PART ONE

Mike Mc Dermott strikes me as something of a modern Renaissance man. He has an important and demanding job, is much traveled, produces interesting work written in his own inimitable style, engages in meditation, appreciates the arts and is an informed and voracious reader of philosophy, literature and the sciences. I suspect he has many more accomplishments that I have not mentioned.

Mike was the very first to express an informed interest in Holistic Mathematics. Somehow he discovered my site on the Internet and was already well through reading "Transforming Voyage" when I received his opening e-mail. He has been in regular contact since, and has continued to offer valuable support while sharing his unique insights. This is all the more admirable as Mike is a professed great admirer of Ken Wilber's work. So his willingness to consider my fundamental critique of Ken's position displays considerable openness of mind and generosity of spirit.

I must thank Mike for his efforts in preparing this essay. It provides a wonderful basis for engaging in fruitful discussion on a number of important issues pertaining to both Ken's work and mine. Indeed I feel privileged that he considers it valuable to make this comparison.

He states from the onset that he is looking at my work as a Wilber admirer.

In that context, I think he has done a remarkably good job and I found it fascinating to read his observations. However having said that, to view my criticism from a Wilberian frame of reference does rob it somewhat of significance. So the Snark that Mike is hunting in this essay may have been rendered harmless with its teeth removed.

So in responding to Mike's many points I hope to offer a Collins perspective (which places the criticism in a very different context).

It was very perceptive of Mike to refer to Einstein in his opening remarks.

Perhaps he is aware that he exercised a profound influence on my intellectual development in several ways.

When I first heard about the Special Theory of Relativity, I was greatly impressed by the sheer boldness of thought leading to this exciting new vision of physical reality. It left a lasting impression and convinced me that given sufficient imagination, more startling breakthroughs in understanding would be possible.

Einstein essentially adopted what I would refer to as an intuitive experiential approach. In other words his physical intuitions about reality suggested the very notions that enabled his important discoveries.

However surprisingly his greatest influence was in a manner that he would not perhaps have intended.

I gradually realized that the very relationships that Einstein referred to in his Theory at a physical level had direct counterparts in terms of psychological experience.

This was the very seed that led to the development of - what I now refer to as - Integral Science.

Let me briefly explain.

Mike fittingly refers to the famous thought experiment where Einstein imagined what it would be like to travel along a beam of light.

The remarkable answer is that from the perspective of the light beam, time would not pass. In other words light - from its own frame of reference - travels continually in the present moment. Measurement in regard to its speed arises only in the context of a phenomenal reference frame that necessarily moves at less than this absolute speed. Then light can display complementary wave and particle aspects.

I will briefly explain the psycho-spiritual parallel to Einstein's famous question (which illustrates the nature of this integral scientific approach).

What would it be like to travel on a beam of spiritual light?

Well the answer - as the mystical traditions testify - is that time has no meaning for this light (from its own pure perspective). So spiritual light "travels" continuously in the present moment.

Phenomenal (qualitative) measurements only arise when we try to measure from a phenomenal reference frame. Then light again displays complementary wave and particle aspects, which are commonly referred to as the transcendence and immanence of Spirit respectively.

So paradoxically, Einstein's greatest influence on my development was the realization that - when formulated in appropriate language - every physical relationship (demonstrated by analytic science) has a complementary psychological counterpart. Equally from the psychological perspective, every phenomenon - say the "dark night" of mystical literature - has a remarkable physical counterpart.

However the appreciation of these very relationships requires that we actually experience reality in very dynamic terms (where opposite poles are understood as interdependent).

Integral Science - as I define it - is thus based on the recognition of the deep complementarity, and ultimate identity of physical and psychological aspects of reality (in horizontal, vertical and diagonal terms).

It makes direct use of the cognitive translations of the "higher" spiritual levels of understanding. It is very different from Ken Wilber's integral approach, which I would see as based on a reduced analytic method of interpretation.

In principle it can be applied to any discipline facilitating true integral understanding. It also greatly facilitates overall integration as between disciplines. (In my own investigations, I have concentrated chiefly on Mathematics, Psychology, Physics and Economics).

This very recognition and consequent process of appropriately formulating relationships in a dynamic complementary fashion, leads to the generation of remarkable new connecting insights facilitating overall integration of experience.

So Einstein's legacy for me has been the coherent vision of a qualitative holistic - rather than a merely analytic - approach to science which itself can serve as a powerful force for integration in experience.

One final point! Einstein showed how important the frame of reference is to the way that reality appears to behave.

Likewise in a discussion of Wilber v Collins, the frame of reference is vital. Mike makes the important admission that his article is written from the perspective of a Wilber admirer. I would take from this comment, that he is looking at conflicting issues largely from a Wilberian frame of reference.

However I would maintain that this significantly reduces the nature of the criticism I make of Wilber (as his reference frame does not adequately cater for such criticism).

It is very much a matter of perspective. I do indeed see major flaws in Ken Wilber's approach, which I believe I fully substantiate. However their proper appreciation requires the acceptance that Ken Wilber's frame of reference in some important respects is quite limited. This may come as a major surprise to those who are convinced that he provides the most all-embracing approach available!

Mike refers to Ken Wilber's very brief response to my long article posted on Frank Visser's site.

I think that one can only say that this response is inadequate. It is most evasive and does not specifically address a single point made in the article. Also its highly general critical comments are offered without supporting evidence.

"So many people who read Collins material say they cannot understand it."

I question the purpose of this statement. Is Ken saying that he finds it difficult to understand? Apparently not, as he says later that he always enjoys reading my material. Yet he studiously avoids engaging with the important issues raised!

Also, he provides no proper context for his remark.

Mike mentioned Einstein. Most of those who initially read Einstein's Theory at first could not properly understand it. However we do not doubt the enormous value of his contribution on that basis.

I am claiming something radically new when I suggest that a qualitative interpretation of mathematical symbols can offer a precise scientific basis for an integral appreciation of reality. This has deep potential implications for many important fields including Transpersonal Studies.

Therefore as I am offering such a different perspective, some difficulties are to be expected. However, Ken does not make any reference to this crucial point. This is all the more surprising, as he has often complained about the lack of interesting developments in the transpersonal field. Yet when presented with a radical new approach, he seems strangely reluctant to even acknowledge the fact.

I do in fact take great pride in the manner in which I communicate ideas and always attempt to do so in clear and effective manner. In view of the nature of what I am attempting, I recognize that initial misunderstandings are inevitable. That is why I greatly welcome discussion as a means of gradually resolving such problems. I am quite confident that given sufficient constructive dialogue, the merits of my approach will become increasingly apparent. And I want to thank Mike especially, as he has been foremost in engaging in that dialogue.

Because of lack of context, I would consider Ken's remark potentially misleading as it perhaps unwittingly conveys the impression to the uninitiated of confused thinking (which I would strongly deny).

Mike refers to my comment that Ken clearly does not provide an integral interpretation of the quadrants.

This is certainly so. As it is a very important point I will spend some time to put it in context.

Central to my criticism is the fact that Ken never distinguishes clearly - in intellectual translation - the nature of integration from differentiation. He primarily uses an analytic method that is geared for the differentiation of experience. So in effect, what Ken offers as an integral approach, is more properly a multi-differentiated interpretation of development.

Ken's translation method of vision-logic is based on the centaur stage. The centaur is the last of the middle (gross) stages of development before genuine transpersonal awareness occurs. (In my approach the centaur is the most advanced stage of the level H0).

The middle stages - especially in Western development - lead to the specialization of the rational linear method of understanding. This is well characterized by the scientific paradigm, which is so well suited for analysis and differentiation of reality.

Vision-logic represents the highest of the rational linear stages of development. Though it does enable a more flexible and multi-varied analytic interpretation, it still essentially views relationships in a sequential unambiguous fashion. So Ken's holarchical model is based on this absolute sequential approach to relationships (i.e. where connections are established in an unambiguous asymmetrical fashion).

Clearly integration must necessarily take place to some extent at every stage of development.

However even in terms of the centaur, this is necessarily a somewhat reduced, as it is defined in terms of an overall context of understanding that is heavily geared to differentiation of experience.

In the society we live in, the integration of the centaur would typically enable one to adapt in a successful manner. However this is but a reduced notion of integration and its imbalances are revealed through "higher" spiritual development.

Indeed in the very process of development the "higher" stages only unfold when one becomes especially sensitive to the unreconciled contradictions of the centaur.

What characterizes these "higher" levels is that they are geared directly to integration (which culminates with pure contemplative awareness).

So a true integral approach is based to on the "higher" spiritual levels of understanding.

Ken might indeed accept that full integration does indeed require the transpersonal stages. However the fact remains that he predominantly interprets development in terms of a "lower" method (vision-logic) which is not adequate as a means for properly translating integration.

So once again, vision-logic (as used by Ken) is simply the most advanced form of gross (one-directional) understanding and by no means the most developed type of intellectual translation available.

Very refined cognitive understanding unfolds with each of the "higher" levels (H1, H2 and H3) and forms the appropriate basis for true integral interpretation.

What is crucial to appreciate is that the very nature of this understanding is qualitatively different from the linear sequential type (that characterizes vision-logic). It is dynamically bi-directional where opposite poles are simultaneously involved. Though it is directly intuitive, indirectly it has a (reduced) rational translation, which is paradoxical in dualistic terms. Thus its very purpose is to undo the attachment to the asymmetrical interpretation of relationships that culminates with vision-logic.

Clearly in pure contemplative experience, recognition of differentiated phenomena is greatly minimized and does not directly enter awareness. This empty nondual understanding characterizes true integration (as opposed to differentiation).

So we differentiate by separating poles and making sequential asymmetrical connections (using the logic of form).

We integrate by uniting poles (that have been separated) by making simultaneous symmetric connections (using the logic of emptiness). This leads directly to spiritual intuitive realization.

Thus differentiation and integration of experience require using two distinct logical systems. These again are the logic of form (based on asymmetric sequential understanding) and the logic of emptiness (based on symmetric simultaneous appreciation). The first is analytic and linear (one-directional); the second is dynamically holistic and circular (bi-directional).

Finally, when we deal with both the differentiation and integration of experience we use a radial approach, which combines both logical systems in dynamic interaction.

Now when seen in this context, Ken's vision logic is certainly not suitable as a true intellectual means of integral translation.

At best it can only interpret the reduced integration that is consistent with the centaur stage of development.

One of the key weaknesses in Ken's approach is a failure to properly appreciate both the existence and relevance for integration of refined "higher" level cognitive structures.

Thus from my perspective, there is a vastly important dimension completely missing from his work.

My basic position is very coherent and simple. Vision-logic represents the most advanced understanding of the rational (linear) stages. It is a flexible and intuitively based use of the logic of form, which treats relationships in a sequential (one-directional) asymmetrical fashion.

As an intellectual method, vision-logic - as used by Ken - is designed for a multi-analytic (rather than a true synthetic) translation. Thus when we use vision-logic as a synthetic integral approach, overall imbalance and inconsistency is inevitable.

For proper integral translation we require the refined rational understanding of the "higher" spiritual levels. This spiritualized understanding is directly intuitive with a paradoxical bi-directional interpretation in rational terms.

In a number of recent articles I have enlarged on this point, outlining a detailed "Spectrum of Translation Methods". This distinguishes clearly as between analytic, suitable for differentiation, synthetic, suitable for integration and radial methods suitable for differentiation and integration.

The Quadrants Revisited

Indeed in the recent article on Frank Visser's site, I suggested how the quadrants would be interpreted using all eight methods.

However from reading Mike's account, one gets little sense of both the detailed nature of this criticism, and the constructive proposals I make to remedy the inherent deficiencies with Ken's approach. Again this is due to using a Wilberian frame of reference, which does not properly recognize these various methods of translation (and their respective applications).

We start with the analytic methods based on the logic of form.

Analytic 1 is based on the concrete and formal operational understanding of H0. It does not properly differentiate the four quadrants. So there is here - as pointed out by Ken - a marked tendency to reduce the understanding of reality to the perspective of just one quadrant.

Analytic 2 relates to the vision-logic of the centaur (the highest stage of H0). This is a more sophisticated analytic approach, and does indeed successfully differentiate the four quadrants (which Ken has ably demonstrated in his recent books!)

This indeed is a necessary and welcome step.

However from an integral perspective it is unduly limited.

When one looks at Ken's treatment he attempts to make unambiguous linear distinctions. In other words he tries to fix the locations and interpretations of his four quadrants in a definite fashion.

For example the Right-Hand quadrants deal with perception and the Left-Hand quadrants with interpretation; the Right-Hand deals with "it" understanding, the Left-Hand with "I" and "We".

However in dynamic terms we cannot successfully split up holons in this fashion, as a holon by definition belongs to all four quadrants.

Thus on closer examination, Ken's treatment is revealed to be full of inconsistencies. In my article in Frank Visser's site I illustrated this point at some length. It would be worth quoting the relevant passage, which shows that this criticism is very precise and detailed.

"In attempting to define each quadrant in unambiguous terms he himself uses a surprisingly reduced philosophical perspective. Indeed this is a fundamental problem with his general style. So often he attempts to analyze reality as if it were somehow independent of the interpreting mind. For example in describing his Right-Hand quadrants he says in "The Marriage of Sense and Soul", P. 117;

All Right-Hand events – all sensorimotor objects and empirical processes and ITs – can be seen with the monological gaze, with they eye of flesh. You simply look at the rock, the town, the clouds, the mountains, the railroad tracks, the airplane, the flower, the car, the tree. All these Right-Hand objects and "ITs" can be seen by the senses or their extensions (microscopes to telescopes). They all have simple location, you can actually point to most of them".

There is in fact a basic problem with his approach. He starts with the valid insight that every holon has exterior and interior aspects (in horizontal terms), and individual and collective aspects (in vertical terms). So by definition a holon belongs to all four quadrants.
However he then attempts to compartmentalize these same holons in terms of (horizontal) Right-Hand and Left-Hand, and (vertical) Upper and Lower quadrants.
A rock for example is clearly a holon that dynamically belongs to all quadrants. So it makes little sense to attempt to identify this holon in static terms with just one quadrant i.e. the Upper-Right.
A true integral approach requires greater subtlety. First of all, we accept that a holon does indeed belong to all four quadrants. Therefore in reduced linear terms, we can only identify locations by arbitrarily fixing our frame of reference. We can then consistently define quadrant locations (in this relative sense).

By switching our frame of reference, we can give four equally valid quadrant explanations for any experiential event.
These explanations are paradoxical in terms of each other. However, they provide the very basis for an integrated approach.

In other words, through balanced paradox, we move from an either/or logic (where quadrants are differentiated) to a both/and logic (where they are integrated).
Thus when we differentiate the quadrants in horizontal terms, an event is either Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Depending on how we fix our frame of reference, we can give two equally valid asymmetrical interpretations of the event.
However when we integrate these same quadrants (simultaneously using both frames of reference), the event is understood as both Right-Hand and Left-Hand.
In a direct sense, these complementary opposites are reconciled through intuitive awareness. However bi-directional paradoxical translation itself greatly facilitates this intuitive recognition.

Ken clearly does not provide an integral interpretation of the quadrants.
Also, insofar as he differentiates the quadrants he does so in a rigid absolute - rather than a balanced relative - manner. Not surprisingly this leads to a considerable amount of inconsistency.

For example perception is associated with the Right and interpretation with the Left. However this makes little sense from a dynamic perspective (where such distinctions have a merely relative significance). Indeed the "myth of the given" arises directly from the attempt to give perceptions meaning without the need for corresponding (conceptual) interpretation.
He then identifies his Right-Hand quadrants in "it" terms as the home of (empirical) science. However as in dynamic terms, scientific perceptions are meaningless in the absence of corresponding conceptual interpretation, we could equally identify the quadrants in "it" terms as (theoretical) science. As Ken places mental concepts in his Left-Hand quadrants, then the theoretical aspect of science would be Left-Hand, and the empirical, Right-Hand respectively.

Likewise he identifies a value such as compassion with the Left-Hand quadrant. However again in dynamic terms, an (interior) value has no meaning in the absence of an (exterior) objective context. Thus the sight of a suffering child might well be associated with compassion. However in reduced linear terms this has two equally valid interpretations. We could say that the sight of the child (exterior) causes the compassion; equally we could say that compassion (interior) causes one to notice the child.
In other words, in dynamic terms the value cannot be exclusively identified with either quadrant.
There are other obvious inconsistencies. Ken tries to identify the Right-Hand quadrants with "it" and the Left-Hand with "I" and "We".
As he considers Mathematics to relate to the interior aspect this would be placed in his Left-Hand quadrants.
However mathematics is considered a supreme expression of "it" understanding (though he identifies the Left-Hand as "I" and "We").

Likewise his attempts to identify morality with "We" makes little sense. Morality has certainly a (collective) "We" aspect. However it equally has an individual "I" aspect (as with existential morality). Morality also has an important "it" aspect. The programmatic approach of the institutionalized churches to moral behavior is based on a strong belief in "objective" morality.

He also identifies beauty with "I" which is very one-sided. There is a strong cultural "We" component to our notions of beauty. Indeed modern marketing and advertising have conditioned aesthetic perspectives to an unhealthy extent. Beauty clearly also has an "it" aspect where it is identified directly with (exterior) object symbols.

Once again, by definition a holon includes all four quadrants. So as science, mathematics, morality, and beauty are holons, it makes no sense to try and exclusively identify them with just one quadrant. However it requires a dynamic relative treatment to preserve this balance.

Ken then represents the disaster of modernity as the collapse of the Left to the Right. However if we associate the rapid growth of Mathematics with modernity (which he identifies with the Left), this position is not strictly tenable (even in his terms).
The real problem is that he fails to distinguish true interactive from (merely) absolute notions of the quadrants.

So properly speaking, the disaster of modernity represents the collapse of dynamic notions of Left and Right to (merely) reduced static interpretations (which can be identified with either Left or Right). Indeed in this respect, Ken's attempt to use an analytic approach, as a means of translating integration, is itself a reflection of the true problem of modernity.
Thus because of a lack of a dynamic approach, he continually comes down in favor of one side of a polarity (when the other is equally valid). From an integral perspective, his rather compartmentalized treatment of the quadrants is very confused, as he reduces dynamic interactions to rigid static interpretation.

It must also be remembered that Ken's four quadrant approach deals solely with horizontal and vertical polarities (in an absolute fixed manner).
A more comprehensive approach would also require the inclusion of diagonal polarities leading to an eight sectoral approach. These would then be interpreted in accordance with both the (linear) logic of form and the (circular) logic of emptiness.
I would have further reservations regarding Ken's treatment that arise from his lack of diagonal polarities.

For example, he would identify physiological reactions in the brain as the (exterior) aspect of (interior) thought processes. He is thus treating these as horizontal polarities in the same manner as sensorimotor objects (though they are quite different). However I would see them more accurately described in terms of diagonal polarities (where physical and psychological aspects directly coincide). Thus one can look at an object but not at the physiological aspect of one's own thought process. "

So I point out in this article that a more subtle analytic approach - which is referred to as an Analytic 3 approach - is necessary before properly integrating the quadrants. (This is based on the understanding that bridges each of the "higher" levels H0 and H1, H1 and H2 and H2 and H3).

This leads to the view that we can in linear terms give four equally valid interpretations of the quadrants. Ken gives one! In terms of each other, these interpretations are paradoxical. However this is the very basis for moving on to a true integral approach.

The integral approaches then attempt to combine simultaneously these (opposite) paradoxical interpretations. In direct terms such understanding is intuitive; however indirectly it always involves bi-directional rational understanding (where - in relative terms - opposite dualistic connections are made).

An Integral 1 method combines opposites within a given level (i.e. horizontal polarities). Thus as regards the quadrants, divisions as between interior and exterior aspects are reconciled. It is based on the understanding of H1 (subtle realm).

An Integral 2 method combines opposites between different levels i.e. vertical polarities.

Here divisions as between part and whole i.e. individual and collective are reconciled. It is based on H2 (causal realm).

An Integral 3 method combines opposites both within and between levels i.e. diagonal polarities.

Here remaining fundamental divisions as between form and emptiness are reconciled.

This is based on H3 (nondual reality).

The most comprehensive approach - which I term radial - involves both differentiated and integrated understanding in dynamic interplay.

A Radial 1 still involves some sequential division as between the two approaches.

A Radial 2 involves a very high degree of interpenetration of both approaches (dual and nondual) in a simple form of awareness. These are based on - what in Christian mysticism is referred to as - the Unitive Life.

Ken in his "The Eye of Spirit" repeatedly refers to integration as an all-level, all-quadrant affair.

However once again this represents a multi-differential rather than a true integral perspective.

True integration is not about adding up levels or quadrants, but rather about their dynamic negation.

So we could more correctly say that integration is a no-level, no-quadrant affair.

In other words in pure contemplative awareness - which is the direct experience of integration - we no longer have distinct levels or quadrants.

A true integral approach should be more correctly concerned with demonstrating how we gradually remove all those dualistic distinctions, which are valid at a linear (asymmetrical) level.

However Ken has no adequate means of showing how such an integral approach is properly translated. It requires circular bi-directional rather than linear sequential notions.

Now it is true, that in terms of the understanding of quadrants, a radial approach would allow for both their differentiation and integration. However without a properly defined integral component, this radial approach will inevitably be reduced to the merely analytic level of translation.

I appreciate Mike's desire to provide a simple accessible way of demonstrating my approach to the quadrants. However in doing so he thereby robs my treatment - which is very detailed and precise - of its essential significance.

For example he uses a Wilberian way of looking at the quadrants to describe their very interaction. However this is ascribing to me a perspective which I do not use.

My key point is that in dynamic terms, we cannot separate the observer from the observed. Therefore a very subtle bi-directional manner of interpretation is needed to translate the interactions. Mike's description of interdependence however is given in an analytic objective manner.

He then tries to identify linear with the left hemisphere, and circular with the right and radial with the interaction between both. As a first simplification this indeed is suggestive and has merit. However he then uses this simplified model (in an inappropriate manner), as a basis for criticism of my approach. This leads to inaccurate inferences and fails to do justice to my true position (which has been outlined now in several articles). In effect it represents an attempt to reduce my much wider frame of reference to that of Ken Wilber, thus eroding its essential significance.

Vision-logic

Mike refers to my central criticism that "vision logic as used by Ken Wilber is a sophisticated analytic method, and is not appropriate therefore for genuine integral synthesis."

Yes, I do say this. Moreover I believe that I fully support it through detailed investigation of Ken's actual treatment of various issues. As we have already seen in relation to the quadrants, Ken unambiguously fixes locations (which is the hallmark of the analytic method).

Mike then tries to draw a distinction as between vision-logic and integral aperspectival. I would certainly question this distinction. It is true that Gebser does not recognize "higher" stages of integration beyond the centaur. Ken does! However his vision-logic is based on the centaur and he himself identifies it clearly as integral-aperspectival. Here is a relevant quote from "The Marriage of Sense and Soul" P.131;

"Jean Gebser whom we have seen in connection with worldviews, coined the term integral-aperspectival to refer to pluralistic or multiple perspectives view which I also refer to as vision-logic or network-logic."

So vision-logic as used by Ken Wilber represents the understanding of the centaur, which he identifies with the integral-aperspectival approach.

I would find Ken's descriptions of vision-logic very unsatisfactory, as he makes many statements that are not properly consistent with each other. For example, Mike quotes the following;

"Where rationality gives all possible perspectives, vision-logic adds them up into a totality, which is simply the new and higher interior holon. . . [which] can hold in mind contradictions, it can unify opposites, it is dialectical and non-linear, and it weaves together what otherwise appear to be incompatible notions, as long as they relate together in the new and higher holon, negated in their partiality but preserved in their positive contribution". Vision-logic is Hegel's Reason, "unifying opposites and seeing identity in differences", transcending "the simpler empiric-analytic rationality of propositions, or Aristotelian logic" (SES, p. 185). "

Even within the same statement, we have obvious inconsistency. Ken starts by staying that "where rationality gives all possible positions, vision-logic adds them up into a totality, which is simply the new and higher interior holon."

To add up different perspectives is a linear activity. So Ken is defining the transformation into the new and higher holon in a reduced fashion.

In "The Marriage of Sense and Soul" P.131, Ken again states emphatically this linear viewpoint

"Where perspectival reason privileges the exclusive perspective of the particular subject, vision-logic add up all the perspectives privileging none and thus attempts to grasp the integral, the whole, the multiple process the multiple contexts that endlessly disclose the Kosmos, not in a rigid or absolutist fashion but in a fluidly holonic and multidimensional capacity."

What is revealing about this statement is that it shows that Ken tries to approach the integral from a flexible multiple perspectives approach (which accords accurately with the interpretation I give of his vision-logic).

However as we continue with Mike's quote, Ken is already offering another view which is inconsistent with the opening part.

"It can unify opposites, it is dialectical, it is non-linear."

Adding up different perspectives is clearly linear, yet Ken is now defining vision-logic as non-linear.

Also we do not unify opposites by adding up different perspectives; we simply create an additional perspective. So Ken's asymmetrical approach to development itself represents a distinct perspective.

Finally Ken's use of vision-logic is not dialectical in the sense - for example - of Hegel.

Here again there is further confusion. He identifies vision-logic with Hegel's approach but his dialectic is quite different from Ken's use of vision-logic.

This is a crucially important point. Hegel has a clear understanding that the way we define opposite poles is simply a convention. For example we may fix one pole as positive and the other as negative; however we can equally reverse poles so that what was positive is negative and what was negative is now positive. The very dialectic in experience comes from switching the frame of reference between poles, so that with sufficient dynamic interaction they become transformed into a new synthesis.

However when we look for example at Ken's quadrants, his treatment is greatly lacking in this dynamic appreciation. Locations are unambiguously fixed and Ken's subsequent analysis is very much based on this rigid understanding.

So vision-logic as used by Ken Wilber is not Hegel's reason. Hegel genuinely engages in a circular form of understanding, which characterizes a true dynamic approach. Apart from poetic type statements on the nature of nondual reality, Ken Wilber does not.

Ken makes several other statements regarding vision-logic that are either confusing or inconsistent.

For example he comments on the aptness of Gebser's "integral-aperspectival" terminology.

In fact it is quite inappropriate. Aperspectival literally means "without perspective". More correctly the term should be multi-perspectival. Ken actually means a multiple approach (where no single perspective is privileged). However aperspectival is again "without perspective". So the term integral "multi-perspectival" rather than aperspectival would be more accurate.

The reductionism in the term is also quite apparent. A multi-perspectival approach is a multi-differential approach (where each perspective is clearly identified). So to identify integration with such an approach leads necessarily to a merely reduced notion of integration.

On P. 132 of "The Marriage of Sense and Soul", Ken makes another inaccurate statement.

"Vision-logic is not yet transrational but we might say, lies on the border between the rational and the transrational and thus partakes of some of the best of both."

This makes little sense. The centaur on which vision-logic is based is not a transrational stage. To include some of the best of the transrational would imply true experience of these levels and clearly this does not happen at the centaur.

To properly incorporate the transrational we - logically - need the understanding of the " higher" spiritual levels.

On P. 141, Ken clearly identifies the integral with a multi-differential approach to reality.

"The Integral Approach therefore attempts just that – an integration just as they are of the Big three of art (aesthetic-expressive, self, and self-expression, subjective phenomenology, morals (intersubjective justness, ethical goodness, cultural communion and science (objective nature, the empirical world, concrete occasions). Nothing spectacular has to be done to any of these three value spheres (or four quadrants); we take them more or less as we find them. All that is required is that each begin to harbour that its truth is not the only truth in the Kosmos."

True integration is quite different. In integral understanding, the Big Three have no separate existence; likewise separate quadrants have no meaning. So Ken offers a very reduced notion of integration (which confuses it with differentiation). Once again we can preserve the differentiated aspect in a comprehensive radial approach. However if we do not properly distinguish the nature of integration in experience, the radial itself largely reduces to a differentiated approach.

Mike, in trying to dispute my description of vision-logic, puts words into my mouth (which I do not use) and then attempts to criticize me on the basis of his own insertions.

He says that Collins' criticism of it (vision-logic) as being just "a sophisticated analytic method" rankles because nothing is "just" anything. But I am not describing it as "just" anything. I am describing it as a "sophisticated analytic method" which as used by Ken Wilber it demonstrably is!

In the context of my position, this criticism is very valid. Ken claims to be writing from the perspective of vision-logic. However his descriptions are far from clear and indeed often inconsistent. In effect, vision-logic is sometimes used as a catchall phrase to describe Ken's approach. However when one examines his work carefully, Ken uses different approaches, so that arguments sometimes employ a style of reasoning that is below vision-logic. At other times he speaks in more poetic vein reflecting a stance above vision-logic.

What I am saying is very straightforward. There is a great need to clarify the type of understanding associated with each stage of development. In terms of rational understanding, this has certainly been done with the detailed investigation of conop and formop thought. To a lesser extent it has been also done in relation to the centaur (vision-logic) with its multi-perspectival approach.

However the centaur simply represents the highest stage of the gross realm.

There is an obvious paradox with vision-logic. It claims not to privilege any single perspective. However Ken's multi-perspectival (set of all sets) approach itself represents a distinct perspective. So by Ken's own logic his approach should not be privileged above any other.

The problem is that true integration cannot take place at a centaur level (in personal terms). If it could there would be no need for subsequent transpersonal development.

Likewise as a method of translation, the vision-logic of the centaur does not represent a true integral approach. We cannot empty ourselves of identification with perspectives while operating in a phenomenal manner, representing distinct perspectives. And Ken Wilber certainly does provide an identifiable perspective with which in many ways one can sharply disagree.

The very point about "higher" translations is that through their very refined and dynamic nature, they lessen attachment to phenomenal symbols. So we are gradually led to see integration as the emptying of differentiated phenomenal experience.

Now, Mike agrees that vision-logic does not complete "genuine integral synthesis", period. "And I consider that Wilber would completely agree with that."

However he does not follow up with the obvious implications.

As there are more refined intellectual translation methods associated with each of the "higher" levels, then obviously we need to use them.

There is in fact an enormous gap in Ken's work where a vast terrain of refined cognitive development is largely ignored.

So what is greatly missing in Ken's approach is any kind of systematic way to deal with the increasingly subtle type of understanding that unfolds with the "higher" spiritual stages.

Also the very nature of these translations differ in key respects from earlier more linear constructions.

At the higher levels, understanding becomes increasingly curved (and circular) reflecting the growth in paradoxical type awareness. This is not reflected in vision-logic (which simply represents the most advanced of the linear forms of understanding).

Thus the very attempt to translate with vision-logic - where it is not appropriate - can itself constitute a considerable barrier to authentic transpersonal development.

In other words by preserving the translation of vision-logic, we can actually view reality in a way that is inconsistent with the understanding of the "higher" levels.

Circular Bi-directional Logic

Mike then raises objections to my circular logic, with which I would not agree.

"For example, he calls circular logic bi-directional (Ref 1, p 26/42) in one place, and formless in another (p.2/42), and the logic of emptiness in others."

This criticism seems to me far-fetched and without foundation. As I use them, formless and emptiness are similar terms, so there is no inconsistency here.

Also - which is not at all clear from Mike's comments - I consistently define circular logic in dynamic terms.

Again we have to think of the circle with its horizontal line diameter through the center. This line intersects the circle so we have two points, which are common to both the line and the circumference of the circle.

Inherent in the very drawing of a circle is the notion of a line. So if we use a compass to draw a circle of unit radius, we first measure one unit on a ruler. Then holding the compass at a central point, we extend to this length and transcribe the curve. When we complete the radius to the other side of the circumscribed curve, we have a line in both directions. Thus the circle in geometrical terms encloses a line that is bi-directional from its center.

So I use these simple geometrical notions, in a dynamic qualitative sense, to define circular understanding. Circular appreciation always contains, as an inherent component, bi-directional (linear) understanding. In this process the paradoxical awareness of opposite statements (from a dualistic perspective) prepares the mind for a qualitative transformation in intuitive insight. This in turn enables deeper appreciation of bi-directional rational statements at a linear level.

So bi-directional (linear) and circular (intuitive) understanding are dynamically inseparable and mutually enhance each other.

Not alone would I argue that my interpretation is fully in accord with the actual dynamics of experience, but I can also demonstrate in my explanation, direct parallels with the quantitative interpretations of the line and circle.

So all in all, this is a fine example of the holistic mathematical approach in operation, where close parallels are drawn as between the (analytic) quantitative and (holistic) qualitative interpretation of symbols.

"Bi-directional seemed to me a more accurate term than either circular or formless, using as he does the example of cars retreating from one another (similar to 'Einstein's carriage')."

I would not agree. The very point about my interpretation is that it is interactive, where linear and circular interpretations are inseparable.

So in dynamic terms we cannot come to realization of the circular or formless, without appreciation of bi-directional (linear) understanding. It is this bi-directional appreciation that erodes identification with the phenomena of form, and thereby reveals the formless aspect that already inherently exists.

So Mike in reflecting a Wilberian perspective is simply indicating that this understanding is lacking in sufficient dynamism. It is indeed somewhat dualistic and tries to separate formal from formless understanding.

However the very nature of dynamic appreciation is that both form and formlessness interpenetrate.

So using Mike's own terms we have both Left and Right Hemisphere activity.

We cannot properly appreciate the understanding that characterizes the "higher" spiritual stages without grasping this key point.