The Dynamics of Development - A True Integral Method

(This initial shorter article was submitted for consideration to a Guide containing criticism of Ken Wilber’s work). The subsequent failure to publish the Guide then led to submission on “Integral World” of the longer article “The Dynamics of Development - A True Integral Approach”). 

There is a fundamental problem with Ken Wilber’s method of approach. It is surprisingly lacking in dynamism and based on a limited form of rational translation. This leads to a basic misinterpretation of the true nature of interactive processes. 

In particular it leads to a continued failure to distinguish the nature of integration in development from that of differentiation (though they are qualitatively very different).

 Basically we can distinguish two methods of rational translation. 1

1. Linear.  This is the logic of form. It is a static (absolute) method based on the clear separation of polar opposites (e.g. subject and object) in experience. It views logical relationships in either/or terms leading to one-directional unambiguous interpretation.

2. Circular. This is formless logic.2 It is a dynamic (relative) method based on the complementarity (and ultimately identity) of polar opposites. It views logical sequences in both/and terms leading to a paradoxical bi-directional interpretation. Its very purpose is to erode exclusive identification with the polarised distinctions of the linear method, serving as a preparation for a qualitative transformation through intuitive insight. 3

In terms of adequate rational translation, all transformation processes (e.g. human development) require the use of both linear and circular logic. 

My key point is that whereas linear logic is directly suitable as a means of differentiating experience, circular logic is required for corresponding integration. This can be briefly illustrated as follows.

When one becomes aware of a phenomenal object, say a tree, opposite poles (which are ultimately identical) become separated. Thus the (objective) tree is given a meaning independent of the (subjective) self. 

Differentiation is always based on this separation of opposite poles in experience (e.g. subject and object, quantitative and qualitative, form and emptiness etc). This leads to an asymmetrical interpretation of relationships.

However integration involves a reverse process whereby opposite poles (which have been differentiated) are once again united. So awareness now moves back from the tree to the (observing) self. This leads to a certain fusion of both poles (objective and subjective) in an intuitive recognition of their common identity. 

So integration is always based on the complementarity (and ultimate) identity of opposite poles in experience leading to an appreciation of the underlying 

symmetrical 4 nature of all relationships.

Linear (one-directional) logic is suitable for the differentiation of phenomenal relationships. However circular (bi-directional logic) - based on the complementary of polar opposites - is required for their integration. 5 

Because Ken Wilber typically employs a linear (one-directional) logic in his translation of development he reduces the process of integration to that of differentiation. This creates a persistent lack of balance in his work leading to many half-truths and inconsistencies.

I will distinguish the difference between linear and circular understanding with a simple illustration.

Imagine two drivers (A and B) heading in opposite directions along a motorway. In absolute terms both drivers move forward in a positive direction. 

However, in relative terms, the two drivers move in both positive and negative directions (with respect to each other). 

So as A moves forward (relative to B) then B thereby moves backward (relative to A). Likewise, as B moves forward (relative to A) then A moves backward (relative to B). 

So in linear (absolute) terms, movement takes place for each driver sequentially in a positive direction.

However, in circular (relative) terms, movement takes place for the two drivers simultaneously in both positive and negative directions. 

Because of a failure to recognize the limitations of linear (one-directional) understanding, Ken Wilber's approach to development is very unbalanced (from a dynamic perspective). 

This can be easily demonstrated with reference to his holarchical model of development. Starting with the notion of a holon (as a whole-part) he portrays development in a somewhat linear fashion whereby at each stage, "lower" level parts are transcended and included in a "higher" level whole. 

In this view, "lower" atoms are transcended and included in the "higher" molecule. So movement here is one-directional (from atoms to molecules). The holarchical model places the emphasis on transcendence.  Alternatively we could say that Ken identifies development with holism. 

 However in dynamic terms, development incorporates immanence as well as transcendence. It entails partism (as well as holism). 6

So from this alternative (reverse) perspective, at each stage of development the "lower" level whole is made immanent and included in the "higher" level part. (The holon is now a part-whole). In this view the "lower" level molecule is made immanent and included in the "higher" level atoms. 

When Blake saw the whole world in grain of sand he was speaking from an advanced immanent stage of development. So the focus here is on partism i.e. where the whole is qualitatively contained within the part.

The starting basis for a true integral approach is the realization that any dynamic relationship has equally valid opposite interpretations (in linear terms).

 The next step is to translate the relationship between these two interpretations in dynamic relative fashion (with opposite directions of movement).

So let us now interpret the example of the atoms and the molecule (from a more balanced dynamic perspective).

"Lower" atoms are transcended and included in the "higher" molecule. The atoms therefore are parts - in quantitative terms - of the whole molecule. (In this way the molecule represents a collective quantitative identity). 

However, in relative terms, the "higher" molecule is made immanent and (qualitatively) included in the "lower" atoms. The (whole) molecule therefore is qualitatively included in each of the partial atoms (giving them their individual uniqueness). 

So in dynamic terms, transcendence and immanence are purely relative (with opposite directions of movement). 7

So if development as transcendence takes place in a positive direction, then - relatively - development as immanence takes place in a (reverse) negative direction. 

(Of course if we start by identifying development as immanence with the forward direction, then development as transcendence then takes place in a negative direction). 

So in relative terms, one pole necessarily implies its opposite. Higher implies lower (and lower implies higher). Progression necessarily implies regression (and regression implies progression). Ascent implies descent (and descent implies ascent). 

Because Ken Wilber uses a linear (one-directional) approach he very much misrepresents the true dynamics of development.

Because he fails to clearly distinguish the quantitative from the qualitative aspects of development he provides us in effect with an unbalanced notion of holism. 

Ultimately perfect integration is realized when one experiences through spiritual intuition the pure relativity of all polarized statements. Circular bi-directional understanding serves as a vital - though indirect - tool in the gradual erosion of attachment to (reduced) linear interpretations of reality. 

As this dynamic bi-directional understanding is largely missing from Ken Wilber's interpretation of development, it does not qualify as a true integral approach.

This lack of dynamic understanding is also evident in his misleading identification of development with evolutionary progress.

Once again, he very much misrepresents the nature of evolution, portraying it in unduly linear terms. However in dynamic terms, evolution and involution are necessarily relative.8

When I become aware of the (exterior) phenomenal world, awareness moves out from the self in a positive direction. However when I once more become aware of the (interior) self, awareness moves back to the self in a - relatively - negative direction. 

Therefore relative to each other, evolution of the (exterior) world and (interior) self take place in opposite directions. So if evolution moves forward for the world (with respect to the self) then the self necessarily moves backward and involves (with respect to the world).

Equally if evolution moves forward for the self, then the world - relatively - involves (with respect to the self). Ultimately both directions are purely relative expressions of an underlying eternal present.

So if we identify evolution with the differentiation of "higher" levels structures, then involution - relatively - relates to their corresponding integration.9

Ken Wilber's tendency to keep involution outside the process of development is extremely artificial (and dictated by an inadequate rational method of translation).

In dynamic terms, evolution and involution necessarily take place at all stages of development (as these are purely relative expressions of the continual present moment).

The linear (one-directional) approach is also very evident in Ken's treatment of the four quadrants. 10

 

He attempts to define each quadrant in unambiguous terms. 

For example, the exterior aspect is associated with the Right-Hand and the exterior with the Left-Hand quadrants respectively. Likewise perception is associated with the Right and interpretation with the Left.  However this makes little sense from a dynamic perspective (where such distinctions have a merely relative meaning). 

Ken identifies his Right-Hand quadrants in "it" terms as the home of (empirical) science. However in dynamic terms scientific perceptions are meaningless in the absence of corresponding conceptual interpretation. So we could equally identify the Left-Hand quadrants in "it" terms as (theoretical) science. 11 

 Likewise he identifies values such as compassion with the Left-Hand quadrant. However, again in dynamic terms, such an (interior) value has no meaning in the absence of an (exterior) objective context. Thus - in dynamic terms - the sight of a suffering child may well arouse compassion. However in reduced linear terms, this has two equally valid interpretations. We could say that the child induces compassion (exterior); equally we could say that compassion (interior) goes out to the child.

In other words, in dynamic terms the value cannot be exclusively identified with either quadrant.

Thus because of a lack of a true dynamic approach, Ken Wilber continually comes down in favor of one side of a polarity (when the other is equally valid). From an integral perspective, his treatment of the quadrants is very confused as he continually reduces dynamic interactions to rigid static interpretations. 12 

Ken has introduced the valuable notion of a Spectrum of Consciousness 13 which extends the range of possible stages of development well beyond those recognized in Western psychology.

However there are obvious problems with Ken's approach. Again he attempts to extend his notion of holarchical development - which is based on very linear translation - to all stages of development. 14 There is also a marked discontinuity in the way he treats "conventional" and "contemplative" stages. His treatment of "higher" spiritual development is very sketchy. For example we get little or no idea of the subtle intellectual structures that unfold with the "higher" stages though these very structures are vital for a truly integral translation of reality.

Indeed there is a very important confusion inherent in his treatment. Ken identifies the vision-logic of the centaur stage as the "highest" form of reason available. However he never distinguishes between one-directional and bi-directional reason (which are very different). Though he uses words that seem dynamic e.g. non-linear, synthetic, dialectic, Ken's actual use of vision logic in fact is very linear. 

The (circular) bi-directional form is substantially different from Ken's use of reason. It properly unfolds with the "higher" spiritual stages and leads to a very different method of translating reality.   

I will conclude by providing a map of eight different rational methods for translating development (differential, integral and comprehensive). Each method is based on the intellectual understanding appropriate to the corresponding stage of development. From this perspective Ken Wilber's approach can be seen as very much stage specific (No. 2) and does not qualify as a true integral approach. (Indeed it does not qualify even as the most advanced of the differential approaches available!)

Differential approaches - Linear (One-directional)

1. Differential  - analytic approach, which is based on conop and formop understanding.

2. Multi Differential 1 - analytic (linear) approach, which is based on the vision-logic understanding of the centaur stage.

This characterizes very well Ken Wilber's approach to development. Essentially it represents a flexible analytic approach. Therefore when used as a method of synthesis it leads to many inconsistencies.

3) Multi Differential 2 - analytic approach where one can recognize that - in any context - two (opposite) dualistic interpretations are equally valid. This is based on the rational understanding of the psychic realm. 

Integral Approaches - Circular (Bi-directional) 

4) Integral 1 - synthetic approach, which treats horizontal polarities (e.g. exterior and 

interior) in dynamic relative terms. This is based on the refined intellectual understanding of the subtle realm.

5) Integral 2 - synthetic approach, which - in addition - treats vertical polarities (e.g. individual and collective) in dynamic relative terms. This is based on the very refined intellectual understanding of the causal realm. 

6) Integral 3 - synthetic approach, which - as well as horizontal and vertical - treats diagonal polarities (e.g. finite and infinite) in dynamic relative terms. This is based on the extremely refined intellectual understanding approaching nondual reality. At this point (bi-directional) rational and intuitive understanding become dynamically inseparable. 

Comprehensive Approaches (Linear and Circular)

7) Radial 1  - combination of analytic and synthetic understanding with some separation still evident. This is based on the rational understanding of what - in Christian Mysticism - is referred to as the Unitive Life.  

8) Radial 2 - seamless interpenetration of both types of understanding. This corresponds to an advanced stage of the Unitive Life. 15

Thus each major stage of development has its own unique manner of rational interpretation.

Considerable distortion arises from attempting to translate reality solely in terms of the understanding of just one level.

For example, Ken Wilber's interpretation of the pre/trans fallacy is based on the understanding of the centaur stage (and only appropriate to that stage). Very different interpretations for example are consistent with each of the Integral approaches.16

In conclusion, the major deficiency in Ken Wilber's work is that it is greatly lacking in true dynamic understanding.

He uses the linear (one-directional) method of vision-logic based on the centaur stage. Properly understood, this is a multi-differential approach suited to the understanding of asymmetrical phenomenal relationships. 

However he fails to recognize the equal value of the circular (bi-directional) understanding which is based on the intellectual understanding of the "higher" spiritual stages. This provides an integral approach suited to appreciation of the underlying symmetrical nature of reality. 

A truly comprehensive method combines both differential and integral approaches.

 

Quite simply as Ken continually reduces integration to differentiation his approach is very distorted from a dynamic perspective. 

NOTES

1. I have developed Holistic Mathematics as an appropriate scientific basis for a true integral approach to reality. It forms the basis for an exciting new approach, which is applicable to all scientific disciplines. My work using this approach has been mostly in the fields of Physics and Economics. 

It is based on the key insight that every mathematical symbol can be given an alternative dynamic interpretation based on bi-directional circular logic. So mathematics really has two aspects 1) a quantitative interpretation suited for scientific analysis and 2) a qualitative interpretation (Holistic Mathematics) suited for scientific synthesis. A true integral approach requires this latter qualitative interpretation. Grasping this point has the potential to open up enormous vistas of understanding. 

I am providing an important illustration of this approach here.

As is well known the two binary digits (1 and 0) can be used in a quantitative analytic manner as a (potential) means of encoding all information processes.

Equally these same two digits when used in a qualitative holistic manner (as linear and circular logic) can serve as a means of (potentially) encoding all transformation processes.

This is what I refer to as the qualitative binary system. Each level of development (and indeed sub-level) can be given a unique binary code (which represents the fundamental logical structure of the level).

Development of course - in dynamic terms - is a transformation process.  Thus I see the use of the qualitative binary system as the true basis for a dynamic approach to development.

In Holistic Mathematical terms, Ken Wilber attempts to translate development using what is essentially a qualitative unary system (based on linear logic).

2. Ken Wilber typically uses circular (bi-directional) statements only when describing nondual reality. Though he refers in "The Eye of Spirit" (Introduction) to "the circle of understanding" his actual approach throughout is very linear. 

So there is a fundamental failure of translation here whereby he never clearly establishes the precise   relationship between linear (one-directional) and circular (bi-directional) modes of understanding.

 

3. In dynamic terms (circular) reason and intuition are very much interdependent.

 In order to erode rigid rational attachment to dualistic understanding we must first appreciate the limitations of such understanding through equal recognition of the opposite (excluded) pole. This enables us to create paradox in terms of all dualistic statements. This prepares the mind for a qualitative transformation in intuitive awareness (where such paradox is reconciled).

This intuitive awareness in turn increases the facility to recognise paradox once again at the (reduced) linear level of understanding.

So in dynamic terms bi-directional understanding serves as the essential bridge between dualistic reason and intuitive awareness. In its developed form this refined reason unfolds with the "higher" spiritual stages of development. 

However it is very much missing from Ken Wilber's work!

4. The key to moving to a symmetrical (bi-directional) understanding is the recognition that every asymmetrical (one-directional) interpretation has a mirror image explanation (that is equally valid).

Thus though the original interpretation and its mirror equivalent are both asymmetric (when treated sequentially), when understood simultaneously they are symmetric.

5. Bi-directional reason has a fundamental interpretation in Holistic Mathematics as the dynamic understanding of addition and subtraction. 

Conscious understanding literally involves the positing of phenomena. To make understanding unconscious again, this one-sided polarised understanding must be negated.

So in dynamic terms the continual interaction of conscious and unconscious involves a process of positing and negating (i.e. the dynamic equivalent of the mathematical operations of addition and subtraction).

6. A mere transcendent view of development (holism) is very unbalanced. Because it places emphasis on "higher" level wholes, the unique nature of the parts can thereby become lost. Ken Wilber clearly is guilty of this imbalance. On P. 239 of "The Eye of Spirit" he says "The point is that development and transcendence are two different words for the same process". In mysticism the contemplation of transcendence is identified with an other-worldly spiritual perspective (beyond created symbols).

A mere immanent view (partism) is equally unbalanced. Now the emphasis is on the uniqueness of each individual part so that the collective whole nature of reality can become lost with the Spirit becoming confused with the phenomena of nature.

The two-way relationship between transcendence and immanence - In dynamic terms - must be preserved throughout development.

7. Transcendence and immanence are intimately linked with the cognitive and affective functions respectively.

Thus if the unfolding of rational development leads to transcendence, then - relatively - the unfolding of emotional development leads to immanence.

From a cognitive scientific viewpoint the whole cannot be (quantitatively) included in the part. However, from an affective artistic perspective the whole can be included in the part by interpreting the relationship in qualitative terms (as with Blake's vision).

Thus we move to two-way mutuality and symmetry by combining both quantitative and qualitative perspectives. 

8. This may help to throw light on the nature of the mid-life crisis.

In our culture evolution and progress are over-identified with worldly success. This necessarily limits evolution and progress in relation to self-awareness. So the mid-life crisis draws attention to this imbalance.

So now evolution in terms of inner development appears as involution (and regression) with respect to worldly achievements.

9. The ascent of Ken Wilber is very different, for example, from that of St. John of the Cross.

Whereas Ken is in effect dealing with evolution as the differentiation of "higher" level conscious structures, St. John - relatively - focuses on involution and the dynamic process by which they are integrated (through spiritual immersion in the unconscious).

 

10. I would judge Ken's attempt to outline the fundamental structure of holons a partial success. 

In fairness he does identify the important horizontal (exterior and interior) and vertical (individual and collective) poles. However a full model would require the inclusion also of diagonal polarities (which would relate to the fundamental dichotomy as between finite and infinite poles (form and emptiness).

However the major weakness of Ken's holonic model is that he interprets the relationships as between opposite poles solely in terms of linear (one-directional) logic. In other words, he shows how to differentiate the quadrants

A full treatment would require interpreting holons equally in terms of circular (bi-directional) logic where opposite poles acquire a purely relative meaning. This is necessary as a means of properly integrating the quadrants.

A profound mathematical explanation can be provided for the dynamic interpretation of holons. It is based on the holistic qualitative interpretation of the eight roots of unity (which geometrically has an important mandalic representation). It has such universal value as a dynamic model of the fundamental structures of reality that I refer to it as a "A Theory of Everything" 

11. Even in terms of Ken's own approach there are obvious inconsistencies. He tries to identify The Right-Hand quadrants with "It" and the Left-Hand quadrants with "I" and "We".

However, as Ken considers mathematics to relate to the interior aspect, this would be placed in his Left-Hand quadrants. 

However, mathematics would be considered as a supreme expression of "it" understanding (though he identifies the Left-Hand as "I" and "We").

Likewise his attempt to identify morality with "We" makes little sense. Morality has certainly a (collective) "We" aspect. However it equally has an individual I aspect (as with existential morality).

Morality has also of course an "it" aspect. The programmatic approach of the institutionalized churches to moral behavior is based on a strong belief in "objective" morality.

12. For example he represents the disaster of modernity as the collapse of the Left to the Right. However, if we associate the growing influence of Mathematics with modernity (which Ken identifies with the Left) this position is not strictly tenable (even in Ken's terms).  

The real problem is that Ken fails to distinguish dynamic interactive notions of the relationship between quadrants from merely static (reduced) notions.

So the appropriate way of representing the disaster of modernity is as the collapse of dynamic interactive notions of Left and Right to (merely) reduced static notions (which can be identified with either Left or Right).

13. I will briefly outline my own dynamic approach to development. This combines both linear and circular appreciation of all levels and stages.

I have eight major levels (with seven important transitions between levels). IThis culminates with  - what I refer to - as Radial Reality, which involves the relative independence of each level (separately) with the interdependence of all levels.

I have three lower levels and three higher levels and a major level dividing them in the middle.

The three lower levels (LL3, LL2 and LL1) correspond roughly to Ken's "prepersonal" archaic, magic and mythic stages. 

The "rational" middle level (L0) corresponds to the conop, formop and vision logic stages. 

The "higher" levels correspond to psychic and subtle realms (as one level), the causal realm and nondual reality (HL1, HL2 and HL3 in my model).

Finally, Radial Reality can be broken down into two major subdivisions (a complex and ultimately simple stage).

So from one perspective these levels can be viewed (as separate) in linear ascending fashion. 

However, equally they can be viewed as complementary (in horizontal, vertical and diagonal terms). There is physical and psychological complementarity within each level (horizontal), between levels (vertical) and within and between levels simultaneously (diagonal). This is a major advantage of the dynamic model (which is greatly lacking in Ken's holarchical approach).

One other great advantage is that it leads to two Spectra, a (psychological) Spectrum of Consciousness and a (physical) Spectrum of Nature (which are intimately interconnected). 

This leads to the important view that there are as many levels of science (as of consciousness). Also the in-built complementarity provides the psychological means for intellectual translation of the various scientific levels. 

14. The holarchical model - as it is unduly linear - is of limited value as an overall explanation.

At best one can say that this is how development might look when viewed from the perspective of just one stage of development (i.e. vision-logic). However, it makes little sense to interpret the development of other stages exclusively in terms of the understanding of this one stage.

Indeed a different representation would be appropriate at each stage.

Thus as the psychic and subtle realms involve the fusion of linear and circular modes of understanding a cyclical or spiral model would be appropriate. 

The casual realm signals the arrival at a point center or singularity. However, it also involves short-lived projections that are both "higher" spiritually and "lower" physically. So a point model involving "virtual" circles above and below the point (in the figure of an 8) would be now appropriate.

The most complete level of development would be best represented by a mandalic type approach that I refer to as the radial model. This involves a circle with horizontal, vertical and diagonal lines drawn from the midpoint to the circumference (which in holistic terms would be an unbounded circumference), So here we combine the important notions of point, lines (in both directions) and circular circumference. Thus the radial level which is based on absolute Spirit (at the center) has relative expressions in both linear and circular terms. 

Interestingly, the "lower" stages would be complementary to the "higher" representing a confused understanding. This would strongly suggest that the holarchical model equally is equally not an appropriate model for these "lower" stages

15. I will briefly illustrate the application of these various methods to the understanding of the four quadrants. 

From the Differential 1 approach there is a marked tendency to translate development in terms of a one-quadrant perspective.

With the Differential 2, (which characterizes Ken's approach), all four quadrants are recognized but relationships between them are translated in an absolute fashion. In other words, poles are unambiguously identified (e.g. for Ken the Right-Hand is associated with the exterior and the Left-Hand with the interior aspects respectively).

With a Differential 3, it is recognized that quadrant locations can be reversed so that an opposite absolute interpretation is equally valid (e.g. the recognition that - as in dynamic terms - all values combine both poles, that they necessarily have an exterior as well as interior location). 

With an Integral 1, the two-way dialectic of horizontal polarities (exterior and interior) is recognized and translated in dynamic relative fashion (with movement taking place in opposite directions).

With Integral 2, the two-way dialectic of vertical polarities (individual and collective) is now also recognized and translated in dynamic relative terms (with movement taking place in opposite directions).

With Integral 3, the two-way dialectic of diagonal polarities (finite and infinite) - as well as horizontal and vertical - are recognized, and translated in dynamic relative fashion (with movement taking place in opposite directions). 

This leads to an extremely refined form of understanding consistent with the capacity for pure contemplative awareness. 

With Radial 1, differential and integral understanding are combined. However they are not yet fully synchronized. There is still some division between absolute and relative interpretations.

With Radial 2, the harmonious interconnection of both forms of understanding is approximated. One can now in any context interpret quadrants in absolute and relative terms allowing for the seamless differentiation and integration of reality at all levels.

16. Unfortunately the pre/trans fallacy has become something of a Wilberian dogma. 

I think that it would be greatly helpful in terms of opening up dialogue if it could be accepted that Ken's interpretation is purely stage specific i..e. relating to the centaur (and even within that stage not the only valid interpretation).

Again Ken's approach suffers greatly in that it lacks any dynamism. There is a very important sense in which pre and trans are fully complementary terms (but this is entirely missing from Ken's interpretation).

Indeed on a more general level, Ken Wilber's overall translation of reality is very much stage specific (relating to the vision-logic of the centaur). Acceptance of this point would provide a healthy perspective from which to judge both the strengths and weaknesses of his approach