FF, same thing when i caught lephrachauns, too bad it was pre, cuz it was awesome

If the 'armchair philosopher' uses linear rationality in an analytically speculative way, does the transrational experience suspend linear rationality simultaneously allowing for the occurence of vertical rationality?  While the armchair philosopher's thinking may be linear, the transrational experience is vertical-holographic, where all of the components of being are synthesized and hyper-consciously organized at hyper-dimensional levels of cognition. The qualitative difference in linear vs vertical might be analogous to the difference between an electronic analogue world and that of an electronic digital one. 

As with  fiber optics where more compressed information can now be routed through more efficiently designed lines of communication, similarly, could it not be that as we refine our ability to think more efficiently we also 'design' interior structures that enable us to experience ourselves more 'delightfully'? 

In other words, in addtion to describing rationality as having been 'suspended', would it not be appropriate to say that the transrational experience 'compresses' linear rationality into its more efficient contextual variables?  This vertical compression of linear rationality into the most efficient contextual variables allows for the 'vision-logic' dynamic to occur, in which we virtually 'see' - as would a visionary - the hologram of life as interpreted from our current cognitive stage of development. 

 

 

---

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

well now am beginning to have doubts as to whether the states and structures should even be laid out together on a grid .. perhaps states and structures are apples and oranges

the original problem was that the states had been erroneously stacked ontop of the structures .. so they were then laid alongside them

but perhaps they are best on a separate piece of paper altogether .. just like the ptf is

is a child's experience really less "higher" or "deeper" than a zen master's ? ha perhaps tis the zen masters' state experience that is lower ?

also the BEST example of ptf is to believe in the good ole days when we were so in touch with nature

 

FairyFaye ~

The Magenta state of an innocent child could very likely be at least less convoluted and more translucent than other 'higher' perspectives in the 1st tier, but its interior structures of development will prohibit the depth of development present in those higher perspectives.  Your comparison of the child with the Zen master provides an interesting contrast in the way depth and perspective can both serve and enslave; e.g., Zen and War. 

JD

---

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

i have understood that along .. but now am starting to question whether the high states achieved by zen masters has anything at all to do with their structures of development

thanks for bringing up zen at war because it's a perfect example

 

 

JD:

You said: "As with  fiber optics where more compressed information can now be routed through more efficiently designed lines of communication, similarly, could it not be that as we refine our ability to think more efficiently we also 'design' interior structures that enable us to experience ourselves more 'delightfully'? 

In other words, in addtion to describing rationality as having been 'suspended', would it not be appropriate to say that the transrational experience 'compresses' linear rationality into its more efficient contextual variables?  This vertical compression of linear rationality into the most efficient contextual variables allows for the 'vision-logic' dynamic to occur, in which we virtually 'see' - as would a visionary - the hologram of life as interpreted from our current cognitive stage of development."

Excellent! Excellent!

The core variables of rationality are "file zipped" and at the same time stripped of their irrelevant data. Vision logic (trans-rationality) then includes the zipped files of everything we have processed rationally but opens those files on a new, and more complex, OS which functions using a hyper-vision that can simultaneously hold open in vision-logic RAM enormous volumes of data "zipped to its essence" and process and combine it in ways that were never before possible due to the limitations of the formal-rational CPU capacities.

Vision logic digitizes formal operational analogue rationality.

  

@ emersondds:

how did you catch the leprachaun? And is it true that they guard a pot of gold coins?

On a more serious note, which place on the W-C Lattice would be appropriate for leprachauns? Magenta/ subtle? And how would they be seen by someone with a higher structure, let's say, amber or green? (Or wouldn't they even show up if you don't believe in them?)

Just throwing in some (silly) questions:

witz

j.d. the fibre optics example is a great analogy for structure development so thx for that

hey witz .. interesting that healthy children have greater access to the subtle realms than your average "normal" adult !

FairyFaye: you said: "interesting that healthy children have greater access to the subtle realms than your average "normal" adult !"

Isn't this the type of observation that oh so long ago generated concern for a pre-trans fallacy? Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose?

Like Schalk and Fairfaye, I appreciated jondavi's fiber optics metaphor, and I also liked Schalk's digital/analogue analogy.  But I noticed that in jondavi's example, transrationality and vision logic are described in terms of "experience" -- and I wonder if that is not still feeding into the tendency to speak about transrationality as an altered, mystical state of some sort, rather than a stage.  I do think the vision-logic or transrational stages do support particular sorts of phenomenal experiences, but is vision logic itself an "experience"?  Not in my understanding.

Jondavi, are you talking about the development of a particular stage of cognition, or are you in fact talking about momentary experiences which appear to go beyond normal linear rationality and present information in a highly compact, holographic way?  I've had such experiences (though sometimes I haven't been able to describe, after the fact, what was actually communicated in them).  Since Wilber says that stages can't be peak experienced, then it doesn't make sense to describe such an experience as transrational or "vision logical" if we are at a "rational" stage of development-- but then how are we to understand them?  What is going on?

---

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

 

yes schalk .. am wavering from linking structures and states .. fully acknowledging structural growth and development .. while at the same time not associating them with states

suddenly i don't see what one has to do with the other at all

(except perhaps the similarity of the highest structures with the nondual state .. as in temporary states become permanent traits)

suddenly when i look at the wcl .. it looks as if something like botany were on the vertical axis .. and something like music on the horizontal

they don't have much to do with each other

 

Balder:

You said: "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.

Re: Application of pre/trans fallacy:

I am thinking the pre/trans fallacy was only useful when subtle, causal, non-dual were stacked vertically.

I was re-reading Chapter 2 of Integral Spirituality and see on page 53 where Wilber says explicitly: "Incidentally, the pre/trans fallacy applies only to stages, not to states."

This is odd to me. Why? Because the pre/trans fallacy was developed as a fallacy to deal with the twin problems of either:

a. reducing every trans-rational event to a pre-rational, regressive burp; or

b. elevating every pre-rational twitch to a bona fide, trans-rational experience.

But, this reduction or elevation is not problematically done in reference to a "stage," it is done in reference to a report of an experienced state.

As it stands, as far as I can tell, the pre/trans fallacy has been re-defined (in the wake of the differentiation of stages and state) in a way where it deals with an alleged problem that does not even come up, much less warrant the term "fallacy."

What do we need to do to the pre/trans fallacy? I don't know. But the problem is more complex than simply taking what is pre- and calling it trans- and vice versa.

Let's take an example: I am meditating and find myself feeling a oneness, an absolute identification, with a deity form. I tell you what I just experienced. You tell me it was just a dream.

OK, if you tell me that it was just a dream, then you have told me that you do not recognize the legitimacy of meditative states, let alone peak meditative states. It is not a pre- and trans- issue. It is a misassigned state problem.

And if you tell me that it was an infantile regression. Then you are no longer simply focusing on the state itself, but instead are making improper reference to my stage of development after hearing me interpret the state. So, this is a misassignment of state and stage.

My sense is that the vast majority of the problems that the pre- and trans- fallacy orignally sought to deal with are properly handled by showing that there is a misassignment of states. Subtle, causal and non-dual experiences are relegated to mere dreams (and as a bonus, assessed as indicative of low altitude interpretations).

Similarly, when we elevate what are essentially either dreams or momentary glimpses of peak meditative states into full-blown peak experiences, we are over inflating the true nature of the state or the true level of intensity of the state. Again, a misassignment of states.

If we then improperly elevate the altitude of development indicated by the interpretation of the state, we are misassigning a stage.

You asked: "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"?"

Thinking out loud here: structure stages are not directly experienced, by definition. They are outsider assessments of 1st person interpretations of state experiences.

And as Wilber points out on page 91 of IS, the 3 or 4 highest vertical structures have characteristics that appear similar to the characteristics of the 3 or 4 highest states, making it almost impossible to spot the differences.

And Wilber points out on page 93 that in any of the 4 natural states, you can have an intensification or peak experience of the state. Intense oneness with the phenomena in a given realm is one ultimate peak experience. (E.g. nature mysticism in the gross, deity mysticism in the subtle, formless mysticism in the causal, and non-dual mysticism.)

So we have stages vertically, states, altitudes within states, and then the key point of the W-C Lattice: there are not only experiences directly experienced, but there are 3rd party recognitions of the stages indicated by the 1st party interpretations of the 1st party state experiences.

So, what fills in the highest vertical altitude on the stage axis? Recognition that the interpretation of a state by an experiencer indicates that the experiencer of the state is identifying with and cognitively aware of the essentially transpersonal, trans-rational, "trans-gross" reality of the experience.

The higher that one rises vertically in terms of interpretations and identifications, the closer the awareness that is doing the interpretation resembles the very peak experiences experienced in the first place. An approaching singularity is emerging between the states and the interpretations. It is as if the interpretation is becoming more and more a function of the very state experienced and less of a distant reification.

Mind you, I am just thinking out loud, trying to make sense out of this thing.  

"Since Wilber says that stages can't be peak experienced, then it doesn't make sense to describe such an experience as transrational or "vision logical" if we are at a "rational" stage of development-- but then how are we to understand them?"

Balder ~ nothing in my post said that you had to be at a rational stage of development.   Personally, I do not see how you came to wonder whether or not a 'transrational experience' might be "feeding into the tendency to speak about transrationality as an altered, mystical state of some sort, rather than a stage."  If you read the post intently, then you would have known that it is as much an inquiry into the nature of this phenomenon as is your inquiry into the topic of this thread.  No 'matter-of-fact' statements were intentionally made about what actually causes the so-called 'vision-logic' dynamic to occur. 

For some reason or another, my impression of your inquiry into my inquiry is an attempt to see if my response will expose some 'truth' about how we are able to have transrational insights if we are only at the rational stage of consciousness development; that, unless such experiences are somehow artificially induced, one is incapable of having such experiences when the rational stage is one's limit, as if rationality is a kind of  'ring-pass-not' and we are banned by our own rationality from these qualities of consciousness.  Perhaps rationality is not the 'ring-pass-not' that some of us might think it is; and, it can be transcended without artificial inducements when certain injunctions and apprehensions are followed.  And the more one reinforces those injunctions and apprehensions - the more one traverses the path - the more those injunctions, etc., become virtually engraved into the deeper regions of the psyche.  Whether or not you call that a state, stage, or experience, after some point, it is all just academic.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  It's just that I've been there, done the academic scene--big time--and, until I realized that the critical mind can be a good servant but a terrible master, I was stuck in my bubble of rationality that had its own parameters and its own contextual framework.  Without meaning to be redundant (because I said this in an earlier post, but will qualify this time), the critical mind can never know more than it is designed to know, and it can never know that which is beyond its own finite limits.  So, when you asked about how one could understand something that is operating at the transrational 'vision-logic' level of consciousness when the stage one is in is the rational stage, well, in a word, you can't!!!  That's what 'Vision-LOgic' does for you.  Yes, your critical mind will be suspended because you will have moved out of what I've called the linear analogue mind and into a more digitized version of the vision-logic, holographic mind.   In colorized spiral dynamic terms, this is perhaps on the border between Green and Indigo.  And, yes, it is a structural stage.  Not that you will be actively accessing that stage 24/7, if only because you have other lines of development that must of need be tended.  But it will be accessible when you are optimized and when your (yes, I'm going to say it again), state-stage experience is optimized through whatever ILP it is you are practicing.

So your 'truth' will be something that is your own and not just the scripted and rote memories of those whose truth was their own; while, at the same time, bowing to the light of all those teachers and masters whose dedication to all sentient beings will forever be etched in the collective consciousness of mankind.  If Rupert Sheldrake's theory of M-Fields is spot on, then try wrapping your brain around that one...and, even better, your Being as well.

Jai

---

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

Jai/Balder:

Seems like this discussion is cutting at the core of the Integral vision. If we can tease out and make sense of these ideas, then something really useful happens.

1. JD: your comments are black, and my responses are blue:

"Perhaps rationality is not the 'ring-pass-not' that some of us might think it is; and, it can be transcended without artificial inducements when certain injunctions and apprehensions are followed. 

Don't we have to make a distinction here? When we are talking about "rationality" we can be referring to:

a. all non-waking, non-verbalizing immediate state experiences in the now (lucid dreams, meditation with subtle, causal, or non-dual peaks, etc.)

or

b. we can be referring to the interpretation of any state which correctly can fall above the low, pre-rational cognition, symbiotic, undifferentiated stage and below the 2nd Tier, trans-rational cognition, vision logic stage.

Non-rational experiences are available to all of us all of the time. The question is - when the experiencer goes to make sense of (interpret) the immediate experience (state), does the interpretation indicate a pre-conventional, pre-rational level of development or a post-conventional, post-rational level of development?

"And the more one reinforces those injunctions and apprehensions - the more one traverses the path - the more those injunctions, etc., become virtually engraved into the deeper regions of the psyche.  Whether or not you call that a state, stage, or experience, after some point, it is all just academic."

Isn't another way to say this - the more one comes to disidentify with a lower interpretation of a state experience, the more one comes to identify with a more expansive interpretation that takes on more perspectives, including but not limited to the previous one? 

And the more one reinforces the injunctions that lead to intensification of states, the more one expands and maintains the frequency or intensity of a state which leads naturally to emergence of new peaks, which then promote new and higher (but inclusive) interpretations? 

I think it is not "merely academic" to distinguish between states and stages. If we do not understand and apply equal emphasis to both the immediate apprehensions in states and the interpretations we apply to the states (which indicate stage development), we become essentially skilled state-trapeze artists.

Wilber points out that at a bare minimum, "enlightenment" means both deep familiarity and identification with non-duality states and interpretation on the cognitive and self lines of vertical development that is at least Indigo. Which means - the interpretation and analysis and differentiation and cognition that we are doing right now is absolutely essential, in addition to the actually lived-in experience of states. 

This has been my contention over and over and over - that this call for "just grooving with the experiences," "not being such an analytical asshole," "going with the flow," and all of the rest of that is simply code for "let's play horizontal and not do the hard work that will promote verticality in interpretations." 

Or to put it another way, we have to rip to shreds the current level of interpretation to get emergence of a higher and more expansive perspective/identification.

This topic may be the most important one that has arisen in awhile. It cuts straight to the notion of what sense we are making of our experiences. And until we make proper sense of our experiences and intuitively understand the distinctions between immediate experience (rational or non-rational) and the identifications indicated by our interpretations of the experience (pre-conventional/pre-rational, conventional/rational, and post-conventional/post-rational), until we make proper sense of this we will be stuck on a horizontally fascinating merry-go-round.  Which is fine, just as my pointing it out is fine.  

"Without meaning to be redundant (because I said this in an earlier post, but will qualify this time), the critical mind can never know more than it is designed to know, and it can never know that which is beyond its own finite limits.  So, when you asked about how one could understand something that is operating at the transrational 'vision-logic' level of consciousness when the stage one is in is the rational stage, well, in a word, you can't!!!"

The transrational, vision-logic level (vertical stage) is not an experience/state to be understood! It is an indicated level of development based on an interpretation of a state. We can understand any stage-level of consciousness including vision-logic using mere rationality because the vertical level does not call for anything more than rational understanding of growth hierarchies. The act that is required to properly assess an interpreted state experience is simply the ability to rationally understand the characteristics of the vertical stages. 

However, we cannot presume to claim that we are familiar with the experience of applying a vision-logic interpretation to an experienced state, if our interpreting ability is limited to rational/conventional first tier development.  

"That's what 'Vision-LOgic' does for you.  Yes, your critical mind will be suspended because you will have moved out of what I've called the linear analogue mind and into a more digitized version of the vision-logic, holographic mind.   In colorized spiral dynamic terms, this is perhaps on the border between Green and Indigo.  And, yes, it is a structural stage.  Not that you will be actively accessing that stage 24/7, if only because you have other lines of development that must of need be tended.  But it will be accessible when you are optimized and when your (yes, I'm going to say it again), state-stage experience is optimized through whatever ILP it is you are practicing.

I think it is not right to say "not that you will be actively accessing a vision-logic stage 24/7." Once your development includes cognitive and self identification with trans-rational vision logic qualities (2nd/3rd Tier), that is the wiring. It is not a question of accessing. The wiring is always the wiring. "Accessing" refers to experiences.

The "suspension of the linear analog mind?" This is a state. The interpretation that comes through application of holographic, vision-logic wiring/development is not a suspension of anything. The vision-logic interpreting faculty includes the ability to apply the linear analog interpretations as well as differentiations that show where those linear analog interpretations are false and broken and a creative factor that has been there all along is released and allowed to operate and generate enormous new expansiveness in perspective/identification.  

I think that the word "interpretation" (which is what gets us identification of levels/stages of development) needs to be properly understood as something that can happen in a flash. It isn't necessarily a laborious process of making critical sense out of an experienced state.

Schalk and Jondavi,

 

I’m enjoying this discussion.  When I first raised this question on Gaia, the person I was discussing it with remarked that the introduction of the W-C Lattice was just a minor theoretical adjustment that does not have the same value as, or any significant impact on, the pre/trans fallacy.  But I’m not so sure about that.  I believe it may.

 

Jondavi, I am not certain about this, but it appears my post to you caused offense; if it did, I apologize.  I appreciate your writings and I had no intention to offend you.  Reading your initial post, however, as well as your more recent one, it does seem to me that you are talking about “vision logic” as either a stage or a state that may be peak-experienced.  According to Wilber’s model, this is not accurate: vision logic is a stage-structure, not a state, and stages cannot be peak-experienced.  In this discussion – which I regard as an as-if exercise, an attempt to explore certain Integral ideas and test their implications – I am not making an effort to “defend” or promote some form of Integral orthodoxy.  I just want to look at what impact a particular theoretical shift may have on older Integral ideas, and relate that to our own experience and practice as well as consider them logically or theoretically.  And what you are saying – whether true or not – does not appear to line up with Integral as it is currently formulated.  That’s fine.  I am open to entertaining your perspective as we look at these issues, but I do think it is important to point out that it appears to differ in important respects from Wilber’s.

 

Schalk, I appreciate your comments regarding vision-logic as a cognitive/interpretive faculty and your emphasis on the need to develop cognitively along this line alongside mastering various states or stabilizing various state-stages.  This is essentially the argument I was making in my blog (using Cook-Greuter’s scheme as a way to understand the emergence of transrationality in terms of increased perspective-taking capacity (5p or beyond)), and of course this is essentially Wilber’s current model (as I understand it).  Transrationality is a particular cognitive phase of development, which includes perspective-taking capacities and modes of interpretation.  But if we grasp the point of tetra-enactment (and the challenge it poses to the myth of the given), then this calls the notion of “experience itself” (which is later interpreted) into question.  From a 1p perspective, experience is always in part the product of constructive and interpretive faculties.  Therefore, one of the implications of the W-C Lattice appears to be that one can only have a “transrational experience” or enter a “transrational state” once one has actually developed at least to the level of vision-logic in the cognitive line.  A person at the formal operational stage cannot have a “transrational experience” – if transrational refers, as Wilber now uses it, to a particular stage of development.  One can have non-rational  state experiences (including experiences of oneness, nonduality, Witnessing, etc) at pre-rational or rational levels of development, but the W-C Lattice at least appears to imply that the experience will not be truly transrational without the concurrent attainment of sophisticated levels of cognitive development (5p and beyond).

 

There is more I wanted to write, but I am out of time for the moment, so I’ll post this for now and return to some other points later.

 

Best wishes,

 

Balder

---

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