"Dammit, Peter", I thought: "how can you say the writer of the chapter 'The Way Up is the Way Down' in SES, the unrelenting excortiator of mere ascenders, and the provider of the most explicit descriptions of transpersonal realms that I have seen (and the identifier of Zen quotes etc that certainly resonated in me) - how can you say that he 'continually reduces integration to differentiation in development'?

I have been very clear in my position. I would not agree with you that Ken provides very explicit descriptions of transpersonal realms. Nowhere does he properly identify the refined cognitive (and indeed refined affective) structures that unfold at each of the various "higher" levels. You are simply not acknowledging this crucial point Mike, which is vital in terms of appreciating my overall criticism.

Again it is very simple. The centaur is simply the "highest" of the gross realms. In rational scientific terms, the language of these realms is one of differentiation and analysis. Vision-logic is therefore a flexible multi-analytic method of interpretation. I have already given two quotes where Ken specifically identifies integration in terms of this multi-differentiated method of translation.

I am not saying that Ken lacks an integral vision of reality. I am sure that he has. Also I am not saying that in actual experience he confuses integration with differentiation. Rather I am saying that in terms of intellectual translation, he typically reduces integration to differentiation.

So Ken in "The Eye of Spirit" repeatedly refers to an integrated approach as an all-level all- quadrant affair. However again this is defining integration in terms of differentiation.

Of course we must differentiate before successfully integrating. So I have no objection to an all-level, all-quadrant approach.

However integration strictly involves the reverse.

In dynamic terms, integration is a no-level no-quadrant affair. So with full integration, as in nondual reality, there is no longer any consciousness of levels or quadrants.

Now Ken would admit this. However he does not show how to translate understanding - in intellectual terms - as it moves from differentiated (linear) to fully intuitive (circular) appreciation.

This is the crucial point. A true integral approach from my perspective is designed to show how all the dualistic distinctions, which work so well at a gross level of understanding, gradually break down at "higher" levels.

Again, Ken may well admit that they do necessarily break down. However this is not reflected in his intellectual approach, which is basically asymmetric and linear in orientation.

"And how can you say that 'his approach is very distorted from a dynamic perspective'? Are you sure that you are not confining the definition of 'a dynamic perspective' to your HM model? Pushing too hard in an attempt to set up a dialogue, and instead setting the stage for trench warfare?"

No! Mike you have to remember that I spent a considerable amount of time studying and reflecting on Ken's work before I ventured forth with any criticism. There is no rash overstating of my position. I mean exactly what I say.

For me, Ken does not think in a true dynamic fashion. He has a marked tendency to tie down his approach to development with a range of precisely defined concepts. He then attempts to deal with inconsistencies by extending these rigid definitions even further. I would maintain that the implications of Ken's extended positions are often at variance with his core assumptions.

However a dynamic approach has greater flexibility and allows for the paradoxes due to interacting relationships.

Hegel for example is a dynamic thinker in this sense. Jung is also inherently more dynamic in his approach. Indeed I would see much of Ken's criticism of Jung as invalid from a dynamic perspective.

Ken's lack of dynamism is enshrined in his somewhat rigid interpretation of the pre/trans fallacy.

Mike, I have explained repeatedly the basic reason why I consider that Ken's approach lacks dynamism. Once again it is due to his tendency to treat development in an asymmetrical sequential fashion. However true dynamic treatment requires a relative bi-directional treatment.

It is true that I use a holistic mathematical approach to formulate the principles of dynamic thinking. However it can also be stated without any specific reference to qualitative mathematical notions.

Let us look for example at the pre/trans fallacy. Ken's definition is based on a very strict division as between pre-egoic and trans-egoic structures.

So the relationship for Ken is one-directional. Development - as he repeatedly states - moves from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal.

Now this is a very linear way of looking at this matter.

When one uses a bi-directional approach, pre and trans become inextricably linked.

So when one identifies – in linear terms - experience as pre, it will invariably have trans elements (as it interacts with trans). Likewise when we identify experience as trans, pre elements will also be involved.

Now most of Ken's disputes with Washburn and Grof bring this difference to a head. What - from a linear perspective - seems like the confusion of pre and trans, can from a dynamic perspective look very different.

So the key issue in these disputes is the clash as between a somewhat mechanical - though superbly articulated approach - and a looser more dynamic rationale.

So I would see it as central to the proper appraisal of these dialogues to provide a more coherent and extended explanation of the pre/trans fallacy. Ken's approach is - I believe - only valid within a limited frame of reference. Though his critics are not explicitly using different levels of understanding to translate development, implicitly their views would sometimes be more compatible with bi-directional explanations.

As you know Mike, I have drawn up a profile of eight different pre/trans fallacies, which are valid for limited ranges of the Spectrum.

As for my HM approach, I have no apologies for an approach that brings great clarity to the nature of bi-directional understanding (which properly unfolds with the "higher" levels). As it can explain such understanding more precisely than other methods, of course it should be used! However once again, I can express all my key concepts without specific reference to HM.

No! I am not blind to other approaches. However it is the very lack of clarity that I have found in defining subtle concepts that has led me in my own distinctive direction.

I have said before that Hegel was the largest philosophical influence on my thinking.

Jung was a most important psychological influence. Both of these I would see as dynamic thinkers using concepts in a bi-directional fashion. Indeed it was largely due to their influence that I was led to formulating dynamic notions in a more precise fashion.

The analytic approach is suited to rigid interpretations of reality where meanings can be fixed. At certain levels of natural science this approach works very well.

Ken uses a very sophisticated multi-analytic approach. However there is a marked tendency in his writing to fix meanings too rigidly.

I am not of course saying that he does not recognize that development is inherently dynamic. Of course he does. However once more I am criticizing a characteristic method of translation, which in crucial ways misinterprets the nature of this dynamism.

Again this is very much exemplified in his treatment of the four quadrants.

I have already dealt with this, pointing out the limitations and suggesting what a true dynamic treatment requires.

This raises the matter of perspective. To appreciate this, you have to follow carefully what I am say within my terms of reference. Otherwise you will impute to me views that I do not hold.

"If Ken's isn't, can you think of any others that are? If not, doesn't that tell you something?"

Yes, I have already mentioned Hegel and Jung. In terms of his critics, the dynamic approach is to be found in the perspectives of Grof and Washburn. Recently, it is also apparent in contributions by Alan Combs and Gerry Goddard.

I am not saying that their contributions are better that Ken's. Indeed they often lack Wilber's strength which is a detailed analytic treatment of development. Also their dynamism remains somewhat implicit where its rationale is not fully appreciated, and is often confused with more linear notions.

I would believe that the key merit of my own approach is a more coherent way of defining the roles and limits of both linear and more circular dynamic approaches.

"Immanence is THE POINT of what Ken's saying! He's emphasising the 3D aspect of reality (within the Atman Project) because he's predominantly trying to wake up flatlanders towards vision-logic, but that isn't all he says and does, it's the weighing he gives his work because of the prevailing mindsets!"

I would strongly question this view. I think it would be far more accurate to say

Transcendence is the point of what Ken is saying.

The holarchical model of development is a "transcend and include" model and in the Atman Project he actually makes transcendence synonymous with development.

Again I find it a great weakness in Ken's approach that he does not preserve the complementarity of immanence and transcendence throughout development. This reflects in turn the lack of a true bi-directional manner of treating the dynamics of experience.

I will accept that there is some validity in the argument that vision-logic might be the best means with which to communicate with a flatlander audience (used to the reduced notions of science).

Thus one could use vision-logic as Ken does to awaken many to the transpersonal, whereas a more specialized form of translation could initially create communication difficulties.

However even at this level, one would expect the limitations of this approach to be clearly pointed out in the text or at least accompanying footnotes with perhaps suggestions as to a "higher" level approach. However I see little evidence of this with Ken, and many of his notions such as the pre/trans fallacy - even within the context of a vision-logic translation - are given an unduly rigid interpretation.

"Are you being selective to be tendentious? Are you committing the PE to push your own barrow? Do you see Ken as the fastest gun in the wild, wild west of transpersonal studies, with them that fancy shooting irons from back East, and that if you can outdraw him, you'll be Top Gun?"

I do not accept this accusation. It is unfair to call me selective, because all my criticism is based on fundamental methodological criteria with widespread applicability.

As for talk about the fastest gun in the west I consider this approach quite unsuitable for genuine dialogue.

You know Mike, that I will of course defend my own position to the best of my ability (and I would expect others to do likewise), but I always deal with criticism seriously and never try to avoid any issues.

I am confident enough in the value of my own approach to deal with all points made in a constructive fashion. So I do not try to evade or use tricks in debate. I am interested in sincerely and honestly confronting the issues raised. To attempt otherwise would do no service to the truth.

"I finished with a resounding "Humph!" With that off my chest, I settled back, looking again at Collins' model rather than Collins critique, and gradually became no longer so complacent as to think that I had a grip on where he was coming from, after all. Calming down, I realized that my emotional reactions expressed in the paragraph above were largely tommyrot. That kind of person was not the Collins I know, who is one calm, sophisticated, highly rational individual in my (cyber only) experience, and such beyond such nonsense. "No," I thought, "Collins is acting from a sincere intellectual conviction. I need to look closer."

Thanks Mike, Yes you are right. Whatever you make of my criticism, I am genuinely operating from a sincere intellectual and - more importantly - spiritual conviction. I always attempt to state my position as accurately as possible (without exaggeration or hyperbole).

"Just the same, let's look at Collins' work through the Star Key", I thought. There aren't 25 stages in the Star Key; there are seven nines along its spine, but wait! - 12 lines and 13 points with its radius of six (12+13 = 25). Sort of fits, but a bit of a stretch. "But there are 7 developmental levels, so they fit!" Let's see how well they fit, by going to Ref 1, Collins' "Dynamic Model of Spectrum" (I am using edited quotes from Collins):

L3 - archaic subject-object confusion: curved space-time.

L3 to L2 - form separated from emptiness; beginning of bodyself/world differentiation.

L2 - lower point. The Magic Stage . Spacetime less curved.

L2 to L1 - whole is now separated from part, and individual identity from collective environment.

L1 - Lower circular. The Mythic Stage. Confused integration of horizontal polarities. Confusion of objective with subjective meaning.

L1 to L0 - linear differentiation of the remaining horizontal polarities

LO/HO - fully linear spacetime; analytical science

HO to H1 - explicit understanding of mirror translation, and the integration of horizontal polarities. All dualistic explanations now have mirror images.

H1 - higher circular level (the Psychic and Subtle stages). Integrated circular and horizontal understanding,

H1 to H2 - the unfolding of virtual understanding ('the unconscious aspect, indirectly expressed - of all conscious phenomena'), and the integration of vertical polarities.

H2 - higher point level. The Causal stage. (Circular) integration of both horizontal and vertical with (linear)differentiatipon of remaining diagonal polarities. Space-time now becomes increasingly curved.

H2 to H3 - the unfolding of complex understanding; integration of diagonal levels; integration of both horizontal and vertical polarities.

H3 - circular integration of all polarities - diagonal, vertical, and horizontal. The Null stage. Because we are now approaching total curvature of space-time the very notion of a level (which is a linear distinction) ultimately breaks down. Strictly, He and L3 represent no levels (diagonal polarity). Radial Reality involves the increasingly dynamic interpenetration of form with emptiness (and emptiness with form).

I am fascinated with Mike with your attempt to apply the Star Key to visualize the levels.

My approach is in fact designed to be directly compatible with a slightly different visual representation. The Star Key is based on a mandala pattern based on six equidistant points on the circle. My own is specifically based on eight equidistant points on the circle which allows representation of horizontal, vertical and (two) diagonal axes.

However the similarities are still close and the use of the Star Key to represent my basic levels is quite valid (and brings out key characteristics).

For example at the very middle of the circle, linear extension is at its greatest. Thus H0 is represented in the middle. Now as we move above and below this "middle" level, curvature increases and extension decreases. When we reach H3 and L3, linear extension goes completely and levels "collapse" to a point (which equally represents both their linear and circular characteristics).

Also Mike, you use your numerical representations to effectively represent horizontal, vertical and diagonal polarity.

As these features are critical in terms of the dynamic features of my model, I will briefly again indicate their relevance (the vast implications of which can easily be overlooked).

Horizontal complementarity implies that within a given level, all relationships have both physical and psychological aspects.

So String Theory can be identified with a level of my model (L2). This means that we have a psychological counterpart to the structural relationships of String Theory in the infant behavior appropriate to L2. So this insight provides a fascinating new way of looking at reality at this level and provides the means for making extraordinary connections. So in an integral scientific appreciation, we would use the same structural concepts to describe both aspects (demonstrating the inherent complementarity of reality at this level).

Vertical complementarity implies that between appropriate "higher" and "lower" (and "lower" and "higher") levels we also have remarkable structural similarity.

What this means in effect is that the mature understanding of the "higher" level is required to interpret the understanding of the corresponding "lower" level

So therefore to properly understand the psychological experience of L2 in dynamic terms we need the understanding of H2.

Equally the relationships of the "lower" level can suggest the understanding appropriate to the corresponding "higher" level. So a two-way interaction is dynamically involved.

The implication of this is that vision-logic which represents the understanding of the "highest" of the sub-levels of H0, is simply not adequate to dynamically interpret the "higher" levels (H1, H2 and H3) or the "lower" levels (L3, L2 and L1). In other words, its understanding is not vertically complementary - in a dynamic sense - with these levels.

Diagonal complementarity involves understanding within and between levels.

Thus when I use the psychological understanding of a "higher" to interpret the physical relationship of a "lower" level, then this represents diagonal complementarity.

Strictly in dynamic experiential terms, H3 is identical with L3 (and all linear notions of hierarchy dissolve).

However I think Mike that you are still very reluctant to admit the difficulties that this dynamic appreciation causes for Ken Wilber's model.

After all, the holarchical model of development is - despite its refinements -based on a linear asymmetrical treatment of development. Therefore right away, it does not lend itself to this dynamic type of treatment where both linear and circular notions interact.

"I do not think that for one second Wilber would dispute that "The truth is that pre and trans are necessarily interlinked in the dynamics of development." And yet Collins is criticising Wilber on that ground! Let me take a long quote from Wilber:

"I have often written about what I think are the three main types of value in the world: intrinsic value, extrinsic value, and Ground value. Intrinsic value is the value a thing has in itself. Extrinsic value is the value a thing has for others. And Ground value is the value that all things have by reason of being manifestations of Spirit.

"Intrinsic value is ranked according to its degree of inclusiveness and wholeness. A molecule, for example, has more intrinsic value than an atom, because molecules contain atoms. Molecules, being more inclusive, contain more being in their own makeup, and thus their intrinsic value is greater. Cells have more intrinsic value than molecules; organisms, more than cells; and so on. Likewise, worldcentric has more intrinsic value than sociocentric, which has more than egocentric, because the former, in each case, has more depth and more wholeness.

"But to say that a cell has more intrinsic value than a molecule is not to say the molecule has no value at all. It's a sliding scale, depending upon how much of the universe is embraced in a holon. The more being that is internal to a holon, the more intrinsic value it has. The greater the depth, the greater the wholeness, the greater the intrinsic value.

"Extrinsic value is pretty much the opposite of intrinsic. An atom has more extrinsic value than a molecule, because more holons depend for their existence on atoms than on molecules. Molecules themselves depend for their existence on atoms - but not vice versa - so atoms have more extrinsic value, or value for others.

"It's pretty easy to see: the higher a holon is on the Great Holarchy, the more intrinsic value it has. The lower a holon is on the chain, the more extrinsic value it has. Both are absolutely mandatory, because they can't exist without each other. Without the higher, the lower would have no meaning; without the lower, the higher would have no manifest existence.

"Intrinsic value is the value a thing has by virtue of being a whole with agency (and the greater the depth of the whole - or the more levels it contains - then the greater its intrinsic value, or the more of the universe it embraces and enfolds into its own being). Extrinsic value, on the other hand, is the value a thing has by being virtue of a part in communion (and the more things it is part of, the greater its extrinsic value). Agency concerns rights (we are individual wholes with individual rights, grounded in justice); communion concerns responsibilities (we are also parts or members of many relationships, grounded in care). All things are wholes that are also parts (all holons, without exception, are agency-in-communion), and thus all holons have both intrinsic and extrinsic value, both rights and responsibilities.

"Intrinsic and extrinsic are relative values; Ground value is absolute. Ground value is the value that each and every holon has by virtue of being a radiant manifestation of Spirit, of Godhead, of Emptiness. All Holons, high or low, have the same Ground value - namely, One Taste. Holons can have greater or lesser intrinsic value (the greater the depth, the greater the value), but all holons have absolutely equal ground value: they all share equal Suchness, Thusness, Isness, which is the face of Spirit as it shines in manifestation, One Taste in all its wonder."

Mike I consider this a somewhat unconvincing attempt to diffuse my criticism of Ken's key notion of the pre/trans fallacy.

You try to imply that Ken would agree with the more dynamic explanation.

Well if Ken would agree that pre and trans are necessarily interlinked in the dynamics of development, then it makes no sense to maintain that pre-egoic and trans-egoic states should be always clearly distinguished. This represents a merely linear notion of development, where trans is considered "higher" in development than pre.

However this is the very point. In terms of dynamic notions of vertical complementarity, pre and trans are necessarily interlinked. Thus we cannot have trans without pre, or pre without trans.

The long quote you make in no way supports your defense of Ken. It does not directly relate to the issue of pre and trans at all. In fact pre and trans are never even mentioned.

Even if this quote represented a dynamic viewpoint - which it clearly does not - it still would not address the point, for Ken could still be inconsistent in the manner he applies such understanding to the pre/trans fallacy.

So therefore I would expect that criticism of the pre/trans fallacy should be dealt with by reference to what Ken directly says about it (as he mentions it so often in his books).

The quote from "One Taste" in fact is a very strong statement of the linear asymmetrical interpretation of development (that is inconsistent with a proper dynamic approach).

The very point about such an approach is that words like "high" and "low" have in this context a merely relative distinction. However in terms of his actual approach to development, Ken gives them an absolute interpretation.

So for Ken "higher" holons have more intrinsic value; lower holons have more extrinsic value.

This reflects a merely transcendent perspective (which is very unbalanced). Also it leads to the misleading view that "higher" understanding is concerned with interior (subjective) value. This bias has been all too prevalent with Ken's over reliance on his UL quadrant in terms of portraying spiritual development.

However the important thing to grasp that in terms of a balanced integral approach to development, the interior cannot be elevated over the exterior aspect.

Far from demonstrating that Ken's treatment is dynamic, it in fact establishes the opposite. The very point again is that proper balance - by definition - cannot be maintained in an approach that is decidedly asymmetrical. This necessarily means coming down in favor of one side of a polarity,

So for Ken the interior is elevated over the exterior (in horizontal terms); the higher is elevated over the lower in vertical terms; and the transcendent is elevated over the immanent (in diagonal terms).

"Perhaps Collins comment that "a comprehensive approach would require a qualitative binary system based on the use at each stage of development of both the logic of form and the logic of emptiness (i.e. linear and circular logic)" could be stated by Wilber as "a comprehensive approach would require a qualitative binary system based on the recognition at each stage of development of both the intrinsic and extrinsic value of a holon.",

No! These are not equivalent positions by any means.

Once again when I say a qualitative binary approach, I refer to one that is based on both the logic of form with emphasis on the (linear) asymmetrical aspect of relationships, and the logic of emphasis with emphasis on the (circular) symmetrical aspect.

Though Ken does indeed distinguish intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of a holon, he does so largely within a context which is based on the translation of development by the logic of form. In other words Ken's understanding - as revealed in these quotes - is in terms of a sequential asymmetric interpretation (where polarized distinctions are given undue validity).

So from my frame of reference, Ken predominately uses a qualitative unary approach (i.e. a translation based on the application of one logical method).

Now admittedly, when describing nondual reality, he uses statements which are consistent with the logic of emptiness, but these are never properly incorporated into his treatment of development.

So there is a clear lack of interface as between linear and circular notions.

"Is Collins collapsing Wilber into speaking only of 'intrinsic' value when he makes such criticisms?"

Of course not! The point I am making is that one can use different logical approaches in tracing the relationship as between extrinsic and intrinsic value.

In the logic of form, one treats relationships in an asymmetric fashion. Thus for Ken the "higher" holon has more intrinsic value.

In the logic of emptiness one treats relationships symmetrically. Thus when understood bi-directionally (allowing for both transcendent and immanent appreciation), any hierarchical distinction of value is purely relative.

"Because if he is, I consider that to be a flagrant PE. Logic doesn't contain values, but logic is used towards values. So, Wilber's valuational model can enfold logic in their assessment, while Collins' multilogical model requires values for its engagement. Does Collins' assertion of "the molecule being in the atom" involve a conflation of intrinsic, extrinsic and Ground values?"

Within my frame of reference there is certainly no PE. Indeed the truth of my assertion seems very obvious.

Once more to suggest that I say the "molecule is in the atom" is a very inaccurate reduction of my actual position.

I distinguish very carefully as between the quantitative and qualitative aspects of inclusion. This requires a subtle bi-directional understanding, which incorporates both the transcendent and immanent means of interpretation.

Again I say that from a (reduced) quantitative perspective - which reflects the asymmetric scientific perspective - the atom is in the molecule (and the molecule is not in the atom).

However from a more balanced refined perspective, if the atom is transcended and quantitatively included in the molecule - then in relative terms - the molecule is made immanent and qualitatively included in the atom.

I have also suggested a precise holistic mathematical way of preserving both quantitative and qualitative aspects of understanding.

So if we identify quantitative meaning as "real" then in a precise holistic mathematical fashion, corresponding qualitative meaning is "imaginary".

Therefore the correct statement of my position would be that in this context, the atom is quantitatively included in the molecule (in real terms), whereas the molecule is qualitatively included in the atom (in imaginary fashion).

Thus to preserve both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of reality we would need to move to complex rather than real interpretations.

"Wilber means the model, (not the person) particularly seems to lack a subtle grasp of transpersonal realities." But it must be mutually agreeable that the mathematical translative method is also necessarily confining at those levels - insufficient, but nonetheless not irrelevant, and potentially illuminating."

I found this comment of Wilber's particularly disingenuous. It was offered once more without any substantiation or indeed any attempt at all to grapple with the many important issues I had raised in my long article.

I strongly suspect that Ken is laboring under a considerable misapprehension as to the true nature of the holistic mathematical approach.

It seems to me that he believes that I am trying to interpret experience in terms of the reduced conceptual understanding of conventional mathematics.

However nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the qualitative appreciation of mathematical notions would not be possible without very refined spiritual intuition.

All phenomenal descriptions of ultimate reality are insufficient to translate the mystery involved. So in this sense the greatest spiritual masters in even daring to speak about the transpersonal, can be accused of reductionism.

However this is missing the key point, that just as mathematical language plays a special scientific role at the quantitative level, likewise mathematical language in its refined spiritual sense can play a key scientific role at the qualitative level also.

So therefore in terms of an integral appreciation of reality, holistic mathematical translation is especially relevant in scientific terms.

"Nothing Wilber says implies that the transpersonal lacks experience of Collins; he merely doubts the model's translative capacity".

The fact is that Ken never specifically addresses my model. Therefore any comments he makes lack a firm basis. I would not attempt to criticize in such a manner, as I would consider it both unfair and unconvincing.

Mike agrees with my remark that "within Ken's own frame of reference . . . he is doing a superb job embracing a vast range of material in a coherent and profound way."

He also rightly acknowledges that I see my own perspective as being very different.

"From the very start I have been engaged on an extremely important issue that Ken does not properly recognize. Once again this is related to the key insight that there are a number of valid scientific approaches (based on the understanding of each respective level of the Spectrum)"(private correspondence).

I agree with this "key insight" of Collins. But I don't see Collins' "very different" perspective as requiring any endorsement, or even comment, from Wilber."

However Mike, this is simply to ignore that the acceptance of a range of differing methods for translating reality has intimate implications for evaluating Ken's work.

In my Spectrum of Methods, vision-logic represents just one of eight translations (and is not included as a true integral method).

I am not just talking in general terms. The implication of the Spectrum of Methods is that we can take any concept and produce a range of differing interpretations (with a limited partial validity).

As you know I have applied the "Spectrum" to the pre/trans fallacy. The simple logic of my argument is that there is in fact no pre/trans fallacy, but rather a wide range of differing fallacies that apply at the various stages of development.

Thus to apply an interpretation based on vision-logic as the pre/trans fallacy, is from my perspective, most inaccurate and very limiting.

"But Collins has come to terms with that, I believe (as I have with the 'past tense' criticisms of Collins I made above; they are in the past). What he finds hard to swallow is that he has discovered significant flaws in Wilber's model by application of his own to it, and that Wilber still virtually ignores him!"

This is precisely it! I see Ken giving considerable attention to far more superficial objections to his approach. However when this truly fundamental criticism is made, it is apparently ignored.

However the plain fact is that my substantial points have not yet been addressed by Ken (not alone answered).

Mike then disputes my contention of finding significant flaws in Wilber's model with the following quote:

"I sought an integral philosophy, one that would believably weave together the many pluralistic contexts of science, morals, aesthetics, Eastern as well as Western philosophy, and the world's great wisdom traditions. Not on the level of details-that is finitely impossible; but on the level of orienting generalizations: a way to suggest that the world really is one, undivided, whole, and related to itself in every way: a holistic philosophy for a holistic Kosmos: a world philosophy, an integral philosophy. . .

"I also know that every tomorrow brings new truths, opens new vistas, and creates the demand for even more encompassing views. SES is simply the latest in a long line of holistic visions, and will itself pass into a greater tomorrow where it is merely a footnote to more glorious views. In the meantime, it is quite a ride."

Ken says here that he sought an integral philosophy. I have already explained my deep reservations on this score. His approach is integral only within the reduced confines of a vision-logic interpretation.

Once again I do not consider that vision-logic - as used by Ken - is appropriate for a true integral translation and have clearly explained why. Ken translates integral in a manner that is not properly distinguished from differential. Thus his integral approach is really multi-differential (based on a reduced notion of integration).

Of course like so many I greatly admire the comprehensive nature of Ken's vision and his seemingly indefatigable capacity for so much work of a very high quality.

I accept that Ken offers orienting generalizations, which for many are indeed deeply suggestive of the ultimately undivided nature of reality. However once more they are based on a vision-logic translation that is not adequate for proper intellectual integration.

When one closely examines the manner in which he treats issues, numerous imbalances and inconsistencies arise, that are not properly reconciled. As Mike well knows, I have elaborated on these at length in other Forums. They strongly suggest the need to move beyond vision-logic.

I think the best argument in favor of Ken's approach is that vision-logic is perhaps more accessible to the Western differentiating mind than the more refined bi-directional approaches.

There is no doubt therefore that Ken has been able to use it successfully to inspire many with a vision of a comprehensive framework, and even with the desire for genuine transpersonal understanding.

However just as there are different levels of integration in experience; equally there are differing levels of integration in terms of translation methods.

I consider the chief merit in my approach is in identifying the nature of the various levels of translation and their corresponding ranges of application.

I believe it greatly extends the potential scope for scientific appreciation of reality.

"I think that, at the level of orienting generalizations, Wilber's work works just fine. I do not accept Collins criticisms of Wilber at that level."

With considerable qualifications, I would accept that at the level of orienting generalizations Wilber's work is fine. However to leave it at this, is simply to ignore the very essence of my criticism regarding the limited applicability of such generalizations (which again are only compatible with a very reduced notion of integration).

So this remark really reflects the use of a Wiberian frame of reference to reject a criticism, which itself is based on a much wider frame of reference.

There is nothing superficial or incidental about my criticism. It is truly fundamental with major implications for every Wilberian concept.

However appreciation of this important fact is not reflected in your remark.

"I think that, at the level of 3-D cognitive translation, Collins' work works just fine. I accept some of Collins' criticisms of Wilber at that level. But, as Wilber points out above, he is not working "on the level of details - that is finitely impossible":

I am still not quite sure what criticisms you accept Mike. Also your comment that Wilber is not working "on the level of details - that is finitely impossible" is not pertinent in this context. I am even less working at the level of details and yet can see fundamental difficulties with his approach.

"His acceptable criticisms are those towards more precise articulation, such as Collins' model can provide. OK, but as Wilber points out elsewhere, orienting generalizations are often all that is needed to move through the stages."

No! It is gravely understating my position to suggest that I only have reservations with the way that Ken articulates matters. It is much more fundamental than that.

At the risk of being repetitive, I find key imbalances and inconsistencies in Ken's work, which reflect the use of a translation method in circumstances where it is inappropriate.

At the most general level, my criticism relates to Ken's failure to properly reconcile linear with circular notions of understanding.

This is about so much more than precise articulation!

As I have already stated Ken's orienting generalizations may be fine as a starting intellectual framework (compatible with transpersonal development). However further along the journey they are far less compatible. He encourages an intellectual belief in asymmetrical notions, when really spiritual awareness is about the emptying of such dualistic thinking. So the task of a true integral approach is to show in cognitive terms how this emptying takes place.

I want to thank Mike for creating a framework for this very constructive dialogue, which helps to clarify both the nature of my approach and its fundamental criticism of Ken's.

Once again I will refer to the key point.

Ken Wilber has perhaps done more than anyone to promote the important notion of a Spectrum of Consciousness with all its varying levels and stages.

However what has been largely ignored is that this notion of a Spectrum has critical implications for the very way we intellectually translate reality.

There is a unique method of translation associated with each major level of the Spectrum, with mature translations based on the middle and "higher" levels (and Radial Reality).

Vision-logic represents the intellectual interpretation of the most advanced stage of the middle level. It is thus quite limited in its range, and not appropriate as a means of translating either the "higher" or "lower" levels. The "lower" levels are complementary with the "higher"!

We need to get away from this defensive and unhelpful approach whereby vision-logic can be vaguely understood to mean anything that one wants it to mean.

I strongly suggest that we need to devote a great deal more attention to the precise clarification of the nature, range and limitations of all the various translations on the Spectrum. Holistic Mathematics has an especially valuable role to play in this hugely important task. It has to power to radically alter the very way we look at reality and significantly enlarge the scope of scientific inquiry.