Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999

To: ken-wilber-l@listserv.azstarnet.com

From: Thomas Jordan <Thomas.Jordan@redcap.econ.gu.se>

Subject: [theory] Noosphere and theosphere

My undisciplined mind couldn't be bent to read examination tests, nor to plan further interviews or read about Swedish defense policies, so I just jotted down what it persisted in playing with (see below). Here I use "vision-logic" just in the sense of "postformal operations," which is something very different from the meaning Kaisa Puhakka gives it. But I'll save my thoughts on that for later.

I doubt that the transpersonal modes of cognition are applicable on knowledge expressed in language. As soon as sages try to put words on their direct experience, they get bogged down in the internal laws of discourse. The sequence preop-->conop-->formop-->vision-logic describes cognitive development in terms of mental interpretation of experience (in particular reasoning) in increasingly sophisticated forms. Do you see what this means? It means that even the most exquisitely realized spiritual master is limited to communicate his/her experience in vision-logic, *at best,* as long as the communication uses language. (I’m aware of such things as direct transmission, but that is something else.) I am convinced, although I can’t *prove* it, that there are lots of sages who realized non-dual awareness, but who *interpret* their experiences in terms of a mythic-rational or rational logic. There simply *isn’t* any more advanced logic than vision-logic as long as we try to capture experience in words. Do you see the implications? My guess is that transpersonal cognition and language-based cognition are two different leagues, and they can happily coexist in the same person, without this person necessarily experiencing any contradiction. I.e., a spiritual master can be firmly at home in the causal realm, and still talk about it in terms of a rationalistic discourse. There is no necessity in reaching the peak of cognitive development before peeking into the transpersonal realms. The eye of contemplation can be sharp, while the eye of the mind is rather short-sighted. The sage may see a lot of things with the eye of contemplation, but nevertheless be limited to conop or formop or vision-logic interpretations of these direct apprehensions. Bad luck. The really wise ones, those who have *mentally* developed to vision-logic *know* this, and are aware that anything they can *say* about this is hopelessly lost ("The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao"). But not all of them are that wise, I think. Some of them can't clearly differentiate their very developed eye of contemplation from the interpretations the mind makes up, and therefore unconsciously get caught in the trap of believing that their rational interpretations are true, because they sense that their apprehension of Spirit is as True as anything can get. Ability to differentiate experience and interpretation of experience is useful. :-)

What's the point? The point is that many of us tend to expect (without being aware of it) persons who display impressive signs of spiritual accomplishment to be very smart as well. Maybe some of them aren't.

Thomas