Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 07:19:20 +0100
To: ken-wilber-l@listserv.azstarnet.com
From: Thomas Jordan <Thomas.Jordan@redcap.econ.gu.se>
Subject: Reply to Avyorth
Avyorth:
"Personally I really can't see how there could be a shift into the Transpersonal as structure without a corresponding change in cognitive development - what would that mean? I have the impression that KW says that a change of cognitive development is a necessary but not sufficient condition."
Let's be somewhat more concrete. As I wrote, most models of consciousness development draw on Piaget, and are, as far as I can see, quite biased towards the cognitive components. Now take three types of cognitive *skills* normally associated with the centauric/existential/postautonomous stage: 1. The ability to comprehend how it is to be another person: how this person feels and thinks in a certain situation (role-taking). We can also extend this skill to comprise the ability to adapt your own way of communication with this person according to your understanding of what his/her perspective looks like, so that you are able to create a common ground for mutual understanding. 2. Vision-logic, in the narrow sense of being able to reflect on large-scale meaning-making systems and to relate several such systems to each other, in spite of paradoxes and incompatibilities. For example, being able to construct a context that can embrace mystical Christianity, Vedanta and Vajrayana buddhism simultaneously, with full appreciation of their peculiarities. Or, being able to shift between a political science, an economics, an identity psychology, and a sociological perspective when looking at the Israel-Palestine conflict, and integrate the insights gained from these perspectives. 3. Transparadigmatic reflection, i.e. the ability to reflect on the structure of your own meaning-making system, for example to recognize how your outlook, concerns, and value system has been conditioned by the culture your mind was born into.
A profound experience of transpersonal awareness might lead, as you say, to "a breakdown of conventional translation", leading to a crisis for the self-representation as it has been known so far. Perhaps this person starts to experience that he/she is an aspect of the whole, and that there is no real boundary between self and other. This may result in a feeling of general benevolence without attachment to ego-gratifications. So far so good. However, this kind of transition of the self-sense doesn't automatically lead (that is my assumption) to development of the skills described above. Nor are those skills necessary for this kind of transpersonal experience. But the point is, those skills can make a great difference. You can be an extremely benevolent person, but if you are unable to genuinely relate to another person's experience, then your benevolent acts may lead to increased pain, or at least be ineffective, because they are out of touch with the interpersonal situation. And didn't we hear enough of spiritually advanced individuals who are intensively engaged in bickering about whose stage is the highest, and if you should keep your eyes open or closed during meditation?
Avyorth:
"I'm uncertain what you mean by "is something that is necessarily completed". Doesn't KW make it clear that his fulcrum tree indicates that there is no limit to the development of each fulcrum. He also points out, for example, that we don't need to become a gourmet chef in order to move on from the oral stage. Perhaps the question might be, "what are the necessary and sufficient conditions of the Centaur realm that have to be met before we can begin to construct Transpersonal structures?""
Yes, good question. However, I have the feeling that we haven't even started to look for a well-founded answer.
Thomas
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 10:32:19 +0100
To: ken-wilber-l@listserv.azstarnet.com
From: Thomas Jordan <Thomas.Jordan@redcap.econ.gu.se
Subject: Re: Transformation and cognition
Dear Avyorth,
It's fun that you take time to reflect on the issues I raised, I really appreciate that. You even got me to reread ch. 9-10 in EOS earlier than I'd have done without your prompt, and I read them more attentively this time. I agree with you (if I understood you right) that Wilber is moving in the direction of unpacking consciousness development. However, I feel that there is yet a very long way to go. I think KW is himself in the process of developing his perspective on consciousness development, and there are still several pieces of theorizing that are a bit out of synch with each other. He does address the issues I raised, e.g. about the possibility of uneven development of different lines, but when I read his description of the existential stage and the transpersonal stages, I feel he has not really adapted those descriptions to his more recent insights into the possible complexities involved in the relationship between various dimensions of consciousness evolution.
You point out that KW and others mention role-taking as a relatively early achievement, supporting this claim with citations. However, if you take a close look at real life and real persons, and perhaps even more specifically at interactions on this list, I think it is obvious that role-taking is a *line* of development in itself. Piaget, Kohlberg, Selman and others use 'role-taking' in the sense of, for example, being able to abide by the rules when playing a game, because of the development of the cognitive ability to understand how it would be if one was in the position of one of the other players. I didn't exactly refer to that stage of development of role-taking abilities. I rather thought about the ability of Avyorth to imagine how it is to be Ted, and the ability of Ted to imagine how it is to be Avyorth, and for both to use this understanding of the other's phenomenological life-world to facilitate the communication process. Role-taking is an unlimited territory to explore, and I'd like to maintain that very few of us actively and spontaneously use a highly developed role-taking ability. When you write:
>So, my sense is that by the time we have developed mature formop we probably
>already have the skills you've mentioned above. Remember KW points out that
>someone at the Rational level "uses the ego appropriately in free exchanges
>of mutual self-esteem." 'Up From Eden' (p347),
I feel inclined to ask if you perceive all our interactions here on the list as "free exchanges in mutual self-esteem"? And if you don't feel that another list-member is exchanging esteem with you, would you consider that a proof that this list-member has still some way to go before evolving into the Rational (let alone transpersonal stages)?
Wilber describes role-taking like this: "You must be able mentally to step out of your own perspective, cognitively picture the way the world looks to the other person, and then place yourself in the other's shoes, as it were-all extremely complicated cognitive capacities, and all referred to as "rational" in the very general sense." (EOS, p. 229) If you, and now I'm addressing all list-members, congratulate yourself to be in possession of this ability, I'd like to suggest putting it to test. Pick out the list-member that is farthest from you in terms of mentality, values, style, or whatever, and write down in as much detail as possible how you believe this person thinks and feels about some issue or some person. Then send this to your chosen person and ask if he/she finds that you describe his/her experience adequately. In order for the test to achieve a basic level of validity, of course it would have to be repeated with different test subjects several times.
>> 3. Transparadigmatic reflection, i.e. the ability to reflect on the
>> structure of your own meaning-making system, for example to recognize how
>> your outlook, concerns, and value system has been conditioned by the
>> culture your mind was born into.
>
>I suspect that your point 3 would actually come under mature formop, given
>KW's points that I've quoted above.
Which might be right, but it would only strengthen my argument, which was that transcendence of ego-embeddedness and identification with a cosmocentric identity on an experiential level is not necessarily something that must come *after* development of some quite basic cognitive skills (whether on the Rational or Existential level). BTW, I haven't seen very many signs of transparadigmatic awareness on this list, at least not in terms of being aware how one's values and reasoning patterns have been conditioned by enculturation.
>My understanding is that such an experience surely has a very clear
>cognitive component. The question here would be whether the person would be
>able to use that experience/insight as a basis for translation (ie
>agency-communion) and the establishment of the next structure of development
>or whether they'd re-interpret it on a lower fulcrum. The cognitive
>component would be a necessary but not sufficient condition for a genuine
>transformation to occur.
Here I think KW would agree with you. In EOS, p. 230, he writes: "... I most definitely believe that *postconventional* spirituality depends upon the capacity to coordinate different perspectives. I do not believe, for example, that the boddhisattva vow can operate fully without it-without, that is, vision-logic."
But he doesn't go on to discuss what happens when a person realizes the nature of the "ever-present awareness" which he talks about in the last chapter of EOS without having developed vision-logic. I believe such persons are relatively common in spiritual communities. Using KW's very restrictive definition of postpostconventional spirituality, I fear I would almost be able to count the individuals who have historically actually achieved to establish this structure on my fingers.
Speaking about logic, I hope we all can agree that it is logical that we can't know for sure if we have actually understood what vision-logic means in the praxis. Perhaps we feel sure that we have grasped it (and use it all the time :-)), but it lies in the nature of consciousness development that each stage interprets concepts in terms of it's own meaning-making style, and therefore a feeling of having grasped what vision-logic is, is no guarantee there is not a whole level of realization to explore. [this was a general comment directed to all list-members]
>I find it difficult to imagine someone having "a feeling of general
>benevolence without attachment to ego-gratifications" unless that person had
>considerable mature formop skills.
I find it quite easy, but I don't think I can convey my imaginations to you in words.
>I agree that an extremely benevolent person may well not have corresponding
>interpersonal skills, but surely such a person would fairly quickly become
>aware of their lack.
:-)
Let's meet sometime and compare notes on persons we have met in our lives, yes?
Or shall we start the discussion about abuser-gurus anew?
>Their self-reflexive activity would surely pick up that
>something was missing - such a person would be unlikely to project the blame
>onto others for their interpersonal shortcomings. The emotional positivity
>of such a person would allow fairly rapid development of the necessary
>interpersonal skills.
[Sigh,] I feel like I might have become a bit cynic about the possibility of attaining the Good. I have seen and heard about so many therapists and spiritual teachers who engaged in all kinds of therapeutic and spiritual practices for decades, who benefitted greatly thereof, but who still remained the assholes they were from the beginning in certain specific ways [excuse this untypical vulgarity from me, I felt an exception from my stylistic principles was OK in this case].
I hope you are right.
>Personally I really don't envisage genuinely spiritually advanced persons
>bickering in such a manner
This little word "genuine" is so very interesting. What does it mean, actually? Someone?
****
[snip]
>Thus cognitive development is a necessary but not sufficient
>requirement.
With this profound citation I must stop, and I have to face the fact that I spent far too much time on list discussions *again*. Back to work.
Thomas