In integral terms, the levels of Band 3 properly constitute both the new emerging "higher" stages of that band and the continually revisited "lower" stages of Band 1 (with which they are - in horizontal, vertical and diagonal terms, dynamically complementary).
Therefore from a true integral perspective, we do not have here individual stages (in a discrete separate manner) but rather the growing interpenetration of all the stages of Band 1 and Band 3.
However because integration is not yet fully balanced, typically more emphasis is placed initially on the differentiation of the new "higher" stages of Band 3 (without full consideration of the consequent need for integration of these with the corresponding complementary stages of Band 1).
So in this differentiated sense, it is still correct to give each new stage of Band 3 a relatively distinct independent identity.
In terms of my own journey through these stages (of Band 3), I was indeed well aware in one sense of the need for their two-way integration with those of Band 1.
I was convinced - even at this time - of the need for both top-down integration (where the "lower" stages of Band 1 would be integrated from the perspective of the "higher" stages of Band 3) and bottom-up integration (where the "higher" stages of Band 3 would be integrated from the revisited stages of Band 1).
However in practice, the "higher" levels, based predominantly on the cognitive mode (of reason) were in important respects still repressing the instinctive behaviour of the "lower" levels, based predominantly on the affective mode (of emotion).
And such imbalance as between cognitive and affective modes is in many ways inevitable until proper integration is eventually achieved (relating to the radials stages of Band 6 and 7 in my account).
And this is why I always emphasise the volitional mode as truly primary, as this needs to be used with ever-greater discernment to eventually bring both cognitive and affective into true harmony.
So one's ever more refined sense of something remaining "not quite right" with development, can only be addressed at the appropriate time, thus enabling eventual harmony to be achieved. And this balance - which always is of an approximate nature - is dictated by the volitional mode!
In this dynamic account of development, it is necessary to distinguish as between the default, diminished and enhanced experience of each stage.
At the very beginning of development the infant literally moves all over the spectrum in a confused manner (where neither the differentiation of distinct stages nor their integration with each other has yet taken place).
So from a discrete (differentiated) perspective, earliest development relates to the unfolding of the stages of Band 1. This is what I then refer to as the default understanding of these stages.
However, because all stages are necessarily to a degree still related to all other stages, this does enable a diminished perspective on "higher" stages.
Then when for example one moves to differentiation of the stages of Band 2, this then becomes the default understanding of those stages.
However one is now enabled to form both a diminished perspective on - still - "higher" stages, while, in revisiting the earlier stages from Band 2, form an enhanced view of their features.
So therefore we do not have just one experience i.e. default, of each level (of each band) on the spectrum but in fact a whole series of continually changing perspectives on other levels of both a diminished and enhanced nature.
Thus whereas, from a differentiated perspective, the earliest level of Band 1 is the first to unfold (and of the most primitive nature) from the opposite integral perspective, this likewise remains the last level to be properly integrated in terms of overall development.
So from this latter perspective (in both top-down and bottom-up terms) successful integration of this level (with all other levels) now represents the "highest" goal in development.
However because of the standard linear asymmetrical approach, far too-much attention is typically placed on the differentiated aspect of development (in the unfolding of distinct stage structures) which then runs directly counter to what is experientally required to achieve true integration of all stages.
So in the default understanding of the levels of Band 3, while I was aware of the need for bi-directional integration of "higher" levels with "lower" (and "lower" with "higher"), in practice attempted integration was still predominantly of the top down variety (where primitive instincts of the earliest levels were unwittingly repressed).
This was even evident in my holistic mathematical understanding of the nature of number at the time.
So with respect to the "higher" stages of Band 3, there are in fact two directions.
One represents the "ascent", where one sees these stages as progressively transcending, in an intuitive contemplative manner, the "middle" dualistic stages of Band 2.
Thus my very understanding of the holistic nature of number as representing varying "higher" dimensions of experience fitted in very well with this notion of the "ascent".
In particular I associated the holistic notion of "2" with Level 1, the holistic notion of "4" with Level 2 and the holistic notion of "8" with Level 3.
And then the larger numbers were associated with even more refined contemplative development beyond these levels.
However I was only to later realise that this new holistic mathematical understanding needed to be properly grounded in the analytic levels of Band 2.
So in my account Band 5 (Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3) relates to the corresponding "descent" back to the middle levels, which then opened up marvellous new revelations regarding the ordinal nature of number.
The other direction at Band 2 is the subterranean "descent" from the middle levels of Band2, towards the earliest primitive understanding of the levels of Band 1.
However because my psychological understanding of these levels still remained somewhat repressed (through the predominant influence of "higher" cognitive development) my corresponding holistic mathematical understanding did not readily emerge at this time.
I had indeed formed the conviction that somehow the prime numbers (given a new holistic interpretation) would be deeply relevant in terms of the structure of these levels. However I was not yet able to precisely see what such holistic understanding entailed.
I was also aware that my "circular" understanding of number as dimension was also relevant, in the sense that the 3 "lower" levels represented in complementary terms the confused understanding of the corresponding 3 "higher" levels of Band 3.
So therefore the earliest (most primitive) level represented the confusion of all 8 polar directions (i.e. form with emptiness, wholes with parts and external with internal).
With the next level, form could be distinguished from emptiness, but the two other confusions still in large measure remained.
Then finally, as the "lower" levels approached the middle level, only the remaining confusion of external with internal directions remained.
However, I knew that a deeper holistic mathematical knowledge of the nature of the primes and how this ultimately could be grounded in accepted analytic understanding, was necessary.
Indeed this required nothing less than a radical new interpretation of the true dynamic nature of the number system, which was likewise to unfold during Band 5.