach is adopted.
So coming back to “Music of the Primes” which was the
evocative title of a recent book by Marcus de Sautoy, the implications of the
truth of the Riemann Hypothesis would imply a wonderfully coherent manner with
respect to the distribution of prime numbers. Indeed in a certain important sense
it would imply that in the overall orchestra of the number system, which is
without finite limit, not a single note is - or even can be - out of place.
Using our earlier terminology this would entail that a
perfect balance is maintained in the natural number system as between prime
numbers (as individual structures) and prime numbers as a state (in the
collective distribution of the primes).
Q Finally,
at this stage can you briefly sum up the nature of both day time and night time
experience of these structures and states?
We now get a greater separation with respect to both
day time and night time experience. In
day time terms the waking state obtains much greater prominence which is turn
corresponds to the continued differentiation of conscious structures.
In night time terms there is a significant return to
the (confused) sleep state, which however in many ways offers valuable
unconscious support for the daytime activity taking place. In other words
through sleep, a greater balance between conscious and unconscious activity
(though still at a largely undeveloped stage) can take place.
L1 (Lower 1)
– Mythic
Q. Again can we start with a
description of the basic nature of the states and structures associated with
this level?
PC As the
lower levels unfold a child progressively adopts the waking state (during
daytime activity). This is likewise
associated in structural terms with the continuing differentiation of linear-based
conscious structures.
However a
degree of confusion as between conscious and unconscious is likely to persist.
This results in the characteristic mythic type nature of the stage.
This
could be described - from the perspective of states - as a situation whereby
the dream (though now operating under the greater control of conscious
activity) is still to an extent confused with the waking state. In terms of the differentiation of
structures, though considerable success with regards to the separation of both
diagonal and vertical polarities will by now have taken place, the horizontal
polarities (internal and external) remain embedded to a considerable extent
with each other.
This in
turn entails that the child still confuses the subjective (e.g. in the
acceptance of moral responsibility for decisions) with objective symbols.
Such mythic
confusion is extremely common in religious cultures generally where excessive
attention is paid to the symbols or archetypes through which the spiritual
meaning of a tradition is conveyed. For
example this frequently leads to an over rigid interpretation of its community
of believers as those in conformity with the (externally) defined beliefs and
rituals used for its expression.
Indeed
the great religious figures of history frequently find themselves in conflict
with such myths as they strive to restore the deeper authentic spiritual
experience inherent in the tradition.
Q Are you implying that
individuals and indeed cultures never really outgrow the mythic stage?
PC I would say that even for those considerably
advanced in spiritual experience i.e. where development is substantially of the
“higher” stages, that mythic elements are likely to remain. This is especially
true of those deeply rooted in a particular tradition. For example coming from Ireland
Though it struck me – even at an early age - that the
great mysteries of this religion were being conveyed in an unduly literal (i.e.
mythic) fashion, meaningful discussion on such issues at the time would have
been considered taboo. These doctrinal mysteries include the Trinity (three
persons in one God), the Incarnation (that God took a human form on Earth as
the man called Christ), the Resurrection (that Christ rose from the dead),
Transubstantiation (that at the moment of consecration in the Mass, that the
bread and wine offered by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ),
The Immaculate Conception (that Mary the mother of God was conceived without
original sin), and the Assumption (that on her death her body and soul were
“assumed” directly into Heaven).
Now of course enshrined in these doctrines are great
spiritual truths. However at certain stages of development, the pursuit of more
authentic spiritual meaning may well require divesting them of some of their
mythical clothing.
However the related point I am making is that even
historically with the great mystics, because of the cultural pressure to
conform literally to the tradition, that vestiges of mythical thinking (sometimes
considerable) can be found in their teachings.
Q However
from your perspective this should in no way be considered surprising?
PC No indeed! My key point is that there a
complementary relationship necessarily exists as between the “lower” and
“higher” stages of development. Because L1 (mythic) lies very close to the
middle levels (where full specialised differentiation of linear structures
takes place) it is here that genuine peak experiences of the mature
complementary level of H1 (subtle) are most likely.
Thus in mythic cultures - where some mastery of the
middle levels is in evidence - genuine authentic transpersonal experience is
certainly possible.
Indeed paradoxically it might even be possible to
better sustain authentic transpersonal experience here than in the more
rationally developed cultures. This is due to the fact that as specialised linear
development unfolds (with the middle levels) it tends to reduce the
complementary links that exist between “lower” and “higher” levels. So in
extremes this may significantly cut off access to the experience (especially
during day time activity) of these levels.
Of course the reverse is also true. So someone whose
characteristic experience is of the mature spiritual kind (associated with H1)
is likely to have associated with this, frequent valley moments of mythic type
understanding. And as we have seen this is especially likely in the context of
religious experience.
Q So in
terms of states to summarise, you associate L1 with a confused dream state
(i.e. where unconscious holistic elements of understanding are still not
properly differentiated from the analytic conscious). You then associate the
complementary level of H1 with a pure dream state (where the holistic meaning
conveyed through the Spirit is not directly associated with the phenomena of
form through which it is conveyed). However in the very dynamics of experience
it is very likely that both of these will tend to co-exist. So for someone (or
indeed a culture) whose characteristic experience is of L1, temporary peak moments
of H1 are very likely (especially in the context of religious experience).
Likewise for someone whose characteristic experience is of H1, temporary valley
moments of L1 are again very likely (especially in a religious context).
PC Yes! that is a satisfactory summary. However the
two-way dynamic relationship also exists as between structures. So for example it
is certainly possible for someone at L1 to get a genuine insight into the
structural forms (e.g. in art or in science) associated with H1. Indeed we have
many examples of such precocious ability (especially where true genius is
involved).
So in summary with regard to structures! At L1
(mythic) the external polarity of experience has still not been properly
differentiated from the internal. However at H1, not alone have the two poles
been differentiated, but now likewise maturely integrated (in spiritual terms).
So when a person (who has traversed H1) sees no ultimate distinction in
experience as between what is external (physical) and internal (psychological)
it is because these two poles have by now been substantially spiritually
integrated in the personality.
Q Let us
look briefly at the relationship between states and structures now from the
physical perspective. And you would associate this level strongly with quantum
reality!
PC Just as - from a psychological perspective - the
conscious waking state gains strength as we move through the lower levels,
likewise from a physical perspective
phenomena of form gradually assume an identity that can in various ways be
observed.
So whereas the world
of strings - which we associated with L2 - would lie below the level of
clearly identifiable phenomena, at the quantum reality of L1, a relatively
discrete identity can now be associated with particles (though still operating
in a highly interactive manner).
Thus there is a state and structure aspect associated
with the physical - as well as the psychological - aspect of reality.
Thus in state terms we could refer to quantum reality
likewise as a confused dream state i.e. where the holistic nature of particle
interaction cannot be clearly distinguished from the discrete particles
identified.
Thus, for example though the discrete nature of matter
at the quantum level is identified through specific particles, they also have a
holistic nature as waves. And as the single slit experiment for photons of
light demonstrates, through these two aspects, a mysterious communication takes
place as between particles.
It is also been proven that - with respect to sub-atomic
particles - that communication can take place even a long distance. So even
though from the discrete perspective observed particles may appear to be
independent, their overall behaviour reveals a deeper - though hidden -
interdependence.
In much the same manner, mythic symbols though
associated with distinct object phenomena, exercise an overall holistic effect.
The external and internal polarities of experience
equally apply to sub-atomic particles in the recognition that every particle
has a corresponding anti-particle.
So in dynamic terms a continual interaction takes
place in the depths of sub-atomic processes as between these two opposites
leading to the generation of energy.
However for a particle to be discretely identified (as
external) it must be clearly separated from its anti-particle correspondent.
Thus once again we have an overall state governing
particle interaction at quantum levels (where holistic behaviour cannot be
clearly separated from the identification of specific particles). So we have
the correspondent here of a confused dream state with respect to reality.
Also we have a structural component in that both
external and internal polarities are still enmeshed to a degree with each other
in the manner that particle and corresponding anti-particles interact.
Of course the proper intuitive interpretation of
quantum processes then requires the understanding associated with the
complementary higher stage. So once again the cognitive understanding of H1
(subtle) is necessary to properly unravel the dynamic interactions associated
with L1 (mythic) in physical - as well as psychological - terms.
Q Finally
can you briefly distinguish the day time and night time activity of L1?
PC With daytime activity, the waking element of
experience gains strength giving rise to the further differentiation of
conscious experience. However a confused dream aspect (i.e. waking dream state)
is also involved leading to the mythic confusion of this level.
In structural terms the stage is associated with the
gradual process of clearly separating external and internal polarities (though
it is not completed at this stage).
With night time activity the (confused) sleep state
still dominates, which is also associated with significant dream experience.
However the possibility of a waking element - associated with lucid dream
activity - would be largely absent.
No comments:
Post a Comment