Ken Wilber

(PAGE 10 OF 10)

Notes

^[1] "An Integral Theory of Consciousness" was first outlined in an endnote in The Eye of Spirit; it was expanded and published, under that title, in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, 4, 1, 1997. That essay was revised, with an addition by Roger Walsh, for its inclusion in volume 7 of the Collected Works, which is the version I am referring to in this paper.

^[2] See Integral Psychology for several dozen of versions of this spectrum of consciousness presented by ancient and modern sources.

^[3] For a discussion of the Great Nest of Being, see The Marriage of Sense and Soul, Integral Psychology, One Taste, and A Theory of Everything. See also Huston Smith's superb Forgotten Truth (1976), Roger Walsh's Essential Spirituality (1999), and Michael Murphy's The Future of the Body (1992). Arthur Lovejoy's The Great Chain of Being (1964) remains the authoritative historical overview, although, again, the "great chain" is a misnomer.

^[4] Research (e.g., summarized by the references in this paragraph) suggests that some of these psychological structures are universal, some are culture-specific, and some are individual. All three are important; but clearly, I do not believe that all structures are universal. However, since I am presenting a cross-paradigmatic model, the structures (basic and transitional) that I usually focus on are those for which we have substantial evidence that they are generally universal and cross-cultural wherever they appear (i.e., they do not necessarily appear in all cultures, but when they do, they show a similar pattern). These basic levels or basic structures are: matter, sensation, perception, impulse, image, symbol, concept, rule, formal, vision-logic, psychic, subtle, causal, and nondual, which I often group into nine or ten functional units as: sensorimotor, emotional-sexual, rep-mind, rule/role mind, formal-reflexive, vision-logic, psychic, subtle, causal, nondual. See Integral Psychology (Wilber, 2000b).

^[5] These lines or modules are relatively independent because they seem to be intertwined in certain "necessary but not sufficient" patterns. For example, empirical research has already demonstrated that physiological development is necessary but not sufficient for cognitive development, which is necessary but not sufficient for interpersonal development, which is necessary but not sufficient for moral development, which is necessary but not sufficient for ideas of the good (Loevinger, 1976; Commons et al., 1989, 1990). Further, because the self inherently attempts to integrate these various lines (see below), their independence is dampened by the binding power of the self-system. (See the second edition of The Eye of Spirit in CW7 and Integral Psychology for a further discussion of these themes.)

The idea of relatively independent lines of development is similar to the widely accepted notion of independent modules (linguistic, cognitive, moral, etc.), except that in my view these modules, as they develop, are all subject to the same general levels or waves (preconventional to conventional to postconventional to post-postconventional), and they are all balanced and integrated by the self. But my model does allow us to use the important contributions of module theorists, set in what I believe is a more adequate framework.

^[6] There is moderate to strong evidence for the existence of the following developmental lines: cognition, morals, affects, motivation/needs, ideas of the good, psychosexuality, kinesthetic intelligence, self-identity (ego), role-taking, logico-mathematical competence, linguistic competence, socio-emotional capacity, worldviews, values, several lines that might be called "spiritual" (care, openness, concern, religious faith, meditative stages), musical skill, altruism, communicative competence, creativity, modes of space and time perception, death-fear, gender identity, and empathy. Much of this evidence is summarized in Wilber, 1997a, 2000b.

^[7] In my own system, the "body/energy" component is the Upper-Right quadrant, and the "mind/consciousness" component is the Upper-Left quadrant. The integral model I am suggesting therefore explicitly includes a corresponding subtle energy at every level of consciousness across the entire spectrum (gross to subtle to causal, or matter to body to mind to soul to spirit). Critics have often missed this aspect of my model because the typical four-quadrant diagram shows only the gross body in the Upper-Right quadrant, but that is only a simplified summary of the full model presented in my work.

In the traditions, it is often said that these subtle energy fields exist in concentric spheres of increasing embrace. For example, the etheric field is said to extend a few inches from the physical body, surrounding and enveloping it; the astral energy field surrounds and envelops the etheric field and extends a foot or so; the thought field (or subtle body energy field) surrounds and envelops the astral and extends even further; and the causal energy field extends to formless infinity. Thus, each of these subtle energy fields is a holon (a whole that is part of a larger whole), and the entire holonic energy spectrum can be easily represented in the Upper-Right quadrant as a standard series of increasingly finer and wider concentric spheres (with each subtler energy field transcending and including its junior fields). Each subtle energy holon is the exterior or the Right-Hand component of the corresponding interior or Left-Hand consciousness. In short, all holons have four quadrants across the entire spectrum, gross to subtle to causal, and this includes both a "mind/consciousness" and a "body/energy" component.

For a discussion of body/realms--e.g., gross body (Nirmanakaya), subtle body (Sambhogakaya), causal body (Dharmakaya)--as the energetic support or "body" of each of the consciousness levels and states, see SES, note 1 for chap. 14. I often use the words "body," "realm," and "sphere" interchangeably; see Integral Psychology.

^[8] Even though it is said by, e.g., the Tibetan tradition, that subtle consciousness/energy or the subtle mind/body can detach from the gross mind/body, as in the chonyid bardo realm following death; and the causal mind/body can detach from both the subtle and gross mind/body, as in the chikhai bardo or the clear-light emptiness post-death experience (Deutsch, 1969; Gyatso, 1986). This conception allows consciousness to extend beyond the physical body (and survive physical death) but never to be merely disembodied (since there are subtle and causal bodies). In my opinion, this is a profound body/mind (or matter/consciousness) nonduality at every level, a conception I have incorporated into my own system. Whether or not these higher, subtle energies and their corresponding states actually exist in any fashion that can be satisfactorily verified is, of course, part of an integral research agenda. I have provisionally included them in the "master template" simply because the cross-cultural evidence for them is strong, if not conclusive, and until more definitive studies can be done I believe it would be premature to reject them.

^[9] I am indebted to my friend Allan Combs for the notion of "states of mind," although Allan and I have a mild disagreement as to their specific relationships with states and structures of consciousness. Allan has also independently devised a grid of religious experiences. See his Radiance of Being and my Integral Psychology for an overview. It should be noted that Allan would like to do a second revised edition of Radiance to bring his own thoughts up to date. Allan acknowledges that his presentation of my work only covers phase-2 and does not deal with my present model; but the book is otherwise highly recommended.

^[10] States of consciousness are in one sense experienced by subjects--the dream state, for example--but usually what is actually experienced is some specific, if different or altered, phenomenal state. The individual then compares many similar phenomenal states and concludes they all belong to a broad state of consciousness (such as dreaming, or intoxication, or some such). Thus, both broad states and basic structures tend to be missed by phenomenology's adherence to phenomenal states. See note 11.

^[11] On the limitations of phenomenology, see several long notes in SES, such as note 28 for chap. 4; and several notes in Integral Psychology, such as note 21 for chap. 14.

First-person phenomenological investigations of consciousness can easily spot phenomenal states and even first-person phenomenal stages. For example, in the "highest yoga" school of Tibetan Buddhism (anuttaratantra yoga), there are ten major stages of meditation, each marked by a very specific phenomenological experience: during meditation, a person first experiences a mirage-like appearance, then smoke-like, then fireflies, then flickering lamp, then a steady lamp (all of these stages are said to result from the progressive transcendence of the gross bodymind); then the individual begins to experience the subtle realms: an expanse like a clear autumn moonlight, then clear autumn sunlight, which takes one to the causal or unmanifest realm, which is an experience like "the thick blackness of an autumn night," and then the breakthrough to the nondual (Gyatso, 1986). Those specific experiences appear to be genuine stages in this particular meditative line (they are all said to be necessary and none can be skipped), and any individual, sitting in meditation, could indeed see or spot these stages by him- or herself, because they present themselves as successively perceived phenomenal states. This is why I maintain that the phenomenological method can register phenomenal states and phenomenal stages in the "I" (or Upper-Left quadrant). And this is why the world's contemplative literature is full of these types of states and stages.

However: although the phenomenological method can spot phenomenal states and phenomenal stages, it cannot easily spot subjective structures (i.e., psychological structures in the Upper-Left quadrant, such as those discovered by Graves, 1970; Piaget, 1977; Loevinger, 1976; etc.), nor can it spot intersubjective structures and intersubjective stages (in the Lower-Left quadrant, e.g., Gebser's worldviews, Habermas's stages of communicative competence, interpersonal moral stages, Foucault's interpretative-analytic side of the structures of power, etc.). As suggested in the main text, no amount of introspection by individuals will disclose social structures of oppressive power (e.g. Foucault), moral stages (e.g., Carol Gilligan), linguistic structures (e.g., Chomsky), stages of ego development (e.g., Jane Loevinger), stages of values (e.g., Clare Graves), and so on--all of those are inherently invisible to mere phenomenology. This is why phenomenological approaches tend to be strong in the "I" components but weak in the "we" components. (Cultural phenomenologists, such as some ethnomethodologists, are strong in the "we" or intersubjective components, but not in stages or structures of intersubjectivity. When those stage-structures are presented, phenomenology shades into neostructuralism; both of those approaches thus appear to be useful aspects of a more integral approach.)

The general inadequacy of phenomenology for spotting intersubjective structure-stages seems to be the major reason that the world's contemplative literature is virtually silent on these important intersubjective aspects of consciousness. This also appears to be why research into nonordinary states of consciousness, such as Grof's holotropic model of the mind (Grof, 1985; 1998), produces very partial and incomplete cartographies (both psychedelic research and holotropic breathwork are very good for spotting experiential, phenomenal, first-person states, but fare less well in spotting intersubjective and interobjective patterns; hence the lopsidedness of such cartographies and their inadequacy in dealing with many important aspects of consciousness in the world [Wilber 1995; 1997a]).

This is might also be why many contemporary meditation theorists are hostile to structure-stage conceptions--their phenomenological methodology does not spot them, so they assume they are imposed on consciousness for suspect reasons by categorizing theorists.

In short, it appears that phenomenological methods tend to excel in spotting (in the UL) individual phenomenal states and phenomenal stages, but not individual structures; and while they excel in spotting different cultural and intersubjective patterns, they miss virtually all of the intersubjective structures and intersubjective stages (of the LL; not to mention the Right-Hand patterns, which are not discussed in this note). A more integral approach would likely result from a combination of I, we, and it dimensions, using research methodologies that are "all-quadrant, all-level" (see below).

^[12] Nonetheless, using the same terms (psychic, subtle, causal, nondual) to cover both the transpersonal structures and the transpersonal states was perhaps an unhappy choice; in my defense, I would say that three decades ago, there were only so many terms to go around, and we used them as parsimoniously as possible. For example, in Vedanta, as previously mentioned, the subtle body/realm or sukshma-sharira (experienced in, e.g., the dream state, the chonyid bardo state, and savikalpa samadhi) includes or supports three structures or levels--the pranamayakosha or emotional-sexual level, the manomayakosha or mental level, and the vijnanamayakosha or higher-mental/soul level--and I have, from the beginning, used the world "subtle" to refer to both the overall subtle state/realm (the prana-, mano-, and vijnana-mayakosha) and the highest structure in it (the vijnanamayakosha); the context usually indicates which is meant. In Vedanta, the causal state/realm has just one structure, the anandamayakosha, so there is less semantic problem.

There is a substantial amount of agreement in the traditions (e.g., contemplative Christianity, Kabbalah, Vajrayana, Sufism, Vedanta) about these transpersonal realms, structures, and states--but the terminology used by different scholars to translate them is indeed a semantic nightmare. So let me just say that I use four major terms (psychic, subtle, causal, and nondual) to refer to the various transpersonal occasions, including transpersonal states (e.g., subtle, causal, and nondual states of consciousness, experienced in, e.g., dream state, savikalpa samadhi, deep sleep, nirvikalpa samadhi, jnana samadhi, sahaja, etc.); realms, bodies, or spheres of being (e.g., gross body/realm, subtle body/realm, causal body/realm); and structures, waves, or levels of consciousness (e.g., psychic level or illumined mind, subtle level or intuitive mind, causal level or overmind, and nondual or supermind, to use Aurobindo's terminology for the corresponding levels). For those concerned with these intricacies, the context will usually indicate which is meant. See Integral Psychology (Wilber, 2000b) for a further discussion of these technical issues.

^[13] For the definitive cross-cultural study of meditative stages, see Daniel P. Brown, "The Stages of Meditation in Cross-Cultural Perspective," chap.8 in Wilber et al., Transformations of Consciousness. For charts comparing a dozen meditative systems containing stages, see Integral Psychology (Wilber, 2000b).

^[14] For integral spiritual practice, see One Taste (Wilber, 1999) and Murphy and Leonard, The Life We Are Given (1995).

A final point about the word "integral" and about Jean Gebser's structures. Although I am a long-time fan of Gebser, I believe his work is now hindering the field of consciousness studies. First, Gebser does not have a clear understanding of the quadrants, so he tends to conflate different phenomenological languages, different validity claims, and different evidential data. Second, his "archaic structure" is, in my opinion, charged with the retro-Romantic (and pre/trans) fallacy. Third, and most troublesome, his "integral structure" actually contains at least five structures (namely, vision-logic, psychic, subtle, causal, and nondual; or, to use Aurobindo's terms, higher mind, illumined mind, intuitive mind, overmind, and supermind--all of which are clumsily collapsed into "the" integral structure by Gebser. Although there is evidence that he realized this later in life, he did not live to adequately correct it). Even according to more conventional maps, such as Spiral Dynamics, what Gebser calls "integral" actually contains green, yellow, turquoise, and coral structures. In short, I believe Gebser's investigation of "the" integral structure was pioneering but is now outdated.

Nonetheless, I continue to refer to the entire vision-logic realms (and second-tier thinking) as "integral," simply because it has become a very common usage. But clearly, the truly integral "level" is the nondual, which is not actually a level or state but the ever-present ground of all levels and all states (see, e.g., the last chapter of The Eye of Spirit, Wilber [1997a]).

Lastly, there is the issue of levels of consciousness and levels (planes, realms, axes, spheres) of reality; for a discussion of this theme, particularly in reference to postmodern, post-metaphysical epistemologies, I refer the reader to a series of long endnotes in Integral Psychology (Wilber, 2000b), beginning with note 3 for chap. 1.

^[15] See note 14.

^[16] Any of the widely accepted developmental lines can be used to create and research these types of grids. For example, in the cognitive line we have preoperational (preop), concrete operational (conop), formal operational (formop), and postformal (which has various levels, up to and including the transpersonal waves, but this simple division will work for this example). An individual at preop can temporarily experience a psychic, subtle, causal, or nondual state; so can an individual at conop, formop, and postformal. In each case, it appears that the individual interprets those states largely in the categories of the cognitive level at which he or she is presently adapted. For instance, a conop experience of a subtle state tends to be interpreted in very literal-concrete terms (just as mythic symbols at that stage are also taken very literally; e.g., Moses actually did part the Red Sea) and often very ethnocentrically ("only those who believe in my God will be saved"); whereas a person at postformal cognition interprets a subtle-state experience in pluralistic, metaphorical, and aperspectival terms ("I experienced a ground of being that is present in all sentient beings but is expressed differently by each, with no expression being better than another"); and someone directly at the transpersonal waves experiences these realms in their self-transcending immediacy, beyond conceptualization, pluralistic or otherwise.

As suggested, any of the more dependable models of developmental lines can be used to research these types of grids, such as the self-stages (including research tools) presented by Jane Loevinger, Susanne Cook-Greuter, or Robert Kegan; the Graves values scale; Gebser's structures; Maslow's needs hierarchy; Bill Torbert's stages of action-inquiry, and so on. This offers a series of fruitful empirical, phenomenological, and structural research strategies for mapping states onto structures.

^[17] In this simple example I have used Gebser's structures, which cover the lower-to-intermediate structures (up to centauric vision-logic). But there are higher, transpersonal structures that need to be added to the grid (see note 14), and there are also more sophisticated maps of the lower-to-intermediate structures, such as Spiral Dynamics--e.g., there can be a purple, red, blue, orange, green, yellow, and turquoise peak experience of a psychic, subtle, causal, or nondual state. Also, as a person permanently evolves into higher structures, such as the psychic or subtle, they can still peak experience yet higher realms, such as causal and nondual.

If we use a general scheme--of, say, 12 levels and 4 states--that gives us around 48 types of transpersonal peak experiences and nonordinary states, although in actuality some of the squares in that grid do not occur (e.g., once at the psychic level, one no longer has psychic peak experiences, for that is now a permanent acquisition). But by and large, those 40 or so types of nonordinary and spiritual experiences are very real--and very easy to spot using this grid. I believe that this approach enriches and advances our understanding of these phenomena, the study of which seems to have stalled.

There has been a great deal of research and models based primarily on altered and nonordinary states (Grof 1985; 1998; Tart 1972; Fisher, 1971; Wolman, 1986; White, 1972, etc.), and a great deal of research and models on various structures of consciousness (Graves, 1970; Loevinger, 1976; Piaget, 1977; Gilligan, 1982; 1990; Fowler, 1981; Selman, 1974; etc.), but virtually no proposals for an "all-quadrants, all-structures, all-states" model that combines the best of both. I will return to the importance of this more integral research agenda in the main text.

^[18] Individual psychopathology is actually an all-quadrant affair (see below), and thus important aspects of its genesis can be found in all four quadrants: there are contributing factors from the Upper-Right quadrant (e.g., brain physiology, neurotransmitter imbalance, poor diet); Lower-Right quadrant (e.g., economic stress, environmental toxins, social oppression); and the Lower-Left quadrant (cultural pathologies, communication snarls). Treatment likewise can involve all four quadrants (including psychopharmacology [UR] where appropriate). I am here focusing only on some of the important factors in the Upper-Left quadrant. For the contributions of all four quadrants to pathology, see Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (Wilber 1995); A Brief History of Everything (1996d); The Eye of Spirit (1997a); and Integral Psychology (2000b).

^[19] To say that the self "identifies" with a level is not to picture this in an all-or-none fashion. Even with the proximate self-sense (e.g., as investigated by Loevinger), research indicates that individuals tend to give around 50% of their responses from one level and 25% responses from the level above and below it. As suggested in the main text, the self is more a center of gravity than a monolithic entity. This also appears to include the existence of numerous subpersonalities (Rowan, 1990; Wilber 2000b).

^[20] These are not the only four definitions of spirituality. In A Sociable God, I outline nine different definitions. But these four are some of the most common and, I believe, most significant. In A Sociable God, I also distinguish between legitimate (or translative) spirituality, which seeks to fortify the self at its present level of development, no matter how high or low; and authentic (or transformative) spirituality, which seeks to transcend the self altogether (or at least transform it to a higher wave of consciousness). The first three uses of "spirituality" (given in the main text) are different definitions of authentic spirituality, in that all of them include, at least in part, the idea that real spirituality involves a change in level of consciousness (either temporary, as in #1, or permanent, as in #2 and #3). The fourth usage is a good definition of legitimate spirituality, in that it seeks to promote the health of the self at whatever level it is at, without vertically changing consciousness. As suggested in the main text, all four of these uses of spirituality are valid, in my opinion, and all four of them seem to represent very real and important functions that spirituality can perform. The difficulty appears to be that some religious and spiritual theorists (and movements) latch onto just one narrow aspect of the spiritual impulse in humans and claim it is the only impulse worth acting on, which seems to distort both legitimate an authentic spirituality and often sets the self in a spiral of deception and deceit.

^[21] This phenomena (i.e., a person can be highly developed in certain spiritual traits but poorly developed in others, such as psychosexual, emotional, or interpersonal skills) can be believably explained by three of the four definitions (e.g., #1: if spirituality is defined as an altered state, those can certainly occur in a personality that is dysfunctional; #2: if spirituality is the highest levels in any of the lines, a person can be highly developed in some lines and poorly or pathologically in others; #3: if spirituality is a separate line itself, then individuals can be highly advanced in that line and poorly or pathologically developed in others). This uneven mixture (of spiritual and pathological) is not easily explained by definition #4 (i.e., if spirituality is something that either is or is not present at any stage, then the only way to get uneven and mixed development is to revert to one of the other definitions, but that "developmental ranking" is what this definition claims to avoid). Nor can uneven development be explained by single ladder models of development (according to which, a person failing a lower stage could not advance to a higher).

^[22] This discussion earlier suggested a "grid of religious experiences." Notice that that grid is simply what we see if we combine factors 1 and 2/3--that is, if we map the various states of consciousness on the various structure-stages. Thus, even that grid recognizes some of these major uses, suggesting again their widespread importance.

^[23] Technically, "we" is first-person plural, and "you" is second person. But I include first-person plural ("we") and second person ("you/Thou") as both being in the Lower-Left quadrant, which I refer to in general as "we." The reason I do so is that there is no second-person plural in English (which is why southerners have to say "you all" and northerners say "you guys"). In other words, when "we" is being done with respect, it implicitly includes an I-Thou relationship (I cannot truly understand thee unless WE share a set of common perceptions).

Both the Lower-Left quadrant and the Upper-Left quadrant are postulated to exist "all the way down"; that is, this is a form of modified panpsychism ("pan-interiors"), which seems to be the only model capable of faithfully rendering this "master template" (See Appendix B; see also Wilber, 2000b). This implies that intersubjectivity also goes "all the way down" and that humans, as "compound individuals," contain all the pre-human forms of intersubjectivity as well. Thus, in humans, intersubjectivity is not established merely by exchange of linguistic signifiers, which is the commonly accepted notion. Rather, humans contain pre-linguistic intersubjectivity (established by, e.g., emotional or prereflexive co-presence with and to the other); linguistic intersubjectivity (established by the co-presence of interiority whose exteriors are linguistic signifiers but cannot be reduced to those exteriors); and trans-linguistic intersubjectivity (established by the simple presence of Presence, or nondual Spirit). In short, intersubjectivity is established at all levels by an interior resonance of those elements present at each level, a resonance that appears to span the entire spectrum of consciousness, pre-linguistic to linguistic to trans-linguistic. The suggestion that I limit intersubjectivity to the exchange of linguistic signifiers is quite off the mark (see Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, second revised edition).

^[24] Here is one example of the importance of taking the four quadrants into account when dealing with states and structures. We saw that all individuals have access to the three great realms/states of gross, subtle, and causal, simply because everybody wakes, dreams, and sleeps. Thus, even an infant has access to these three great realms. But the way in which the infant (or anybody) interprets these states depends in part upon its stage-structure of development (e.g., a subtle state can be experienced by the archaic, magic, mythic, rational, etc. structures, with a different "flavor" in each case). Moreover--and of crucial importance--all of the states and stages are firmly set in the four quadrants (intentional, behavioral, cultural, and social). Thus, an infant is often plunged into the subtle/dream state, but it will not have the dream thought "I must go to the grocery store and buy some cereal," for those specific sociocultural items have not yet entered its awareness. The infant definitely has access to a subtle state, but it has not yet developed the specific structures (of language, cognition, and cultural perceptions) that will allow it to have those specific thoughts in the subtle/dream state.

Thus, it appears that the three general states are largely given, but the various structure-stages develop. And because all of them are set in the four quadrants, even the states (which are given prior to culture) are nonetheless firmly molded by the particular culture in which they unfold (because they are molded, in fact, by all four quadrants--intentional, behavioral, cultural, and social).

This allows us to see how an infant can definitely experience a subtle or causal state, but that state is nevertheless unpacked only by a preconventional, egocentric, preformal structure, not a postconventional, global, worldcentric structure (which has not yet developed). This more integral view allows us to steer a course between those who maintain that infants are directly in touch with a pure spiritual reality, and those who maintain that infants are narcissistic and preconventional. (See Integral Psychology, chap. 11, "Is There a Childhood Spirituality?" [Wilber, 2000b].)

As the infant develops through the various levels/structures/waves of consciousness, with all of their various lines, those structures will increasingly provide the content for much of the subtle states (in addition to any truly archetypal material that might be given as part of the subtle itself; but even the latter will be molded in its existence and expression by the four quadrants). Thus, at some point, the young child might indeed develop the conventional thought, "I must go to the grocery store," and that thought, molded by all four quadrants, might then invade the dream state. A child in a different culture might dream in French or Chinese; not "cereal" but "baguettes," and so on. In this way, the development in the structures (levels and lines) profoundly influences the content of the general states, which nonetheless are given in their general form.

This also allows us to see how all individuals can have access to the three great realms of being (gross, subtle, and causal), and yet still show stage-like development that colors these realms, for the development in the structures will often give content and form to the states. A four-quadrant analysis of states and structures thus allows us to incorporate the best of the ancient models of consciousness with more modern and postmodern research. For further discussion of these themes, see Integral Psychology (Wilber, 2000b) and the websites www.worldofkenwilber.com, www.IntegralAge.org, www.enlightenment.com, and iKosmos.com.

^[25] Even though the Upper-Right quadrant is today of such importance (as evidenced by the increasing dominance of cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, biological psychiatry, etc.), it is the one about which I have written the least. The reasons for this are simple: (1) this quadrant is investigated by the scientific method, or empiric-analytic inquiry, which is fairly straightforward in its operation and interpretation; (2) there is an enormous amount of work already being done in this quadrant; (3) the data collected in this quadrant, once verified, tends to be stable and trustworthy, requiring only modest amounts of interpretation (unlike the interior quadrants, which are made of interpretations). In short, I have written the least about this quadrant not because it is the least important but because it needs the least attention. In chapter 14 of Integral Psychology I give an overview of this quadrant and its investigation by the field of consciousness studies--particularly discussing the mind/body or Left/Right "hard problem" of consciousness (as summarized in Appendix B), and I cite several dozen books that have begun the crucially important endeavor of mapping Upper Left and Upper Right correlations, a mapping on which any truly integral psychology will depend.

^[26] An integral approach also lends itself to a more comprehensive understanding of the various types of unconscious processes. The question regarding any sort of unconscious is: can an event occur that is part of the existence of an individual but does not register in consciousness? The answer appears to be definitely yes; but an integral model can be more precise. Evidence suggests that aspects of virtually any level in any line in any quadrant can in fact be unconscious--and can to some degree be made conscious (directly or indirectly) through various techniques. This making conscious the unconscious is said to be connected with various types of liberation. For the kinds of unconscious processes (and liberation) in each of the four quadrants, see Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, second revised edition, note 28 for chap. 4 and note 1 for chap. 14. For the types of the unconscious in the Upper-Left quadrant, see The Atman Project (CW2) and The Eye of Spirit (CW7). I still believe that the five types of unconscious in the UL (first outlined in The Atman Project) are of considerable importance for individual psychology.

^[27] All four of the quadrants have various types of waves, streams, and states (among other items). That is, all four quadrants possess levels of development and lines of development (e.g., grades and clades in biological evolution; technological lines of development through the levels of foraging, horticultural, agrarian, industrial, informational, etc.); and all four quadrants also show various types of states (e.g., brain states, states of material affairs, gaseous states, etc.). Thus, all quadrants have waves, streams, and states (in addition to aggregates, heaps, etc). But in the Left-Hand quadrants, these are all ultimately related to consciousness itself (levels of consciousness, lines of consciousness, and states of consciousness--both individual and collective), whereas in the Right-Hand quadrants, we find that levels, lines, and states primarily involve matter (e.g., physiological brain states, biomaterial grades and clades, technological modes, etc.). The Left-Hand quadrants are the interiors, the Right-Hand quadrants the exteriors, of each and every holon (Wilber 1995, 1996d, 1998). See Appendix B.

^[28] By "existing entity" I mean "holon." See Wilber, 1995, 2000b.

^[29] This specifically happened with the publication of A Sociable God. My previous two books, The Atman Project and Up from Eden, were subtitled, respectively, A Transpersonal View of Human Development and A Transpersonal View of Human Evolution (they were written as a two-volume set). A Sociable God was originally subtitled A Brief Introduction to a Transpersonal Sociology. But even by that time, the transpersonal field had become, to my mind, problematic. I certainly did not harbor any ill-will toward the field, but at the same time, what I was doing was not confined to transpersonal psychology or transpersonal anything, for that matter. I changed the subtitle to A Brief Introduction to a Transcendental Sociology, and within a few years of that date (1983), I never again used the word "transpersonal" to describe my work (although I do still use it to describe the supramental realms of consciousness).

There are numerous gifted scholars and researchers who continue to publicly define themselves as "transpersonal," including Stan Grof, Richard Tarnas, Brandt Cortright, Jorge Ferrer, Donald Rothberg, Peggy Wright, Michael Washburn, Frank Lawlis, Jurgen Kremer, and many others. I think those writers represent the field of transpersonal fairly well, and I think that their research needs to be continued within the rubric of the transpersonal paradigm as it has developed within their collective body of work (with all its many variations and nuances).

Scholars who have publicly identified themselves as "integral" (and have presented integral models or are moving toward such), include Michael Murphy, George Leonard, Roger Walsh, Frances Vaughan, Allan Combs, Don Beck, Susann Cook-Greuter, Francisco Varela, Jenny Wade, Bert Parlee, Tony Schwartz, Robert Forman, Marilyn Schlitz, Antony Arcari, Raz Ingrasci, Keith Thompson, Michael Zimmerman, and many others. Although I can speak for none of those writers, I think it is safe to say that they all are strong supporters of the transpersonal field, but they are also trying to introduce more comprehensive theories and models that build more bridges to the conventional and orthodox world. At this time it seems prudent that both of these schools, integral and transpersonal, while continuing their mutually beneficial dialogue and occasional joint ventures, also focus on their own maps and models and begin applying them in the real world, so that the actual fruits of these various models, and their usefulness in real-world situations, will begin to speak for their relative merits.

^[30] Thus, even after 1983, I remained on the editorial board of both the Journal of Humanistic Psychology and the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology. I published something like eight articles in the former and nine articles in the latter. I had, and have, an enormous respect for the respective editors, Tom Greening and Miles Vich, who both moved their journals toward a more integral approach. It is just that, at least in the case of transpersonal, it continued to close in on itself and its growing ideology, and I found the field less and less grounded in research, evidence, and cogent interpretations, to the point that it had not built more bridges to the conventional world, but simply burned them. Therefore, when Miles stepped down as editor, it was appropriate for me to step down as well.

^[31] In order to survive, especially economically, it is likely that humanistic and transpersonal will be forced to coalesce into an awkward hybrid, so that transpersonal can ride the coattails of Humanistic Psychology, Division 32 of APA, which is nonetheless regarded as a rather weak division compared to the others. My point is that unless both of these interior psychologies more consciously move toward an AQAL framework, they will increasingly be selected against in the new currents that demand more integral responses.