Fractal Theory

This is a theory I have been working on for the past number of years... adding new layers as I go & only really starting to clarify in the last few months. At the heart of it resides integral theory which itslef is darn exotic although where it leads us, I believe, is into farily exotic territory VERY quickly, if one follows this path of mentally connections that I think I am now starting to see. I will break this up into a few sub-sections of which I will link early posts I have made to help claify topics as we go. [Note: the posts I made earlier do not clarifiy some important issues as they are, I believed far more resolved at this point... so although I'm not really contradicting myself I don't think there is a very real evolution to this theory] To tell you where this is going to lead ahead of time this is an attempt at integrating the four-quadrants with development itself (along with states which is in some sense tangental to the whole approach but interesting, I think). Also it attempts to integrate the spectrum of consciousness in bit of a new way from the big bang to now(ish) through those two potentially new integations. It tries to integrate Hawking 11-dimensional supermembrane theory (and leaves space I think for theories that Brian O'Connel has been pointing to in his posts such as BLackLight Power and Rodin's mathimatics). Which all leads to the very exotic next step that may actually begin as soon as tomorrow ;)

I shall reiterate my thoughts on fractal ordering most of these thoughts can be found in my earlier post here.

On Primary focus or fractal development in the quadrants

In its essence, I am arguing that there is a parallel between the quadrants and development. Namely, that we have primary focus within particular quadrants as we grow... this pattern would in some real sense reach back into the animal realm and even, i think, into the plant domain and beyond (which I will address in later in this post). This Primary focus allows room for the co-arising of the four-quadrants. i.e. that they are ever-present just our focus on and within them shifts as we grow/develop.

To clarify, on earth (in general agreement with academic theories and integral) it took about thirteen billion years to develop impulsive beings (reptiles). These beings can subjectively fulfill their own needs (without self-reflexivity or emotional mutuality) notice that the transition from the first forms of life until the development of reptiles was one of increasing mobility. Until, with the rise of reptiles, there is a self-direction & sexuality that had never been possible with beings on the planet up to that point (including self-direction and sexuality in both water and land). Although there is some degree of inter-subjective relations within the reptilian species it is minimal (maybe 25% of the reptiles focus arguably) with about 50% on fulfilling impulsive needs as a primary focus. (although all four-quadrants are ever-arising) (the 25% below 50% at and 25% beyond as averages in relation to Stage Development that Ken has suggested elsewhere).

With the evolution of birds, you're seeing a hybrid between reptiles and mammals. I'd argue that they are now in the subjective-space of the new inter-subjective domain (flocking patterns ect... some of these patterns are seen in late reptiles). When you see the rise of the mammals proper they are express [inter-subject], inter-subjectivity as a primary focus. With late mammals you are seeing the development of early self-awareness (again expressing approximately 25% pattern of the level higher self-reflexivity - I would say that infra-red is also a mature expression of this). As some developmentalists note that when a magical-thinker puts on a mask of an animal they may think they have taken on the identity of that animal. They are transitioning to the self-reflective stages of development or objective realm as a primary focus. So this shift has added inter-subjectivity to the list... this being can now express a form of both subjectivity and inter-subjectivity.

When RED comes online the individual has developed through the domains of reptiles subjective impulsivity (reptilian brain-stem), mammals inter-subjectivity (limbic system) and now activated early self-reflexive capabilities proper, or early objectivity (from a subjective gaze). Amber adds inter-subjectivity within the domain of objectivity and Orange is the expression of objective-objectivity or, the summit of humanness in a sense. Green is the beginning of the realization of a new way of being (interpreted from an objective worldspace). That higher worldspace is inter-objectivity as a Primary Focus. This is the beginning of the understanding of the requirement and/or denial  of something higher than individuated autonomy. This realization paradoxically arises from the expressions in and through the creations made by ones own self-reflexive autonomy (i.e. objects created by the objective lens of the human being). Teal and higher leap into this space... a space that is not yet properly online as a whole system/understanding within the noosphere // that is the culture has not objectified it enough to make it a manifest system of agreed upon symbols). In other words, those leaping into 2nd tier are leaping into a space that is radically in the process of being created by mental beings which are now inter-objectively autonomous beings -in other words, they can minimally, feel-into the OBJECTIVE space of others. The coming online of this realization, if this pattern is right and holds, would starting in the techno-noosphere be a subjective expression of the inter-objective domain. (Through felt-sense thought-based connection to (all?) beings). While maintaining ones autonomy as an individuate self-sense... that is capable of reasoning on their own. This system would add some new element to the process of becoming if the pattern holds and that pattern would be at play presently but go unseen by the eyes of humans at this time. Just as reason is above the heads of mammals.

 This potentially links-up with State Development I believe. The following is another post I have made that tries to connect these two elements and reiterates some of the above in a slightly different context. You can see that post here  

States within a Fractal Context

The process of state development seems to follow the broad pattern (When viewed from a far, FAR distance) of moving from radical self-interest "The selfish I/me drives" (with micro-phases of autonomy and collectivism ala Spiral Dyanamics- note: this pattern probably preceeds the stages outlined in Spiral Dynamics [this is in a sense beside the point and therefore you needn't agree with it]). From the selfish I/me drives we move progressively into communions of WE and get more and more socialized and masters of our socialization. Some of us stay primarily in the I/me domain as some individuals have poor upbringings, malnutritioned, don't have a strong will ect. So even in bygone days (and at whatever stage one finds oneself) they have subsumed the I-impulses and move through the we-desires to the It-objectification. The It-objectification of ones socialization (whatever stage this might be as all are open to these broad states of consciousness) is that experience when one has as Ken aptly put it "tasted everything and everything tastes flat" (you might add 'everything about ones socializations seems flat' - at that point you are on the cusp of the transcendent or minimally an dis-identification with ones socialization. This would arguably be the case at whatever stage you are moving into the transcendent (or causal) domain from. Society simply no longer cuts it for the individual, rather you are going the way of your own direct experience.

The more beings in a society that are directly pursuing this, the more 'transcendent' the society would be. Note: again, development isn't essential here Tibet is an example of a very lowly developed society in pretty much all levels with radical state development.  Also notice, this is a movement from the UL (phenomonlogical-I selfish-engrossment [Gross State broadly-speaking]) to the LL We-collective Value-Sharers [Subtle state broadly-speaking] to the Objective-It Transcendental-Stoics  [causal state broadly-speaking] - which reflects the three faces of that which is ultimate (in whatever terms you want to put this).  The paradox if there is a paradox comes in relation to 'value'. What is of value to a person in the first state (i.e. I-Selfishness focus) Primarily IS objects or IT-stuff. Although relations and creative mental experiences are valued to some extent, those societies that are the MOST selfish (or, very entrenched in GROSS 'I' state experiences) tend to be the materialistic IT-based.  So there is a sort of I(state)-IT(values) pairing. If a society moves to more of a subtle-we (state) orientation I would argue the 'values' would shift to more subtle-body heart-energetic type transaction. In other words, when a deep social WE is opened that has a state experience at the subtle level the communion experience ITSELF is that which is valued - A We(state)-WE(Values) pairing. However, if and when, one moves into a transcendent stream and objectifies the social constructs (the collective WE experience) in which one is placed... the movement is to transcend and objectify all of IT... what becomes of value to such a being arguably is the artistic domain of beauty and the I-of-the-beholder IT(State)-I(Values).   

I am viewing this as a fractal process... the focus is constantly shifting... so you may say that broadly-speaking our society on average is in the early subtle state domain but we continually ratchet between I-We and IT as we move up with latent potentials being added [ITS would be next - which I will elaborate on in a moment]. And this is all occuring while the four quadrants arise moment to moment. These are in other words, patterns within patterns that add layers as we progressively move through novel evolutionary streams just as Ken says but with a slightly different emphasis here.

_____________

So the ratcheting effect connects to A) the fractal development of consciousness and B) the health of the society at whatever fractal stage one is at. As mentioned Tibet has a strong relation to the transcendent which would mean that the shadow stuff within that culture... at the stage it is present, has objectified much of itself and thus is in strong relation to the transcendent. However, the culture is very much rooted in AMBER and hence its objectification of itself is based in a Intersubjective(2nd)-objectivity(3rd) or myth-making of causal reality. It has not yet have access to objective(3rd)-objectivity(3rd) which would only be possible within an ORANGE rational culture.

_____________

The 11-dimensional Fractal developmental Theory

This gets us into the stepping stones proper and the labaling system I have started to use. One of the ideas I am using at this point, is that there is, in essence, 11 Mega-steps in evolution (I will try to add some real flesh to this body of reasoning). When I say 11 Mega-steps I am actually refering to 11 -dimensions. However, unlinke hawkings who has a theory of an 11-dimensional supermembrane or M-Theory which is interpreted monologically... this theory presents this idea with depth (i.e. the interiors of the evolutionary process which themselves are evolving through the dimensions). All dimensions are ever-present but the witness to them is dependent upon the dimensions from which they can see... like the Flatlander who is incapable of 'seeing' the third dimension - we can only see as far as our dimensional constraints allow and these higher dimensions are latent potentials within beings. Its important to keep in mind that there is a relativity to this as the beings involved can be at different places but are bound to some degree by the beings around them.

Within the first dimension there was (in time) a cycling through from 1.1 (from which it all began) 1.2 (the 1 is in relation to another) to 1.3 (the two form as objects). ect.... but because this is the fist dimension of the first pattern all subjectivity is bound within itself (it is isolated to the UL and has no mutality 2nd person // nor objectivity 3rd person). the first dimension cycles through eleven steps. up to 1.11 which then opens the door to 2.1

2.1 is the beginning of the objectification of subject or the start of ealry mutuality (or the beginning of life as we would consider it). With Reptiles there is an objectification of subjective-mutuality - reptiles make 2.1 object hence enter into 2.2. The whole history of mamals is the process from 2.3 and up (2.4, 2.5, 2.6,2.7,2.8,2.9,[infra-red is somewhere around here] 2.10,2.11). RED is the begining of 3rd-person awareness. although this third person awareness is embeded in itself and so cannot yet see its impulsiveness 3.1. Amber objectifies impulsivity by forging a group of mutuality 3.2. ORANGE objectifies group think with objective-objectivity and green pluralizes these truths in inter-objective-objectivity 3.4 which continues with 3.5 & 3.6 [Teal holistic-objecitivty] 3.7, 3.8,3.9, 3.10,3.11 (Turqouise- Integral Objectivity). 4.1 comes online with Indigo (I think). Which objectifies objectivity to open the door for the subject to properly view reality through inter-objectivity. This viewing probably will have something to do with making culture object and thus integrating the artifacts of culture into ones being - allowing the subject to interface with other (and access others interiors) through the means of cultures technology. But even beyond this... time itself is opened up in this new dimension which allows access to objectify causality to such a degree that time can be objectivly manipulated within the subjects mind.    

We are in some sense I think nearly the end (for many) of the 3rd dimension and the enterence of the 4th. Sorry for the weirdness-level of this (and the difficulty). I do not know how to explain this in a simpler manner.