Spectrum of Development

In my developmental approach, I outlined 3 distinct types of integration. Integral 1 related to the dynamic two-way integration of the "horizontal" polarities in development i.e. external and internal. Thus at each stage, successful integration required that an appropriate balance be maintained as between out-in i.e. integration of the (internal) self with respect to the (external) world and in-out i.e. integration of the (external) world with respect to the (internal) self. Integral 2 related to the corresponding dynamic two-way integration of the "vertical" polarities i.e. whole (collective) and part (individual). Thus between "higher and "lower" stages, successful further development required that an appropriate balance be maintained as between top-down i.e. integration of the - relatively - lower (part) with respect to the higher (whole) stages and bottom-up i.e. reverse  integration of the higher (whole) from the lower (part) stages. To ass

Just as I had found substantial imbalance with respect to horizontal same stage integration, due to the predominant emphasis of the internal psychological aspect throughout the spectrum, equally I  found a similar imbalance with respect to vertical higher and lower stage integration. This was due to the mistaken asymmetrical emphasis on development as the progressive movement to higher stages of a more collective holistic nature. Indeed in this context, much use is made of the notion of a holon (i.e. literally a whole/part). A holon is then defined as a whole that is also part of another whole. So for example an atom would represent a holon where the (whole) atom is also part of a (whole) molecule. However in dynamic interactive  terms, we need to stress the two-way movement of wholes and parts. So therefore counterbalancing the holon (whole/part) where each whole is part of another whole is the onhol (part/whole) where each part is also whole in the context of other parts. Whe

Yesterday, I talked briefly about the 2-dimensional approach to interpretation based on the dynamic (bi-directional) complementarity of external and internal polarities. This leads to the direct realisation that both the physical and psychological aspects of reality are likewise complementary. Therefore a new psychological stage of reality necessarily entails a corresponding new interpretation of physical - indeed ultimately of mathematical - reality. So rather than just one accepted form of science (and mathematics) interpreted in a somewhat absolute fashion, properly speaking a whole range (or spectrum) of possible sciences exist (of a dynamic relative nature), which are intimately related to corresponding major stages of development. It was a strong contention of mine that the unquestioned acceptance of present conventional mathematical and scientific interpretation itself acts as a major barrier against the possible emergence in development of the "higher" contempl

My consistent criticism of "Integral Studies" throughout my tenure on its various forums was that interpretation invariably consisted of the predominant use of the linear asymmetrical approach. This then led in many ways to a reduction of the holistic notion of integration to that of differentiation. Not surprisingly, in turn it led to numerous inconsistencies from an overall (i.e. integral) perspective. The importance of number can perhaps be grasped from the fact that in this context, "1" holistically encapsulates the general method of interpretation that characterises our conventional approach to science and indeed to a considerable extent general intellectual discussion. In this holistic context "1" precisely relates to the manner in which the polar opposites, which fundamentally condition all phenomenal experience, are related. Two of these polar parings are especially important. So firstly external always implies internal (and internal implie

During my time on the "Integral Studies" forums, I was employing a highly ambitious strategy, which however may not have been fully obvious to the general participant. In particular I was attempting to promote an entirely new form of Mathematics - which I termed "Holistic Mathematics" - as the proper scientific basis for the study of dynamic interactive relationships of a qualitative nature. So just as Conventional Mathematics is now the indispensable tool for the study of quantitative relationships within the analytic sciences, equally I saw Holistic Mathematics as the corresponding indispensable tool within the social sciences and especially with respect to clarifying the transformational stages relating to human development. However the great problem  that I faced was the initial complete lack of recognition in the very possibility of this alternative type of Mathematics. So it was my hope that in the detailed discussion of various key topics in "Int

My first foray on the Internet was to place the two books that I had written " Transforming Voyag e" and " The Number Paradigm s" on a hastily constructed personal site. To the best of my recollection this took place in 1995. For some time there was no reaction. Then one day I received a very thoughtful response from a UN official based in Australia who had discovered the site. This in turn led to a very fruitful correspondence - mainly on mathematical relationships of mutual interest - that lasted several years. Around this time, there was a significant growth in web forums of various kinds where people with the same interests could post their contributions. In this regard various sites devoted to "Integral Studies" caught my attention as they related very much to my own interests. However through my development of "Holistic Mathematics", I felt that I could offer a distinctive approach. I hesitated for some time fearing that my ideas we