Call to Depth: Part One

This is an important discussion, J. No one wants to have to draw a line in the sand, but maybe understanding the importance of boundaries is what makes the thing/process beautiful to begin with. Relativism is self-contradictory, we are inevitably forced to choose.

“The distinction is not between rational and spiritual, but between depth and superficiality in the domains of science, reason, ethics and meaning.”

We cannot avoid participating in the bringing forth of a world. We must act, and in doing so we can either pursue depth or superficiality in each of the facets of our lives.

The superficial route can bring us shortlived comforts, but only the depth of genuine inquiry opens us to the truth and beauty of the good in life.

So far so good. But what is the best way to shovel? Empiricism and reason have more than proven themselves useful, and are best practiced in public, before the critical gaze of all who care and can understand. But as knowledge increases, our investigations become more specialized. Each unique field of science (empirical rationality) enacts its own truths based on the methods prescribed. To understand these truths, one must become part of the scientific community by adopting their language and technologies. Most of today's science takes place in government financed laboratories by a highly educated few. They probe natural processes for possible military applications, along the way stumbling upon the odd medical or environmental insight which they quickly patent and proudly announce to the public.

At first glance, it would seem that our ethics and our meaning must come from a similar type of interpersonal pursuit, though with nobler aims. The truth is something that can only be shared (or put another way: the truth is something that everyone must admit, even if silently). But for a host of reasons (or perhaps one very simple one), we have separated our knowledge from our wisdom. We have divided our private and our public lives too hasily in a rush to conquer the earth. The result is a bunch of egoists without the dedication to learn to share any of the truths of science or the responsibility to participate in the making of morality with others. The latter takes more than just tolerance. It takes an active attempt to get to know and understand those you are unfamiliar with. And the former requires more than just precision and soberness. It requires imagination and an appreciation for the beauty and depth of nature. All of these, our truths and our morals, our reasons and our meaning, require the ability to admit when you're wrong without losing the courage to risk the truth when it calls.

It seems both deep science and deep spirituality require an openness to the shared process of development with others (including nature). When science becomes superficial and cut off, it tends to ignore the voice of the people (conscience) in favor of its theories (technologies, Faustian deals, etc). When spirit turns too far inward and hides from the reality of the other, it tends to become a self-absorbed downward spiral into lonliness and absurdity.

We must choose. Keep secrets and turn our backs on each other while pretending to be “tolerant” of everyone. Or, be open to the shared process of development that respects no lone individual's pet hypothesis or mystical fancy, but collectively marches onward and inward, toward deeper truths and holier holons.

Maybe the real difference between superficiality and depth is that between lonliness and solidarity. The former is nihilism, the latter is a courageous and compassionate leap into a life shared with the hearts and minds of others. This kind of leap is what will allow a planetary culture to fully emerge, me thinks.

Hi, Julian,

This is a nice start on an important inquiry:  What is depth?  How do we recognize it?  In what ways do we (unconsciously, self-protectively) avoid it?  What do we mistake for it? 

In your part 2, will you be giving some concrete examples of the errors you've perceived?  I think that would be helpful.  In the interest of getting the rubber to meet the road, it would probably be good to work with a real issue or point of contention.  I think these conversations often suffer when they stay at the level of generalization and abstraction, partly because it is easy to misread what the other means when it doesn't get specific enough.  (I am not pointing any fingers here; I have certainly done this in my own writings as well.)

In your blog, you've painted a vivid picture of two related, problematic spiritual approaches or attitudes.  Just based on my own knowledge of the community and the individuals who have dialogued with you in the recent past, my sense is that this portrait is something of a composite – that your picture is based on multiple interactions with different individuals, and you have woven those things together into a single “target.”  There is nothing wrong with this, but my suggestion is that, instead of targeting what may be a caricature (which would undermine the force of your argument to the extent that it over-generalizes and thereby may distort some things), it might be helpful (as I suggested above) to get concrete and really try to open up a particular idea or issue, clearly spelling out where it goes astray into regressive depth-denial.

Regarding rationality and transrationality in relation to depth:  if the transrational is also non-rational, how can it nevertheless be distinguished from the pre-rational, as “true depth”?  I'm not asking this to question or throw doubt on the distinction (I think it's an important one); rather, I'm asking if you have thoughts on how one might rationally, operationally proceed to distinguish between the two.  Are there any “places,” in your view, that are authentic and “deep” that rationality cannot reach?

To get at these questions, it might be worthwhile to explore what you mean by “transrational,” in contrast to what others might mean by it…particularly those others who confuse the pre- for the trans-.  Can you give examples of what you believe would qualify as an authentic transrational phenomenon or disclosure or capacity?

Thank you, Julian, for starting another interesting discussion, which I hope will be valuable for this community. 

Best wishes,

Balder

P.S.  Have you noticed that Hokai has highlighted your recent blog on his own?

Here are some questions that I'd like to also offer for consideration:

* Since Wilber has moved away from his older model, where he stacked psychic, subtle, and nondual on top of the cognitive line, to one in which these dimensions of human being are now recognized as states (available theoretically at any stage), do you think this might impact the meaning (and application) of the pre/trans fallacy?  If so, in what way(s)?

* How is “depth” being defined here?  Is it possible for “depth” to be available at multiple stages, or is it something that only becomes possible with a developed form of rationality?  You seem to be identifying “depth” with critical thinking (available, as you are using it, at Orange and beyond).  But might it also be meaningful, and useful, to distinguish between “shallow” and “deep” approaches to living at multiple stages of development?  For instance, is Blue always shallow, or are there also deeper forms of it?  (Perhaps at Blue, “depth” relates to depth of feeling, depth of commitment, depth of embodiment of a particular vision, rather than the form of “depth” of rational analysis that becomes available at later stages…)

* If we now place subtle, causal, nondual off to the “side” in the WC Lattice, how might depth also relate to state access or development?  Are there different kinds of “depth” that we should distinguish?


P.S.  I just saw your recent response.  I look forward to Part 2, then, for discussion of a concrete example… :-)

The question What is depth? is interesting.

1) I consider it first a matter of verticality rather than horizontal state depth. But I suppose we can't be absolute about that—an mythic (Amber) Zen master has a certain kind of depth perhaps. But basically I do think it's a matter of verticality, though the the word “depth” does point toward an interesting aspect of it not covered by the word “vertical.”

2) Number of perspectives taken would be one consideration, and this goes hand in hand with construct awareness, as distinguished from state-training awareness—awareness of the mind-body in action, whereas state training is stepping out of action.

3) If we believe in a natural, creative intelligence we could say depth is determined by the degree of purity with which that intelligence is expressed.

4) We could also look at different lines—ethics and affect, for example, would surely figure into most people's idea of depth. We could say that there are different depths of heart.

5) Evolutionary skill would be one interesting line to consider—the skill a person has to move things forward, or to strengthen things for a move forward.

6) We could also relate depth to the chakra system, and the higher in the system a person is coming from, the more depth that person would have.

7) Another way to determine depth would be the degree that action is freed of personal concern, though that's similar to using the chakra system.



David

Depth and states do seem to relate in a way that the Wilber-Combs lattice doesn't explain. For example, Ken has said that deeper states “come with the territory” of third-tier stages. That suggests that there is a deepening state-wise as one goes up the spiral, though of course the Wilber-Combs lattice holds that a person at a third-tier stage can be in any state. Part of the answer there may have to do with percentages of responses—when we say a person is at a third-tier stage we are saying that, say, a majority of their responses come from that stage, but others may come from a lower stage, and state. But it's still a little confusing how well the Wilber-Combs lattice works when Ken says that deeper states “come with the territory” of third-tier stages.


David 

Thanks, Julian, and great points. I like the way you frame it in terms of moving into integral and also scientific depth. It would also be interesting to look into depth with regard to scholarship. I'll throw in a few more:

1) We get a certain kind of depth when we recognize different types—until we do that we have a tendency (except in Green, of course) to place other types (of people and groups) at a lower level or even pathologize them.

2) We also get a certain kind of depth we see different lines. Until we do this, we are apt to exalt certain people or groups because they are high in one particular line or devalue certain people or groups because are low on a particular line.

3) We get a certain kind of depth when we can see—and we can phrase this in different ways—ourselves, or God, or the creative intelligence at work in others. I think you have said something along these lines in your work, that people have a certain instinct or intuition that can be trusted.

4) Openness or an inquiring mind or “beginner's mind” would also be a sign of depth. At fundamental levels, there is great dogmatism, increasingly less as one goes up, though I believe this is also a line and type issue.

5) Ability to hold a paradox would be an important factor in cognitive depth and in avoiding category errors.  Before one can hold the paradox of the one and the many, for example, the two truths doctrine, one can make huge and absurd category errors (if one latches on to the absolute truth of “not two” and tries to apply it to other quadrants).

6) There's actually a spacial dimension to this that's interesting and a little difficult to pin down. I think the relationship between states and stages seems like the best way to deal with this, but that again contradicts the Wilber/Combs lattice a little. You can actually sense that a person is coming from a “deeper” place than someone else. Proximity to the creative Self? And, in a collective, I think it's actually a fluid thing—a person who is considered to be and may actually be at a lower COG may, in a given moment, provide greater depth than anyone else. If a collective (LL- and LR-wise) doesn't allow for this, doesn't allow for each person, at least theoretically, to have a leading voice for a moment here or there, it could cheat itself out of depth, and perhaps harm individuals. Depth in the collective would also be an interesting discussion.

7) Ken has said that there is increasingly less narcissism as one goes up, so the absence or relative absence of narcissism would be a sign of depth. We could also say it's the move from arrogance to humility, though with that humility there can also be a conviction that is sometimes mistaken for arrogance.
 
8) The balance between masculine and feminine value spheres would be an important component in depth as well—the balance between agency and communion, loving things for what they could be and loving things as they are.


Yes, I agree that there is a population out there that wants to call itself integral now but is still pushing a Green value sphere, and levels are what they really don't like. They also don't like the idea of integrating fundamental value spheres—they want to take the concerns of those levels for granted so that they can establish Green, but it's not always appropriate of course to take those fundamental concerns for granted (economic security, national security, for example).


David

Hi, Julian and David,

I've been enjoying your discussion.  I've intended to contribute more and still hope to write something more substantial before too long.

I want to ask what either of you think about the possibility of “depth” being available in pre-scientific cultures. 

Is depth a matter of the content of a particular view, or is it perhaps more related to things such as degree of self-knowledge, degree of integration of experience, depth of the capacity to be self-reflective, range of moral embrace, and perhaps also complexity and coherence of one's overall worldview?

There certainly have been post-formal individuals in pre-Orange cultures, and I believe they would meet the cognitive, psychospiritual, and moral criteria for depth that Julian described.  But their “worldview” could not be called modern.  They might recognize that “gods” and “yidams” and such are not separate from “one's own mind,” but they would not frame this in either the psychological or scientific ways that we now recognize as “modern” and “true.”

What do you think?

Best wishes,

B.

I definitely think that transrational is rational or hyper-rational and only seems nonrational to a lower stage of consciousness. What Julian calls narrow rationality is head without heart and is usually considered nonspiritual or pathological. I think that may be part of the developmental sequence which occurs within a stage. One must learn to think with head only to truely master rationality, cold rationality. After that skill has been sufficiently honed, then the heart may be rejoined. I think that is consistent with mystical traditions and is depicted in symbols such as the caudecus (the medical symbol with the yin-yang serpent energies climbing and the wings representing the divine liberation of the union of head, heart and more.
I suspect it is a common mistake to visualize the lines of development as lines. It may be more helpful to think of the lines of development as spheres. Okay, maybe that's not necessary, but it may be useful to realize that there can huge spectrums of depth within a level or stage. KW and followers may refer to this as span, but I think it is misleading because it is integral-culture specific jargon and not common venacular. A “common” person would likely describe a PhD as being deep, especially compared with a high school student sudying the same field.
Looking for motives has been very fruitful for me when seeing where the rubber meets the road. For example: why do some choose only organic foods? A person at a lower stage will be motivated to be organic because they don't want chemicals and hormones in thier own body. A “more highly evolved consciousness” will likely be motivated to go organic because of the environmental impacts. It's the ol' selfish to selfless sequence of motives.

I am also interested in your (integralists) perspectives on, transpersonal, and hope to get some of your thoughts on the matter. I've been having lots of success in sharing this concept with non-integral people by demystifying it and depersonalizing it. One of The Four Agreements is to never take anything personally. When someone is struggling with an issue, I can point out the universality of the attitude or behavior and say, “See, it's not You, it's just part of the human condition. Lots of people are going through this.”
Trans means accross, doesn't it?

I definitely think that transrational is rational or hyper-rational and only seems nonrational to a lower stage of consciousness.

Which lower stage?  Rational?  That's the only lower one for whom rationality would even be a concern or a consideration.

…even though the interior methodologies explore some genuinely transrational states and phenomena that science and reason cannot grasp…  as long as those methodologies stay within their domain, ie interior experience, hermeneutics, truthfulness etc we are fine…

Can you give an example of a genuine transrational state or phenomenon that science and reason cannot grasp?

That's nicely said, Julian.  I have some more questions, if you have the interest and the patience for them!

One, do you see transrational phenomena as being “above and beyond” rationality, or rather as non-rational supplements to rationality?

Two, there's the question of nonduality.  In Wilber-4, it was seen as transcending rationality in terms of cognitive development – it unfolded on the far side of rationality, transcending and including it.  Now, Wilber-5 seems to place it “horizontal” to the stages, equally available at all levels (though interpreted differently at each).  In this sense, the “nondual” state can be pre-rational or rational … it isn't necessarily transrational. 

How do you see it?  What is your understanding of nonduality?  What is it's “place,” and what is its “import”?  As I have discussed with others in the IPS forum, there appear to be different “types” of nonduality that we can meaningfully discuss – a nondual perspective which appears to be a cognitive development, as well as a “state” (or non-state) that some traditions recognize as the “ground” of all other states and relative developments…

Best wishes,

B.

Julian,

I am mining here for a fuller understanding of your view, which will be helpful to me personally, but I hope it might also be useful to your readers.

You wrote:  “transrational is entirely an interior affair and makes no objective claims.”

If the transrational is one level of a spectrum of UL development which includes the rational, why is the same restriction not put on rational thought – e.g., why is it okay for “rational consciousness” to make objective claims but not for a purportedly higher level of consciousness to do the same?

Best wishes,

B.

again i think whether or not something is prerational or transrational has a lot more to do with the interpretation and the worldview behind it than the actual experience itself.

Yes, I agree that we're talking about - or, rather, potentially could be talking about -developmental modes of cognition and therefore interpretation, rather than about particular experiences.  (See below).  The pre/trans fallacy is an interpretive error.  What isn't clear to me, however, is if your interpretation of “transrational” involves a cognitive stage which actually developmentally transcends rationality.  For instance, from your descriptions above, it seems you are essentially discussing the distinction between pre-rational and rational interpretations of nonrational experiences.

Does this sound right?

And therefore “transrational” doesn't suggest a developmentally higher mode of cognition beyond rationality, but a rationality which is supplemented by nonrational processes and experiences (which also are available at earlier stages, but which don't get interpreted rationally).

also bear in mind that when i say rational i also mean the stage at which a separate self that can see cause and effect and differentiate interior from exterior, fantasy from reality etc. has occured. a transrational experience (or interpretation)  would build upon that foundation - a prerational one would dissolve the foundation and regress into those details disappearing or being incorrectly perceived viz magical agency, supernatural causes, thought manifestation etc….

Here you are comparing a developmental stage of cognition - one which can do certain things, such as differentiate interior from interior and recognize cause and effect - with a particular nonrational experience.  I am just pointing out (again) that you appear to be either moving horizontally rather than vertically, or comparing two different things, rather than comparing one “stage” to another.

meditation is an interior methodology from the eye of contemplation - deep meditative experience does not prove the objective existence of “god” for example, or that consciousness existed before matter. those theories are making assertions about domains properly explored and evidenced by the eye of flesh. this is a form of quadrant reductionism and category error.

This could be explained by the Wilber-Combs lattice.  Here, meditation or the eye of contemplation leads to certain state experiences, which according to the lattice is a horizontal move rather than a vertical one, and the choice we have is either a rational or a prerational interpretation of that state experience.  There is no “higher stage” (no actual trans) necessarily involved in this picture.

rational can make objective claims, but those claims will be tested objectively.
by definition transrational claims can't be tested objectively - and when they are genuinely transrational claims they stay in their domain.

Can you explain why you believe transrational claims cannot be tested empirically?  (Here, I am noticing something slippery or possibly confusing, because previously you have been talking about transrational experiences, and now you are talking about transrational claims.  The former suggests some sort of nonrational event, but the latter suggests a unique cognitive structure.   Possibly we need to get clearer about what we're actually discussing…)

I'll stop here for now.  I hope this line of questioning is useful or at least interesting for you.

Best wishes,

Balder

What Balder writes seems more correct and Julian seems confused………rationality is not a stage, nor is transrationality. If this were true then red, blue and purple (old color codes) would be incapable of rationality.
“All ans/or any lower stages” is my answer to Balders previous question to me about which lower stages would view a higher stages rationality as transrational, but to them it would most like seem non-rational.
I also think that Julian's easy answer is way wrong. If you'd like Julian, I can go through your list and address them one by one and demonstrate how reason and empiricism can explain almost all of that stuff.
But I gotta run now. It's nice to be back in a heady cyber mix again. Thanks for being You, ya'll,
Love Marshall

you are right though the categories are not clear. partly this is my fault, partly i think it has to do with the interwoven and complex subjects that come up in the question of depth, rationality, pathology, spirituality etc…

i think part of what i am saying is that there are categories of experience: rational and non-rational.

stages of development: prerational, rational and transrational.

Yes, what I think has not been made clear yet, in what you've written, is what actually constitutes the transrational stage of development.  It appears you have been primarily differentiating between rational and pre-rational interpretations of various non-rational altered state experiences.  I say “non-rational” rather than “transrational” because they are apparently available to people at prerational stages of development (otherwise they wouldn't be available for them to misinterpret).  

In an earlier post, you differentiated between a narrow rationalism and a more expanded rationalism.  The latter is what you appear to be identifying as “transrational,” although as I've been suggesting, it isn't clear what the trans is here.  With narrow rationalism, as you have been using it, there is presumably a restrictive focus on external, objective phenomena; with a more expanded rationalism, there is room for other forms of experience, as long as they do not contradict rational principles or step out of their own domains.

Is this essentially what you've been saying?

Also, regarding an earlier question:  it isn't yet clear to me why you argue that transrational, as a stage of development rather than an altered (non-rational) state experience, has (or should have) nothing to say about the objective world, particularly since the previous stages both make their own pronouncements about it and “model” it in various ways.

Best wishes,

Balder

Hey, guys, Julian, Bruce, Marshall—

Got taken away …

Julian, yes, I agree with those points you made way back in response to my comment regarding less dogmatism, more depth—it could very easliy turn into Green mush. We have to know when to take a stand with our highest understanding. At the same time, we have to be open to the new, to going beyond what we know, to exploring, inquiring. It's the balance between knowing and unknowing that really counts.

Bruce: “I want to ask what either of you think about the possibility of “depth” being available in pre-scientific cultures. 

Is depth a matter of the content of a particular view, or is it perhaps more related to things such as degree of self-knowledge, degree of integration of experience, depth of the capacity to be self-reflective, range of moral embrace, and perhaps also complexity and coherence of one's overall worldview?”

It's a good point bringing up content—sure, depth in content is an important form of depth as well. Those other items are really good too.

 It's also interesting to look for depth in pre-scientific cultures. One that occurs to me is living in harmony with nature—there's a kind of depth in that, and in that regard some pre-scientific cultures had more depth than moderns. And I'm not sure it was just a matter of advanced technology. Some of the Native American cultures—and Bruce you could probably come up with some specifics—explicitly valued living in harmony with the natural world. In some cases it may have had to do with magic religion and appeasing the gods, but the sense I had of Native American religions was that it went deeper than that.

Shamanism also comes to mind. Roger Walsh recently wrote a book about it that is going to be reviewed in the next What Is Enlightenment? These folks journeyed to other states to do work that benefited the rest of their community. There's a kind of depth there that may be missing in most modern, postmodern culture as well. There's a similar traditon with entering into other states and healing in China and other places. Of course we could say that there is some kind of depth in simply having access to those states to hang out in for awhile as well, but actually using that access for the good of the community would be a sign of greater depth.


~  ~  ~  ~


On the subject of the trans-rational—there are at least two kinds that we could talk about. One is horizontal; the other is vertical. One goes beyond perspectives, simply beyond the verbal and beyond action. That's horizontal, of course, simply stepping out of the game. But there's another sort of trans-rational that involves action. 

You've heard this song and dance before, but there is what we might call an evolutionary intelligence or energy coursing through us. It takes the form of magic, then mythic, then egocentric, rational, up to Turquoise. At some point enough awareness is established to become aware of the whole personal game. One then sees the personal will (up to Turquoise or so) and another will that comes out of emptiness. Its actions are not pre-meditated.

The work of the sadhak, as Aurobindo would put it, then involves further, more clearly differentiating the two, the personal will and this impersonal will that has a natural, inherent creativity. If it's done a certain way, the result will be trans-rational. If the differentiation doesn't go well, say if the sadhak gets pissed off and lashes out, then the result will be not post-rational but pre-rational.

You may have heard the story—an Indian Advaita “master” having sexual relations with either students or children, I can't remember which. He got away with it for awhile, but eventually the townspeople objected. “I didn't do it,” the master said. His implications was that it was the Divine Will that had seduced the young girl or whoever. In a way, he may have been correct, he may have “witnessed it,” but clearly the result was not post-rational but pre-rational—the differentiation had failed. Perhaps he had more wanted to indulge himself than to come out with something that was truly higher, but it is uncharted territory, so it's understandable people could become confused.

At any rate, if the trans-rational—the psychic being or deeper psychic or whatever we would like to call it—is not cognizant of the rational, not honoring it, then things can go pre-rational. I think what we've seen happen in some of these cases of gurus gone wild is that they haven't honored modern (Orange) ethics, individual rights. It may be because of a theological interpretation of the trans-rational. And that theological interpretation, while a helpful building block, can also be the cause of this failed differentiation—suddenly one is not “surrendering” to the trans-rational but to one's one fears or desires and with the convinction that God is on their side because “they're not doing it.” Sometimes those Orange, individual rights are even termed egoic, and of course sometimes ethics are denied altogether as if any action that is witnessed is of a higher, trans-rational ethic or cognition. But the higher, trans-rational is build on top of the rational, though trans-rational just might want to do precisely the opposite of what the rational mind wants to do in some cases.

Usually a rational case can be made for trans-rational action. If a rational case can't be made to back it up, then probably it's not trans-rational. The chakra system could be helpful hear as well. Action can be witnessed issuing from any chakra, but that doesn't mean that action that issued from the second chakra is trans-rational. Often, though, this is the claim of the horizontally enlightened who have “attained” horizontal trans-rationality—they then claim everything that they do is also trans-rational. As often as not, nothing they do will be trans-rational! It will often just be a case of horizontal trans-rationality plus Amber, pre-rational action, or Orange, rational action, Green, post-rational action, etc.



David

Better not see you in that video, Julian!  :)

Thanks.

Julian,

Yes, that's true – Wilber's altitudinal convention and the W-C Lattice both emerged after the terms transpersonal and pre/trans fallacy were already in use.  I believe the term, transpersonal, was first coined by Jung, as you point out; he referred to the archetypal realm as uberpersonliche.  (William James also used it, but in a more mundane way).  And Wilber's formulation of the pre/trans fallacy idea emerged as the transpersonal movement was gaining momentum in the 70s and 80s.  In particular, it emerged in the context of a model which stacked the ideal mystical state-realizations (subtle, causal, nondual) directly on top of the developmental stages that had been mapped by Western theorists.  These higher stages, being modeled on ineffable and nonverbal mystical states and conceived as emerging developmentally on the far side of rational, egoic consciousness, were (according to this model) clearly to be differentiated from Freud's pre-personal, infantile, oceanic awareness.  They were higher-stage realizations of oneness, not ground floor stages of non-differentiated (or poorly differentiated) awareness.

Because a number of these higher “stages” do not appear to rely on rational thought (they are ineffable, nonverbal), and because they were placed on the top of the developmental ladder, it made sense to describe them as transrational.  But now that the W-C Lattice has “shifted” subtle, causal, and nondual states off of the vertical developmental ladder, treating them instead as universally available states (which are subject to various developmentally dependent interpretations), how are the notions of transrational stages and the pre/trans fallacy affected?  They may not be rendered obsolete, but I believe they must at least be understood differently than they have been.  In other words, if “transrational” was coined to describe states (subtle, causal, nondual) which are now understood as being available even at prerational stages of development, then we have to rethink what is meant by transrational.

In the Salon.com article you quoted, Wilber writes, “The mystical state is often beyond words. It is trans-rational because you have access to rationality but it's temporarily suspended. A 6-month-old infant, for instance, is in a pre-rational state, whereas the mystic is in a trans-rational state. Unfortunately, 'pre' and 'trans' get confused. So some theorists say the infant is in a mystical state.”

I'm not entirely clear what Wilber is intending to say here.  It is not clear whether the infant and the mystic are both in, say, a causal state but they are not able to “do” the same thing with it or “integrate” it in the same way because of the differences in their cognitive capacities, or whether the state itself is different.  If the former, then it seems fair, from one perspective, to say that the infant is also in a mystical state; but from another perspective, if you wed the definition of “mystical” to cognitive development and interpretive capacity, then obviously only those capable of making the appropriate interpretations and “understanding” the state according to Right View (depending on tradition) would be able to have “mystical” experiences. But this latter move appears to place “authentic spirituality” within the interpretive or translative realm rather than in a particular primordial state of consciousness.

If both the infant and the mystic can access the “causal” state, but only for the mystic is the state “spiritual” or “mystical,” then this seems to shift the significance of spiritual realization from the state itself to the post-state interpretation or translation.  (This ties in to the Translation vs. Transformation thread that has been active recently on my IPS pod).

But back to Wilber's definition of transrational in the quote above:  He seems to be saying that, because the rational faculties are available but suspended, the nonrational or nonverbal state can be considered transrational.  Given my arguments above, it isn't clear to me whether the “trans” prefix is merited, though – at least for these state experiences.  Suspending rationality is not the same as transcending it – and the W-C lattice suggests that the states in which thought is suspended are available prior to the emergence of rationality, so they do not inherently transcend it.  (Would a prepersonal mystical state be considered trans-prepersonal?)

Cognitively, there is a movement via which we become aware of rationality itself – we become aware of its limitations, where we are able to understand its contingency and constructedness.  This begins to develop with the postmodern turn, for instance.  In Madhyamaka philosophy and practice, for another example, contemplation is wedded to rigorous cognitive analysis in a way that I believe does lead to a transrational stage of development – but it isn't simply a matter of accessing a “state” in which thought is suspended.  There is a cognitive, analytical component to it; the practitioner deliberately cultivates awareness and takes thought and cognitive processes as objects of analysis, deconstructing and then integrating “rationality” in a broader, transrational understanding.  In other words, I am suggesting that both cognitive development and a degree of integrative work are also required.  Without these elements, I question whether it really makes sense to describe a temporary altered state of consciousness, in which discursive thought and rational processes are suspended, as transrational.

To clarify:  If you are at a prerational level of development and you access causal awareness, according to the W-C Lattice, you will interpret the experience according to your level.  If you have developed rational cognitive capacities and you access causal or nondual awareness, you will interpret the experience according to your level as well – it won't be a transrational mystical experience, but a rationally interpreted nonverbal state.  For a mystical experience to be transrational, you must have developed a genuine degree of postformal cognition which is capable of taking rationality itself as an object of analysis. 

According to this perspective – following the implications of the W-C Lattice – no state in itself would be considered inherently transrational (contrary to Wilber's earlier formulation), and simply having developed rational cognitive capacities (temporarily suspended) would not be sufficient either. 

What do you think?

Best wishes,

Balder

Hi, Julian,

I am leaving work soon, so I'll have to wait till later today to respond in more detail, but regarding your closing comments:

One of the main points of my post was that the Wilber-Combs lattice problematizes the original pre/trans fallacy in a number of important ways, some of which I tried to outline.  As long as the W-C lattice functions as the new “foundation” on which Integral is based (instead of the older model, where causal and nondual were placed on top of rationality and were considered therefore to be transrational), then I believe we will have to look again at a number of “traditional” Wilberian terms and see how they are impacted by this reorganization of the foundation.  You can't “redo” the ground floor and not expect things which were built upon it not to be affected…

Best wishes,

B.

I read your long reply!  I just don't have time to reply yet (I'm out the door in 4 minutes…).  But while I've noticed him using the pre/trans fallacy term recently, I am wondering if he possibly hasn't taken note of the theoretical impact of this change in his model.  If you think the W-C lattice isn't really a new foundation (which changes the very meaning of enlightenment, for instance), or that it doesn't have a central place within Wilber-5, then maybe that's because you haven't taken his later work as seriously as you have Wilber-4 and prior…

Best wishes – and more later –

Balder

For one thing, I don't think we should take the things he said in the salon.com interview too seriously. I really enjoyed that interview, but he was speaking to a popular-magazine audience, not us integral wizards.  :) I think he may have been consciously making things simple for them rather than having a precise discussion about Wilber V and the WC Lattice.

Wilber's initial idea of the pre-trans—we can now see—was a little muddled. The problem he was trying to solve was trying to get people to see that crazy behavior or child-like behavior was not enlightened behavior—the trouble was, his highest states didn't involve behavior at all; they were “contemplative.” He was surely thinking enlightened action vs. unlenlightened action or thought when he was talking about the ptf—at least some of the time—but his model didn't reflect that. Of course another part of his agenda was to legitimize state training, but he conflated state training with behavior and thought.

So now we could simply see the ptf as he surely meant it—comparing pre-rational thought and behavior to post-rational thought and behavior—and now the model reflects that. It doesn't make sense to use the word “rational” at all when we're talking about states because these states don't have anything to do about thinking. The thinking stages are emergent stages; the states are givens. We can't call the deepest state trans-rational because the shallowest state is not pre-rational—again, they don't have anything to do with thought at all. They're just different lines.

The WC lattice, I now believe, is a mistake. Maybe it's the Combs factor. Why not simply make state training another line? Call it the “awareness” line or the “witnessing” line. That solves the problem the WC lattice was supposed to solve—showing that a person could be horizontally enlightened and also be pre-rational or simply rational—and at the same time is consistent with what he has said about third-tier stages, that deeper stages “come with the territory.”

So, at any stage, one can experience these different states, but as you go up you will increasingly live from a deeper state. It simply makes sense, and, I believe, jives with all our experience. Of course that doesn't make a fact, but it makes more sense to me than the WC lattice.

But the WC lattice can illustrate that we can experience any state at any stage. So that's fine. We just need another diagram showing that “witnessing” is a separate line, which he used to do, and that higher states also go hand in hand with deeper states, which he has said. I think the trouble is taking the WC lattice too seriously—all it's meant to show is that we can experience any state at any stage. I don't think it is meant to or should mean anymore than that. Put that together with a diagram showing a deeper-state adaptation with each higher stage, and a separate line for state training (“witnessing” or awareness), and everything will be fine. How can we not do that when KW has said that deeper states simply “come with the territory” of third-tier stages? I think we can see, for example, that second tier folks are living with more awareness than first tier, as well has seeing more perspectives.

I also kind of feel that the states people can experience in the waking state should be differentiated a little better from waking, dream sleep, and deep sleep—unless they are the same things, but he has said that nirvikalpa is like deep sleep but not the same thing.


David

Hi, Julian,

In my previous letter, I was not saying that the pre/trans fallacy was no longer a useful distinction or that it needed to be scrapped.  I was just pointing out that the understanding of what the “trans” portion of that spectrum involves is likely in need of revision, since the original candidates for those upper stages (subtle, causal, nondual) have been moved off of that developmental ladder and are now conceived as being available at all stages.  Certain mystical states were being treated as stages, as Wilber mentions in Integral Spirituality – an error due, in part, to certain similarities between these states and actual higher structure-stages which caused them to be conflated.

In an earlier post, it seemed to me that you were still talking about “transrational” primarily in terms of various states or experiences – and you were “bracketing” the range of applicability of the transrational in a way that seems relevant for states, but not for stages.  My contention is that this confusion is likely due to Wilber's previous identification of the transrational with the subtle, causal, and nondual.  That's why I'm highlighting the W-C Lattice in this discussion.

I don't think Wilber has scrapped the pre/trans fallacy – and I don't think he should.  But I think we should be careful not to conflate the transrational with subtle or causal state experiences either.  If you look at the AQAL chart on Formless Mountain, you can see that it places the transrational band of development as beginning somewhere in Yellow/Teal.  When I suggested that a transcendence of rationality begins somewhere in the postmodern turn, I was thinking of some of the more advanced postmodern theorists – those who are arguably Second Tier, as Gregory Hampson suggests in his article in Integral Review. 

As a stage of cognitive development or epistemology, the transrational involves the establishment of an abiding mode of interacting with the world and acquiring or generating knowledge.  What are the features of this stage?  My understanding, as I indicated in a previous message, is that it involves at first the capacity to take rationality itself as object, the development of ego- and construct-awareness.  It also appears to involve the development of more holistic, synthetic, intuitive modes of knowing that go beyond analytical reasoning.  In terms of intuition, I believe Wilber's “Intuitive Mind” in Third Tier refers to the “intellectual intuition” of Schelling, Hegel, and others – an intuitive capacity which transcends and includes analytical reasoning, rather than bypassing or denying it.

An important point is that, according to the implications of the W-C Lattice (as I am reading it), transrational development would involve more than temporary peak experiences or perhaps even stable state-stage attainments for rational-level individuals.  A rational-level individual having a peak experience of subtle or causal awareness will interpret, integrate, and process it according to a rational-level worldview; this would be “expanded rational” rather than either “narrow rational” or “transrational.”

One last point: I believe that state development is an important part of the picture at these higher stages.  Perhaps, as we develop our subtle thinking capacity (cognition) and identification with cognitive structures is released with increasing insight, we naturally open to a wider range of available states, which become abiding (present or immediately accessible) features of these higher stages of consciousness development.

Best wishes,

Balder

Thanks, Julian.  I agree that terms such as transpersonal, transrational, and enlightenment do tend to get misused or saddled down with misconceptions and magical associations.  But I think you would agree that studying and getting clear on the meanings can be a good way to counteract these trends.  At this point, I feel it is preferable to do this than to avoid the words altogether, since (say, in the case of transpersonal and transrational), they emerged in response to deficits in current models of human nature and potential.

Best wishes,

Balder

Julian, what was muddled about the ptf was simply that he wasn't clear about states and stages. When he talked about pre-trans, sometimes he would be talking about action (stages) and sometimes he would be talking about contemplation (states). There was nothing the matter with the basic idea; it was just that two types of “beyond rational” were rolled into one until they were finally separated with Wilber V.

Bruce: In terms of intuition, I believe Wilber's “Intuitive Mind” in Third Tier refers to the “intellectual intuition” of Schelling, Hegel, and others - an intuitive capacity which transcends and includes analytical reasoning, rather than bypassing or denying it.

The names for his third-tier stages, including Intuitive Mind, come from Aurobindo. And if he had listened to Aurobindo all along he could have gotten to Wilber V much more quickly. I actually posted a bunch of stuff about Aurobindo last night, but deleted it. As an appendix or PS. to this post I will paste a run down of Aurobindo's stages, which, at least before the release of Wilber's Overmind, Supermind, are probably are best descriptions of these stages we have.

Decades before Wilber, Aurobindo was very clear on the difference between states and stages, very clear on the difference between Atman or Brahmin and his third-tier stages. This is really so remarkable. There is nothing like this still in any other tradition other than AQAL. The only trouble was that he thought they were already made, already formed, rather than emergent but that didn't detract either from his model or practicum and would probably have been too much to expect out of someone at that time.

 

One last point: I believe that state development is an important part of the picture at these higher stages.  Perhaps, as we develop our subtle thinking capacity (cognition) and identification with cognitive structures is released with increasing insight, we naturally open to a wider range of available states, which become abiding (present or immediately accessible) features of these higher stages of consciousness development.

Yes, I have been pointing out that Wilber suggests this in this discussion and that this is what makes the WC Lattice problematic. But it's only problematic if we think it's meant to say  anything more than a person can experience any state at any stage.


David
 

Aurobindo says that the Higher Mind is a first plane of spiritual consciousness where one becomes constantly and closely aware of the one everywhere and knows and sees things habituaally with that awareness. He adds, however, that ‘it is still very much on the Mind level although highly spiritual in its essential substance… its instrumentation is through an elevated thought power and comprehensive mental sight'. It is ‘not illumined by any of the intenser upper lights'. ‘It acts as an intermediate state between the Truth-light above and the human mind'. It communicates the higher knowledge in a form that the mind after it is intensified, broadened, made spiritually supple, can receive'. It is, according to Aurobindo, ‘a mind no longer of mingled light and obscurity or half-light, but a large clarity of the spirit. Its basic substance is a unitarian sense of being with a powerful multiple dynamisation capable of the formation of a multitude of aspects of knowledge, ways of action, forms and significances of becoming'. ‘It is therefore a power that has proceeded from the overmind, - but with the supermind as its ulterior origin,… but its special character, its activity of consciousness are dominated by Thought; it is a luminous Thought-mind, a mind or spirit-born conceptual knowledge'.

Illumined Mind is a greater Force (than the Higher Mind). It is a mind no longer of higher thought, but of spiritual light. It is ‘a play of lightenings of spiritual truth and power'. It ‘breaks from above into the consciousness and adds to the calm and wide enlightenment and vast descent of peace which characterise or accompany the action of the large conceptual spiritual principle, a fiery ordour of realisation and a rapturous ecstasy of knowledge'. In Illumined Mind ‘there is also … the arrival of a greater dynamic, a golden drive, a luminous “enthousiasmos” of inner force and power which replaces the comparatively slow and deliberate process of the Higher Mind by a swift, sometimes a vehement, almost a violent impetus of rapid transformation'.

Intuitive Mind, Aurobindo says, is a higher form of the reason or intellect. Therefore the intuitive mind is also intuitive reason. ‘By its Intuitions, its Inspirations, its swift reveletory vision, its luminious insight and descrimination' the Intuitive mind can do the work of the Reason with a higher power, a swifter action, a greater and spontaneous certitude. It acts in a self-light of the truth which does not depend upon the torch-flares of the Sense-Mind and its limited uncertain percepts; it proceeds not by intelligent but by visional concepts: it is a kind of truth-vision, truth-hearing, truth-memory, direct truth discernment. This true and authentic intuition must be distinguished from a power of the ordinary mental reason. The Intuitive Mind … stretches from the Intuition proper down to the intuitivised Inner Mind - it is therefore at once an overhead power and a mental intelligence Power'. ‘The Intuition is the first plane in which there is a real opening to the full possibility of realisation; it is through it that one goes futher - first to the over mind and then to the supermind'.

The Over Mind is the highest of the planes below the supramental. It is a sort of a delegation from the supermind. ‘If Supermind were to start here from the beginning as the direct creative Power, a world of the kind we see now would be impossible'. ‘There would be no evolution in the inconscience of matter, consequently no gradual striving evolution of consciousness in matter. A line is therefore drawn between the higher half of the universe of consciousness,… and the lower half'. The higher half is constituted of Sat, Chit, Ananda, Mahas (the supramental) - the lower half of Mind, Life, Matter. This line is the intermediary Overmind which, though luminous self, keeps from us the full indivisible supramental light'. The Overmind ‘receives the super light and divides, distributes and breaks it up into separated aspects, powers and multiplicities of all kinds'. ‘It sees everything ‘calmly, steadily' and in great masses and large extensions of space and time and relation, globaly; it creates and acts in the same way - it is the world of the great gods, the Divine Creators'. ‘We recognise… in the Overmind the original cosmic … power which has made the Ignorance possible, even inevitable'.

Beyond mind, psychological experience finds ‘another power of energy another note in the scale of Being'. Aurobindo says, ‘this we will call Supermind. This Supermind', he elucidates, ‘lives and acts natively in a domain of experience of which the mind becomes aware by reflective experience and calls vaguely Spirit or Spiritual Being'. According to him, ‘Supermind is between the sachchidananda and the lower creation. It alone contains the self-determining Truths of the Divine Consciousness and is necessary for a truth-creation'. ‘This supermind then is the Truth or Real-Idea inherent in all cosmic force and existence, which is necessary, itself remaining infinite, to determine and combine and uphold relation and order and the great lines of the manifestation. ‘… beyond the supramental plane of consiciousness which is an intermediate step from overmind and mind to the complete experience of Sachchidananda, are the great heights of the Manifested Spirit: here surely existence would not at all be based on the determination of the one in multiplicity, it would manifest solely and simply a pure identity in oneness. But the supremanetal Truth-consciousness would not be absent from these planes, for it is an inherent power of Sachchidananda.

The paragraph that beings “One last point” was supposed to be atrributed to Bruce.

Yes, when I first saw the new charts, I recognized that Wilber had gone back to using Aurobindo's scheme for labeling the higher stages.  I recognized Overmind and Supermind, in particular, but had forgotten that Intuitive Mind was also one of his levels.  Schelling also talks about a higher-level “intuitive intellect,” so I figured there was a correspondence there as well, since Wilber is also a fan of his work.  But you're right – the main credit for the upper stage scheme that Wilber is now using goes to Aurobindo.

There is a great deal of “metaphysics” in Aurobindo's work, as I recall, so I'm not sure how Wilber handles that – other than to say that these things are evolutionarily emergent rather than timelessly given.  Aurobindo himself stresses evolution, but perhaps in a way that is somewhat dated.

Wilber: Incidentally, Clare Graves and Spiral Dynamics don't talk about third tier like this.

Cohen: They don't really talk about third tier at all, do they?

Wilber: No, the highest stage they mention is coral. But I think they would see coral as still part of second tier. Clare Graves believed that there would be six stages laid down in second tier, as there are in first tier, but I just don't think it works like that-I don't think it's nearly as neat. What is starting to be seen in empirical research, for example in the work of Susanne Cook-Greuter, at the level that I call indigo and what Spiral Dynamics calls coral, is the emerging sense of a transpersonal witness as the individual identity, a sense of I AM-ness. And there is a realization that the world truly is a co-construction, not in the postmodern sense but in the sense of recognizing that the individual's power of intentionality is part of that which co-creates the universe.

So the easiest way to talk about third tier is to say that it's transpersonal. People don't just think that the planet is a single organism with one consciousness; they start to say, “I am that.” At second tier, that's still a conceptual identity. They think of themselves as part of all sentient beings and not just part of all humans, but it's still not a felt identity; it's a thought identity. Even if second tier has a cognitive understanding of a Kosmocentric perspective, and can indeed embody it to some degree, the actual sense of identity in second tier is still personal. Another way to put it is that second tier, turquoise, is the highest of the personal levels. And then, once you step into third tier, kaboom-you're stepping into the transpersonal. And at that level, as you said, there is an assumed responsibility for this evolutionary impulse. It's as if people live Eros.

Wilber: Another definition of third tier is that it's the level at which you start to permanently realize the major states of consciousness, and it just so happens that the three major stages in third tier are ones that, of necessity, objectify the subtle, then causal, then nondual states. Second-tier stages are about the highest stage structures you can get to without necessarily having some sort of state realization. And you see this a lot-people who are at an integral stage of development but don't have a state awakening. And so one of the things that becomes really important is that in order to move into third tier and true transpersonal structures, you have to have some sort of state training and state realization to allow wakefulness, which starts out confined to the waking state, to be able to move into subtle states of consciousness and not lose track of its own I AM-ness, or its own ground. Sometimes that actually includes lucid dreaming, or it may not. But it always includes being able to objectify the subtle, to transcend and include it, to make that subject and object.

Cohen: Right.

Wilber: And then also to move into causal where there's just a permanent, ever-present witnessing. And so we have to make careful distinctions here, because you can have people who are just at green who have done a lot of state training and have a certain Big Mind awakening whereas you can have people at turquoise who don't. But when you get into third tier, it comes with the territory. I use Aurobindo's term “Supermind” to describe the highest structure in third tier, the end limit of vertical growth. And the end limit of horizontal or state growth I call Big Mind. Supermind includes Big Mind, but Big Mind does not include Supermind. That's an important point. So third tier is where you really do have to start consciously making the ground of all being part of your being

The call to heights must be balanced (and checked) by the call to depths.

ooooh gooodness though - such heady abstract, fluffy stuff!

Yes, you really have to dig to find the good stuff there. It's maybe one out of ten lines that is really useful for us, though I believe in some writings Aurobindo can really be read. Sorry to dump that stuff on you! I tried to pare it down one night in a useful way, but then I had to stop.

I think you make great points about practice, integration, possibly lending weight to magic or mythic worldviews etc. 

The call to heights must be balanced (and checked) by the call to depths.

Bruce, sorry if you posted about this and I missed it, but how do you differentiate between heights and depths (I did get called away for awhile and read a few posts quickly)?


David

Hi, David,

I didn't really spell such a distinction out in earlier posts; my comment was just a “riff” inspired by your and Julian's recent posts. 

Here's what I was thinking, though:  While we can frame our human existence with a model which provides inspiring horizons of human potential and evolution, based on the examples of some of the great sages and teachers, it is important also to concentrate on deepening our relationship to and understanding of our present existential condition – our conflicts, confusions, needs, fears, capacities, current limitations and potentials, presuppositions, feelings, wounds, shadows, and so on – so that we do not use such attractive spiritual portraits to flee from our present lives into escapist ideals and defensive attachments.  So, height would be evolutionary potential and depth would be access to, and integration of, our fullness at any point in our evolutionary unfolding.

However, these labels are in some sense arbitrary.  Wilber uses depth in relation to evolutionary development, with depth increasing as forms and sentient beings evolve to encompass greater holarchical complexity.  In this sense, evolutionary development necessarily entails greater depth.

On the other hand, if we regard nondual awareness as the “true nature” of existence, the boundless ground of timeless Spirit, and the apex of spiritual realization, as many traditions do (in their own ways); and if we consider that evolution is impermanent and never guaranteed to continue for all time, then awakening to timeless awareness might be better associated with ascent beyond this changing and ultimately unreliable world of contingent forms.  In that sense, Spirit or suchness can be said to vertically intersect the horizontal unfolding of the complexity of form…with true height and depth (the Alpha and Omega) being found in awakening to nondual awareness, not to the relative and impermanent “heights” of evolutionary unfolding…

And probably you could frame this in other ways as well.  This is just off the cuff.  It just depends on what your aims are and what you want to emphasize.

Best wishes,

B.

Hi Bruce,

That sounds really good. In a way, height and depth, as you describe them, are kind of like the masculine and feminine value spheres, aren't they? Though it's not a perfect comparison. Or we could say that there is agency and communion in both of those drives.

But you're also pointing toward liberation through engagement, aren't you? I think that's so important. Shouldn't “true nature” include a dynamic, energetic aspect of being? It doesn't make sense to me leaving that out. But of course there may be ways to phrase it in a more nondual way. Doesn't TSK do that? I've gotten that impression, though I haven't gotten a handle on it completely. But something has stuck with me from those TSK discussions—from what I remember there was an energetic component there, nondual but including time and space, and knowledge of course, a stream.

Of course the “evolutionary unfolding” is just our current interpretation or translation of the energetic aspect of being. I think it's pretty good, but not quite perfect. There will be something better. But probably we need to embrace that first before the other can unfold. At the same time, a fixation on gross-realm evolution, or a conceptualization of it, could probably draw one away from “the center.”

Best,

David 

Hey, Julian,

I finally posted the blog I promised!

The Wilber-Combs Lattice and Pre/Trans Fallacy

Best wishes,

B.