Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

3-01. Ken's Introduction to Stages

Posted February 24th, 2011 by David Roel in ADC Notes

0:10 - both structures of consciousness and states of consciousness can unfold in stages, but states of consciousness usually don't, and structures of consciousness almost always do

1:16 - a structure is any stable pattern

2:10 - the whole often determines what the parts do

2:22 - the structure is a dynamic pattern (think of a whirlpool)

5:10 - most stage conceptions are forms of developmental structuralism

5:54 - Gebser's Integral is the collection of green and above

6:30 -Baldwin outlined the developmental levels in the cognitive line, the aesthetic line and the normative line (among others)

9:02 - Kant examined the structures as the preconditions for having experience (and thus, they're transcendental and a priori)

10:38 - only structures that have developed can be conceived

10:55 - structures can't be experienced (states, experiences, phenomena can)

12:30 - this is why the structure-stages have no history in the great traditions

17:49 - the kind of stages we find in the traditions are state-stages, states of experience that unfold in a sequence

18:01 - most states of consciousness come and go with no development or sequentiality

18:23 - five major states of consciousness according to the great traditions

23:12 - waves are another word for stages, to give the idea there is an amount of fluidity in play

23:54 - structures are probability clouds

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

thanks

Posted February 25th, 2011 by Ambo Suno

Hi David - I always appreciate your synopses - they are pithy and so reinforce learning and understanding - they confirm, and point out areas in oneself that are iffy around a topic.

In these terse truths, I like when you and apparently the speaker still qualifies with words like "most", to leave room for ever-inherent variability and uncertainty, as with, "18:01 - most states of consciousness come and go with no development or sequentiality.

I get and appreciate these thoughts below with my interlaced comments, and am not sure of their categorically implied "always" - I'm not saying that they aren't true, but they aren't ringing clearly, certainly true - maybe need a little more text to qualify the statements fully:

10:55 - structures can't be experienced (states, experiences, phenomena can). It seems that structures, as with a feeling of boundaries where one constantly meets one is felt, in a sense, and experienced. It may be that by agreeing upon some definitions it could be said that one also needs states, experiences, phenomena. Yet states are always present of various sorts, so to push this point too hard might be like saying one needs oxygen to breath - OK, but it is always there. Excuse me, David, I find myself pushing this a little hard and it may require more thought for me to be sure it's correct or a point worth making.

12:30 - this is why the structure-stages have no history in the great traditions. Yes, interesting. This sounds a bit as an unequivocal statement and I'm not totally sure - yet.

17:49 - the kind of stages we find in the traditions are state-stages, states of experience that unfold in a sequence. This too is interesting and probably generally speaking accurate. I have the image of a historian stepping in and pointing to writings or teachings in the great traditions that speak to or imply a knowledge of structural stages. Taoism comes to mind. Charles could maybe speak to this. At a glance, for example, the Tao Te Ching (?) and other books seem replete with cultural and sociological and political understanding and the lessons and wisdom are often presented through those lenses. A bible expert may be able to point to similar knowledge. The earlier first tier structural stages might be spoken of more.

Maybe I'm mistaken, here, or trying to run a fine toothed comb through a fine tapestry and missing the more important pattern. Do you have a thought on these comments of mine, David.

Thanks for your synopses.

ambo