PART I PART II Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 PART III Page 1 Page 2 PART IV Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 NOTES Notes 1-28 Notes 29-40 Notes41-63 PRINTER FRIENDLY Download in pdf format (451 KB)

     ²⁹ These structures or patterns of being-in-the-world are holistic, self-regulating, and self-organizing, although they always exist in networks of mutual exchange with other structures (agency is always agency-in-communion); they are self-organizing, not self-sufficient.

      Likewise, self-organizing does not mean ahistorical. Assuming that structures are ahistorical or merely synchronic was perhaps the biggest faux pas of the pioneering structuralists, an assumption rejected unanimously by adequate structuralists today—that is, unanimously rejected by the community or "we" of those within the social practice of adequate structuralism, or those inside the hermeneutic circle whose nexus-agency consists of the legitimated or paradigmatic exchanges of this mode of inquiry (a mode of inquiry that uses aspects of the third-person dimensions of being-in-the-world to illumine, enact, and disclose aspects of first-person dimensions of being-in-the-world), such that all structuralists today agree that " we reject the theoretical assumption of merely synchronic, and not also diachronic, structures."

     These self-organizing structures are not outside of history or culture; they themselves developed and evolved (i.e., tetra-evolved as Kosmic habits); and they may continue to evolve, but the whole point about structures is that they provide the stability components in the evolving Kosmos, they are the karma upon which creativity depends (or else creativity would have nothing to push against, no way to transcend and no way to be novel), and thus structures are themselves appropriately resistant to change, with some structures ("enduring structures" or basic holons in the Kosmos) being millions and even billions of years old.

     In the human psyche, enduring structures include the earlier stages of the various developmental lines (e.g., sensorimotor, preop, conop; beige, purple, red, blue; etc.). Enduring structures are the Kosmic habits in any line necessary for the unfolding of that line up to the average expectable level in that line (to date); beyond that, structures are not laid down with any sort of habit or stability, but are tetra-structured by pioneers into those higher potentials (later to become Kosmic habits if they stick).

     If these structures themselves are enduring habits, they can nonetheless be incorporated (transcended-and-included) in senior holons, an incorporation that usually occurs in some sort of stage or wave-like fashion, with the structures (or holons) of one stage becoming sub-structures (or subholons) in subsequent stages or waves. These structures may be shared by a few, or many, or all human beings, as determined by reconstructive or a posteriori research.

      Common terminology: any stable pattern, event, or occasion, in any quadrant, has a "structure" in the general sense, as when we speak of the structure of a cell, or a city, or a solar system, or a meme, or a game of chess. Researchers can identify or elucidate that stable pattern (in any quadrant) by attempting to outline the coherency codes, rules, patterns, autopoietic structures, or simply the general features of the stably dynamic patterns. "Structure" in the narrower sense means those stable patterns found in the interior (subjective and intersubjective) dimensions. As we saw, these interior structures are usually disclosed only by a "third-person of first-person" methodology, a general attempt known as adequate structuralism.

     ³⁰ Notice that cognition is necessary but not sufficient for all of those developmental lines. All of those lines say, implicitly or explicitly, " Of what is, what I want is, or what I need is, or what I value is...." The " of what is" means, "of those things that I can cognize," which is why cognition is necessary, not sufficient, for most of the other developmental lines accessed with these types of research tools. This is what got Piaget headed in the wrong direction.

     ³¹ The adequate structuralist is especially interested in these streams as they unfold over time (in an individual or culture), because many of these streams, especially ones that have been around a while, seem to evidence stable or enduring habits or patterns as they unfold—they are, or soon become, self-organizing and self-regulating Kosmic habits (which builds stability into the Kosmos). Many streams proceed through waves or stages of unfoldment; and many of those waves appear to have a defining pattern—a holistic deep structure or agency—that defines which elements are internal to that structure (i.e., structures define the boundaries of an individual or collective holon).

      This is true for any structures in any quadrant (e.g., the immune system, autopoietic structures, geopolitical structures, etc.), but "the structuralist" specifically means a researcher who is studying structures as they appear in the UL and LL quadrants—subjective and intersubjective structures.

     ³² Of course, for Aurobindo, all of those levels are grounded in Satchitananda. Also, Aurobindo's use of "supermind" was quite specific; in a sense, it is the first form of manifestation in a transformed bodymind. Still, the word "supermind" has escaped into popular parlance and taken on a life of its own; I use it as a generalized term for the highest recognizable wave of cognitive development, even if that wave has only appeared in a few and is thus not yet any sort of universal structure or Kosmic habit. Aurobindo's interpretive framework is metaphysical and pre-quadratic, but the data that he studied, using himself as a subject of one, is still suggestive.

     ³³ The only caveat is that moral development cannot run ahead of cognitive development; the latter is necessary but not sufficient for the former, which still shows that they are indeed relatively independent. See endnote 30.

     ³⁴ Traditional or metaphysical critics claim that what is lost in the post-metaphysical approach is the notion of the independence of levels or planes of existence apart from individuals, an independence that the traditional Great Chain offered with its ontological structures, and that independence allows the postulated ontological planes of existence to have an influence on an individual that cannot be reduced to his or her own individual psychology.

     But the post-metaphysical approach has the same functional independence without the discredited ontological baggage. All that is "lost" in the Integral approach is the claim that the higher-than-average levels exist with the same determinedness as the lower-than-average levels, a claim that cannot believably be supported in any event. The lower-than-average levels concretely exist as Kosmic habits, already formed and laid down not by involution but by tetra-evolution, and carried in all four quadrants; and therefore their existence, their deep structures, and their stage-nature are indeed trans-individual and not alterable by any individual psyche. The higher-than-average realms are available as general states and potentials, which are also trans-individual (because the great states of waking/gross, dreaming/subtle, and formless/causal are available to all humans). However, those higher states have not settled into concrete, widespread, universal habits, levels, structures, or stages—not yet, anyway—and thus postulating them as pre-existing ontological structures is not only unwarranted but unnecessary.

     Thus, the bulk of the metaphysical baggage of the premodern ontological interpretive framework can be set aside in any postmodern Integral approach without losing the slightest explanatory power. That is one of the essential moves in the creation of an Integral Post-Metaphysics, which at this time is the only metatheory supported by extensive psychological research.

     ³⁵ This is not to say that there are no involutionary givens at all; see Excerpt A. Further, the human at birth has access to the three or four great states and their corresponding energy/bodies (see Excerpt G), as well as to the Kosmic habits already formed.

     ³⁶ See endnote 34. The four great states present are at birth as a result of prior evolution, so that even these higher states are not involutionary givens. See Excerpt G.

     ³⁷ If a significant number of actual practitioners of Aurobindo's yoga—i.e., those who practice his specific yoga, not merely use his maps or ideas—develop into the higher intuitive mind, then that development might indeed become a Kosmic habit in that particular lineage stream, and hence be carried forward as a higher stage/structure now available to those who engage the practice. Certain lineage streams—representing a particular series of stages in a particular developmental line in a particular AQAL configuration—have indeed been carried forward for hundreds of years, as witness vipassana, ashthanga yoga, raja yoga, etc. Even still, the temporal aspects of those lines continue to evolve and adapt to current AQAL realities; only the formless or emptiness "aspects" of the lineages do not change.

     ³⁸ In the past, I have often used "basic levels" as the substrate on which the self-system acts to produce the self-related lines. Since I am here technically separating "basic levels" from any actual existent, what takes their place as the actual substrate are the levels in the cognitive stream (which I often used as vaguely synonymous with basic levels anyway, although they are clearly not the same thing, as I also pointed out.) Thus, it is the specific identification of the self-system with the particular levels in the cognitive line (which itself is necessary but not sufficient for the other lines) that generates much of the self-related lines of development. As the self identifies with a particular cognitive level, it generates various exclusivity (and transitional) structures; when it moves to the next level, it disidentifies with that cognitive level, identifies with the new and higher level, and (if healthy) integrates the lower level with the higher. Each of those fulcrums of self development, that is, occurs around a specific level of the cognitive line. Virtually everything I have written about that self-development and its fulcrums remains unchanged (including the tripartite nature of each fulcrum, with subphases a, b, c & d; the nature of pathology at each of those fulcrums and subphases; the treatment modalities, etc.). The only switch is that the "basic structures" or "basic levels of consciousness" are now used technically as the abstract vertical measure of development, and their concrete place is taken by actual cognitive structures. See endnote 39.

      (The term "basic structures" can still be useful as a very generic term meaning a type of sum total of enduring structures in all the various lines. The 7 chakras are a classic example of basic structures in that sense, although AQAL interprets them without the metaphysical accoutrements. All of this is dealt with in a future work about terminology. In the meantime, "basic levels of consciousness" means the abstract levels as outlined in the main text, unless otherwise indicated.)

     ³⁹ Some structuralists work with 3 or 4 stages in a stream, others work with 7 or 8, others have legitimately highlighted 12 or more enduring waves in a particular stream (i.e., "If you stand right here, and look right there, you will see 12 eddies in that stretch of the River." "By jove, you're right!"). And, of course, some structuralists cover more of the levels or waves in a full spectrum of consciousness, including prepersonal, personal, and transpersonal waves, or prerational, rational, and transrational stages; or subconscious, self-conscious, and superconscious. But as a stage sequence, those refer only to streams, not to states. Transpersonal states can occur at prepersonal stages, a fact that has confused more than one critic outside the hermeneutic circle. If "transpersonal" specifically means post-personal, then it is solely a stage phenomena; if it means simply nonpersonal, spiritual, subtle, or causal, then it can be a state phenomenon present at any stage. AQAL metatheory explicitly makes room for all of those observed phenomena.

      Again, because research indicates that the cognitive line is necessary but not sufficient for most of the other lines, I have in the past often used the actual levels in the cognitive line as the best representative of the empty or basic levels of consciousness. I did so in Integral Psychology, for example; the 16 basic levels are presented in cognitive terms, even though I explained the importance differences. But this continues to thoroughly confuse critics, somewhat understandably, and so, starting with presentations such as this one, I am often going to use strictly neutral terms, such as numbers, letters, "meters," "degrees," or—at some point—perhaps colors. In shorthand, if I use the names of the actual levels from any particular line to represent the general levels themselves—e.g., if I use any of the terms or definitions form any actual levels such as formop, conop, postconventional, magic, mythic, SD orange, green, yellow, etc.—it is only for convenience. All of those terms are technically correct only when referring to the data in their specific streams.

     ⁴⁰ Summary of Levels of Consciousness

      Human beings possess various capacities—such as cognitive, interpersonal, moral, emotional, etc.—which are often called modules or intelligences. If those capacities show development, they are usually called developmental lines or streams, and various milestones in those developmental streams are called developmental levels, stages, or waves. Each of those levels/stages/waves has a specific structure, pattern, or agency (which defines the boundary or the "internality" of that stage). The actual structures, contours, or patterns of the levels/stages in any line are specific to that line (e.g., the deep structure of orange is not the same as the deep structure of formop).

     But evidence suggests (and AQAL metatheory postulates) that all of the levels in the various lines are running through the same general morphogenetic gradient of increasing consciousness. Consciousness itself is not a stream alongside other streams, but the space in which the phenomena of the streams arise and manifest. As such, the "basic levels" or "basic waves of consciousness" do not indicate levels of something called consciousness, but levels of the phenomena that can arise in consciousness, or in unqualifiable Emptiness, or in the vast spaciousness of I AMness. Thus, there is a sense in which we can say that moral development and cognitive development are at basic level 7, even though, if we specify the actual contours and contents of level-7 cognition and level-7 moral development, they will be wheat and copper.

     As a matter of concrete research, there appears to be at least two dozen relatively independent developmental lines, streams, or modules (including Howard Gardner's six or so multiple intelligences): cognitive, musical, kinesthetic, linguistic, moral, mathematical, interpersonal, values, needs, defenses, ego/self, role-taking, perspectives, ideas of the good, action inquiry, spatial-temporal perception, creativity, among others.

     Generally speaking, the actual development of the various lines is often quite uneven (as depicted in fig. 4), reflecting the relatively independent nature of the developmental modules themselves (e.g., many people who have 7 pounds of copper have only 2 pounds of wheat). This general phenomena is referred to as "levels and lines."

     Development in each line is indicated by the developmental levels, stages, or waves in that line. Those developmental levels or stages are specific to that line and are formulated in the terms of the capacities of that line (e.g., values, cognitive, musical, mathematical, etc.).

     In any particular module, once adequate structuralists have identified a class of responses that unfold over time in a stage sequence, they generally attempt to formulate the structure of each of those stages, which is the internality code for the interior holons that are following the rules, patterns, or regnant nexus of the particular structure. The "internality code" is like the melody of a song—the tune that brings together many notes into a recognizable entity. The various modules are like the different songs in the psyche, and structuralism is an attempt to discover a 3p way to write down the notes, melody, harmony, and patterns of those songs—with the understanding that in order to really know those songs, you must sing them yourself.

     The exact number and nature of the developmental levels in a developmental line is somewhat arbitrary, but if formulated adequately, developmental levels or stages are measuring a real and concrete occurrence, namely, the unfoldment of interior holons (in the I or we) as they are studied from the outside (a 3p of 1p), which is why we say that structuralism is the study of the behavior of interior holons over time.

     However, in order to compare the degree of development in one line with the degree of development in another line, a "cross-line" scale must be used, otherwise it is apples and oranges (ignoring which, you get a stream absolutism). For AQAL, the cross-line scale is the notion of "basic levels of consciousness" (see fig. 5). The number of basic levels is also somewhat arbitrary (in this presentation we have been using 10 of them), but they, too, are a measurement of something real, which in this case is the general amount or degree of awareness or consciousness in any given developmental line; or, more technically (because consciousness is not itself a stream or entity or quality of any sort), the basic levels of consciousness are a measure of the paradoxical-sounding "degree of absence," or the "amount" of emptiness, openness, transparency, or spaciousness in which various phenomena can arise. This is why, technically, it is best not to name the basic levels of consciousness but simply use a number or color to refer to them (although pragmatically we are often forced to use a name, still...).

     The terms "developmental stage," "developmental level," and "developmental wave" are almost always used to mean the specific concrete stages in a particular developmental line (e.g., the level of formal operational cognition, moral level 5, the multiplistic stage, preconventional waves, etc.), whereas the general cross-line scale is usually referred to as "basic levels of consciousness" or sometimes "basic waves" or "basic structures." Context will determine which is meant, but their important differences are always implied.