Hi all,

Usually when asked about what to do in order to speed up one's growth Ken says, "meditate. In four years you will jump 2 levels. However, in a What Is Enlightenment article he says this...

 

Q: Integral spirituality calls us to develop across many different aspects of our humanity—what you call the “lines of development”—such as moral, cognitive, emotional, interpersonal, spiritual, self, values, etc. What aspect of ourselves is most instrumental in initiating and driving higher development and higher integration?

KW: The capacity of the self to take other perspectives. The capacity to take the role of others, to see perspectives different from our own, to put ourselves in others’ shoes—these are all ways that consciousness stretches and grows. Secondary contributors to growth include a capacity for awareness training (such as found in meditation) and the capacity to tolerate ambiguity. But those take a distant back seat to the capacity to take perspectives other than one’s own.

 

Does anyone have thoughts about this or know where Ken talks about this further?  Does one just sit around and practice taking others' perspectives as a practice?

 

Jeffrey

Practically speaking, does this mean that instead of meditating for an hour one should imagine being other people for an hour?

My guess is Ken's "suggestion" is really the core ILP practices in a Trojan horse.  At least that's what I hear/understand.  Based on the quote and what he's said before, the elements of practice seem to be:

- learn to dis-identify being solely in your current perspective.  I suppose that could involve "classic" meditation, Big Mind, 3-2-1.

- be curious about perspectives that are attractive or repulsive.  Really try to inhabit them experientially.  I suppose this is shadow work with both dark and so-called "golden" shadows.  But for me, it seems like the biggest difference I feel when I encounter some one/thing that is other than me is that I have difficulty taking their perspective.  I suspect that the "otherness" is greatly reduced when I am facile at seeing things from their point of view.  321 and Big Mind both are great practices for this type of work.

-learn about different points of view and how to differentiate them, i.e. develop cognition

I suppose the only thing that isn't explicitly in there is body work, but even that has an element of practicing a more body centered awareness as opposed to "head" centered.

Hope this is useful-

Brian

 

 

 

Hey there, I've recently watched the Susanne Cook-Greuter 'Development of the Ego' series. It covered the levels/stages of development from a self identity perspective/ Line and went into the ability of each level to observe and differentiate themselves and others. From 1st person through the 5th person perspectives. I'm sure Ken would say to Meditation jumping 2 stages in 4 years... it's not a definite and no one knows why and how we transform and move through the stages. Some people do and some don't with no correlation to circumstances and most techniques. Meditation has been the only thing ON AVERAGE to get things moving. Isn't Meditation primarily making the subject the object which is basically taking a distant observers perspective? This would therefore improve the ability to taking other people's perspectives? My understanding is that each Line has it's own developmental pace within an individual so someone could be Cognitive Yellow yet Blue Emotional and Green Self Identity. This together creates your own "Psychograph". I found the PDF Introduction To Integral Theory and Practice on Integral Naked very helpful in putting together the States, Stages, Lines, Quadrants and Types. I hope that is helpful xoxoxo Kelly

---

A clever ironic quote is best here... instead I'll smile :)

Hi Kelly,

Thanks for your response and thanks for the xo's.

I think you are right about meditative training. It does improve our ability to take other perspectives. Therefore, it helps us to be free(of our own self-absorbed perspective) and opens us up to love whatever we can see. This morning while watching my soon-to-be 10 year old son walk alone into his school I was so moved. But I think I was moved because I was in touch with several perspectives all at once. Mine as his father, his as a young boy entering his playground/battlefield/school, my own memories of being his age, the perspective of time and how it's always running out for each one of us, the perspective of the timeless in which like an old wise grandfather we watch as time shows off its tricks to us again and again. Of course putting all of this into words seems so complicated when what was happening was very clear and more of a feeling-perspective than a thought-perspective.

I don't know if you are into comic books or graphic novels but there is a book by Scott McCloud called, Understanding Comics, and in this book there is a section which I think is pertinent. The author shows a spectrum of drawn faces from the most abstract being a circle with 2 dots for eyes all the way to basically a photograph of an actual person. He points out that every reader can identify with the character that has a face made up of a circle with 2 dots but that most people wouldn't be able to identify as easily with the most realistic drawing. Basically, in meditation I think we are moving from our solid identity(the photograph face) to open space and that is why we are then able to identify with whatever arises in that space and that we are also able to inhabit our own personality with much more power and grace, wisdom and compassion.

I just finished a 1 week group meditation retreat with an Australian cowgirl who goes by the name of Chuckie.

xoxoxo to you Jeffrey

Kelly, Jeffrey:

Regarding the relationship between meditation and taking perspectives as tools of development, let me share where I think Ken Wilber is at on this point today.

Do you have access to "Integral Spirituality?" On page 38 he puts it like this:

"... you can sit on your meditation mat for decades, and you will NEVER see anything resembling the stages of Spiral Dynamics. And you can study Spiral Dynamics till the cows come home, and you will NEVER have a satori.  And the integral point is, if you don't include both, you will likely never understand human beings or their relation to Reality, divine or otherwise."

He then goes on to point out that meditation involves looking at the "I" from the inside and SD involves looking at it from the outside, and what is seen is different. Also, one can be highly skilled at meditation and not understand the truth of stages, and vice versa.

There is much more to the subject of perspectives than is covered by Spiral Dynamics, but I think the basic point Ken is making is that all around development involves both refining the inner journey of subjective awareness and expanding the capacity to take healthy perspectives in all quadrants and on all lines and levels up and down.

R/S

Thanks for you input R/S,

The topic was on Meditation as a practice versus taking others perspectives as a practice. Then discussing the link that the number of perspectives you an take on is an indicator of your level of development in 'self identity' Line.

I think you're referring to is what Ken called "Zones 1 and 2" in each of the quadrants? Y/N? E.g. UL Phenomenology vs Structuralism.

My take is that Spiral Dynamics is ONE example of a theory describing a developmental Line and in this case, the Line is Values. The lenses you look through in the Values aspect of your being. When you talk about the lenses, you talk about the structure of SD. When you're looking through the lense, it's the phenomena you see.

Meditation is a PRACTICE that has been found to assist movement developmentally through the Stages... not a Theory to study the stages nor is SD a practice to have a satori.

:)
Kelly

---

A clever ironic quote is best here... instead I'll smile :)

Jeffrey,

Aussie Cowgirls are few and far between so you were lucky to come across one!!

That was so beautiful to hear about your perspectives experience upon watching your son!

I love the saying... if you could put yourself entirely into someone else's shoes, having the experiences they've had, the same biochemistry, the same memories etc etc, then you would make the exact same decisions and behave the exact same way as what they do.

This helps me so much when noticing an emotional charge at someone arising.

Essentially it's just a form of meditation and making the subject object in a day to day practice. Therefore it gets easier and easier (really becomes spontaneous) to do, the higher your COG is in the self identity Line among others.

No worries for the xoxoxo

Plenty to go around. Here's some more :)

xoxox

---

A clever ironic quote is best here... instead I'll smile :)

Kelly:

Yes, a very good point you make about SD being a theory dealing only with the Values line.

Just to continue, in addition to the values line, there would also be, from a levels of consciousness standpoint:

Cognitive line development

Orders of Consciousness

Self Identity

Word Views

Stages of Faith

And Wilber's point is that one can be a master of Zen, or any other meditation practice, and remain developmentally stunted on any or all of these lines. So, the additional practice of perspectives is essential.

Does that sound right?

 

R/S :)

The Lines that I've come across are Cognitive, Moral, Emotional, Interpersonal, Needs, Self Identity, Aesthetic, Psychosexual, Spiritual and Values. Each Line developing individually with it's own outcome measures (as studied by different people). These aren't limited to, they are just what I've come across.

I listened to a IN KW phone call recently that agreed with your point. Ken spoke about the differences between States and Stages. My understanding of that is that through Zen, you can experience various depths of a State e.g. Gross, Subtle, Causal and I would assume the more you practice the more you have access to a potentially 'higher' State. However, if your Cognitive Line is at Blue (he used the example of Japanese Zen Masters) then the lense that you look through to interpret and then use language to describe those experiences would be Blue (and very dogmatic)

Another example I heard elsewhere was about Gurus and how they may have experienced 'the one' (a State) yet whether that had permeated through the rest of their Lines was doubtful hence poor teaching skills (interpersonal) or emotional issues.

Guru's are Human Beings with their own Psychograph :)... that's my take. There is always room for improvement and hence more practice :)

My little addition to that is that Life makes you practice and whether you 'Practice' or not is still a Cognitive Practice. Cognitive is only one Line but Practice sometimes, not guaranteed, can improve other lines. So to quote your 5th last word "essential"... Noncognitively? inevitable, cognitively? Why not. It could assist development.

Hope that's of some interest.

:)

Kelly

---

A clever ironic quote is best here... instead I'll smile :)

Kelly:

Thanks for helping out with understanding lines. You point to "Cognitive, Moral, Emotional, Interpersonal, Needs, Self Identity, Aesthetic, Psychosexual, Spiritual and Values."

I think you are right, those are some of the classical lines Wilber discusses.

Wilber appended a chart after p.68 in Integral Spirituality - he listed "some major developmental lines" as "cognitive, values, orders of consciousness, and self-identity." So I am wondering how to reconcile or tie them together with the classical lines you mentioned and which are definitely correct examples.

Any ideas? 

(I have also heard him refer to a kinesthetic line at some point.)

I am wondering though, if development on one line does not equate to development on the other lines - can you imagine a person who is highly developed to turquoise in nearly every line but stuck at magenta on the spiritual line? Seems hard to think of. Maybe a professor of psychology who is also an atheist...

I am wondering where the most comprehensive list of developmental lines is.

The awareness of lines of development has really opened me up. I have always instinctively shuddered at how we talk about "he's so smart," or "you're no Einstein" or "her IQ is X" or "I'm a member of Mensa" as if those are the definitive evidence of the acme of human development.

I mean, think of how many children over the years with wonderful talents in different areas (i.e. LINES!) have been ignored or not given the attention they deserve because their cognitive line was not well advanced! Such a waste...

Even today, our universities don't properly give balanced weight to the development of multiple lines. Isn't a "uni-vers-ity" supposed to represent a collection in "one" academy of all that is useful and learnable?

Wilber's work definitively liberates us all from the shackles of that prison.

Einstein was a lousy dancer. The head of a university can be an immoral snake. A professor of computer science can be essentially a child when it comes to intuiting the emotion of another. The head of a corporation can live with an emotion quaking inside of himself and not realize it until he has a heart attack. A rich woman skilled at making money can have no sense of aesthetic development. A U.S. Senator can have an overwhelming urge to wear diapers and be whipped. Etc. We are no longer so astonished when we see anamolous behavior. It makes sense based on the developmental level on the given line for the individual.  

 And it also points the way to all of us to "integrate" ourselves.  

I too was searching at one stage for a definite list. Against my drive to have Life organised, compartmentalised and titled I thought about the applications of the Lines. I believe they are there to acknowledge different aspects of expression of a Human Being and hence the areas that can develop at their own pace (if at all). Can the development of that Human Being be as finite as that?

To put it in the big picture, Ken has developed a Theory that has loosely brought all theories together (as any Human isn't smart enough to be wrong 100% of the time). In the process of bringing it all together, he has come across developmentalists. Graves, Kegan, Loevinger, Cook-Greuter, Maslow. They all acknowledged developmentalism but chose to focus on their specific arena e.g. SD, Ego Development, Needs etc. In acknowledging their place in the big "Integral Theory", he has given Line titles to them.

Now in the application of the theory and the testing of an individual and research, in my limited exposure to this department, I would think it would be difficult to find distinct borders between all of the Lines. They would most likely overlap at different points. So possibly, the Lines are more general titles to groups with outcome measures as studied by various researchers.

I have heard Ken refer to kinesthetic, and the list you initially stated I came across on a table demonstrating "Altitude" and levels of consciousness.

In reference to your previous exposure to definitions of intelligence, another influence to Integral theory Lines is Howard Gardner, (I think that's his name anyway) the developer of "Multiple Intelligences". Splitting the nature of the human being into types of intelligence and tested each. His 'Intelligences' also included Logical/Mathematical, Musical/Rhythmic, Naturalist, Verbal/ Linguistic, among others already covered in Integral Theory's Lines.

I'm no expert in education, nor designing ideal societies (or holistic meshworks) but I wouldn't think that a schooling or University system needs to be the only way that people develop their Lines. I think as long as all intelligences were being acknowledged within the meshwork then we'd be ok. Unfortunately sometimes there's actually more recognition in society to other Intelligences than Cognitive or maybe I'm thinking of recognition given to lack of any intelligences and ways of attracting brainless attention (some celebs).

Once again to the application of this theory. Once one knows their place on the map. i.e where their Lines of development lie and hence what their gifts and weakness are what do you do with it? There are no definite ways to develop apart from Meditation. Maybe it's to be where you're at, practice the best you can and let Life unfold your development?.... This is leading me to my next big question so I won't get too much on a tangent.

I haven't yet got the ILP kit yet so I'm curious what's in that. Does that give you the tools to assess your location on the Big Integral Life Map?? :) I could be completely on the wrong path but that's where I'm at now with my understanding.

:)
Kelly

---

A clever ironic quote is best here... instead I'll smile :)

Kelly:

Something that I constantly come back to is the idea that labels, conceptual compartments, ideas, etc. seem to only make sense and come "worded" at the cognitive level. That is to say, the very act of wrestling with words and concepts is an exercise on the cognitive line. This simple realization often frees me from feeling cornered. That's when it may be time to go play basketball, or listen to opera music, or paint.  

I mean, if words and thoughts (the cognitive line) can be used to express the experiences and developments on moral, emotion, value, kinesthetic, etc. lines (which is something we do almost constantly), then I wonder if it is not equally valid to try and express cognition, emotions, values, spirit thorugh motion (kinesthetic line), or cognition, emotions, values, kinesthesia, spirit, etc. through aesthetics. Etc. Each line in a sense providing the mode of expression to refer to the realities of the other lines? That could open up a whole lot of valid and legitimate endeavors.

You make a very good point about the "lines"not having distinct borders among themselves. This is a really important truth that bears repeating over and over.

Cognition can be infused with emotion. Emotion can be laden with various levels of values. Movement can reflect various spiritual levels. Where is the "real" border? Which line are we really on? And do you want an answer that is comprehendible on a cognitive line or an emotional line or .... 

I recall reading one of Govinda's book's where he described various gestures as having various spiritual qualities in Tibetan Buddhism. Is it the spiritual line that embodies kinesthetic features or the kinesthetic line that has spiritual features? And then there are the spiritual invocations that come from simply uttering certain sounds, and that of course has kinesthetic implications. So, it may be just as appropriate to set out the cognitive-emotional line, the value-spiritual line, and on and on.

For me, what this really means is there are vast realms of possibilities for the expression of human development and intelligence that may have never been explored before, as far as we can tell...

I dabble in Chinese calligraphy. I am not very good at it. But there is a certain principle that involves feeling in the body all of the shapes and proportions of the individual character before the brush touches the paper. In other words, if you can very exquisitely feel (kinesthetic) in your body the object that you  intend to draw, then the act of drawing it will reflect (aesthetically) the proportions that you were kinesthetically aware of. So, in a sense, when you see a painting, you are seeing what the artist felt in their body as they were creating the work. And when I draw a really bad character, in a sense my kinesthetic flow through my heart or feet may have been too blocked.

In classical gongfu, one of the teachings involves learning to actually get your kinesthetic awareness inside the body of the opponent. That is to say, you face a person who is going to strike you and you are inside of them feeling every fiber twitching and you know exactly what they are going to do because you, in a sense, are doing it. And that is just the beginning. You then merge your spirit with them and since your spirit is so deep and silent, all of the bumps and stumblings of their spirit are obvious, you know exactly when they are not paying attention and pow! They say you are not making any progress until you can hold a small bird in your hand and the minute it tries to fly away you lower your hand slightly so there is nothing for it to push off from. Pretty exquisite and refined stuff. Again, another thing that I cannot do!

I think a lot of people wonder - what is the big deal about standing and looking at a painting. I mean, what exactly are you supposed to do when you look at a painting. Study it? Say "wow, nice water lilies?" I think a very useful way to gain an appreciation for art is to try and combine an emotional sense of the colors, that is, to just allow the emotional reactions of the various color combinations to resonate at the same time you are allowing your body to actually feel the contours of the shapes, in a sense feeling the depth of the objects and the proportions and the space. Emotional and kinesthetic and aesthetic. And then if you also understand something about the school involved, the historical backdrop, the cultural conditions, you are getting into a valuable cognitive contribution too. So, the simply act of looking at a single painting can be an enormously rich experience. And then ... you step outside and see an expanse of forest and clouds and go ... ahhh!

I appreciate your comment also that the non-cognitive lines often get more play in certain societies. Ken Wilber has mentioned somewhere that while cognitive is one of many lines, it does seem to be an exceedingly important indicator of development in other lines. So for example, with highly developed cognition we are well on our way to raising the moral or emotional level (although it is not guaranteed, but at least it becomes more likely), but excellent ballet skills will not necessarily lead to cognitive growth (though I think the discipline that goes into it may carry over and help make cognitive development more likely).

As for what to do with it, that is a hard thing to address. One thing I like to do is create exemplars - demonstrations of what is inside of me. I take a kind of "put up or shut up" attitude with myself.

Are you creating anything?

I am working on a novel right now and realizing that I am a very pathetic novelist. But I am going to keep working on it. I am using Heart of Darkness as a model, which is just amazing writing. And I write music. Sometimes I create things that are really stale and trite. And I realize that at that moment that was the best I could do. But in realizing what it is that is silly or no good, I start to see what needs to be done instead.

I have been studying John Lennon's "Imagine" from the standpoint of chords and lyrics and melody and how they work together. Someone told me recently it is one of the top pop-rock songs of all time. The chord structure is absolutely simple. The melody is built around a very simple series of phrases. But even without the lyrics, it is still a powerful song. I am trying to "feel" why this is so.  

As for meditation, I personally don't feel in any hurry to make any progress. I am suspicious when I see people around me kind of straining to become enlightened. I was just looking at the Andrew Cohen program on Enlightenment. Something about it makes me very suspicious. And most of his "theory" just seems to be a mish mash of arbitary orderings. I mean, he presents things as if they reflect hierarchies or stages, when they are just an assortment of moderately useful notions. I wonder what the guy is really doing.

I have a powerful sense that straining or obsession is driven by a lower level need to bolster something that can more properly be bolstered with a lower level practice. Like for example, if I devote lots of time to meditation when what I really need is simply to realize a truth that comes from Gestalt Therapy.

The ILP kit contains a very straightforward combination of DVDs and CDs that set out some of the basic core practices that wake up AQAL. I love Genpo Roshi's Big Mind technique. I used to be a foreign language teacher and have considered creating a Big Mind session using a foreign language - that would be really useful I think. (I have a bunch of theories about why foreign language education usually is ineffective.. At the core, it has to do with the difference between asking for a bowl of rice in Beijing when you are hungry and getting it and asking for a bowl of rice while sitting in a classroom in Seattle where there is no rice and you just had a burger and fries for lunch anyway!)

The 1-2-3 Spirit module is very valuable.

And finally the shadow module is an absolute core feature of ILP. They did a wonderful job with that.

Ciao! 

if you have some time for ancient history, there's a thread on lines of development that began back in '06 over in the integral topics section of general community forums

---

Thanks so much Ralph!!

I've found myself really feeling like I know nothing after coming across some brilliant Threads. Loved the What the UR?? (or something like that) It's so inspiring!!

Also loved the unhealthy 2nd Tier Questions and linked Gaia discussion on the Turquiose Shadow... who needs to write when you can read people asking your questions with brilliantly amazing suggestion answers.

Thanks Ralph!

---

A clever ironic quote is best here... instead I'll smile :)