In yesterday's entry I was at pains to portray that with Band 5 development both ascent and descent become equally associated with "higher" super-conscious and "lower" sub-conscious development respectively.
And as the complementary dynamic nature of both aspects becomes ever better appreciated, the very notion of "higher" and "lower" with respect to development eventually melts away (with both terms understood in a merely secondary relative fashion).
This paves the way for true radial development, where all experience emanates directly from a spiritual centre of being, which equally is understood as the physical centre of the entire universe.
And there are remarkable links here with the true nature of the number system.
Thus, corresponding to super-conscious ascent, I discovered the great importance of the qualitative holistic notion of number as dimension (associated with the Zeta 2 zeros). In other words the "higher" levels of development are literally related to such dimensional numbers, each of which represents an ever more refined configuration with respect to how the fundamental polarities of experience (external/internal and whole/part) are dynamically configured.
Then with super-conscious descent, I was to realise that these holistic dimensions (of unconscious origin) are implicitly involved in our every-day understanding of ordinal number notions such as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so on.
Later, with respect to the sub-conscious descent, I discovered the corresponding great importance of the qualitative counterpart of the more common notion of number as representing quantity (associated with the Zeta 1 i.e. Riemann zeros). And these in turn now represented the highly important ways in which primitive instinctive behaviour itself can be configured in an integrated fashion.
Then finally with the sub-conscious ascent, I discovered in turn how these new numbers (i.e. the Zeta 1 zeros) are likewise implicitly involved in our every-day cardinal understanding of the natural numbers 1, 2, 3 and so on.
In other words, I had now discovered the truly relative nature of the number system in both cardinal and ordinal terms where analytic (quantitative) notions are dynamically inseparable from their corresponding holistic (qualitative) meanings. Or to put it another way, I witnessed the unveiling of the hidden (unconscious) aspect of number and its fundamental relationship with accepted conscious notions.
Thus in the most mysterious manner, the relative independence of each quantitative number (in cardinal or ordinal terms) is remarkably synchronised with the relative interdependence of all numbers in qualitative terms.
And this then provides the means for the encoding of created phenomena. In other words, all phenomena of form are ultimately mathematically encoded in a dynamic number format; alternatively such observed phenomena in nature represent the subsequent decoding of hidden number patterns.
So mathematical language in this enhanced dynamic sense (where both quantitative and qualitative aspects are explicitly recognised) serves as the essential intermediary as between the ineffable nature of spiritual emptiness and the phenomenal world of observed form.
Thus when we can eventually read phenomenal reality as it is truly structured (i.e. in this dynamic mathematical manner), it will become fully transparent to spirit, where the relative momentary existence of each separate phenomenon in space and time will be instantly understood to be fully compatible with the relative interdependence of all phenomena (as the present moment continually renewed).
However in acknowledging yesterday how I had long given notions of the ascent with respect to development undue attention - if even at an unconscious level - I also realised that the same applied to my customary use of "revisited stages" as applying only to "lower" development.
In fact properly understood, once it gets under way, then in an important sense all stages - whether "higher" or "lower" - take on the status of "revisited stages" throughout remaining development.
Before development commences, the stages of the spectrum are totally confused with respect to each other, whereby no differentiation has yet taken place and correspondingly no integration.
Then when it unfolds, development never takes place with respect to just one stage (in a sequential manner) but rather in a qualified sense with respect to all stages.
However to properly recognise this fact, we have to keep looking at development in a dynamic interactive manner, where notions of differentiation and integration are mutually involved.
Now, whereas differentiation (of states and structures) takes place sequentially in a relatively discrete manner, corresponding integration takes place in a complementary continuous fashion.
Therefore when we talk about the initial unfolding of the body-self at the first level of Band 1, this relates merely to the default (i.e. first substantial) differentiation of this stage.
Therefore with respect to such differentiation, it does indeed appear to constitute the earliest lower stage in development.
However there is also a much overlooked integral aspect to this stage development, where the "lowest" is complementary with the "highest". In other words what is implicit in the earliest stage (as mere potential for development) is then made fully explicit as actualised development at the corresponding "highest" stage. And the three "higher" levels of Band 3 have well-defined complementary links with the corresponding three "lower" levels of Band 1.
In my own binary approach - which is deliberately designed to take account of such complementarity - the first level commences from a state of total confusion with respect to the three main polarity sets (which all have a well-defined holistic mathematical rationale).
Thus in the most fundamental sense, there is total confusion with respect to the diagonal polarities of form and emptiness; there is equally total confusion with respect to the vertical polarities of whole and part; finally there is total confusion with respect to the horizontal polarities of external and internal.
So with the default differentiation of the first major level, the infant gradually learns to separate in experience the diagonal polarities of form and emptiness. In other words the infant becomes aware, through recognition of the body self, of the distinction between form and emptiness (i.e. a phenomenal world as distinct from nothingness).
However from an integral perspective, because of the complementarity of the "lowest" with the "highest" level, this leads to a still greatly confused identification of the "lowest" with the "highest" level.
This in seeking integration, the infant at this stage inevitably confuses the transcendent notion of the (spiritual) emptiness beyond all form, with the corresponding immanent notion of this emptiness as already contained within such form.
In other words, there is a direct confusion of pre and trans notions (with the "highest" level identified with the "lowest" (and the "lowest" with the "highest").
Thus from this confused integral perspective, the infant has a greatly inflated sense of his/her omnipotence (immature transcendence) which is then directly identified with every fleeting phenomenon of form that enters experience (confused immanence).
Therefore whereas it is indeed true that the differentiated aspect of stage development appears to unfold in an unambiguous sequential fashion, the integrated aspect by contrast unfolds in a paradoxical manner. Thus whereas linear notions of development characterise the differentiated aspect, circular notions characterise the corresponding integral aspect.
And whereas from the differentiated perspective, polarities are separated in a relatively independent manner, from the corresponding integral perspective, polarities are united (as complementary opposites) in a relatively interdependent fashion.
We need to bear this in mind for example in understanding the relationship as between pre and trans throughout development.
In earliest development, a high level of confusion characterises the complementary relationship as between "lower" and "higher" and "higher" and "lower" levels of development.
Thus properly understood, earliest development is not prepersonal (as opposed to transpersonal) but rather represents the confused experience of both prepersonal and transpersonal aspects of experience.
Then as the default sequential differentiation of stages progresses the confusion as between pre and trans lessens (though still exists to a degree).
However, this explains well how peak experiences with respect to "higher" stages can take place from complementary "lower" stages (especially subtle from mythic) and equally - though not emphasised sufficiently - how valley experiences with respect to "lower" stages can take place from complementary "higher" stages.
In particular it is extremely common - especially in Western society - for those with established contemplative experience of the subtle realm (Band 3, Level 1), to have frequent "valley" experiences with respect to the mythic level (Band 1, Level 3) as the major religions heavily rely on the use of myths in their teaching.
Therefore pre and trans (and trans and pre) elements remain to an extent still enmeshed with other, with respect to both their confused and mature expressions, throughout development. However the key distinction to be made is that whereas in earliest development a largely confused relationship exists as between pre and trans (with the possibility of occasional peak experiences of a more mature nature), with established contemplative development, a mature relationship now exists as between both aspects (with the possibility however of occasional valley experiences of a confused nature).
There is also another extremely important point, which is very relevant to our age.
Because of extreme specialisation with respect to Band 2 (at least with respect to rational cognitive type understanding) trans and pre can thereby become separated from each other to a considerable degree.
So we refer to Band 2 (the middle band) as representing personal development (i.e. neither pre nor trans).
However as pre and trans (and trans and pre) are dynamically complementary with each other with respect to "lower" and "higher" bands, such specialisation can thereby greatly cut off access to all other bands of the spectrum.
We see this especially evident with respect to the conventional approach to Mathematics, which is identified solely with the rational understanding of Band 2.
Therefore the huge importance of the other bands for mathematical understanding - which I have been illustrating in my blog entries - are thereby completely missed.
In fact there is no way to even begin accessing these other forms of understanding (holistic and radial) from within the present accepted paradigm!
Therefore I would see this extreme specialisation (which is consistent with the present scientific worldview) as perhaps the greatest enemy to true experience of both trans (transcendent) and pre (immanent) aspects of spirituality. So we are certainly now living in an information age, but unfortunately one which is deeply inimical to the corresponding need for authentic transformation!
So the true goal should be to properly preserve the dynamic context in which both pre and trans can find their authentic expression.
Thus the proper differentiation of structures (where pre is separated in a relative manner from trans) should be balanced with the corresponding integration of structures (where both pre and trans are now understood as relatively interdependent with each other).
Therefore throughout development, it is not just the "lower" stages that are revisited but also the "higher".
So once again when the "lowest" level (Band 1, Level) is initially differentiated in a relatively discrete manner in development, this likewise entails the corresponding continuous integration with all other levels on the spectrum. However so often this shadow integral side of development remains hidden with emphasis merely on the differentiated unfolding of individual stage structures.
Therefore when we consider that only "lower" stages (that have already been differentiated) can be revisited we are ignoring the integral aspect of stage development.
In fact we are thereby reducing the integral aspect of stage development (which is utterly distinct) in mere differentiated terms.
And to put it bluntly, this reduced treatment of development still remains the norm with respect to "Integral Studies" where no proper methodology yet exists to properly distinguish the integral from the differentiated aspect of stage development.
Once again from a differentiated perspective, asymmetric distinctions are indeed important with respect to development (though merely in a relative manner).
Therefore with respect to one's integral methodology, one must then be able to demonstrate how all such asymmetric distinctions, that enjoy a certain validity within a limited relative context are thereby rendered paradoxical in overall holistic terms. And this is the very means by which one is ultimately enabled to properly preserve phenomenal dual distinctions with a nondual spiritual vision.