Please Log in to Vote.

7 out of 7 members found this useful.

Potential Relation Between States & Values

 

I wrote this in relation to a post by Brian O'Connell. This all broadly connects to integral theory. Consider this: 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 God.  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, 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.  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). However, if and when one moves into a transcendent stream and objectifies this social construct 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 . (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.

 

 

Please Log in to Vote.

5 out of 5 members found this useful.

Hi, Brent

But what if it's incorrect?

"Consider this: 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])."

This has been a source of confusion for so many people. Horizontal Enlightenment does not make you un-self-centered. It just causes you to stop identifying with the small self sense which may be self-centered or it may be un-self-centered. And since "The All" includes both self-centeredness as well as selflessness, you can use any of it depending on convenience. The reason that Traditions have controlled State Training up to now is to build a strong muscle memory of kindness so that when "you" stop existing, the muscles of the body still know what to do and don't go around murdering people without shame (or cheating on your spouse...). If we cut off the State Training from any System of Moral Training then there is no muscle memory to carry behavior into the world except what that random individual just happens to have already accumulated.

This is actually a really big inquiry right now in this community and I wouldn't advise dismissing it so quickly.

Stage development is completely separate from State Training and the twain only meet when we intentionally make them meet. It's up to us to put them together because it's way too dangerous to let them drift apart. And the Cognitive Line of Intelligence (in the ego) is not the Moral Line, and they too must be put together with attention and intention or we're easy pickin's for the next Darth Vader move.

Both selfishness and selflessness are located in the UL and likewise both in the LL. the Quads don't have values. The Quads are empty of value and only contain what we put there. One doesn't move from one Quad to another when one changes values. All values arise as all 4 Quads all at once. The Left is not only about States, but Stages also. Values exist in the Left until they can be identified, and then they become Objects in the Awareness. But what is left is not valuelessness - even if the small-self has disappeared entirely - but values which have not yet been identified. As Ken said in the most recently released audio, there seems to be an Upper Limit to States, but no limit to Stages. There will always be more to become when the ego is operating. The end of becoming is a State experience. This much I am sure of.

The fractal process you mention is real, but I believe it is part of Stages, not States. The way States interact with all this is that State Training helps us to dis-identify with our current Stage in order to give the next one a fair run for its money. Without State Training, our ego has a harder time time letting go of the current Stage - but doing so is still possible. More time and more suffering has to happen before we hit bottom - generally.

And that is why the govt. and most of the American people are not ready to try something new. Those of us who are aware that trying something new is possible and desirable are now being held hostage and tortured by the rest.

--

"The Left Hand Path, not merely the Right ... must take the lead."

~SES pg. 148

Please Log in to Vote.

3 out of 3 members found this useful.

Thanks Bret

 

If I understand what you are saying it might look like this;

 

·        “Selfish I” values getting more stuff; material objects and personal experiences.

·        “We” values relationships

·        Transcendent might value resting as the empty witness

       

So what comes next? I would say that at;

·        “One taste” we come to see the value and sacredness of all beings and everything. Then our value would be the privilege to be able to serve it all or at least a part of this.

Another way to state this might be like this;

 

  • I matter
  • Our relationship matters
  • Nothing (no thing) matters
  • Everything matters

Please Log in to Vote.

4 out of 4 members found this useful.

States and...

I wonder if sometimes when you say "state" you actually mean "realm".

I was looking at some of the dialogue between Wilber and Combs where they are discussing what to class as a "state" and what to class as a "stage" (they apparently each thought the other had it backwards) and there was also a third variable: realm.

Wilber said his own system actually had six variables: States, Stages, Realms, I, We, It. 

I've been wondering about the Subtle because on the WC lattice it is plotted horizontally as a state, however, as people stabilise in Turquoise, Wilber mentioned in an interview with Cohen that he thought at Turquoise and beyond people could start to integrate their subtle realm self, which previously they'd only accessed temporarily via a state.

So in a way, as the stages go higher, they're actually possibly also ascending into higher realms, i.e. subtler realms of consciousness, which have on the right hand quadrants their corresponding energies. The "nest" model of realms of energy on the right hand quadrants has matter with the four forces of gravity, electromagnetic, etc. as the material body and lowest realm, then above or enveloping that is the suble energy and vital energy fields and bioenergies and all that, and perhaps morphogenic fields, and then above that, totally undetectable to instruments, is the very high subtle causal energy... rather like that Dutch mystic said he could see fields around people and that indeed, each field extended further than the lower realm's field. 

So as we start to exit society's norms at the gross material level of acquisitiveness, our sense of identity can expand but it expands to the whole material stage, which is Nature, and so the very highest material stage is care for all nature, perhaps, but even in that expanded awareness, we are still in the gross realm. Then somehow ... insert miracle here ... someone starts to integrate phenomena from the subtle realm, and enters the land of gods and goddesses and transmigration, and if they integrate that into their sense of self, as a structure, or view, or whatever it is called, into their being, then they would also have certain values along with that structure. Perhaps that's what "third tier" and all that is supposed to be about. 

I think "states" is a slightly confusing term... I was trying to understand it better reading the WC thing and I think Wilber says that general states support stages which support specific states.... eg. I am in the general waking state and in this state I have access to structures from purple up to er... yellow and I'm also in a bit of a sleepy state from having just eaten too much or drunk too much... a specific state affects all my structures' performance (like driving skills or debating skills) and meanwhile all of this is happening in the gross waking state (or realm).

Maybe structure is about our ability to create a perspective (and states are wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey oscillations of randomness around that) and at the moment for most people alive, their perspective on realms is fragmented, ie. they're either gross-awake or dreaming-asleep, but what we are trying to do is build a structure (in the form of our very own being) that can integrate all three realms, and that would be "fully human". Values would be an aspect or line of the being, and which develop as the being increases its perspective to include the subtle realm and becomes able to functionally integrate it, rather than just lightly flipping in and out of it in sleep. I remember reading about Ram Dass and he said he'd been pulled over by the police for driving too slow. Well he was driving slow because he only had one eye on the road. The other half of him was communing with the gods in the subtle realm, whilst his gross body was driving the car.

What do you think?