In a recent blog discussion over on Gaia, I raised the question of whether Wilber's introduction of the W-C Lattice impacts the pre/trans fallacy in any way -- perhaps not in terms of its validity, but in terms of its formulation.  I have a number of thoughts in relation to this issue, but for the purposes of this thread, I would just like to leave this as an open question.  What do you think?  Prior to the W-C Lattice, "transrational" corresponded essentially to subtle, causal, and nondual forms of consciousness, which were conceived of as developmental stages and were stacked directly on top of the prerational and rational phases of cognitive development.  Now that subtle, causal, and nondual have been moved "over to the side," so to speak, and are now recognized as states available at all levels of development, in what ways -- if any -- do you think the formulation or definition of the pre/trans fallacy might be impacted? 

---

May the boundless knowledge that time presents and space allows illuminate the native perspectives of your original face.

I don't think the defintion would change. The W-C Lattice is simply graphing out all the possible places where a person can "move over to the side." It sheds light on how the interpretation and integration (if any) of a state experience differs at each stage (be it pre, post, or just rational.) I think. - Chris

'a B,

The PTF, as a confusing of two very different Stages, has a correlary in States. In Zen, the overcoming of such a state falacy, a gross-nondual falacy, is given alot of attention (an understatement).

Recalling Carol Gilligan's developmental sequence, selfish > care > universal care, I'm considering  those who maintain a gross-nondual falacy, as buji, "self styled", someone calling their own UL shots without the bodhisattvic regard of the other quadrants or the collective. I'm relating this buji/gross-nonual falacy with an egocentric impulse toward the practice of a pratyeka buddha; someone who works out their own enlightenment only, an isolated, independent realization.

The current form of the W-C Lattice alows for the occurance of, for instance, a Turquoise or higher CoG with nondual at Red (at selfish) a pratyeka buddha. So I have no suggestions for a change in the lattice at this point. I only want to add that a PTF applies to States as well.

In the discussions I've heard so far the state/stages haven't been spoken of in terms of how a line might be highly developed in the horizontal sense and, at the same time, expressed through early primative structure. Unless a 'Vishnu Complex' is an example such a line.

all for now,

K

---

'takes all kinds.

Balder:

Let me try to work through this here. This is a really spot-on question, in my opinion.

Let me just think aloud to help myself work methodically here...

1. The W-C lattice is a grid. Running vertically along its left side are the stages of development from lowest (archaic) to highest (super-integral). (Why no colors? It may be that Combs was not ready for the amber, orange, green, teal, etc. logic.) Running horizontally across the top are the major states (gross/nature, subtle/deity, causal/formless, and non-dual).

2. The nodes on the grid represent the developmental level at which a given state of experience is being interpreted.

3. The confusion that led to the discovery of the W-C lattice was, as you pointed out:

* there are stages of development at the very top that appear to have similar characteristics to the highest states. And this originally led to a graphic that stacked the highest states on top of the highest stages, leading to a non-sensical graphic.

4. The reason it did not work was there there is an abundance of evidence showing that people can access the highest states of consciousness and then interpret those states and behave in ways that are clearly not developmentally evolved. How can you put a spiritually adept lout with piss-poor morals and ethnocentric self conception at the highest levels of human development? You can't. And yet, you cannot deny their extremely sublime spiritual states either.

5. So, the Rosetta Stone was the distinction between states and stages.

6. And the important point is that the highest stages (3rd Tier indigo, violet, ultra violet and clear light) are virtually indistinguishable in their properties from the highest states.

7. So, where does the pre/trans fallacy come in?

8. The pre-trans fallacy as Wilber uses it today says something like this: in any developmental sequence (pre-rational to rational to trans-rational, or subconscious to self-conscious to superconscious, or pre-personal to person to trans-personal) development that is truly "pre-" can get confused with development that is truly "trans-" and vice versa.

9. So, on the W-C Lattice, if we focus on the vertical line of developmental stages, at any given level there are numerous lines of development running through (e.g. cognitive, emotional, aesthetic, etc.) It makes no sense to speak of a level of development without specifying the line that we are referring to.

10. Somewhere just around magenta or red, development moves from pre-rational to rational on the cognitive line, pre-personal to personal on the self line, etc. and then somewhere north of green development moves to a trans- level on the various lines. Pre- to trans- runs from down to up in an altitude sense.

11. So, if we mistake a pre-rational level of development as a trans-rational level of development on the cognitive line, we have applied the pre/trans fallacy.

12. OK, that seems clear. So, what role does the horizontal state axis play?

13. As far as I can tell, it plays no role. Gross, subtle, causal, and non-dual are states that are available to everyone who is alive. It makes no sense to refer to pre- or trans- states for the simple fact that states .... do not develop in the first place. What develops is the interpretation of them!

14. So, in summary, the pre/trans fallacy is a warning about how we interpret .... the level of interpretation applied by another. It does not warn us to correctly interpret states - however we interpret a state is exactly indicative of the stage and fits perfectly and accurate right onto the W-C Lattice. A person cannot misinterpret their own state - however they interpret their state is how they interpret their state.

But ... when it comes to the way we as 3rd persons interpret the 1st person interpretation of another applied to a state experienced by the other, we can commit a pre/trans fallacy.

 15. If a person reports a gross, subtle, causal or non-dual experience and explains to us what it means, and then we improperly interpret their explanation as indicative of a 2nd Tier level of consciousness when in fact it was a 1st Tier interpretation, we have committed a pre/trans fallacy.

And similarly, if a person interprets any state experience they had and we then improperly interpret their interpretation as indicating a 1st Tier level of consciousness when in fact it was a 2nd or 3rd Tier interpretation level that provided the explanation, we have committed a pre/trans fallacy.

I think the mix up may be that early on, Wilber often used the pre-rational/rational/post- or trans- rational example to discuss the pre/trans fallacy and that is suggestive of states that are non-verbal. The problem with this is that, from a cognitive development standpoint it makes sense to speak of trans-rational, and also, from a state standpoint makes sense to speak of trans-rational. This can lead us astray as we try to figure out whether the pre- and trans- is referring to stage development or non-verbal states.

I think this has been reconciled by pointing out that the pre/trans fallacy properly applies to the issue of whether a 3rd party has accurately identified the level of development that is indicated by another's first person interpretation of a state experience.

Having said that, I have a nagging concern.

Just how often is it that we meet people who even accept the notion of adult developmental states in the first place? How can the pre/trans fallacy be an issue when for it to be committed in reference to an adult, one has to speak in terms of 1st and 2nd Tier development? I cannot even make such a mistake when I don't recognize any development levels in an adult to begin with.

It may be time to amend the pre/trans fallacy, correctly identify it for what it is (a failure to properly interpret the development level indicated by a state interpretation of another), and generate a new fallacy which is the state/stage fallacy.

This state/stage fallacy involves the simple confusion of a state experience of a non-verbal kind with an interpretation as a level of development.

Does it really make any sense to speak of pre- anything subtle experiences? Or trans- anything non-dual state experiences?

If I report a non-dual state experience, and someone says it was simply a re-experiencing of symbiotic, sensorimotor consciousness (a level/stage), they have confused a state with a stage. And similarly, if I say that my one month old child is enlightened because his awareness is residing in non-duality, I have confused a stage with a state.  

So to summarize again: I believe that the Wilber-Combs Lattice is reconciled with the way Wilber is now expressing the pre/trans fallacy. However, I believe he has reigned in the pre/trans fallacy so tightly that it can only be applied when someone is referencing levels of stage development. And this is generally not done (unless we are talking about children vs. adults).

The original problem was the confusion of states and stages and this was what the pre/trans fallacy was originally attempting to highlight. So, it is high time that Wilber enunciates a new and improved pre/trans fallacy in terms of states/stages to deal with the very real and constant problem we have of either:

a. dismissing the reports of states experienced and then interpreted by high levels of consciousness as "just" low-level stage reports, or

b. elevating the reports of states experienced and then interpreted by low levels of consciousness as high-level stage reports.

Am glad you brought this up Balder. This states and stages issue is something that lies at the core of Integral and until we get this stuff clear ...

Please tell me if I dropped any frames in the analysis.

 

Schalk,

I'd add to the 13th point ("It makes no sense to refer to pre- or trans- states for the simple fact that states .... do not develop in the first place. What develops is the interpretation of them!" ) that while states don't develop in the same way stages progress, states advance, or regress, in stablility of access.

You're right to emphasize interpretation. That's the only way, in the example I gave, that a teacher spots a gross-nondual falacy in a student. Gross perspecting recognizes the gross, subtle the subtle... nondual, the non-dual. We can 'answer' a koan with any variation on gross activity, any words, but until the teacher sees that the student is accessing deeper than gross... the koan is not 'passed through'.

What a great topic!

Kerry

---

'takes all kinds.

Hi, Schalk,

Your analysis is fantastic -- just the sort of discussion I was wanting to have.  I had been working on a blog entry when I posted this thread, not sure if I was going to post it or not, but I decided this morning to go ahead and do so.  I invite you to check it out, since it gives my perspective on this issue and lets you know where my questioning was coming from:

The Wilber-Combs Lattice and the Pre/Trans Fallacy

I will return in a subsequent post to respond directly to your points.

Best wishes,

Balder

P.S.  Kerry, I also appreciate the state distinctions (and potential fallacies) you are discussing and want to return to that as well.

---

May the boundless knowledge that time presents and space allows illuminate the native perspectives of your original face.

Balder:

Just read and re-read your post on Gaia.

Thanks again for raising this issue.

It seems like something is rapidly unraveling before our eyes. I just can't figure out what it is...

For starters, I think we have to come to an agreement - "what is the pre/trans fallacy trying to deal with?" Exactly what is it that is "pre-" and what is it that is "trans-" and what fallacy is being committed by confusing the two. And how is this a fallacy? What are we even talking about?

I mentioned earlier that it seems Wilber is applying the pre/trans fallacy today to mistaken assignments of development. I.e. taking low altitude development to be indicative of high altitude development, and vice versa.

However, I don't see that as being a problem that deserves its own fallacy designation. Who is it that is confusing development levels, when few people even recognize them in the first place.

No, the reality is that state experiences are misidentified and are labelled as functions of development. Either subtle, causal or non-dual states are denigrated as "just" reflections of waking state noise of someone at a very low altitude of development, or waking state noise of someone at a very low level of development is elevated and revered as subtle, causal, or non-dual sublimity.

Let's keep our teeth on it until we make some sense of it. I am starting to get the sense that the pre/trans fallacy as it was originally conceived and applied no longer makes sense. And the way Wilber is defining it now is so narrow that it isn't even worth being concerned about.

u guys are bang on about the ptf being a 3rd person perspective .. and that is exactly why it cannot be simply laid ontop of .. or woven directly into the wcl

the pft is a perspective of another's interior

the wcl is first person interior

when i danced with fairies as a child .. freud said i was delusional and jung said i kiss angels

 

or to put it another way .. wcl is what's going on with u interiorly .. pft is what i think is going on with u

sorry i keep thinking am done writing so i press post and then more comes ..

 

and balder sparked a crucial question .. u can't have a pft on yourself .. or can u ?

the wcl is kind of union of zones one and two

and that's not what the ptf is .. so are we comparing apples and oranges ?

 

Balder:

I think Fairy Faye has nailed the main issue - the crux of the problem is exactly as she says "W-C is a map of 1st person UL states (zone 1) and the stages revealed when those UL states are interpreted from a 1st person perspective (zone 2 - self looking at the subjective experience of self) or in Integral math 1x1.

PTF is a 3rd person view (zone 2 - other looking at subjective experience of self). And we don't look directly inside to see the zone 1 experience - we look at it after getting interpreted for us through the above 1x1 perspective, and we end up commenting or assessing it from a 3x1x1 perspective (third person looking from zone 2 at the commentary or interpretation provided by the subject looking from zone 2 and the direct subjective experience in zone 1).

W-C Lattice and PTF are dealing with different truths from different perspectives. As such, to compare them is to compare apples and oranges.

Essentially, it looks like Fairy Faye has shown, as Wittgenstein used to say, that the problem is not a difficult one ... but a nonsensical one!

Thoughts?  

Hi, Schalk and Fairyfaye,

I don't think I'm comparing apples and oranges here, because I'm not trying to compare the W-C Lattice and the Pre-Trans Fallacy -- at least not in a direct way, because I do not assume they perform the same functions.

Here is the issue as simply as I can put it (and I of course will welcome correction from either of you if you can see error(s) in my thought process):

The concept of the pre/trans fallacy was originally introduced in response to two interpretive moves that were being made:  the dismissal of "mystical experience" as essentially a regressive re-experiencing of infantile fusion and non-differentiated awareness (the Freudian position); or the elevation of infantile predifferentiated awareness or primary narcissism to a sort of "original mysticism," an unconscious resting in transrational mystical consciousness (the Jungian position, and Wilber's original position).

Wilber defined subtle, causal, and nondual mystical states as inherently transpersonal, placed them on the far side of egoic/rational development, and declared them developmentally "off limits" to infants and pre-rational individuals.  This provided, or aimed to provide, a much-needed legitimacy to mystical experience in the transpersonal scene of the day, and allowed transpersonalists to differentiate themselves from those in the field who in fact were recognized as engaging in a Romantic elevation of prerationality.

The definition of the pre/trans fallacy didn't change much since Wilber first introduced it in his Wilber-2 phase...because in all of those phases, the "transrational" was identified with subtle, causal, and nondual contemplative attainments.  But then Wilber (and colleagues) realized that they simply could no longer continue to treat subtle, causal, and nondual states as "transrational stages of development" -- and they reinterpreted them as states that are "horizontally available" at all stages of development.

So,what then fills in the transrational slot?  What constitutes this phase of development -- what makes it transrational -- and what is its relationship to those contemplative states which were previously considered "transrational"?

I tried to explore this in my blog.

Do you follow this, or am I missing something?

Best wishes,

B.

---

May the boundless knowledge that time presents and space allows illuminate the native perspectives of your original face.

For the sake of argument, i'll play the devil's advocate.

Could this whole pre/trans-post/pre/trans fallacy be nothing more than mind-created Sophistry to create a case for the need to have a symposium of presumably qualified teachers so one will know when one is having a pre/trans experience and when one is having a post/pre/trans experience? 

If we need 'others' or an 'other' to qualify our experiences for us as to whether those experiences are pre/trans or post/pre/trans, then what does that say about self-referent behaviour?  What does that say about Thoreau and self-reliance?

It's Occam's Razor and the simplest solution to an apparent dichotomy.

The whole pre/post/trans fallacy sets the stage for differentiation of something that is simply a natural developmental process and is integrated with levels of awareness that are given whether we want to believe it or not.  And depending on the perspective of those who are deemed qualified to interpret the experience, it will be determined as either pre/trans or post/pre/trans.

And the booby trap here is trying to understand something that will perhaps elude complete understanding, leaving those who would believe that they can understand and comprehend the whole picture licking the outside of the honey jar.

The mind can never comprehend that which is beyond itself.

What are the signs and symptoms of someone who is having a 2nd tier post/pre/transrational experience vs someone who is simply having a pre/transrational one?  If someone is having a post/pre/trans experience in the cognitive line, how do we know that s/he is simultaneously having the same qualitative experience in the moral line?  And if you could have a post/pre/trans experience in the cognitive line then why would that not include the moral as well?  Afterall, since the cognitive line includes the rational developmental stage, does it not follow that the moral line would fall into alignment with the cognitive as well?

It just seems that we can over-compartmentalize our lives to the point where we mistakenly identify compartmentalization with true integration.

 

---

The yoga of light and sound is really only one event. It's the frequency of their vibrations that is different.