Joseph Dillard

joseph.dillard@Gmail.Com

In this chapter from a forthcoming book, “Integral Ethics,” trickle-down spirituality is explained using an analogy to trickle-down economics, to delineate common forces within spiritual elites that unintentionally generate inequality and injustice. If these processes are not understood and addressed, even the best spiritual elites, including Integral, eventually collapse. 

What does trickle-down economics have to do with spirituality? First, we need a bit of background regarding what trickle-down economics is. Trickle-down economics is an economic theory that advocates reducing taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term. In general, it is a form of laissez-faire capitalism, and more specifically supply side-economics. Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically targets taxes on the upper end of the economic spectrum.  “Trickle-down” is a pejorative term created by humorist Will Rogers as a vivid description of opposing economic philosophies:

This election was lost four and six years ago, not this year. They [Republicans] didn’t start thinking of the old common fellow till just as they started out on the election tour. The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickles down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the driest little spot. But he didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellows hands. They saved the big banks, but the little ones went up the flue.[1]

However, the concept dates back to at least William Jennings Bryant and his famous “Cross of Gold” speech of 1896:

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.

Multiple studies have found a correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth,[2]^,[3],[4]  while its opposite, tax cuts for the poor and middle classes with high tax rates for the wealthy, have been shown to stimulate economies. In the 1992 election campaign, independent candidate Ross Perot called trickle-down “political voodoo.”[5] In the 2011 election in New Zealand, candidate Damien O’Conner called trickle down, “the rich pissing on the poor.”

Associated with “Reaganomics,” which lowered the maximum tax rate from 70% to 28%, the phrase “trickle-down” is often used today to criticize economic policies which favor elites, while being framed as good for the average citizen. A 2012 study by the Tax Justice Network indicates that wealth of the super-rich does not trickle down to improve the economy, but tends to be amassed and sheltered in tax havens with a negative effect on the tax bases of the home economy.[6] In 2013, Pope Francis referred to trickle-down theories:

Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.[7]

A 2015 paper by researchers for the International Monetary Fund argues that there is no trickle-down effect as the rich get richer:

In the 2016 U.S. presidential candidates’ debate, Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of supporting the “most extreme” version of trickle-down economics with his tax plan, calling it “trumped-up trickle-down.”[9] Trickle-down economics is still alive and well in 2018, as witnessed by the passage of Donald Trump’s tax legislation, which many analysts have concluded largely favor the wealthiest at the expense of the middle and lower classes.

How Integral and spirituality in general inadvertently supports trickle-down spirituality

Trickle-down spirituality emphasizes interior quadrant spirituality, intention, values, world view and consciousness as a means to stimulate the growth of exterior quadrant systems, relationships, behavior, society, moral action, and justice. For example, a world view of cognitive multi-perspectivalism, a LL perspective, creates the framing in which all elements of AQAL are cognitively apprehended. The strength of transpersonal experiences of transformative oneness easily leave us convinced that reality is consciousness and consciousness is reality. After such experiences, it is difficult not to agree with Plotinus, that all reality emanates from the One. The self or Self, the climber of the ladder, an UL perspective, creates the locus of both perception and reality from which all others and all events are perceived and evaluated. All three of these assumptions prejudice the interior quadrants, not only for integral, but for all “new thought,” “cultural creative,” “evolutionary,” and “spiritual” elites.

Trickle-down spirituality also views interior quadrant spirituality, intention, values, and consciousness as a means of creating a societal revolution through a paradigm shift in national and global consciousness. The idea is, “If you adopt my consciousness, and its benefits will trickle down to you. You and your world will be transformed.” Spiritual elites typically make this assumption.

Trickle-down spirituality typically assumes that the stimulation of growth in some world view will transform the consciousness of the world, “lifting all boats.” That world view may be the cognitive multi-perspectivalism of Ken Wilber’s, AQAL, the positive thinking of some New Age guru, like Ernest Holmes, Napoleon Hill, Dale Carnegie, Maxwell Maltz, or Og Mandino, Tony Robbins, or Oprah Winfrey. It could be the quantum spirituality of people like Deepak Chopra or the descensionist spirituality of Stanislov Grof and Michael Washburn, or the scientific spirituality of people like Fritjof Capra or your favorite school of chakra-infused energy medicine. It could be the “oneness” ideologies of the Eckhardt Tolles of the world, or it could manifest as psychotherapeutic spirituality like “The Forum.” Then again, trickle-down spirituality can manifest as the enlightened guruism of your favorite teacher of Tibetan Dzogchen, Zen satori, or Theravadin mindfulness. All of these are forms of trickle-down spiritualism because they favor interior quadrants over exterior ones, consciousness over behavior, transformation over balance, elitism over equality, and dogma over justice.

Trickle-down and laissez-faire

There is nothing wrong with interior quadrants, consciousness, transformation, elite competence, or strong beliefs. Problems only arise when they are chronically favored over opposite qualities required to maintain homeostasis. Trickle-down spirituality is a very popular form of laissez-faire, because it not only does not threaten proponents of trickle-down economics, it supports them by signaling solidarity with elite priorities of status, power, control, and privilege. It does so by adopting and championing basic principles commonly identified with laissez-faire economics. A product of the Enlightenment, laissez-faire capitalism was conceived as the way to unleash human potential through the restoration of a natural economic system. Here are some of its similarities to trickle-down spirituality:

Just as laissez-faire capitalism trumpets non-interference in the marketplace in the name of natural law, so trickle-down spirituality demands adherence to some set of “spiritual” principles, whether called dharma, positive thinking, obedience to “commandments,” scripture, one’s guru, karma, AQAL, or the “developmental spiral.” The core principles requiring adherence include personal responsibility, merit, and development: improve yourself and the whole world will get better.

Just as Adam Smith viewed the economy as a natural system and the market as an organic part of that system, so trickle-down spirituality views consciousness as the fundamental, prevailing reality and human society as its product. The spiritual market place can get away with this generalization because of the multiple ways that it defines “spirituality” and “consciousness,” first referring to UL states, like waking, dreaming, sleeping, and life after death, then to a particular UL state (enlightenment), then an UL stage (subtle or causal), then to some stage of all four quadrants of human holons, including society. This ambiguity renders these terms useless for any conversation in which clarity of meaning is important, but highly useful for those conversations in which ambiguity can be used to create out of thin air the illusion of consensus and emotional solidarity.  For those who value insight over wisdom and catharsis over balance, trickle-down spirituality is a cause worth fighting for.

Smith saw laissez-faire as a moral program and the market as its instrument to ensure men the rights of natural law.[10]  Spiritual elitists are sure of their moral superiority, because they judge morality by their intentions, not by their trustworthiness in the eyes of those whose lives are impacted by both their actions and inaction. This morality trickles down, as the Christian morality of the Spanish, Portugese, English, French, and Belgians did to the inhabitants of the Americas and Africa. Trickle-down spirituality works on the same principle and generates similar results, albeit not of the same intensity. Similarly, the trickle-down spirituality of elites is a moral program; its world view is its instrument for insuring humans the blessings of an expanded, more liberating world view.

By extension, free markets become a reflection of the natural system of liberty. ^“For Smith, laissez-faire was a program for the abolition of laws constraining the market, a program for the restoration of order and for the activation of potential growth.”[11] For elitists, trickle-down spirituality becomes a reflection of divine order in individual life as enlightenment and in society as utopia. Like Smith’s laissez-faire capitalism, spiritual trickle-down is a crusade for the abolition of ethnocentric and non “worldcentric” world views that are “less adequate,” thereby cementing its advocates as elitists of the worst sort: those who punish their intellectual and moral inferiors “for their own good.” This is both bad civilizational parenting and ideological colonialism.

Just as laissez-faire capitalism trumpets the “invisible hand,” so trickle-down spirituality affirms the primacy of the self and its responsibility to itself for itself, in the belief that when we each are on our own path to enlightenment, the consciousness of mankind is uplifted. We can see how well this has worked in Hinduism with the doctrine of karma and the caste system. It worked so well that it had to be outlawed, once the concept of human rights was introduced by the West.

Just as laissez-faire capitalism fights the intervention of government, trickle-down spirituality is an opponent of barriers to individual responsibility, choice, initiative, power, and control. Tony Robbins’ immortal statement of ultimate altruism comes to mind as an interesting example of this fight, direct from one the leaders of the elite community of “opinion makers:” “Success is doing what you want, when you want, where you want, with whom you want, as much as you want.” It is fascinating that many people view this quote as “inspirational” and “motivational” rather than as grandiose, narcissistic, and extraordinarily self-centered. What level of development does Integral AQAL tell us Tony Robbins has probably attained?  How are we to reconcile that with this quote? Are we really supposed to imagine that any rational person will hear this pronouncement as “shadow” of some advanced stage of some highly-evolved individual? Is it wise to excuse such utterances as a small slip in an otherwise illustrious and sterling career of inspiring leadership?

Unlike laissez-faire capitalism, trickle-down spirituality has no problem using government to establish and expand its priorities, at the expense of opposing world views. This is an example of the performative logical fallacy, in that spiritual elites declare a world view of cognitive multi-perspectivalism and spiritual excellence, implying pluralism and egalitarianism. But in declaring their world view superior to all others, in a demonstration of their elitist exceptionalism, they unwittingly contradict themselves. 

Dogmatism and trickle-down spirituality

Is it possible to have a multi-perspectival world view and be a dogmatist, that is, a True Believer, in a prepersonal and pre-rational ideology, at the same time? Most integralists would argue “no.” There is evidence, however, that dogmatism does indeed exist within trickle-down spirituality.

It is dogmatic to believe that the world will be renewed if only a certain percentage of its population adopts a similar, multi-perspectival world view to our own. While this is the position of Wilber’s integral, it is endemic to elitists everywhere. If the rest of the world would only accept American democracy and freedom (as well as exploitation by American multi-national corporations), they would be happy and the world would be at peace. If the people of the world would only accept into their hearts Jesus as their personal savior, all suffering, sin, and pain would vanish from the earth. If people would only practice Tibetan Buddhist Dzogchen, Zen, or Vipassana, they would experience enlightenment and end all suffering. If people would only accept laissez-faire capitalism they would see that the wisdom of markets would raise all ships and bring prosperity to all. If people could have only elected Hillary Clinton, or would only vote for similar progressive Democrats like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren in future elections, and return a Democratic majority to congress, then pluralism and egalitarianism will heal the wounds and set the nation back on the path to prosperity and peace.

If you and I will only accept some world view that someone is selling, then we too will be elitists; we will join the exceptionalists; we will be sheep, not goats, the elect, not the damned. This is a very, very ancient game. It is impressive that so many people who pride themselves on being 2^nd Tier are still under its spell.[12]

It is dogmatic to believe that a more inclusive, transcendent world view is equivalent to a higher level of development. We can all name transpersonal adepts who were moral lizards, yet we still want to not only believe in our favorite sources of enlightenment but make excuses for all sorts of obviously stupid, selfish, or unethical behavior. The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. The belief that my particular version of snake oil will cure your ills is a very ancient tradition. Examine all world views, and particularly those which promise you some elitist status. If you go for the worm you will not see the hook. If you bite, you surrender both your autonomy and credibility in the eyes of the global commons.

It is dogmatic to believe that a more inclusive, transcendent world view is intrinsically better. Beavers do not build better dams if they adopt a more inclusive, transcendent world view. People are not more effective, loving, empathetic, or moral if they adopt a more inclusive, transcendent world view. You can and will find people at tribal and ethnocentric world views who are as capable in all these qualities as you are. Some will be more so. The correlation between developmental stages, which are very real, and advancement in these qualities, which is implied, is assumed, not demonstrated. The global commons does not judge trustworthiness or respect by scientific developmental standards, such as those painstakingly compiled by Wilber in the back of Integral Psychology. Those are developmental processes associated with maturation; morality and empathy are determinations that do not rely on developmental level, but rather on the objective assessment of others who do not care what our developmental level is. What they care about is whether we are trustworthy, skillful, competent, enjoyable, and demonstrate respect. These competencies are largely independent of ideology, level of development, exceptionalism, and elitism. They exist or are absent on all levels, equally. You are as apt to find them equally within packs of wolves as within Dzogchen masters, when each group and individual is evaluated within its own context. There is nothing intrinsically elitist about any of the core attributes by which we determine who to respect and trust.

It is dogmatic to believe that people who profess an inclusive, transcendent world view are more moral (or helpful) than those who do not. This is a common mistake of democratic progressives. They confuse ideology with effectiveness, a point that is summarized by the following test: If you want to find out if a student is university material, give him or her a can and a can opener. Those who can’t open the can are university material. While this is indeed cynical, unfair, and untrue, by exaggeration it makes the point that there are many areas in life where ideology or level of development may not have any bearing at all or which might even have a negative bearing. If you want to survive in the wilderness, do you want someone at 2^nd Tier or someone with wilderness survival skills? If you answer, “I prefer someone with both,” you avoid the uncomfortable obvious answer because it does not fit your variety of dogmatism. This is also an explanation for why, in a contest between Pepsi and Coke, Donald Trump got elected. A lot of people didn’t care that Hillary met elitist standards of a higher level of development because they didn’t trust her. Enough people gambled on something else – anything else – over prevailing ideology, to tip the scales.  In a contest between Pepsi and Coke, where you know your only choice is bad health and wasted money, ideology or world view is not going to determine what wins out.

Inequality and social injustice are increasing

Inequality is increasing, and most people will agree that some forms of inequality, like access to employment, education, and health care, not only matter, but describe states of injustice. The poor are getting poorer while money is pooling at the top 1%. Only eight people, including Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Bill Gates of Microsoft, and investor Warren Buffet, together have as much wealth as the poorest half of the world’s population – some 4 billion people. The world’s 10 biggest corporations together have revenue greater than the 180 poorest countries combined.[13] On economic, health, and moral grounds, poverty matters. The wealthy are both more powerful and happier than the poor in significant ways. 1.5 million school children in the US do not have a home to live in, and are going to school each day from shelters or from the homes of friends or relatives who have taken them in because they’ve lost their homes. This, in the richest country in the world, home of the greatest collective gathering of spiritual, eduational, technological, economic, and financial elites in the world. In 2016, over 40 million of 320 million Americans were classed as food insecure, meaning they did not have enough food for an active and healthy life. Again, this is in the richest country in the world with the greatest collection of elites. Could there possibly be a correlation? The US is also one of the few developed countries in the world where college is not free or virtually free to all those who are admitted. Instead, we have college graduates or people who have had to drop out of college who hold a total of $1.48 trillion in outstanding college loan debt, much of it carrying extortionate interest rates of 6% or more.

The World Happiness Report states that “The USA is a story of reduced happiness. In 2007, the USA ranked 3rd among the OECD countries; in 2016 it came 19th. The reasons are declining social support and increased corruption…and it is these same factors that explain why the Nordic countries do so much better…(the) US showed less social support, less sense of personal freedom, lower donations, and more perceived corruption of government and business.”[14] Overall well-being among U.S. adults has declined substantially in 2017.[15] The “Happy Planet Index,” which is an index of human well-being and environmental impact gives higher scores to countries with lower ecological footprints. The US scores among the worst. Why? Although it is completely blind to this reality and vehemently denies reality, the ideology of spiritual elites is either neutral or supportive toward exploitative trickle-down capitalism. Either actively, in its desire to win adherents and prosper, or passively, by not actively resisting, spiritual elites continue to be in collusion with plutocrats in advocacy of an exploitative world view.

Most people would not only cite the dismal and worsening state of well-being in the US as evidence that trickle-down economics has been a cruel fraud, but that beyond that, it is evidence we support a system that inflicts massive economic injustice. However, most of us accept this situation. For example, we continue to believe that voting for “progressive Democrats” will actually improve government and reduce plutocracy. We refuse to recognize how our elitist world view supports an exploitative plutocracy that destroys equality and strangles social opportunity. To understand the psychology of such irrational acceptance, we have to take a deep look into trickle-down spirituality, a deeper, more profound form of delusion than trickle-down economics.

Integral assumptions that inadvertently support trickle-down spirituality

We know that trickle-down spirituality is not a straw man logical fallacy because it is baked into various forms of spiritual elitism. For example, integral AQAL assumes that higher levels of development, say 2^nd Tier, are intrinsically superior to lower ones, say, late prepersonal, as if an oak tree is better than an acorn or an adult is better than a child. Just because higher levels transcend and include lower ones does not mean that a lower level is not only adequate for a condition; it may be superior. If you want to build a termite colony, it is far better to be a termite than a human. Clearly, what is superior for any stage of development is balance within that stage; a transcendent, more inclusive stage can be totally irrelevant, useless, or unhelpful for where you are in your development. An excellent example of this is how much adult knowledge is not only irrelevant to the needs of children but can be positively counter-productive or even harmful, like porn and exposure to violence. Another is how unusual it is for those who have near death or mystical experiences to integrate them in ways that positively impact their lives in lasting ways. Experiences that are far beyond the pale are notoriously difficult to integrate into our ongoing sense of self, yet spiritual elites continue to build both reality and the salvation of the world around them.

The irrelevance of issues important for higher levels of development, such as meditative objectivity, to the growth priorities of lower levels, such as learning to share, is one reason why it is nonsense to compare animal and human intelligence. Instead, we need to compare adaptability within environmental contexts. For example, a dolphin’s intelligence is much superior to a human’s intelligence for life in a marine environment without technological assistance. A human’s intelligence is much superior to a dolphin’s intelligence for life in a terrestrial environment, even without technological assistance. The idea that higher levels are superior to lower is elitist; it is an important assumption of trickle-down spirituality and is one of its sustaining structural elements. What we can say is that higher levels on any developmental line have adaptive advantages, but these are lost if core lines, like empathy and morality are ignored or fixated. What does it matter if you are a Zen monk practicing non-dual meditation for twenty years if you kill for the emperor because you believe it is ethical and just? What does it matter if you have practiced Tibetan Dzogchen non-dual meditation for decades if you see no problem with having your lifestyle supported by indentured slaves in a feudal theocracy? Just how “enlightened” are you? Just how empathetic are you?

Another core elitist concept is responsibility. For New Age positivity in particular, responsibility is a core competency. It can become so central as to be grandiose, as if our thoughts create what others think and do. Responsibility is not always a superior position. For example, the idea that we create our reality is found to be absurd, when evaluated with even the slightest amount of objectivity. To say that children who suffer cancer somehow are responsible for their disease is so immoral as to be criminal. To say that human behavior creates sun spots and flares is breathtakingly grandiose, as if human consciousness and its stupidity were more important to the sun than maintaining its own homeostasis. The idea of karma, in which we created our current circumstances by our choices in past lives, is another example of a vast abuse of the concept of responsibility. We might call such beliefs the “mythology of responsibility.”

A primary LR purpose of this mythology is social control. If I can make you believe that you are where you are because you chose it, you will passively and compliantly accept whatever injustice I generate. Indeed, you may even view that injustice as a form of grace, of your courage and devotion as displayed by your acceptance of sudra, or outcast status, for yourself and your family. Similarly, when we take responsibility for the mistakes or failures of others, as parents often do for their children, we are taking on the role of rescuer within the Drama Triangle, helping neither them nor ourselves.

Consequently, the doctrine of personal responsibility can be, and often is, used as a tool by spiritual elites to generate trickle-down spirituality. When I teach you to take responsibility for everything, What I do as an elitist becomes your responsibility, not mine. My responsibility trickles down to you and what trickles up to me is license. You make me free to abuse you and make yourself free to accept your inferior status in an unjust system.

We have seen that a fundamental assumption for trickle-down spirituality is that higher development in the form of enlightenment is the cure to human suffering. If you become enlightened, the benefits of enlightened consciousness will trickle down to bestow grace upon others in the world. But enlightenment did not keep Buddhism from being exterminated in India and Tibet. Why not? Non-dual meditation did not keep Japanese Zen monks from taking up weapons and becoming passionate supporters of imperial fascism. Why not? The assumption of relative enlightenment did not prevent 100 stellar “evolutionaries,” that is, contemporary “thought leaders” across multiple fields, from supporting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Why not?[16] Where is the evidence that higher levels of development, personal responsibility, and enlightenment “trickle down” and lift up the entire world?

Further problems with trickle-down spirituality

Trickle-down spirituality emphasizes a privileged, exceptionalist world view over collective measurements of the quality of relationships, such as trustworthiness and respect. While these are interior collective values, their measurement is not. The consequence is that trickle-down spirituality is elitist; it doesn’t hold itself accountable to the global collective, but only to its own world view.

Trickle-down spirituality, again like trickle-down economics, is self-centered. Because it places the expansion of individual consciousness, personal enlightenment and individual development before collective support, group improvement, and collective quality of life, it alienates itself from the collective to which it wants to appeal. It says, “I love and support you” while in practice it demands the collective adopt its world view and priorities as its own. It says, “Think like I do, believe what I do, and you will be happy and enlightened.” The vast majority suspect this as deceitful and manipulative, and consequently, does not trust the motivations of spiritual elites. This is not difficult to understand. All one has to do is compare standards of living of those following some brand of trickle-down spirituality and those who do not. Use the global happiness scale, for instance, which compares countries on a number of components of satisfaction. If spiritual trickle-down were indeed superior, we would see those benefits demonstrated in measurable improvements in exterior quadrant criteria, since the claim is that interior spiritual transformations “trickle down” and out to behavior and the world as a whole. What we find instead is that those countries that are “thought leaders” in trickle-down spirituality, particularly the United States, from which sprang all varieties of New Thought, New Age, Integral AQAL, and many forms of energy-quantum wonderfulness are in the crapper in terms of measurements of global happiness. Why is that?

Inherent delusions of trickle-down spirituality

Trickle-down spirituality views consciousness as the fundamental, prevailing reality and human society as a product of it. Holons are centered on the self as ontological singular identities. Holonic development is not centered on societal holons – manifestly real, present, and extraordinarily powerful determiners of individual and social success and happiness, but on consciousness holons. However, societal holons, organized around collectives and largely exterior to our control, are as real and arguably more important and powerful to the everyday lives of all species, including humans, as are interior, individual, consciousness holons organized around the self. There is no doubt, as Wilber has pointed out in Integral Spirituality, that level of socio-cultural civilizational development, that is, LR holons, frame, limit, define, and determine the developmental possibilities of individual members. Subsets do not transcend the sets of which they are members; Jesus, born into a socio-cultural world view that viewed disease as caused by demons, obviously shared that world view, and no amount of contemporary exegesis is going to make him something other than a product of his socio-cultural context, just as are you and I. But trickle-down spirituality does not give contextual social holons equal billing, much less superior billing, in those domains in which their influence predominates, such as economic security, human relations, control and power relationships. The result is both imbalance and spiritual elitism that complements economic elitism.

Trickle-down spirituality is not only inherently self-centered; it is grandiose. It says, “I know your truth.” What could be more elitist? Most forms of religion, spirituality, and new age positive thinking, teach that if you embrace some particular version of trickle-down spirituality, declared to be “True,” that good things will happen to you. Good will trickle down. These benefits may include good health and economic prosperity due to your positive thinking.

There is an important difference between eliminating cognitive distortions and positive thinking. For example, thinking, “Everything is crap,” is a cognitive distortion because you don’t know everything. Therefore, it is an irrational, pre-rational, emotionally-based exaggeration. What may indeed be true is to say or think, “I feel like everything is crap.” That may be an authentic expression of how you feel. But notice that there is nothing positive about this thought, even though it is not a cognitive distortion. This is the difference between eliminating cognitive distortions and positive thinking. To eliminate cognitive distortions is not necessarily positive, but it is realistic. However, positive thinking, as a form of spiritual elitist trickle-down, imposes no requirement of realism. Positive thinkers can and often do live in states of self-created delusion and want you to validate their waking dream.

Psychic ability and the burning of karma have long been promised trickle-down benefits of Hinduism. Just meditate and follow this or that bhakti, raja, karma, or hatha marga, and grace, good fortune, and spiritual powers will “trickle-down” as blessings from above. Buddhism promises the extinguishing of all suffering will trickle down if you just follow the Eightfold Noble Path. The Old Testament cites various blessings of God that will trickle down if you are obedient. Jews, Christians, and Moslems generally accept the truth of this version of trickle-down spirituality. The New Testament cites salvation, grace, and protection from evil as trickle down benefits for believers. There is even the implication, based on the miraculous healings of Jesus, that believers in spiritual trickle-down will be physically healed. Indeed, this belief was codified as Mary Baker Eddy’s “Christian Science” in 1879. Confession in the Catholic Church provides a form of trickle down that leads to the forgiveness of sins by God, the entering into a state of grace, and the prospect of heaven after death. The attainment of inner peace, whether through meditation or the attainment of high mystical states, is widely assumed to “trickle down” into a blessed life.

While one can believe in any or all of these things and experience multiple benefits, it does not follow that any of these world views are better or are more likely to generate happiness. It does not follow that the benefits come from the belief in spiritual trickle-down, any more than someone landing a job at McDonald’s is a product of economic trickle-down. Happiness is most predictably a product of balance within one’s life circumstances, whatever they may be, rather than the following of this or that system of belief, whether it is Integral AQAL or snake-handling evangelicals. If you have graduate degrees and live in Boston, you are no more likely to be happy than someone who is a farmer in Equador. In fact, it can be argued that it is more difficult to be happy with graduate degrees in Boston, because you have a great deal more factors to bring into balance in order to be happy.

Spiritual elitism, a form of exceptionalism, is no guarantee of happiness. Paths that promise happiness via their exclusivity can actually make it less likely that you will find the life balance required for happiness. For example, in integral AQAL, the higher you go the more likely you will have core lines out of balance. This is a direct contradiction to the basic premise of trickle-down spirituality, because it declares that happiness does not come from anything trickling down, but from bringing into balance who you are today, where you are.

Your lines of cognition and “spiritual excellence” can easily outrun your moral and empathic lines. The result will be a reduced chance that you will find happiness, and a greater chance that you will have a “legitimation crisis” and experience “evolutionary self-correction.” This is a reason why the higher you climb the less likely you are to be happy. It is why genius in any field is inherently subject to imbalance. You increase the likelihood that you are out of balance the higher you climb on any line, because you are most likely ignoring your lagging or fixated lines. This is normal; we are reinforced for developing our strengths and are reminded of our failings when we deal with our weakest areas. Because this is aversive, we cultivate our strengths and ignore our weaknesses, throwing ourselves out of balance. We build our lives on our strengths, on this or that variety of inauthentic elitism.

Integral AQAL has its own version of spiritual trickle-down. If enough people will meditate, learn AQAL, and attain a multi-perspectival world view, a “tipping point” will be reached, and society as a whole will be transformed, bringing an age of relative peace, stability, and happiness. Therefore, a basic teaching of Integral is to encourage you to aspire to a higher developmental level, like “teal,” to a broader, clearer, more inclusive consciousness. These continue to be basic themes of Wilber’s most recent writings, to be found in both his Trump and a Post-Truth World: An Evolutionary Self-Correction, and The Religion of Tomorrow. The problem is that this is trickle-down spirituality: if you will only climb higher, we will tip the scales and bring manna from heaven and create heaven on earth. Our consciousness will “trickle-down” and lift everybody up.

“Legimitation crises” disclose trickle-down spirituality

Trickle-down spirituality is easy to advocate and maintain as long as the spread of a belief system, such as integral AQAL, is accompanied by a general improvement of social well-being. However, when socio-cultural realities turn south, religious, spiritual, and integral elites need ways to explain these uncomfortable setbacks. Similarly, when our belief in our own cherished version of trickle-down spirituality is attacked, we can be as determined in our defense as any plutocrat whose belief in trickle-down economics is threatened.

Trickle-down spirituality is easy to believe when times are good, but in the face of the unrelenting growth of ruthlessness and injustice, cognitive dissonance becomes more difficult to rationalize away. Historically, set-backs, disease, economic distress, and various social catastrophies that threaten our belief in the delusion of trickle-down spirituality have been ascribed to evil or a “lack of faith.” We did not pray or sacrifice enough to the right god, or were disobedient. In China, floods, earthquakes, and invasions happened because people were not aligned with the will of “Heaven.” Bad times were not only the result of our misbehavior, but our punishment for “falling away.”

It is as difficult to show how submission to belief in a broader, more inclusive consciousness creates economic security, provides health care, education, or opportunity as it is to demonstrate that rewarding plutocrats with more wealth will make our lives better. Indeed, if the claims supporting spiritual trickle-down are closely investigated, they are largely found to amount to prepersonal, pre-rational magical thinking in the service of those who benefit from the status quo at our expense. If we just believe in what someone tells us we need to believe, then happiness, wisdom and goodness will trickle down into our lives. It is a little like keeping our eyes glued to the TV set while thieves move our furniture out the back door.

If we examine the data on health, economic security and education levels among those populations which have believed most fervently in spiritual trickle-down, what we find are multitudes who are discriminated against and ask for more abuse. In India, this description fits the untold millions who have lived and died within the lower castes of the Hindu caste system. In pre-1959 Buddhist Tibet, this description fits generations of feudal serfs, tied to the land, generally controlled by monasteries, and laboring without any chance for economic or educational betterment. In Catholicism and indeed, in Christianity in general, we have a history of a predatory, pedophilia priesthood using a combination of fear, groupthink, and magical promises to maintain both control and compliance. This description also fits progressive Democrats and integralists who supported “2^nd Tier” Bill Clinton because he read Wilber and thought he was a genius, or corrupt drone assassin Hillary Clinton because she was “green” egalitarian and pluralistic, the “lesser of two evils.” These people keep going back to the same dry well, voting for the next round of progressive Democratic hopefuls because they are fervent believers in trickle-down spirituality. I am not under any illusions that anything I write is going to change their minds, but there are some that are questioning and are waking up; they are wondering why Obama didn’t turn out to be so great after all, or why multiple “Blue Waves” that have returned Congress and the Presidency to Democrats have not reversed the regression of the US to a fascist, totalitarian plutocracy. It’s because trickle-down spirituality is in collusion with trickle-down economics. It is an unsuspecting, useful tool of the plutocracy. It’s past time to wake up.

What we find historically, continuing into the present, is that elites are proficient at getting both other elites and non-elites to accept the upward distribution of wealth, opportunity, and privilege. Spiritual elites today, including Integral AQAL, are in unconscious collusion with this corrupt status quo, to the extent that they advocate for spiritual trickle-down at the expense of social justice trickle-up.  Wilber has repeatedly stated that quick advancement in levels of development follow from the right types and amounts of meditation. Is this true? Where is the evidence?

Challenging these arguments

While we may believe in the perniciousness of trickle-down economics, most of us have very strong defenses that protect us from applying these conclusions to our own cherished world view. This is because our core beliefs define us; we identify with them.  If they are attacked, we take it personally; we feel attacked. First, we use various rationalizations, justifications, obfuscations, redirection tactics and strategies designed to minimize or deny the reality of the threatening arguments. If this fails, we experience cognitive dissonance. This is a sign that we are unable to reconcile our core world view with compelling evidence that won’t go away and leave us alone. As a multi-decade True Believer in Integral AQAL, and before that, in all manner of new age, positive thinking, religious, and spiritual belief systems, this is what happened to me. I am not speaking as an outsider. Here are some of my favorite excuses, rationalizations, and avoidance strategies that I have used at one time or another, to keep me believing in one or another form of trickle-down spirituality:

My spirituality is not trickle-down elitism: How do you know? If it was, would you care? Denial is the strongest defense.

I know the truth. We double down. Because of all the scientific research that supports developmental levels of Integral AQAL and Spiral Dynamics, etc., we lose the forest for the trees. Almost all systems are congruent once we accept their basic premises. For Christ sake, “The Face on Mars” was internally congruent! Pick your favorite conspiracy theory; once you accept its fundamental premises, it all makes sense; therefore, it must be true! Trickle-down spirituality attacks the basic premises of those delusional systems that generate elitism, exceptionalism, and injustice. For example, an adherent of Integral AQAL might toss trickle-down spirituality off with the thought, “He’s just a social justice warrior,” (an ad hominem logical fallacy) or view this critique as a statement of the shadow side of a green or orange world view. This is reductionism. If the premises of one’s world view are being attacked, it is not rational to appeal to the assumptions inherent in that world view as a defense. However, it is an understandable defense. Because a flat worm cannot perceive in three dimensions, it has no choice but to hear and comprehend its experience in terms of two dimensions. Regarding ad hominem attacks, I welcome them. I have been meditating since I was 13 and have had my share of meditative awakenings and mystical experiences. I’ve written a book about near death experiences. I am a fan of transformation and the transpersonal. I’m not out to trash it.

The dog ate my homework: Changing the subject by blaming someone or something else is the next strongest defense. Someone else is to blame for the failings of my world view. It was global capitalism, the Deep State, consumerism, mass media, global conspiracy, space aliens, Donald Trump – anybody and anything but me and the delusional, intrinsically fallacious nature of my world view.

You are distorting Integral AQAL (or a belief system of your choice) in an unfair or malicious way. This is a version of blaming someone else. Our normal response whenever we feel our values, our world view, or our sense of self, is being attacked is to personalize, which is an emotional cognitive distortion. Instead of listening to and applying the arguments, we simply change the subject from ourselves to the other person or those parts of their argument we disagree with. Because we feel victimized, we turn the other party into an attacker, persecutor or abuser and find ways to dismiss their arguments on grounds that are emotional, not objective or rational. Instead of dealing with the implications of the argument on its own merits we dismiss them as distortions. This is an excellent and almost impervious defense. It is almost guaranteed to keep us stuck and stupid.

Ascendency is not bad! Attacking trickle-down spirituality is not an attack on transformation, aspiration, idealism or even ascensionism. These are important and necessary. The problem is imbalance created by a belief in trickle-down dogmas that lead to injustice.

Spirituality embraces communion! It does indeed, and saying that trickle-down spirituality is toxic does not imply that some forms of spirituality do not advocate “trickle-up.” Many do. For example, the social service branches of religions, such as the Islamic Red Crescent and the Christian Salvation Army are valuable, important examples of spiritual trickle-up. Whenever you stand up to injustice, whenever you question elitism and exceptionalism, you are supporting trickle-up. Trickle-down is the problem, and communion is an essential element of any healthy spirituality, as Wilber has repeatedly stated.

Elites are good! Indeed. Elites are good and necessary; the elitism of trickle-down spirituality is destructive and unnecessary.

I’ve known what you’re saying all along. This is the position of universal smugness. It emerges when some bubble breaks and we tell ourselves we knew it was going to break all along. This is an excuse and a rationalization, because whether or not we knew of some possible consequence is irrelevant if that knowledge had no impact on our colluding behavior. If our knowledge did not make us more empathetic, ethical, respectful, and trustworthy, how real was it? How functional or valid was that knowledge? Are we not instead indicting our inaction? However, this rationalization can be healthy. If you are indeed expanding your world view, I will be the first to give you the credit for doing so.

It’s my fault. You just didn’t try hard enough. Your allegiance to the dharma was not sincere; you’re a sinner; you repeated “OM” with your eyes closed when they should have been open; you believed in Buddha when you should have believed in Jesus…yawn. This is a problem rather than a solution focus. We can always postpone focusing on solutions by wrapping ourselves up in the drama of some irrelevant failing. Feeling guilty for your addition to your beliefs and world view won’t change it, so don’t waste time feeling bad about your history of collusion.

I didn’t know. While this is a version of “It’s my fault,” it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category. “I didn’t know” is an excuse, not an explanation. Of course you didn’t know; if you had known the full consequences of your delusion, you would have thought, felt, and acted differently.

What is “social justice trickle-up?”

Just as we have drawn an analogy between economic and spiritual trickle-down, it is important to consider economic trickle-up in order to arrive at a functional understanding of spiritual trickle-up as an alternative to spiritual trickle-down.  Two well-known and proven consequences of trickle-down economics are the off-shoring of jobs and assets. Jobs are off-shored in order to raise profits by paying lower salaries, thereby moving income out of the country, where it benefits other economies other than one’s own. In a larger picture, this is altruistic – to a point. Consider an analogy to giving a pint of blood. That’s altruistic. Giving two gallons of blood, however, is no longer altruistic; it’s suicidal. In the long run it helps no one, because your ability to give any future blood is gone, because you’re dead. Similarly, if you kill an economy by reducing the ability of its citizens to afford to buy the goods it produces, that economy can no longer support the world economy.

The equivalent to the off-shoring of jobs for trickle-down spirituality is the neglect and discounting of the abilities of those viewed as “non-elites.”  Those who are not members of the “elect” are ignored or discounted in one way or another. Perhaps they are considered “deplorables,” self-centered “ethnocentrics,” or not capable of participating in the loving, magnanimous world view of the exceptionalists. As a result, creativity and resources that otherwise could be used to support the common good are externalized and placed out of reach of the masses. That’s unjust. Obviously, just like offshoring, this is a strategy that brings solidarity to spiritual elitists in the short-term but undercuts and impoverishes them and their cause in the long-run.

In trickle-down economics, assets are off-shored for their protection. Instead of being recycled to generate income so consumers can buy their products, financial elites simply hoard, like Scrooge McDuck. This can only be construed as pure greed based on fear.  The equivalent for trickle-down spirituality is the accumulation of wealth, privilege, status, control, and power within the elite in ways that do not benefit the laity or general public, even those who share a general world view, but not the status of the elite. For instance, Rajneesh liked to buy Rolls Royces. To the best of my knowledge, they were for him, not for his students, even though he could only be in one of them at a time. Typically, heads of religious orders do not pay taxes, have their homes and expenses taken care of for them, and are surrounded by luxuries, servants, and playmates of every imaginable sort. Ironically, the public supports these wasted expenditures, because the elites serve as representative status symbols with which they identify. An extreme example is the British royal family, which has absolutely no need for public support, as it is immensely wealthy, yet the public continues to waste tax money on them as if they were pampered poodles. Therefore, we must avoid the conclusion that elitists, spiritual and otherwise, are persecutors and we are victims. Elitists are largely created and maintained by us; neither the plutocrats that steal us blind with trickle-down economics or the “spiritual” elites that disempower us with trickle-down spirituality could exist without our support and consent.

Thomas Piketty, in his Capital in the 21^st Century, has made a relevant and related point. He shows that inequality is not an accident, but rather a feature of capitalism. It can only be reversed through state interventionism, because only the state has the authority to put limits on the power of plutocrats. This state intervention is required, because as long as the rate of return on investment exceeds the rate of economic growth of an economy, the income and wealth of the rich will grow faster than income from work. The result will be increased, or widening, inequality in society.

The broader psychological point is that inequality is a feature of elitism of all sorts, not just financial or spiritual elitism. The dynamic is the same. Inequality will increase as long as membership, such as church or temple members or members of Integral, grant exceptional status, privileges, and license to their leaders. The disparity, or inequality between elites and “laity” will grow. This can only be reversed by membership requiring leaders to be subject to at least the same, if not higher, standards of accountability and transparency, if not privilege, as they are. Clearly, people in leadership positions are necessarily granted privileges that others are not, but these need to be justified by their job description (such as free air travel) and not abused. In practice, members, laity, followers, etc. are not inclined to insist on standards of accountability or transparency or even to exercise realistic control over the accumulation of wealth of leaders.

As Piketty argues, unless capitalism is reformed through state intervention, largely by taxing the rich to force the redistribution of income so that it recycles throughout the economy instead of being hoarded in offshore accounts, stock buy-outs, and sunken into largely non-negotiable assets, like property, democracy is threatened. Similarly, unless the elites who benefit from trickle-down spirituality are forced, by membership rules and regulations, to account for and recycle their resources, the disparity between sheep and goats will grow wider until the differences are so obscenely grotesque that the entire enterprise collapses in upon itself.

Applying these concepts to Integral, which sees itself as the cutting edge of creating not only “the religion of tomorrow,” but a future integral social order, Integral will continue to be a top-down, elitist and hierarchical organization until such time as membership, that is, those who have an investment in integral as an organizational structure, require a more democratic structure. This is not to imply that Wilber himself is not open to same. I view his writings as a dissemination of wisdom in a form of healthy trickle-down of competence, knowledge, and ability. This is an example of discrimination between elite competency and elitism. Wilber also stays in touch with the writing in the field and the chatter on internet blogs. He has invited input, participation, and discussion, as for instance, his invitation to integralists to meet with him and discuss the political future of the country. However, these discussions were themselves somewhat limited to integral elitists, in that only those who could afford the admission fee were heard.

There are multiple reasons why trickle-down spirituality is the path of least resistance, just as is trickle-down economics. The profit motive is like crabgrass –it never sleeps; privilege has intrinsic advantages and many of these are actively supported by those who have little, even when doing so is to their own disadvantage. Therefore, while it is easy to slam elitists, we are talking about our own human nature and how difficult it is to generate authentic balance and to reduce inequalities that are often desirable. We call out for justice while supporting injustice. The contradictions in society are not going to go away until we address them within ourselves.

In summary

As a supporter of Integral AQAL since 1985, I am not writing to tear it down but to enhance its credibility, so that it can reach a broader range of people who can benefit from an expanded, more interconnected, world view.  Because Integral AQAL is conceptually sophisticated and built around spirituality and consciousness, it attracts and appeals to similar elites, but less so scientific and economic elites or to the vast majority of humanity which has neither the time or interest in conceptual sophistication. To not devolve into a cult or a historical footnote, integralists have to learn how to differentiate between elite knowledge and ability, on the one hand, and trickle-down spiritual elitism on the other. We need to start calling elitism out in each other when we think we see it, but more importantly, be able and willing to offer solutions built on respect, trustworthiness, and ability.

Assume you are a trickle-down spiritual elitist. I do. Know the warning signs: Adherence to your world view as a dogmatic belief system. If you talk in coded, elitist jargon, that is one clue; a sense of defensiveness or personalization if people question your world view; a dismissal of the relevancy or legitimacy of the arguments of those that do not share your world view or who do not share your understanding of a common word view; a tendency to surround yourself with those who validate your world view; wasting precious time and energy trying to convince others of the legitimacy and wonderfulness of your world view; a failure to call out elitism; a failure to invite others to call out your elitism.

Probably the best antidote to trickle-down spirituality is to 1) stop supporting or feeding its spiritual and economic manifestations, and 2) to find ways, preferably anonymously, to provide more justice to those who are not elites, who have had less opportunity than you, and who do not share your world view. Don’t try to convert them; instead, find out what they need and help them where they are, not where you think they need to be. In other words, cultivate and practice respect, trustworthiness, sharing, and humility. Especially humility.

[1] “Will Rogers on “trickle up” economics”. WiredPen. 2015-01-30.

[2] Era Dabla-Norris; Kalpana Kochhar; Nujin Suphaphiphat; Frantisek Ricka; Evridiki Tsounta (June 15, 2015). Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective. International Monetary Fund.

[3] Tcherneva, Pavlina (March 2015). “When a Rising Tide Sinks Most Boats: Trends in US Income Inequality”(PDF). Levy Economics Institute. Bard College.

[4] “In the Real World of Work and Wages, Trickle-Down Theories Don’t Hold Up”. The New York Times. April 12, 2007.

[5] “The Living Room Candidate – Commercials – 1992 – Trickle Down”. www.livingroomcandidate.org.

[6] Heather Stewart (July 21, 2012). “Wealth doesn’t trickle down – it just floods offshore, research reveals”. The Guardian. London.

[7] “Evangelii Gaudium : Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World”. vatican.va

[8] Era Dabla-Norris; Kalpana Kochhar; Nujin Suphaphiphat; Frantisek Ricka; Evridiki Tsounta (June 15, 2015). Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective. International Monetary Fund.

[9] Jacob Pramuk (September 26, 2016). “Clinton: Trump would cut taxes for the rich in ‘trumped up’ trickle down economics”. CNBC

[10] Gaspard, Toufick. A Political Economy of Lebanon 1948–2002: The Limits of Laissez-faire. Boston: Brill, 2004.

[11] Gaspard, Toufick. A Political Economy of Lebanon 1948–2002: The Limits of Laissez-faire. Boston: Brill, 2004.

[12] For those who are not members of the integral elite, “2^nd Tier” refers to people who have developed past late personal egalitarianism and pluralism into a world view that transcends but includes all previous world views, including that of late personal. As such, it is multi-perspectival and associated with a transitional space between the personal and transpersonal, that Wilber calls “vision-logic.”

[13] Gates, Bezos among 8 with same wealth as world’s poorest half. King5.com

[14] World Happiness Report http://worldhappiness.report/ed/2017/

[15] http://www.well-beingindex.com/americans-well-being-declines-in-2017

[16] Evolutionaries for Hillary Clinton. Change.Org.

Is Jungian Psychology a Dream Yoga? If “dream yoga” is defined as a disciplined movement into lucidity in all states of consciousness, then Jungian psychology and therapy can be understood as a form of “waking up,” or movement into greater clarity, from the perspective of prepersonal and personal levels of development. This is because Jung’s analytic psychology has as its goal the integration of the self, and the self stops being the object and center of development past personal levels. Jungian therapy uses increased self-awareness, with emphasis on possibilities for future transformation as disclosed by symbols, particularly in dreams, but also in the sacred traditions of the world, to move the ego into more mature and integrated self-awareness.

What is Jungian Analysis? Jung states his method “…consists in a careful anamnesis or reconstruction of the historical development of the neurosis. The material elicited in this way is a more or less coherent sequence of facts told to the doctor by the patient, so far as he can remember them. He naturally omits many details which either seem unimportant to him or which he has forgotten. The experienced analyst who knows the usual course of neurotic development will put questions which help the patient to fill in some of the gaps. Very often this procedure by itself is of great therapeutic value, as it enables the patient to understand the chief factors of his neurosis and may eventually bring him to a decisive change of attitude.” “In addition to the favourable effect produced by the realization of previously unconscious connections, it is usual for the doctor to give some good advice, or encouragement, or even a reproof.”

When “human misery,” “dukkha,” “samsara,” or “karma,” are substituted for “neurosis,” we can see that Jung was attempting to wake people up out of suffering that kept them from finding and experiencing wholeness. Like Freudian psychoanalysis, Jungian analysis uses a medical model, starting with the collection of a history, then the arrival at a diagnosis (such as neurosis), and then on to treatment. Jung uses the therapist’s questions about history to promote patient insight. Traditional dream yogas focus on insight secondary to state openings, created by shamanistically-derived, meditational, mystical, or near death experiences. Integral Deep Listening (IDL) does not collect a history because both the subject and the interviewed emerging potentials already know it. Also, it is not the Practitioner’s job to diagnose, so there is no need to collect history to arrive at a diagnosis in IDL. The subject already has a diagnosis in mind in most cases; interviewed emerging potentials will add their own, which may be the same or very different.

Who makes the diagnosis? Traditionally, diagnoses are supplied by the religious or yogic conceptual framework of the particular dream yoga. For example, Tibetan dream yoga uses lamas and physicians to make diagnoses of dukkha, or suffering, due to ignorance, attachment and aversion and identification with the Twelve Nidanas, or the chain of causation of pratityasamupada, interdependent co-existence. Shamans typically diagnose spirit possession or interference. Medicine and psychiatry relies on highly trained practitioners to make diagnoses. IDL Practitioners focus on listening to the diagnoses provided by interviewed emerging potentials over the course of one or several interviews. These often indicate where and how a subject is stuck more effectively than their own account of their history provides, and certainly more effectively than any external general conceptual framework, whether provided by Jungian analysis, lucid dreaming, or some other dream yoga. IDL then compares the advice of interviewed perspectives with that of respected professionals and one’s own common sense in a process called “triangulation.”

Can IDL be used in conjunction with therapy and other treatment modalities? While IDL Practitioners do not diagnose or treat, IDL may be practiced by therapists who do, including Jungian analysts. There is no reason why it cannot be used in tandem with Jungian analysis, Tibetan dream yoga, shamanistic approaches to lucid dreaming, or Nidra yoga. Nevertheless, despite the fact that IDL can be and is used by some therapists within a model that uses diagnosis and treatment, neither are intrinsic to the method itself. While one can certainly point to the fact that interviewed dream characters and the personifications of life issues routinely diagnose and provide treatment recommendations, this is hardly “diagnosis and treatment” as commonly understood.

What is the role of the practitioner? Jung sees the role of an analyst as interpretive, whether of patient behavior or reported dreams. Traditional dream yogas, such as the Milam of Milarepa, rely on the interpretations of gurus, which follow from the cultural assumptions of Tibetan Buddhism and the Bon Tibetan tradition. IDL views the role of a Practitioner as a deep listener in the phenomenological tradition, a conductor of interviews, and a source of ongoing accountability in the application of those interview recommendations the student chooses to apply. While practitioners provide interpretations, this function is subordinated to the above three functions. In addition, Practitioners serve an educational role, providing information about the Drama Triangle, life scripting, cognitive distortions, and instruction in meditation and pranayama. While this role has overlaps with therapists, coaches, psychopomps, and gurus, it is primarily that of mirror and mentor.

What is the relationship between Jung’s personality theory and that of IDL? Jung’s basic conceptual structure for the workings of individuals is very different from that of traditional dream yogas as well as IDL. Building from Freud’s distinctions of ego, id and superego, Jung divides the self into ego and the unconscious, including the personal and collective unconscious, and the Self. Most dream yogas view the self as asleep, waking up primarily within altered states of consciousness and using those experiences of heightened wakefulness to become enlightened, or fully awake in all states of consciousness. IDL uses the term “ego” to refer either to narcissistic tendencies in individual behavior or more broadly, to prepersonal and personal developmental levels but not to vision-logic, transpersonal levels or the non-dual. IDL prefers to use the term, “waking identity” to refer to the conscious self, for several reasons. It does not want to imply meanings associated with the usages of Freud or Jung; “waking identity” is a neutral term; it refers to a state of consciousness; it implies that identity is malleable and that one can have identities that are other than one’s normal waking sense of who they are.

Why are the Conscious and Unconscious so important for Jung? Like Freud, this is probably Jung’s fundamental distinction, which supports the rest of his theory of personality. He states, “Man’s task is to become conscious of the contents that press upward from the unconscious.” Another way to say this is that man’s task is to expand his awareness, or to wake up. However, his formulation implies many things that simple reformulation does not, including repression, conflict, dualism, and a specific location of the “other,” that is, interior to humanity.

Why doesn’t IDL use “unconscious?” Interviewed emerging potentials rarely make or use this distinction. In addition, it creates two “things,” the states of consciousness and unconsciousness, out of two processes, awareness and unawareness. Jung’s “personal unconscious” and “universal unconscious” become “things” that contain other “things”: the persona, shadow, complexes, and fixations, anima, animus, the wise old man, fool, Self, and various other archetypes. Because things have independent beingness, an ontology is created, and consequently a study of the nature of these real “things” in consciousness.

But isn’t this a helpful distinction? This is the trick of language: by making distinctions, life is taken out of the flow of the moment and turned into permanent, real “things,” when no such things exist apart from language. Before you knew the word “tree,” you simply had an experience; there were no trees. They didn’t exist for you, because you had not differentiated them out of the barrage of sensory data until language gave you a tool to do so. Out of convenience, you learned to substitute the designation “tree” for an experience. You confused a linguistic map with the territory, your mistook your associations with people for undefined, undefinable experiences you filtered out by calling them this or that name. You mistook your thoughts about yourself and life for direct, uninterpreted, experience.

Learning to make distinctions is an important and necessary developmental step; without it you can’t think. However, once you learn this useful linguistic differentiation, if you remain unable to suspend this generally automatic and reflexive naming, it blocks your further development by limiting not only what you can perceive, but how you experience and what you experience. This is the problem with thinking about human psychology using “conscious and unconscious.” Like the name “tree,” distinguishing between conscious and unconscious is important, necessary, and useful until a particular developmental stage, generally termed “late personal.” Past that point, addiction to the reality of such linguistic fabrications keeps you from experiencing what your words and concepts point to. You only perceive what you have defined. Everything else that a tree is, everything else that it may offer you, as a holographic wormhole, remains shut off and unavailable to you.

To complicate things even more, the seeming independent beingness of “things,” “others,” and “self,” is also a trick of perspective. Something that looks autonomous from one perspective, like a dream monster, is seen to be both a projected fear and an emerging potential from other perspectives. Something that looks sacred from one perspective is matter-of-fact from another; something that looks transcendent and wholly “other” from one perspective becomes immanent and oneself from another. Considered in reverse, this is the process by which murder and abuse occurs. We make enemies and criminals wholly “other” so we can kill them. In both cases we project divinity or vileness onto some object of awareness instead of simply becoming that perspective and experiencing what life looks like from that point of view. Our resistance to doing so may be a reflection of our intolerance of our humanness; we cannot conceive that we could possibly contain all the beauty and ugliness that we see around us.

Who decides what is conscious? The distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness also implies that unconsciousness and unawareness are less desirable than consciousness and awareness, when we know that both unconsciousness and unawareness are necessary (sleep) and good (the ability to avoid distraction while driving, for instance). The distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness is hopelessly geocentric, in a psychological sense. Who decides what is conscious? You do. Who decides what is unconscious? You do. Who is this “you?” It is the particular perspective that you are currently taking. Because of the delusion of consistency of self-image, you imagine that the self that meditates or buys groceries is the same one that is disgusted at your inability to say “no” to that second helping of dessert, or which dreams dreams, when all these perspectives are quite distinct and autonomous. Closely examined, there is nothing unitary about them. The particular perspective that you are identified with at this moment makes the decision about what is conscious and what is not, or else someone else defines something into existence: “Are you aware that you are grinding your teeth?” “Are you aware that dreaming of missing teeth symbolizes your fear of displeasing others?” Everything is out of our awareness until or unless it becomes an object of some waking awareness. What this does is create a fundamental dichotomy between awareness and unawareness, a distinction that IDL uses, because it minimizes some of the problems mentioned above that arise with the use of “conscious” and “unconscious,” but which it views as also ontologically empty.

What is Jung’s Personal Unconscious? “The personal unconscious contains lost memories, painful ideas that are repressed (i.e., forgotten on purpose), subliminal perceptions, by which are meant sense-perceptions that were not strong enough to reach consciousness, and finally, contents that are not yet ripe for consciousness.” IDL views the concept of a personal unconscious as a waking projection and interpretation, rather than something intrinsic to the structure of personality or to dreams. While Jung divides unconsciousness into personal and collective aspects, neither interviewed emerging potentials or life itself do so.

What is Jung referring to when he uses the term “Shadow? For Jung, the “Shadow” involves unincorporated elements of the personal unconscious that are externalized in dreams and waking life as conflict. Jung coined this term to indicate hidden or unconscious aspects of self, both good and bad, which the ego has either repressed or never recognized. The shadow is composed for the most part of repressed desires and uncivilized impulses, morally inferior motives, childish fantasies and resentments, all those things about ourselves we are not proud of. “The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real.” These unacknowledged personal characteristics are often experienced in others through the mechanism of projection.

Why did Jung develop the concept of the shadow?  for good and important reasons. For example, in The Philosophical Tree[1] he says, “A man who is unconscious of himself acts in a blind, instinctive way and is in addition fooled by all the illusions that arise when he sees everything that he is not conscious of in himself coming to meet him from outside as projections upon his neighbor.” Expanding on this approach in Psychology and Religion,[2] Jung says, “If you imagine someone who is brave enough to withdraw all his projections, then you get an individual who is conscious of a pretty thick shadow. Such a man has saddled himself with new problems and conflicts. He has become a serious problem to himself, as he is now unable to say that they do this or that, they are wrong, and they must be fought against… Such a man knows that whatever is wrong in the world is in himself, and if he only learns to deal with his own shadow he has done something real for the world.”

Therefore, the function of the concept of Shadow for Jung essentially serves a similar purpose to karma in Hinduism: withdrawing blame and responsibility from others and instead making oneself accountable for one’s own assumptions, expectations, and feelings. In the developmental arc, this step is associated with a movement from childhood and adolescence to an adult moral sense that Kohlberg would associate with post-coventional morality and which usually does not emerge until early to mid-personal. However, when you are brought up within a culture that assumes such norms, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, the acceptance of such responsibility is a societal assumption from childhood. It is intended to protect children and adults from the problems associated with earlier stages of moral development. Therefore, from a moralistic sense, that is, learning to take responsibility for one’s own experience, “shadow” is subject to much of the same critique as karma.[3]

There are several assumptions about “shadow” that Jung makes that IDL approaches differently.

First, “shadow” refers to aspects of self:

“To become conscious of (the shadow) involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real.”[4] The function of this concept is responsibility through ownership, based on the idea that we are empowered only by that which we take as self-created, as a part of ourselves.

Second, “shadow” indicates dark, or unwanted aspects of self: “Unfortunately there can be no doubt that man is, on the whole, less good than he imagines himself or wants to be. Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.”[5] “Taking it in its deepest sense, the shadow is the invisible saurian tail that man still drags behind him.”[6] Jung is saying that the shadow is an evolutionary throw-back, a burden to be cast off: “We carry our past with us, to wit, the primitive and inferior man with his desires and emotions, and it is only with an enormous effort that we can detach ourselves from this burden. If it comes to a neurosis, we invariably have to deal with a considerably intensified shadow.”[7]

The darkness of the shadow is not petty; it can be demonic: “It is a frightening thought that man also has a shadow side to him, consisting not just of little weaknesses- and foibles, but of a positively demonic dynamism.”[8]

Not only can it be neurotic and demonic, but also pathological and psychotic: “If the activation is due to the collapse of the individual’s hopes and expectations, there is a danger that the collective unconscious may take the place of reality. This state would be pathological. If, on the other hand, the activation is the result of psychological processes in the unconscious of the people, the individual may feel threatened or at any rate disoriented, but the resultant state is not pathological, at least so far as the individual is concerned. Nevertheless, the mental state of the people as a whole might well be compared to a psychosis.”[9]

Third, “shadow” indicates repressed aspects of self: “Having a dark suspicion of these grim possibilities, man turns a blind eye to the shadow-side of human nature. Blindly he strives against the salutary dogma of original sin, which is yet so prodigiously true. Yes, he even hesitates to admit the conflict of which he is so painfully aware.”[10]

Jung finds good reason for man’s repression of his shadow: “The change of character brought about by the uprush of collective forces is amazing. A gentle and reasonable being can be transformed into a maniac or a savage beast. One is always inclined to lay the blame on external circumstances, but nothing could explode in us if it had not been there. As a matter of fact, we are constantly living on the edge of a volcano, and there is, so far as we know, no way of protecting ourselves from a possible outburst that will destroy everybody within reach. It is certainly a good thing to preach reason and common sense, but what if you have a lunatic asylum for an audience or a crowd in a collective frenzy? There is not much difference between them because the madman and the mob are both moved by impersonal, overwhelming forces.” “Psychology and Religion”[11]

What Jung means, when he speaks of “losing one’s shadow,” is its repression: “No, the demons are not banished; that is a difficult task that still lies ahead… Every man who loses his shadow, every nation that falls into self-righteousness, is their prey…. We should not forget that exactly the same fatal tendency to collectivization is present in the victorious nations as in the Germans, that they can just as suddenly become a victim of the demonic powers.”[12]

“If an inferiority is conscious, one always has a chance to correct it. Furthermore, it is constantly in contact with other interests, so that it is continually subjected to modifications. But if it is repressed and isolated from consciousness, it never gets corrected.”[13] Here we see Jung’s basic theory of his method. You can’t fix personality dysfunction unless you bring repressed shadow to the surface: “… if such a person wants to be cured it is necessary to find a way in which his conscious personality and his shadow can live together.”[14]

Fourth, recognition of one’s shadow involves confrontation.

“Whenever contents of the collective unconscious become activated, they have a disturbing effect on the conscious mind, and confusion ensues.”[15] “Filling the conscious mind with ideal conceptions is a characteristic of Western theosophy, but not the confrontation with the shadow and the world of darkness.”[16] “To confront a person with his shadow is to show him his own light. Once one has experienced a few times what it is like to stand judgingly between the opposites, one begins to understand what is meant by the self. Anyone who perceives his shadow and his light simultaneously sees himself from two sides and thus gets in the middle.”[17]

Notice that Jung’s “holy grail” is the finding and integration of “the self.”

How does IDL approach these four aspects of Jung’s “Shadow?” Interviewed dream characters and personifications of life issues do not usually see themselves as shadow, or elements of a personal unconscious. They generally are unincorporated because they are not listened to and their perspective on life is not integrated into the perceptual schema of the subject. Consequently, IDL does not view dream characters as personifications of shadow. That characters in dreams are unconscious, hidden, good, bad, or aspects of oneself, are assumptions that we make; interviewed emerging potentials do not normally make such assumptions.

Unlike Jung, IDL does not recognize any self to which “shadow” belongs. It does not belong to waking identity, for it is repressed, or disowned by it. To whom, then, does it belong, if it is not an aspect of who you think you are? Is it a part of who you are but you do not think you are? Jung’s classical answer, following Freud, is that it is part of an expanded, disowned identity that is then projected outward as delusional and conflictual relationships with the world. Jung’s understanding of shadow reflects the common psychological notion that dreams and life are about us. We come to terms with the Other for our own growth, not stopping to think that our existence is, from the perspective of life, like a dream. Nevertheless, we insist on maintaining a psychologically geocentric worldview. IDL trains us to break this habit of mind, to slowly outgrow a fixation on ourselves and our needs

Can this theory be tested? You are encouraged to do so.  Cconduct your own interviews of yourself and others and draw your own conclusions. Take any of the words and concepts we discuss here, or any demonic dream character, “shadowy” characteristic of yourself, such as an addiction or something you are ashamed of, or some demonic world event, like 9/11. Interview it, using either the IDL dream or life issue protocol. What you will find is that yes, the character or element most likely does personify some aspect of yourself. However, as you get into the interview, you will most likely find that it embodies potentials that you do not possess. For example, in interviewing the “Ego,” I could see how it is a part of me and could respect it, but could not bring myself to feel intimidated or controlled by it. So yes, it is a part of me, and no, it is not a part of me. Similarly, in the interview with “the Unconscious,” I could see how it personified aspects of myself, many of which are unrecognized or disowned. However, as it transformed itself into Life, it became clear that it so completely transcended who I think I am as to no longer be considered a part of me and to make sense at the same time. The only way it could make sense at that point would be for me to experience myself as a part of it. If this is so, in what sense is this or any element “shadow?” In what sense does it belong to you, if it embodies potentials that you do not possess? Does it not make more sense to say that you belong to it, that you are an aspect of it? 

Do interviewed skunks and blenders have identities, a sense of self? Like you and me, these interviewed emerging potentials have a sense of identity. They have a beingness that generally proves to be highly relevant and meaningful. However, interviewed emerging potentials have no permanent self-sense. They are imaginary perspectives that embody certain combinations of qualities and characteristics. When “shadow” elements are interviewed using IDL, they are found to be as much “not-self” as they are “self.” We are as likely to belong to them as they are to belong to us. Do they also have projections? Yes, in the form of the interpretations they make regarding experience. Doesn’t this also imply that they have a “shadow,” or repressed, dark, disowned sense of self? If so, is that not strange to contemplate that “shadow” has its own shadow? How could that be?

How does IDL approach Jung’s second point, involving the supposed darkness and demonic nature of these shadowy “self-aspects.” IDL interviewing generally demonstrates that such assumptions are our projections, even while dreaming, and are not substantiated either by interviews of the character itself or by other elements from within the dream or associated life situation. On the contrary, their intentions are generally in the service of shocking us awake. This is hardly a dark, demonic, neurotic, or psychotic intention. In the interview of the Ego, above, the Queen certainly did her best to be fearful and intimidating. Instead of transforming into love and light, Ego saw itself more like the Queen in Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarves than the way in which she came across to me, more like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland. So was this a failure to accurately portray the Shadow in its authentic nature or, was it an example of what can happen when you deeply listen to some personification of what you consider to be your own shadow?

How does IDL view the repression and disownership of Jung’s third point? IDL recognizes both, but shares the focus that interviewed characters emphasize in countless interviews: what is important is not what is repressed and disowned, or what is not yet recognized or owned, but whether or not we respectfully listen to them. When you put focus on what you fear, that is on “repressed shadow,” you amplify your fear and shadow, in the hope that by doing so you will overcome the repression and generate an “integrated self.” However, what generally happens is that you get a socially enculturated self that is a thoroughgoing product of the best of prevailing groupthink. “Integration” ends up meaning “normal,” which is a frightening thought, considering the state of reality generated by contemporary “normal” humans, including the best and the brightest. IDL interviewing allows that which is feared to be heard on its own terms; if it wants to transform, that is respected; if it wants to stay the same, or become even more fearful, that is also respected. Interviewed characters themselves generally do not focus on the feared, repressed, or disowned. Even when they are stuck in the Drama Triangle they rarely see themselves as persecutors, but instead as angry or depressed victims. They focus on what is not yet recognized or owned and what is attempting to be born into consciousness.

Jung’s fourth point about the shadow is that it requires confrontation. Does IDL agree? The shadow represents resistance: “Although, with insight and good will, the shadow can to some extent be assimilated into the conscious personality, experience shows that there are certain features which offer the most obstinate resistance to moral control and prove almost impossible to influence. These resistances are usually bound up with projections, which are not recognized as such, and their recognition is a moral achievement beyond the ordinary. While some traits peculiar to the shadow can be recognized without too much difficulty as one’s personal qualities, in this case both insight and good will are unavailing because the cause of the emotion appears to lie, beyond all possibility of doubt, in the other person.”

Why not simply call shadow resistance instead of postulating an imaginary entity residing in an imaginary place in consciousness? Why not simply interview the resistance? For example, in the following quote (as well as in all the previous ones), substitute “resistance” for “shadow”: “It is a therapeutic necessity, indeed, the first requisite of any thorough psychological method, for consciousness to confront its resistance. In the end this must lead to some kind of union, even though the union consists at first in an open conflict, and often remains so for a long time. It is a struggle that cannot be abolished by rational means. When it is willfully repressed it continues in the unconscious and merely expresses itself indirectly and all the more dangerously, so no advantage is gained. The struggle goes on until the opponents run out of breath. What the outcome will be can never be seen in advance. The only certain thing is that both parties will be changed.”

How does IDL  avoid or minimize this dilemma of union or open conflict? By interviewing conflict and resistance IDL takes perspectives that are not in conflict and experience no resistance. There is, however, a major, observable resistance in many people to doing interviews; if they do them, there is a major, observable resistance to them applying the recommendations in their waking life to test the method to see if the benefits it claims exist. Instead, most prefer to draw conclusions about the process without ever having experienced it, or else, if having experienced it, never having worked at applying its recommendations to see what the results will be. Why so much resistance? Here is Jung’s explanation. We have substituted “resistance” for shadow; see if you think it fits: “With a little self-criticism one can see through the resistance-so far as its nature is personal. But when it appears as an archetype, one encounters the same difficulties as with anima and animus. In other words, it is quite within the bounds of possibility for a man to recognize the relative evil of his nature, but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absolute evil.”

As  a methodology, IDL does not generate experiences of this duality between personal and collective good and evil. In either case, when conflict and resistance are interviewed, two things happen: you become one with that good or evil; you are no longer gazing into its face. You are that goodness or that evil, and by becoming it, you transcend the categories of good and evil. Consequently, you access the potentials it personifies; it becomes one with you. In the process what you projected is reclaimed and reincorporated into an expanded sense of who you are. It is no longer a threat. Absolute evil becomes just one more emerging potential for you to grow into.

However, it would be as true to say that you become one with it; you are incorporated into it. The dream terror does not simply become you; you become it. This realization is what demolishes the self-sense; it gives practical, duplicatable evidence that you are transparent and that every perspective is the transformative axis mundi.

IDL interviewing would be a process of what Jung would call, “confronting the shadow,” but this is not an accurate description. It is more appropriately called “listening to wake-up calls.” These may be perceived as potentials or resistances. What is the source of this resistance?

Most people think they know their own minds; they listen to their own thoughts all the time and know them only too well. They feel their feelings regularly and are not impressed with the prospect of getting in touch with them. They do not understand that IDL is not at all about listening to their thoughts and feelings; it is about listening to perspectives that often diverge from their thoughts and feelings in unexpected ways. However, even if people understand this rationally, most are self-critical; they are sure that what they will hear will only amplify their own self-persecution. They are sure they know their own minds and they have low self-esteem. The last thing they need is a “piling on” on top of the abuse they are already giving themselves! In addition, most people are unconvinced that anything useful is going to come out of themselves; they need to consult a guru or access some knowledge in some other state of consciousness.

Breaking through all this resistance is a challenge. How did I do it? Curiosity. I had been curious about dreams for almost twenty years before I developed Dream Sociometry in 1980. The results I got were so different from what I had learned from Cayce, Freud, Jung, Perls, and other sources, and so unexpected, that I was fascinated. Therefore I would say that my intellectual curiosity overcame my skepticism, self-doubt, and self-criticism. This is generally a personal level developmental aptitude, but even small children naturally possess curiosity. If it is supported, it will ripen into reason.

Others will break through their resistance because of the pain of repetitive nightmares or life trauma. However, what I have observed is that even with people who have been haunted with nightmares for years and find that they are quickly eliminated and stay gone, that few people continue to work with the process. My conclusion is that most people have worked hard at building a strong sense of self, if they are not still in the process of doing so. They have considerable investment in their view of the world and the perspectives that support it. While they want to grow, they want to stay in control of their growth process. IDL is a process of letting go and trusting, repeatedly, to crazy, bizarre perspectives that are obviously illusory and imaginary. This not only goes against socialization, but rationality. In addition to not winning friends and status, and seeming irrational, it can feel threatening. It can feel like giving up control. Consequently, many people will simply say, “I already knew that.” They do not realize that IDL is not about insight, like many approaches to therapy and dream interpretation, or about cathartic access to other states through emotional release. Instead, it is about aligning waking priorities with those of one’s life compass. We may already know the recommended priorities; however, prioritizing them and following them are the salient differences.

Jung attempts to sell us on the benefits of confronting our resistances (shadow): “This process of coming to terms with the Other in us is well worth while, because in this way we get to know aspects of our nature which we would not allow anybody else to show us and which we ourselves would never have admitted.” While this is indeed true, it is a hard sell for many. People have good reasons why they will not admit to themselves what they know. It is sad when we refuse to break through this shell of resistance, because when we do we find we grow in confidence, compassion, wisdom, acceptance, inner peace, and witnessing.

IDL has found that respect, as demonstrated by deep listening, in an integral way, eliminates the need for confrontation and the defensive, fear-based stance that confrontation Jung recommends often implies. While it is possible to confront without fear or defensiveness, it is not easy, nor is it likely. Most of us imagine we are confronting without fear or defensiveness, but that belief rarely bears up under close examination. Waking up and enlightenment involve growth into the core qualities and perspectives of life; these usually do not require confrontation, other than the challenging of the logic of the statements elements make when interviewed or in questioning the nature and purpose of its recommendations. So now let’s hear what Shadow itself, or at least my fantasy of Shadow, has to say about all this…

Interview With Shadow

To do such an interview as authentically as possible, it should deal with something about which I feel guilt, shame, or failure about. What comes to mind is cheating on my x-wife. Now I could give all kinds of reasons, excuses, explanations, or rationalizations for why and how all that came about, but that would be beside the point. Whether my standards were realistic or appropriate or not, I didn’t live up to them in that instance and now, some ten years after, I wish I had handled things differently. So I suspect most readers would consider that to be an authentic topic for an interview with shadow.

“So, guilt, shame, what shape would you like to take?”

Guilt/Shame: “It may not be very creative, but I’ll just be your shadow, OK?”

“You mean the one I see when the sun is out, combined with Jung’s psychological concept? OK…So Shadow, what do you like best about yourself?”

Shadow: “I like that I am a mysterious, haunting presence, lurking in the background, that you can forget for a while, but that never completely goes away. It means that I have the power to command your attention and to make you feel how I want you to feel.”

“So, Shadow, how do you want me to feel?”

“Bad, of course! Shame! Guilt! Self-critical!”

“Why?” 

Shadow: “So you won’t forget! So you will remember! So you won’t do it again!”

“Ah! I think I understand. Your function is to protect me from a repeat by making me feel so bad that I won’t do it again?”

Shadow: “Right!”

“Shadow, it sounds to me as if you are just my critical parent voice that wants me to be ‘nice’ and socially appropriate, and that persecutes me when I’m not.”

Shadow: “Yes, that’s right. I’m pretty much the internalized voice of your parents telling you to be respectful, follow the rules, be a good boy, play nice, be fair, and then people will like you and treat you OK, because you live up to their expectations.”

“So why should I listen to an internal voice that is just playing the role of persecutor in the Drama Triangle? Doesn’t that just mean that I will feel the victim and will seek somebody or something to rescue me from you?”

Shadow: “I agree; it’s a waste of time! But it’s your dream; you write the rules; I’m just a bit player following my script.”

“Hmmmm….so it sounds like you are saying you don’t want the role of Shadow.”

Shadow: “Would you? Think about it. No life of your own. Always lurking in darkness. The only time you get air time is in the role of persecutor. Not so much fun.”

“Makes sense to me. So Shadow, if you don’t want to be Shadow, what do you want to do? Who or what would you prefer to be?”

Shadow: “Air! I know it sounds bland, but that’s OK with me, because I have had enough of being stuck in C-grade soap opera melodrama. If I could be air, I would be free! I could go anywhere I wanted and not be captive or controlled, and not have to be a prisoner of somebody’s trite, self-centered little self-pity party!”

“That’s not a very nice thing to say about me and my issue, Shadow. I not only hurt my X; I really pissed her off. And she got one of my sisters to not want to have anything to do with me!”

Shadow: “So what do you want me to do about it? Be your shadow and haunt you for the rest of your life? I thought you said I could be AIR!!! Sounds like you don’t want to let me go; sounds like you need me around to persecute you.”

“That’s pretty harsh, Shadow/Air, but I see your point. Do I want to outgrow my need to persecute myself and stay in drama or do I want to stay a whiny, self-persecuting victim?”

Air: “Hey; it’s none of my business. I would only say, totally apart from whether or not you want to love and respect yourself, how about considering me and my feelings? Isn’t that what your work is supposed to be about anyway? If you are going to listen to me and respect me, then you will set me free and let me make my own way in the world.”

“I hear you, but I forget! What can I do to remind myself, to catch me if I start doing this Shadow number on myself?” 

Air: “I recommend that you use thoughts of your X-wife and that period of your past as a que to switch and to become me.”

“Air, I can see where that makes sense and I will work at it. However, I have another question for you. You are not so different from the Life that the Unconscious that I interviewed earlier turned into. How come?

Air: “I can only speak for myself, but perhaps it is a common theme that wants to emerge in your life. Maybe it’s like interviewing a couple of characters in one dream that agree with each other; maybe we are two perspectives within you own life dream that happen to agree pretty much with each other.”

“OK Air. I think I’ve gotten the message. So what I have heard is that this shadow business is pretty pathetic. It’s a way for me to abuse myself, basically. It’s something you can justify only if you feel you deserve abuse. This shadow only exists because we assign it the role of the Queen’s scepter, used to whack ourselves and others with. However, once we shift and take the perspective of Shadow, it feels abused and wants a life. It wants freedom and an end to pointless slavery.”

“So if this were a wake-up call from my life compass it would be that this entire business of “shadow” is delusional nonsense created out of self-abuse and needs to be outgrown. It also says that life doesn’t care whether you had an affair or whether your X chose to be happy, sad, scared, or angry, or what your sister did or thinks, and you have a lot more important things to think about, like what’s for dinner.”

What does this interview say about the usefulness of the concept of Shadow? It does not deny that it has some descriptive usefulness or reality at a level of development through which everyone must pass: emotional drama that is due to parental scripting in our early life. However, it gives reasons why it is not a helpful or useful concept, even if it fits and makes sense. It contends that the concept of shadow tends to keep people stuck in self-abuse. While it may be a useful concept to learn and use in order to understand and recognize drama, once that is done, the recommendation is to outgrow the concept.

So is the interview simply echoing what I think? Of course! But how did I evolve to thinking in such a way? Largely by doing countless interviews both with myself and others over some forty years. So it is a chicken and egg question, in which I have taken on a perspective that has been taught to me by practicing deep listening to interviewed emerging potentials – not the other way around.

Collective Unconscious

Jung states, “The collective unconscious contains the whole spiritual heritage of mankind’s evolution, born anew in the brain structure of every individual.” “The collective unconscious–so far as we can say anything about it at all–appears to consist of mythological motifs or primordial images, for which reason the myths of all nations are its real exponents. In fact, the whole of mythology could be taken as a sort of projection of the collective unconscious… We can therefore study the collective unconscious in two ways, either in mythology or in the analysis of the individual.”

Jung is undoubtedly correct when he talks about the psychic inheritance of man. We know, for instance, that reactivity to an image of a spider occurs in infants and appears to be innate. We also know that imagery emerges before language and probably before emotions. For example, cats, which probably don’t have many or at least very complicated emotions when they are killing birds or mice, most likely have dreams that are vividly visual. This implies that visual recognition is a very archaic sensory phenomena that exists in all dreaming animals. It would make sense that there would be a response to images that are associated with evolutionary adaptation.

IDL follows Wilber in noting that the collective quadrants are wholes of which individual elements are parts. As such, they are contexts. Consequently, just as “shadow” can be replaced by “resistance” and thereby reduce some of the metaphysical and ontological difficulties that arise with “shadow,” so substitution of “unconscious” by “context” can accomplish much the same here. The advantage is that “context” does not infer a place, nor a relationship to awareness or consciousness. Instead, it simply implies a whole without implying that it cannot be a member of yet a greater whole.

IDL views Jung’s collective unconscious as one way of understanding the interior collective, or cultural inheritance of individual and group holons. This is the realm of culture, and therefore of mythological, dream, and waking interpretations, worldviews, and life schemas. Just as individuals have wake-up calls all around them in every state of consciousness that they can tap as emerging potentials, so groups, societies, and civilizations are surrounded by wake-up calls that personify generally unrecognized emerging potentials.

While Jung refers to these as “spiritual,” probably because he links them to the sacred mythological traditions of human history, IDL views this as an example of Jung’s elevationism. There is nothing intrinsically either sacred or secular about collective contexts, nor is there anything that is not capable of being viewed as either sacred or secular, depending on the interpretive context that is being used. This is another example of IDL’s preference for the minimization of assumptions and characterizations when possible, in favor of clarity and objectivity, attempting to find a middle way between reductionism and elevationism.

To a greater or lesser extent, interviewed emerging potentials share this collective culture centered on waking up. Most interviewed perspectives are unitary, even if they represent a group perspective, like a herd of elephants or a star cluster. They are rarely experienced as collective even when they are universal, collective forms such as the white light of an NDE, a herd of buffalo, or the ocean. For example, if you interview a Marian apparition, like the one that appeared at Lourdes, you don’t have a collective experience; you have an “I-Thou” encounter between two perspectives, even though a Marian apparition would be classified by Jung as an archetype of the collective unconscious. The same occurs with interviews of UFOs or extraterrestrials, which Jung would also classify as expressions of the collective unconscious. While each interviewed character expresses the unique cultural orientation of the student, and through them the cultural values in which they are embedded, it also expresses its own unique relationship to the culture of waking up. This culture is not part of any collective unconscious because it has not been birthed yet; it is an emerging potential, a culture in the process of being born, rather than a snapshot of historical, collective, or genetic scripting.

The IDL correlate to Jung’s collective unconscious are shared perspectives among interviewed emerging potentials. These are most clearly observed in the patterns of preferences in relationship to one another as depicted in dream sociograms. When IDL interviews a dream character, the personification of a waking life issue, or treats a world myth or historical event as a cultural dream and interviews some part of it, the perspective of some individual element is accessed. Often, in fact usually, the character presents a context that transcends and includes one’s own. Because it is broader, the implication is that it incorporates more aspects of self, and that therefore it is collective. However, this is an inference.

Archetypes

Jung states that “Psychologically…the archetype as an image of instinct is a spiritual goal toward which the whole nature of man strives; it is the sea to which all rivers wend their way, the prize which the hero wrests from the fight with the dragon.” An archetype is a general or universal symbolic motif that remains constant across cultures and the dreams of individuals. “We can never legitimately cut loose from our archetypal foundations unless we are prepared to pay the price of a neurosis, any more than we can rid ourselves of our body and its organs without committing suicide. If we cannot deny the archetypes or otherwise neutralize them, we are confronted, at every new stage in the differentiation of consciousness to which civilization attains, with the task of finding a new interpretation appropriate to this stage, to connect the life of the past that still exists in us with the life of the present, which threatens to slip away from it.”

Jung is framing cultural contexts in instinctual, spiritual, and mythic terms, just as he does the collective unconscious. This is not surprising, as for Jung archetyes reside in the collective unconscious. What we know is that there are repetitive motifs throughout cultures and world religions. Mircea Eliade’s classic, Patterns in World Religions is one of the best demonstrations of the universality of repetitive motifs that are given sacred and symbolic meanings.

IDL understands Jungian archetypes as individually and culturally projected ideals or “Platonic Forms.” They are products of the perspective of individual selves or collectives of selves during one lifetime or over the course of civilizations. It does not assume that these dream or waking motifs are symbolic. It does not view them as symbols in need of interpretation. Instead, it views them as projections which can be withdrawn through deep listening and as wake up calls in need of same. We can project our own meaning onto universal motifs, as we do when we assume they are symbols and interpret them, or we can suspend our assumptions and allow them to interpret themselves. Which approach is more likely to provide an interpretation that transcends and includes our own?

What does it mean to assume that an image is archetypal. Doesn’t it basically mean that it is collective? Jung would add that it is sacred and mythic, but basically we are talking about wake-up calls that are recognizable to all humans. Jung wants to separate out sacrted and mythic wake-up calls as particularly important wake-up calls. IDL invites you to test this theory. Interview dog saliva, coffee, or toothpaste and decide for yourself whether they are more or less “archetypal” than angels, the sun, crosses, and circles.

Because of issues related to symbols and symbolic interpretation noted above, the language of archetypes is generally not found in IDL, even when considering patterns of shared expressions by a number of emerging potentials, whether these arise out of dreams, waking life, or cultural myth. Instead, it does its best to allow the presence of each interviewed character to be experienced in its fullness, as a conveyor of its particular quantum of life force, so that to some small degree there might be an opportunity for hierophany, kratophany, or practical instruction, in the place of interpretation.

Notice that archetypes are an inference that is generally not made either by traditional dream yogas or by experiencers of altered states of consciousness, such as mystical and near death experiences and lucid dreaming. One rarely says during these experiences, “That angel/teacher/animal is an archetype!” Instead, there is a sensory immersion in it and such interpretations generally come only after the experience.

Anima/Animus

These archetypes are unconscious, universal compensations for gender role stereotyping by the persona and ego. If you are male, you can access a compensatory female aspect of the unconscious, called the “anima.” If you are female, you can access a compensatory male aspect of the unconscious, called the “animus.” The brilliance of this formulation lies in Jung’s understanding that all humans aim toward androgeny, the conjunction of opposites in gender identity. What that does in turn is take the focus off layers of sexual and gender cultural scripting and free people up to be who they are, without defining their identity in terms of gender if they do not want to. This is an extraordinarily freeing awareness for anyone, but particularly for adolescents.

Interviewed emerging potentials are generally androgenous. They rarely demonstrate strong gender identification. When they are not androgynous, they still tend to be more so than the subject of the interview. Because Jung’s important distinction between male and female aspects of personal consciousness is not commonly expressed by emerging potentials it is not used by IDL. They typically do not provide compensations for the gender preferences of waking identity. Instead, they regard the distinction itself largely with irrelevance, which makes sense, since while perspectives inhabit bodies and the gender of those bodies can be components of their identities, perspectives themselves are relatively distinct, separate, and objectified from bodies and gender. For many people, who live in a world in which gender roles are central to identity, getting in touch with perspectives for which this is not an issue can feel like a major liberation. Consequently, IDL has been shown to be very effective with people struggling with gender issues.

Why doesn’t IDL use the term “unconscious?” The concept of the unconscious implies psychological geocentrism, meaning the idea that experience orbits around selves that are conscious. Is that accurate? Unconscious for whom? Unconscious from what perspective? The answer to these questions is, “oneself,” or as Freud and Jung would say, the ego. This creates is a self-centered psychology. What is conscious and unconscious is defined by one’s waking sense of self, exactly the perspective that is stuck, limited, in pain, and therefore least likely to have the objectivity to make healthy decisions. This is like the drunk searching for his keys underneath the streetlamp because “that’s where the light is.” When the most dysfunctional part of yourself defines reality and the terms of the search for the truth, it can only see and will only see truth that matches its definitions. But because its definitions are partial due to its limited perspective, the ego condemns itself to a Sysiphean, futile task.

What is Jung’s “Persona?” For Jung the persona is the idealized sense of yourself that you present to others. “The persona is . . . a functional complex that comes into existence for reasons of adaptation or personal convenience.” “The persona is that which in reality one is not, but which oneself as well as others think one is.” “It is, as its name implies, only a mask of the collective psyche, a mask that feigns individuality, making others and oneself believe that one is individual, whereas one is simply acting a role through which the collective psyche speaks.”

Originally, the word persona meant a mask worn by actors to indicate the role they played. On this level, the persona is both a protective covering and an asset in communicating with other people. Society depends on interactions between people through the persona. However, the consequences of identifying with a persona are that we lose sight of who we are without a protective covering; our reactions are predetermined by collective expectations (we do and think and feel what our persona “should” do, think and feel); those close to us complain of our emotional distance and we cannot imagine life without it.

“When we analyze the persona we strip off the mask, and discover that what seemed to be individual is at bottom collective; the persona was only a mask of the collective psyche. The persona is nothing real: it is a compromise between individual and society as to what a man should appear to be. He takes a name, earns a title, exercises a function, he is this or that. In a certain sense all this is real, yet in relation to the essential individuality of the person concerned it is only a secondary reality, a compromise formation, in making which others often have a greater share than he.” What is interesting about this quote from Jung is that he nails it when he says that, “the persona was only a mask of the collective psyche.” However, instead of recognizing the essential collectivity of individual human consciousness, as both Buddhism and IDL do, Jung continues to look for an “essential individuality.”

How does IDL use the concept of persona? IDL uses this very helpful Jungian concept to refer to the social and cultural roles with which we identify and which generally have little, if anything, to do with the priorities of our life compass. “The demands of propriety and good manners are an added inducement to assume a becoming mask. What goes on behind the mask is then called ‘private life.’ This painfully familiar division of consciousness into two figures, often preposterously different, is an incisive psychological operation that is bound to have repercussions on the unconscious.” While there is no doubt that you get to a more authentic presentation of individuality when you remove persona, that individuality is multiperspectival, and manifests according to context, for instance in the collective identity that dream characters present.

IDL does not treat persona as a problem to be corrected or a fraud to be eliminated; instead, it focuses on trying on perspectives that are more effective, adequate, adaptive, and satisfying. Personas remain, but they are used for different functions than previously. Instead of being phony, idealized defenses, they become tools for improved communication, shifting according to the levels of development of others, to not only respect and listen to where they are, but to speak in a way that is more likely to be understood and appreciated. Personas become subjects of cosmic humor, like masks at a masquerade, in which the fun is in both the seriousness and obviousness of the fraud.

How does Jung use the concept of ego? Jung views the ego as the central complex in the field of consciousness. Knowledge of the ego-personality is often confused with self-understanding. “The ego, the subject of consciousness, comes into existence as a complex quantity which is constituted partly by the inherited disposition (character constituents) and partly by unconsciously acquired impressions and their attendant phenomena.” “Anyone who has any ego-consciousness at all takes it for granted that he knows himself. But the ego knows only its own contents, not the unconscious and its contents. People measure their self-knowledge by what the average person in their social environment knows of himself, but not by the real psychic facts which are for the most part hidden from them. In this respect the psyche behaves like the body, of whose physiological and anatomical structure the average person knows very little too.”

“In the process of individuation, one of the initial tasks is to differentiate the ego from the complexes in the personal unconscious, particularly the persona, the shadow and anima/animus. A strong ego can relate objectively to these and other contents of the unconscious without identifying with them.” The development of a strong self-concept involves differentiating our sense of self from others and from our emotions. We still feel, only we no longer are our feelings. This sense of self is rather like the adolescent self that largely knows who and what it is in terms of what it is not, thereby connecting itself to its roots through its reactivity to them and its oppositional choices. For IDL, most people never get beyond a self that is a mixture of cultural scripting and opposition to cultural scripting; neither have anything to do with the priorities of their life compass, represented by their emerging potentials.

Psychodynamic therapies have tended to define normalcy as “healthy ego functioning.” The problem here is that normalcy is generally defined by society, not by one’s life compass. “Healthy ego functioning” can correspond to social adaptation, which may have nothing at all to do with living a life in alignment with the priorities of life itself.

What is the ego? One way of answering that question is to ask the ego itself! Anyone can do so, and if you do, you will get different answers than you will find here, answers that are tailor made for your level of development and designed to help you to wake up and move forward.

An Interview With Ego

“Ego, I imagine you as a screaming two or three year old, maybe like the one that lives upstairs, who stomps around early in the morning, like a young stegosaurus, and who likes to scream to get what she wants. I will imagine you looking like Lucy, of ‘Peanuts’ fame, who is forever pulling the football out from under Charlie Brown, when she isn’t playing psychiatrist. Will you please describe yourself and what life is like from your point of view?”

Ego: “I don’t think you are being fair at all. I don’t see myself at all like that! I am a queen on her throne, and not just ANY queen! I am the Queen of the WORLD! And everybody does what I want when I want or I WHACK them with my jewel-encrusted scepter!”

Hmmmm…OK…I am impressed, I guess, but since you are an imaginary part of me that I made up, I am more amused by you than scared. And while I might humor you, I don’t plan to allow you to rule my life because I don’t respect your authority.”

Queen: “I can see you require a good WHACKING! Come over here…”

“How can you whack me with your scepter if I think you are imaginary and don’t feel pain from imaginary scepters?”

Queen: “Well, you SHOULD listen to me, because I’m the Queen! And I will throw a fit, a temper tantrum until you do!!”

“How about if we just sorta move on? What do you like best about yourself, Queen?”

Queen: “I like that I am the Queen of the World and am ALL POWERFUL and that everybody has to do what I say because I am strong, right, beautiful, and PERFECT!”

Is there anything you dislike about yourself, Queen?” 

“Having to put up with insolent, disrespectful fools like you! Other than that, no, what’s there to dislike when you’re perfect?”

“What part of me do you most closely represent, Queen?”

Queen: “I don’t represent any part of you! I am real and you are my subject! OBEY!”

Queen, if you could change in any way you wanted, would you?

Queen: “No. I like staying imaginary, because I can be all-powerful. I want my reality to stay imaginary too, so I can control it and make life turn out the way I want.”

“Queen, how would you score yourself zero to ten in all six core qualities?”

Queen: “All tens, of course, since I’m perfect!”

“Queen, if I scored like you do, how would my life be different?”

Queen: “You would be perfect, of course! What a stupid question!”

“Queen, if you were in charge of my life, how would you live it differently?”

Queen: “You would have no self-doubt because you would know you were right. You would both command and demand the obedience of all others because you are right and perfect. You would not tolerate conflict, disloyalty, or imperfection. When you whacked people with your scepter it would only be an expression of your compassion, your caring to teach your subjects and those who are imperfect.”

“Hmmmm…OK…So when would you suggest that I become you and think, feel, and act like you do?”

Queen: “Whenever you want to get your way, to win, to be right, and to be perfect!”

“Thank you, Queen!”

So…what have I heard myself say? That my ego is selfish, narcissistic, grandiose, and believes that it is real and in control! What do I think is the wake-up call from my life compass here? That no matter who you are or how much you have grown, you always have the option of becoming a three-year old again, for better or for worse, and it is wise not to forget that is a genuine possibility.

There comes a point in development when regression to a three-year old is more trouble than it is worth. You don’t regress not because you don’t want to admit you have a screaming, narcissistic three-year-old inside you, but because becoming it just isn’t much fun any more. It doesn’t work. That is how the entire concept of a separate self that is in opposition to everything and everybody feels as boundaries dissolve. The idea of “ego” loses its functionality; you don’t need to develop a separate self-sense any more, nor do you need to protect or defend it. Instead, what you need to do is use it, without investing any of yourself into it. It is at this point that “ego,” mature or otherwise, becomes no longer conducive to enlightenment.

What is Jung’s concept of the Self? The Self for Jung is the archetype of wholeness and the regulating center of the psyche, a transpersonal power that transcends the ego, and the product of individuation. “The self is not only the centre, but also the whole circumference which embraces both conscious and unconscious; it is the centre of this totality, just as the ego is the centre of consciousness.”

“As an empirical concept, the self designates the whole range of psychic phenomena in man. It expresses the unity of the personality as a whole. But in so far as the total personality, on account of its unconscious component, can be only in part conscious, the concept of the self is, in part, only potentially empirical and is to that extent a postulate. In other words, it encompasses both the experienceable and the inexperienceable (or the not yet experienced)… It is a transcendental concept, for it presupposes the existence of unconscious factors on empirical grounds and thus characterizes an entity that can be described only in part.”

We have seen that IDL does not use the concept of Self. Wholeness is not constellated around any archetype. Like a holograph, every place is the center, containing the whole. Any and every image can and does serve this purpose, for those who are trained to do so. For IDL, the unconscious is not a place that has contents; it simply indicates what your present identity is currently unaware of. When it becomes aware of this or that, consciousness expands to include it. Normally, these expansions are not experienced as such, because they have lost the salience of first exposure.

While Jung sees the self as “the whole range of psychic phenomena in man,” IDL sees experience not as residing within a self, but rather the self as one’s current perceptual framework, one which is arbitrary and which is seen as individual the more it walls itself of from life through identification with its physical, mental, cultural, and social filters. Its individuality and self-sense evaporates as it more clearly and completely aligns with life through identification with the priorities of one’s life compass.

“The self appears in dreams, myths, and fairytales in the figure of the “supraordinate personality,” such as a king, hero, prophet, saviour, etc., or in the form of a totality symbol, such as the circle, square, quadratura circuli, cross, etc. When it represents a complexio oppositorum, a union of opposites, it can also appear as a united duality, in the form, for instance, of tao as the interplay of yang and yin, or of the hostile brothers, or of the hero and his adversary (arch-enemy, dragon), Faust and Mephistopheles, etc. Empirically, therefore, the self appears as a play of light and shadow, although conceived as a totality and unity in which the opposites are united.”

In this understanding, Jung not only carries forward the presumptions of Freud, but of most historical dream interpretation. Figures that are bigger than life, more powerful, or perfect, even when containing opposite elements, gain both the attention and respect of waking identity. As long as it is doing the interpreting, such figures personify the self. However, as soon as those figures themselves, or an objective witnessing third party does the interpreting, like a cloud in the sky or a rock on the ground, you generally find that what was before thought to be a symbol of the center of consciousness is not; that center has shifted, relativizing and contextualizing what was presumed to refer to the Self.

Because experiences of the self possess a sense of the sacred characteristic of religious revelations, Jung believed there was no essential difference between the self as an experiential, psychological reality and the traditional concept of a supreme deity. It might equally be called the “God within us.” Clearly, such experiences are important in awakening a sense of the sacred within us, an important experience at various points upon the developmental arc. Such an awareness of the divine is necessary before we can begin to recognize that it has little or nothing to do with us and our perception of it. The sun is such an example. Man has deified the sun for millennia. The Egyptians and Inca are two examples. The sun has not only personified the sacred, for many good reasons, but in the process awakened man to the sacred. However, the sun itself has little or nothing to do with us and our perception of it. It does not care what we think. It is neither compassionate nor non-compassionate, neither the giver nor receiver of blessings. It does not develop sunspots because it is unhappy with us. To presume that it is would be, on the one hand, grandiose and narcissistic, and on the other hand turning the abundant life of the sun into a petty, emotionally reactive anthropomorpism, on the other.

IDL interviewing, application, and identification reveal multi-perspectivalism that lacks any permanent, sustainable, “real” self. There is no archetype of a real self, or any set symbols that designate such a self, only a constant parade of immediately accessible perspectives that can indeed personify such a self in relationship to your current stage of development.

What does Jung mean by the “Self?” Jung’s third core term, the “Self,” implies that there is a non-changing, ontological identity to be discovered or generated through the process of individuation. In this respect, Jung’s Self echoes Hinduism’s atman. This is similar to traditional dream yogas, which generally maintain the naïve realism of shamanism in that they carry into visionquests the unquestioned assumption that their sense of self is the rightful, appropriate, and best interpreter of their experiences. Jung’s goal, as mentioned above, is the integration of self, which would certainly qualify as a state of higher order wakefulness, and therefore as a dream yoga.

Why doesn”t IDL use the concept of “Self?”  IDL interviews do not disclose such an identity. Instead, they disclose a multiperspectival reality with only ad hoc ontology; beingness is dependent on depth and duration of identification with a particular perspective. When perspectives are interviewed their sense of self is found to be real and authentic but transitory, impermanent and situationally based, like an attractor in chaos theory. The permanence of both waking identity and a presumed Self are based, in the first case, on the depth and duration of our normal experience of our waking identity. A sense of underlying continuity is projected onto the past, present and future. It feels real because we are locked into our habitual sense of who we are; we return to that perspective automatically again and again so often that we not only think it is “real,” but that it signifies something permanent. From the perspective of IDL, the “Self” is an idealized projection of waking identity; as Self, we are still “us,” but purged of all limitations and impurities. Because we take our waking identity into other states of consciousness, such as dreams, mystical, and near death experiences, where we can feel unlimited, as well as communicate with discarnates, we conclude that there really is an immortal, unchanging Self instead of an arbitrary perspective chosen out of adaptive routine, one that is so stable that it continues even after death. The dream yoga of IDL demonstrates that you have multiple perspectives available to you at any time; that when you become any one of them, that is your real and transformative self, or identity, with as great a claim to authenticity as either your normal waking identity or a Self. However, the idea that the perspective of a toothbrush or an old shoe might not only have equal legitimacy but offer an improved approach to life is extremely threatening to those who have a large vested interest in the truth, rightness, and stability of their waking sense of self and its distinctions between reality and fantasy.

IDL views the self or Self as a useful fiction or tool, with no innate or permanent reality. It does so because this is the conclusion reached by repeatedly dissociating from one’s sense of self and becoming authentic but arbitrary alternative perspectives. This experience deepens as you repeatedly become such perspectives at various times, for instance, during meditation. Whomever you think you are gradually becomes luminous, transparent, and without substance, except as a tool. The “integral” in “Integral Deep Listening” is not the integration of Self; it is life’s expression through the learned maintenance of decisive action by no-self, conjoined with a functional ad hoc identity or ego in the dream of the moment.

What is Jung’s concept of individuation? For Jung, the goal of therapy was individuation, which arises as repressed and conflicted parts of self, generally in the unconscious and appearing in dreams, are integrated with the ego into a greater whole that transcends and includes both. For many dream yogas, the goal is not individuation but the shamanic goal of freedom that comes from power, as experienced by the ability to wake up while dreaming or deeply asleep and the ability to control events in any state of consciousness. The self does not change so much in consciousness as in ability, proficiency, and in skill mastery. For IDL, the goal of dream yoga is to become transparent so that life can wake up to itself through you. We can see that this is considerably different from Jung’s concept of individuation, in that it does not focus on the integration of a self, but views that as a prerequisite to the use of that self as a transparent tool for life that uses multiple “egos, depending on pragmatic understandings of what works, without personalization or stable identification with any one or any group of perspectives.    

Is anyone ever completely individuated? In Jung’s view, no one is ever completely individuated. While the goal is wholeness and a healthy working relationship with the self, the true value of individuation lies in what happens along the way. “The goal is important only as an idea; the essential thing is the opus which leads to the goal: that is the goal of a lifetime.” IDL shares with Jung this emphasis on process.

What is health? For Jung, health is a process of psychological differentiation that leads to the development of the individual personality. Individuation is the process by which individual beings are formed and differentiated. Jung states, “The process of individuation, consciously pursued, leads to the realization of the self as a psychic reality greater than the ego. Thus individuation is essentially different from the process of simply becoming conscious.” “Again and again I note that the individuation process is confused with the coming of the ego into consciousness and that the ego is in consequence identified with the self, which naturally produces a hopeless conceptual muddle. Individuation is then nothing but ego-centredness and autoeroticism. But the self comprises infinitely more than a mere ego, as the symbolism has shown from of old. It is as much one’s self, and all other selves, as the ego.” IDL agrees with Jack Engler that you have to be somebody before you can be nobody. Becoming a Self that is individuated and/or one with nature, deity or the formless, are stepping stones to becoming transparent. Becoming somebody is an essential process, in that it creates structures and processes that allow life to wake up to itself.

What is the goal of individuation and life? For Jung, the goal of the individuation process is the synthesis of the self. For IDL the goal is living life in alignment with the evolving priorities of your life compass, as communicated by interviewed emerging potentials. This ends up being the amplification of the six core processes and qualities, transparency, multiperspectivalism, no-self, and non-dual wakefulness.

What are the elements of Jung’s dialectic? Jung viewed the psyche as a dynamic, growth-oriented entity poised between two powerful and complementary drives: the drive to learn and incorporate new perspectives (differentiation), and the equally important drive toward creating a coherent, harmonious integration of all the inner aspects of the self (integration): Compensate, oppose, unite.  This basic concept would form the foundation of much of Jung’s work and theory. We can find resonances in traditional dream yogas, with their emphasis on transcendence through access to altered states and generalization of wakefulness to all states. IDL expresses something similar through the developmental dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis demonstrated in patterns found in Dream Sociograms, the depiction of the relationship of preferences expressed by various interviewed dream characters. The five repetitive patterns generated by collectives of interviewed characters include status quo, or thesis systems, which focus on horizontal integration, or stabilized functioning based on previously acquired skill sets; a conflictual or antithesis collective, which may include dream or life nightmares; an extraordinarily conflictual antithetical pattern, in which normally rejected perspectives gain control; synthesis patterns, which are positive and integral; and high synthesis patterns, which are extremely positive and highly integral. Not only does the existence of such patterns validate the existence of a psychological dialectic; it demonstrates that the operation of it occurs in ways that are quite normally misperceived and misunderstood.

What does synthesis, the integration of opposites, look like for Jung? Jung saw integration of the self as the result of a dialectic that produced a synthesis of individuation. IDL defines synthesis functionally, as one of two possible patterns of intrasocial organization, as displayed in Dream Sociograms and mentioned above. The first pattern is one of the expression of only positive preferences by all interviewed dream group members. It represents intrasocial balance and harmony. The second is marked by emerging potentials choosing the transcendence of all preferences. This indicates a lack of identification with any one perspective or any group of perspectives. IDL views the integration of opposites as a never-ending process rather than as an ultimate end.

What is Jung’s “transcendent function?” This is Jung’s term for the integration of the ego and the unconscious. “The tendencies of the conscious and the unconscious are the two factors that together make up the transcendent function. It is called “transcendent” because it makes the transition from one attitude to another organically possible.” In the dream yoga of shamanism we see something similar in the shaman’s journeying between this world and heaven and hell, with the goal of bringing harmony between these realms by appeasing transcendent forces and coming into alignment with them. Because interviewing emerging potentials temporarily integrates waking identity with this or that perspective in a state that transcends and includes it, this process is an experiential equivalent of Jung’s transcendent function. However, IDL does not view integration as a marriage of ego and the unconscious.   Waking identity is not the same as ego and there is nothing “unconscious,” either in nature or location, about interviewed emerging potentials. As noted above, integration and transcendence are ongoing processes rather than a destination. Application of recommendations made by interviewed emerging potentials is required for this temporary state awareness to be converted into an ongoing stage awareness, which is itself subsumed in the next aspect of the dialectical growth process.

How does Jung describe the transcendent function? “Once the unconscious content has been given form and the meaning of the formulation is understood, the question arises as to how the ego will relate to this position, and how the ego and the unconscious are to come to terms. This is the second and more important stage of the procedure, the bringing together of opposites for the production of a third: the transcendent function. At this stage it is no longer the unconscious that takes the lead, but the ego.”

How does advancement into a higher developmental stage occur in IDL? The marriage of interviewed emerging potentials (relatively aware and objective perspectives) and waking identity (your relatively asleep and unaware sense of self), accomplished through the application of recommendations in an ongoing yoga, together generate a perspectival shift that is not simply a temporary change of state but a permanent advance in developmental stage. Waking identity is the arbiter of all perspectives; it has to decide whether it wants to stay stuck in its present limitations and balance factors in a continuation of thesis, or do something else: antithesis, or subsume itself in a synthesis that transcends and includes its own point of view.

What is Jung’s approach to dream interpretation? Jung considered dreams to be “independent, spontaneous manifestations of the unconscious. They are fragments of involuntary psychic activity, just conscious enough to be reproducible in the waking state.” Differing from Freud, Jung believed dreams are neither deliberate nor arbitrary fabrications, but rather natural phenomena that do not deceive, lie, distort or disguise. “They are invariably seeking to express something that the ego does not know and does not understand.”

IDL agrees with Jung that dreams are independent, spontaneous expressions that are not deceptive fabrications. However, it does not view dreams as expressions of an unconscious or of involuntary psychic activity, and it does not assume that they seek to express things that are not understood. Is the sun attempting to express things that are not understood? How about the chair you are sitting in or the grass growing outside? What Jung is getting at here is the importance of treating dreams as if they were wake-up calls, only IDL broadens this to consider everyday life as on the same ontological footing as dreaming, and that therefore anything and everything can be approached as if it were a wake-up call. Once one or more dream characters are interviewed you can decide how much of what you have heard was previously understood. Perhaps all of it, but perspectives may arise that have been either ignored or not given the emphasis or priority that they receive during the interview.

Who is most qualified to interpret dreams? For Jung, dream interpretation, at least for those with clinical conditions, is best done by trained analysts. For IDL, dream interpretation is best done by interviewed emerging potentials themselves. However, in either case, each subject has the responsibility to decide what to think, feel, and do about what they are told. Each interviewed student of IDL has to interpret what they have experienced. This is supported by the interviewer reading back the interview as statements that the subject was making to themselves. While others may be consulted and interpretations sought, the decision finally rests with the subject of the interview. Dream interpretation then, is for IDL a process of triangulation: getting the interpretations of one or more emerging potentials, consulting other sources of interpretation, such as experts, friends, or dream dictionaries, and filtering it all through one’s own common sense.

What is the function of dreaming for Jung? Dreams picture the current situation in the psyche from the point of view of the unconscious in symbolic form. “Since the meaning of most dreams is not in accord with the tendencies of the conscious mind but shows peculiar deviations, we must assume that the unconscious, the matrix of dreams, has an independent function. This is what I call the autonomy of the unconscious. The dream not only fails to obey our will but very often stands in flagrant opposition to our conscious intentions” IDL interviewing, whether in the form of Dream Sociometry or with the questionnaire protocol, demonstrates the relative autonomy of interviewed dream characters, and IDL is in strong agreement with Jung on this point. For IDL, waking identity is the tail of consciousness wagging the dog. It needs to sit down, shut up, and learn at the feet of the masters. The masters are the interviewed characters that explain wake up calls of all kinds in ways that integrate waking identity into a broader, more inclusive experience of life.

Jung acknowledged that in some cases dreams have a wish-fulfilling and sleep-preserving function, as Freud held, or reveal an infantile striving for power, as Adler believed. However, Jung focused on the symbolic content of dreams and their compensatory role in the self-regulation of the psyche. Dreams reveal aspects of oneself that are not normally conscious, they disclose unconscious motivations operating in relationships and present new points of view in conflict situations. “In this regard there are three possibilities. If the conscious attitude to the life situation is in large degree one-sided, then the dream takes the opposite side. If the conscious has a position fairly near the “middle,” the dream is satisfied with variations. If the conscious attitude is “correct” (adequate), then the dream coincides with and emphasizes this tendency, though without forfeiting its peculiar autonomy.

IDL does not think that waking awareness, whether that of the dreamer or of an “expert,” is capable or competent to reach such conclusions until at least one character in the dream is interviewed; the more the better. Otherwise, one’s conclusion is a projection by a waking identity onto the dream instead of attempting to listen to what some dream element has to say about itself and the dream. Of the two, which is more likely to give an adequate accounting of whether or not a dream is compensatory?

IDL does not view dreams as wish-fulfilling, sleep-preserving, an expression of infantile striving for power, symbolic, an expression of the unconscious, or primarily about disclosing unconscious motivations. It also does not assume that dream characters are fundamentally or essentially aspects of self as Jung does. However, dreams are an expression of self-regulation and may indeed be compensatory, as Jung notes; they definitely present new points of view, both regarding conflict and opportunities for personal growth.

Are dreams dramas? In Jung’s view, a dream is an interior drama. “The whole dream-work is essentially subjective, and a dream is a theatre in which the dreamer is himself the scene, the player, the prompter, the producer, the author, the public, and the critic.” IDL agrees with Jung that dreams often resemble interior dramas in the loose sense of drama as emotionally-loaded experience. However, IDL generally uses the word “drama” in a narrower, more specific way to refer to the Drama Triangle and the presence of the three roles of persecutor, rescuer, and victim. While these three roles often appear in dreams, they may not, and there is nothing intrinsic about dreaming that necessitates the creation of drama in this dysfunctional sense. A dream that appears to be a drama, such as a nightmare, may not be a drama at all from the perspective of one of its characters. IDL does not assume that the dreamer himself is every aspect of the drama, that it is subjective, or that it was self-created. As a phenomenological methodology, IDL suspends such assumptions and allows the interviewed dream character to speak to this issue. As a consequence of the assumption that the dreamer takes all the roles in both the dream and its creation, Jung approaches dreamwork as either subjective or objective interpretation. Subjective interpretation views the dream as symbolic representations of the dreamer’s own personality. Objective interpretations relate dream images to people and situations in the outside world. This is the traditional, fundamental distinction of classical dreamwork, and one IDL suspends.

Jung’s analogy of a theater, in which the dreamer plays all the roles, is excellent for other reasons. Although IDL does not assume that the dreamer does so in the dream, by learning to identify with the various perspectives and dreams and waking experiences we develop objectivity that we otherwise are unlikely to evolve, because normal life does not encourage taking the perspectives of spoons, turtles, and toilets. The very thought feels both meaningless and futile, which is a validation of the power of psychological geocentrism to keep us stuck in a narrow band of functional, adaptive experience.

Are dreams symbolic? Jung saw dreams and myths as full of symbols to be interpreted. “Every psychological expression is a symbol if we assume that it states or signifies something more and other than itself which eludes our present knowledge.” “How are we to explain religious processes, for instance, whose nature is essentially symbolical? In abstract form, symbols are religious ideas; in the form of action, they are rites or ceremonies. They are the manifestation and expression of excess libido. At the same time they are stepping-stones to new activities, which must be called cultural to distinguish them from the instinctual functions that run their regular course according to natural law.”

IDL views dream and mythic elements as autonomous perspectives to be interviewed and listened to. When you do so, IDL predicts that while such elements may state that they personify this or that aspect of yourself, they may not. They are clearly autonomous. If you ask them what aspect of themselves YOU personify, they may tell you! They don’t view themselves as symbols. Why should we? Do you view yourself as a symbol? Hopefully you consider yourself to be first you; any symbolic significance you have would be a projection others place upon you. Interviewed emerging potentials express a sense of unique identity and an outlook that transcends symbolization, projection, and naming. After you have asked the character for its interpretations and after you have asked the student for their interpretations is the time for you to chime in with yours. The exception is when you have a bright idea about what a character is saying. You can share your interpretation with it, and watch it get shot down! This may not always be the case, but in my experience, it generally is. I have had my assumptions demonstrated to be mistaken or partial so many times that I don’t even try to interpret dreams any more.

For IDL, symbols, symbology, and symbolic perception are elements within a psychologically geocentric framework. Meaning centers on our interpretations, not the intrinsic value of the character. Because interpretations are projections, symbols say more about us than about the dream iself or about some religious motif. Consequently, IDL allows images to interpret themselves and to determine if they are symbols or not. While this or that dream element or personification of a life issue may represent some meaning for us, they are more than that. They are not limited in their meaning, value, or significance to symbol.

Similarly, experiences in a waking dream, shamanic journey, or some other altered state of consciousness are best viewed neither as literal or as symbolic, because they are both and neither; they cannot be so categorized without doing violence to their intrinsic natures.

Are dreams prospective and teleological? For IDL as for Jung, dreams are prospective, because patterns are by nature repetitive and therefore predictive. Dreams are teleological in that the elements are potentials, and potentials are intrinsically emergent. Dreams indicate possibilities that are attempting to be born. The tragedy is that when we are dreaming we are doing the interpreting of the dream experience, and we generally reaches partial or completely wrong conclusions. A dream monster, fire or fall is usually experienced as a threat. It is only when we interview the monster, fire or ground that we are likely to discover that we misperceived what was happening while we were dreaming. You can determine this for yourself simply by interviewing other perspectives within your dreams. When you do so, you will find that a consistent intent is to wake you up. Wakefulness is a prospective, teleological process. It is by definition about transformation and rebirth.

Is dreaming compensatory? Jung viewed dreaming as a natural process aimed at establishing or maintaining balance within the psyche. “The activity of consciousness is selective. Selection demands direction. But direction requires the exclusion of everything irrelevant. This is bound to make the conscious orientation one-sided. The contents that are excluded and inhibited by the chosen direction sink into the unconscious, where they form a counterweight to the conscious orientation. The strengthening of this counterposition keeps pace with the increase of conscious one-sidedness until finally…the repressed unconscious contents break through in the form of dreams and spontaneous images…As a rule, the unconscious compensation does not run counter to consciousness, but is rather a balancing or supplementing of the conscious orientation. In dreams, for instance, the unconscious supplies all those contents that are constellated by the conscious situation but are inhibited by conscious selection, although a knowledge of them would be indispensable for complete adaptation.”

Does IDL use Jung’s theory that dreams are compensatory? Jung starts with the assumption that dreams deal with contents that are excluded or inhibited. IDL doesn’t make this assumption. Dream contents may or may not be excluded or inhibited. They may be due to the reduction of filtering or an increase of a different sort of filtering than occurs in waking life. IDL does not assume that dream content was once conscious and “sinks into the unconscious.” It does not assume that dream content is compensatory, although it may at times provide that function. Jung also focuses on the importance of dreaming for the maintenance of everyday consciousness. Since his time much research has been done that supports the role of dreaming in the consolidation of memory, role consolidation, and the maintenance of vigilance. However, research also implies that dreaming is a foundational evolutionary development which has purposes that are more fundamental than compensation. While dreaming itself is no doubt adaptive, Jung assumes dream content is adaptive. IDL asks, “adaptive to whom or what?” Clearly there are many examples of dreams which serve no adaptive function for us. In fact a strong case can be made that some dreams are maladaptive in that they reinforce inadequate or ineffective responses to stressors, such as perceived threats and can strengthen unhelpful mood states such as confusion, anxiety, and depression. IDL assumes that dreams can be experienced in ways that are adaptational or they can be used in ways that are not, just like events in waking life. Assumptions about compensation, inhibition, exclusion, filtering, and adaptation are all projections of waking consciousness onto dreams. The dream itself is like Kant’s Ding an sich; with a life and reality that exists apart from that which we know of it.

Based on the testimony of most interviewed emerging potentials, compensation is not a basic issue or priority for them. They generally state their purpose as stimulating a higher degree of wakefulness. While wakefulness can be framed as compensatory for a state of relative sleep, this projects a mechanism that is not generally expressed by emerging potentials themselves.

Are dreams mythic? For Jung, “mythic” refers to motifs and themes that are culturally meaningful as ways of clarifying the nature of humanity and man’s relationship to others, life, and humanity. While dreams are in essence mythic for Jung, IDL observes within them all four perspectives that are intrinsic to holons. The problem with only looking at dreams as myths or mainly as myths is that myths generally are assumed to be symbolic and their symbols interpreted. IDL considers myths to be cultural dreams fully capable of interpreting themselves. The interior collective is the realm of scripted cultural values and Jung’s myths; dreams manifest scripted cultural values while demonstrating values that transcend and include those of any culture. Dreams reflect the consciousness and level of development of the dreamer while providing various levels of consciousness of their own; they demonstrate behaviors and behavioral choices that are meaningful to the dreamer as well as options that the dreamer has not considered; and they demonstrate interactional patterns that are both helpful and harmful from the standpoint of the dreamer, as well as provide interactional possibilities that the dreamer has not considered.

Are myths externalized dreams? For Jung, myths are involuntary collective statements based on an unconscious psychic experience. “The primitive mentality does not invent myths, it experiences them. Myths are original revelations of the preconscious psyche…Many of these unconscious processes may be indirectly occasioned by consciousness, but never by conscious choice. Others appear to arise spontaneously, that is to say, from no discernible or demonstrable conscious cause.” For IDL, this is a major contribution of Jung, because he is minimizing the distinction between waking and dreaming experience. He is pointing to the way the macrocosm and microcosm reflect each other and how waking life contains many dreamlike elements and can be looked at as if it were a dream. Whether Jung derived this perspective from his studies of Eastern religion and mythology or whether he found validation there for a previously held belief, IDL believes Jung was instrumental in bringing an ancient and important perspective into the mainstream of psychological thought.

For IDL, myth is an externalization of three types of dreams: individual, collective, and life’s outpicturing of itself. Waking life is a personal myth in the sense that it is a dream one has and a story one tells oneself to provide meaning and life direction. The concept of karma is an example of a myth that is both personal and collective. National, religious, political, economic, and psychological myths are dreams groups of people live as well as stories groups tell themselves to provide meaning and life direction. Waking life, cultural myths, and nighttime dreams are all dreams of life, in that they are externalizations by life intended to help it wake up to itself and know itself. For IDL, life drama, including myths, is externalized dream. While all life is drama and contains mythic components, you can have more or less of both, and that variability is very important for IDL. It works to identify drama, which it views as a form of sleepwalking, and either wake up out of it or use it in ways that reflect the priorities of life, as embodied by the recommendations by high-scoring interviewed characters.

Jung has written extensively about the relationship between dream and myth, with each reflecting the other: dreams are personalized myths and myth is externalized dream. IDL views this relationship as an interpretive one: dreams are used by Jung to understand myth and myth is used to understand dreams. Because IDL focuses on the interpretations of interviewed emerging potentials, the relationship between myth and dream is not central for it. Instead of viewing dreams as internalized myths, we have seen how interviewed emerging potentials tend to view themselves and experience, whether dream or waking, as a series of wake-up calls. Life itself does not appear to differentiate between sleeping and waking as we do. Dreams, myths, and normal waking experience are therefore treated the same by IDL. Do you want to know the nature or purpose for any experience? Why not interview this or that element of it? When you do so, what you learn is that the quality of awareness and the value of the information does not change based on either its source or your opinion of the worth of that source. Whether interviewing a mythic diety, like the Greek goddess Diana, or a dream monster, whether you consider the element sacred or mundane, real or symbolic or imaginary, important or insignificant, makes little difference.

What is the relationship between myths and scripts? While Jung views dreaming as a personalization of mythic themes, IDL views life in terms of choices made as a result of waking scripts and injunctions, most of which are normally out of awareness. While these can be consciously chosen, they generally are not. A script is different from a myth in that while the latter emphasizes a story, the former emphasizes instructions. However, both myth and script are interpretations by waking identity and do not reflect the language or interpretive preferences of interviewed emerging potentials.

What is Jung’s “Active Imagination?” Active imagination is a dreamwork procedure developed by Jung. Its objective is to give a voice to sides of the personality, and in particular, the anima/animus and the shadow, that are normally not heard, thereby establishing a line of communication between consciousness and the unconscious. Even without interpretation, Jung recognized that something goes on between creator and creation that contributes to a transformation of consciousness.

The first stage of active imagination is like dreaming with open eyes. It can take place spontaneously or be artificially induced. “…you choose a dream, or some other fantasy-image, and concentrate on it by simply catching hold of it and looking at it. You can also use a bad mood as a starting-point, and then try to find out what sort of fantasy-image it will produce, or what image expresses this mood. You then fix this image in the mind by concentrating your attention. Usually it will alter, as the mere fact of contemplating it animates it. The alterations must be carefully noted down all the time, for they reflect the psychic processes in the unconscious background, which appear in the form of images consisting of conscious memory material. In this way conscious and unconscious are united, just as a waterfall connects above and below.”

What are some of the similarities and differences between active imagination and IDL? The similarities are that active imagination gives a voice to perspectives that are generally not heard, improving intrapsychic communication. Jung also applied it to waking experience and emotion in addition to dreaming. IDL shares with Jung an open-eyed approach to accessing imagery, because having our eyes open encourages groundedness in our present state of consciousness instead of moving into trance or dissociation. It also focuses on questions designed to strengthen identification with the perspective of the dream character or personification of a life issue. IDL is primarily interested in accessing emerging potentials to align waking perspectives and actions with the priorities of one’s life compass, which is not an aspect of self. It does not belong to anyone; it is life.

While Jung’s purpose for active imagination is to give voice to different sides of the personality, IDL lets interviewed emerging potentials say whether or not they are parts of the personality. IDL is not trying to establish communication between consciousness and unconsciousness but between waking identity, which is relatively asleep and dreaming, and emerging potentials, which are relatively more awake, that is, more conscious. This is almost an inversion of Jung’s formulation, but does not define either the conscious or unconscious realms as Jung does.

The second stage of active imagination, beyond simply observing images, involves a conscious participation in them, the honest evaluation of what they mean about oneself, and a morally and intellectually binding commitment to act on the insights. This is a transition from a merely perceptive or aesthetic attitude to one of judgment: “Although, to a certain extent, he i.e., the patient, looks on from outside, impartially, he is also an acting and suffering figure in the drama of the psyche. This recognition is absolutely necessary and marks an important advance. So long as he simply looks at the pictures he is like the foolish Parsifal, who forgot to ask the vital question because he was not aware of his own participation in the action. An allusion to the medieval Grail legend. The question Parsifal failed to ask was, “Whom does the Grail serve?” …But if you recognize your own involvement you yourself must enter into the process with your personal reactions, just as if you were one of the fantasy figures, or rather, as if the drama being enacted before your eyes were real.”

“The judging attitude implies a voluntary involvement in those fantasy-processes which compensate the individual and ‑ in particular ‑ the collective situation of consciousness. The avowed purpose of this involvement is to integrate the statements of the unconscious, to assimilate their compensatory content, and thereby produce a whole meaning which alone makes life worth living and, for not a few people, possible at all.” Jung was attempting to do three things at once: access a different perspective through identifying with an image, observing it, which means detaching from it, and figuring out how to use it by making interpretations. IDL breaks all these components out temporally, so that they unfold in succession, and in a concrete protocol.

IDL recommends the suspension of all judgments during interviewing, in favor of open-focused, phenomenologically-based deep listening. The normal stance of waking identity is to judge. Suspension of this addiction during the interviewing process is inherently therapeutic. Jung’s emphasis on both ownership and application of what is heard is shared by IDL.

What are “fixations?”  This is a very useful term Jung coined for blockages that slow down or stop further development. IDL calls fixations “resistance” and interviews it. Resistance is often expressed in IDL interviewing by low scoring emerging potentials. They are basically saying, “No, I’m not going to change. I want you to listen to me and accept who and what I am.” However, these low-scoring emerging potentials often score higher than we do in one or more of the six core qualities. The particular mixture can disclose qualities that you need to emphasize more or less in order to find balance. We may need more of what the character is strong in, or we may need the opposite; the particular interview generally makes clear which it is.

Fixations are generally not obvious until we come under serious pressure. We generally hide them behind our persona and play to our strengths. The result is that we become increasingly out of balance. Fixations then, are compensatory: they ground us authentically when we become too skewed in our development. Fixations generally indicate our level of overall development better than our strengths. To gauge Barak Obama’s overall level of development we need not look at the fact that he is highly intelligent, capable and has the best of intentions, but how he is fixated in a cultural system with which he identifies that causes him to undermine first amendment rights, freedoms of speech and privacy, arm terrorists and justify extralegal wars and drone assassinations. To gauge your overall level of development look at your addictions and the areas in which you chronically sabotage your own development and aspirations.

What are “complexes?” For Jung, complexes are emotionally charged groups of ideas or images. “A complex is the image of a certain psychic situation which is strongly accentuated emotionally and is, moreover, incompatible with the habitual attitude of consciousness.” “The via regia to the unconscious…is not the dream, as Freud thought, but the complex, which is the architect of dreams and of symptoms. Nor is this via so very “royal,” either, since the way pointed out by the complex is more like a rough and uncommonly devious footpath.” “Everyone knows nowadays that people “have complexes.” What is not so well known, though far more important theoretically, is that complexes can have us.” “Complexes are in fact ‘splinter psyches.’ The aetiology of their origin is frequently a so-called trauma, an emotional shock or some such thing, that splits off a bit of the psyche. Certainly one of the commonest causes is a moral conflict, which ultimately derives from the apparent impossibility of affirming the whole of one’s nature.” “Complexes interfere with the intentions of the will and disturb the conscious performance; they produce disturbances of memory and blockages in the flow of associations; they appear and disappear according to their own laws; they can temporarily obsess consciousness, or influence speech and action in an unconscious way. In a word, complexes behave like independent beings.”

Jung stressed that complexes in themselves are not negative; only their effects often are. In the same way that atoms and molecules are the invisible components of physical objects, complexes are the building blocks of the psyche and the source of all human emotions. “Complexes are focal or nodal points of psychic life which we would not wish to do without; indeed, they should not be missing, for otherwise psychic activity would come to a fatal standstill.” “Complexes obviously represent a kind of inferiority in the broadest sense…but to have complexes does not necessarily indicate inferiority. It only means that something discordant, unassimilated, and antagonistic exists, perhaps as an obstacle, but also as an incentive to greater effort, and so, perhaps, to new possibilities of achievement.”

The negative effect of a complex is commonly experienced as a distortion in one or other of the psychological functions (feeling, thinking, intuition and sensation). In place of sound judgment and an appropriate feeling response, for instance, one reacts according to what the complex dictates. As long as one is unconscious of the complexes, one is liable to be driven by them. “Identification with a complex, particularly the anima/animus and the shadow, is a frequent source of neurosis. The aim of analysis in such cases is not to get rid of the complexes -as if that were possible- but to minimize their negative effects by understanding the part they play in behavior patterns and emotional reactions.” “A complex can be really overcome only if it is lived out to the full. In other words, if we are to develop further we have to draw to us and drink down to the very dregs what, because of our complexes, we have held at a distance.”

How do complexes show up in IDL? The closest parallel to Jung’s concept of complexes are oppositional patterns viewed in Dream Sociograms. These are created by different patterns of preferences that flow naturally from different perspectives held by this or that interviewed dream character. While these differences may not be conflictual, some are, and those create oppositional or antithetical Dream Sociograms. These, however, may not be “incompatible with the habitual attitude of consciousness,” at least if that “consciousness” is taken to be waking awareness. It is quite common to take differing roles throughout the day that do not conflict because they are temporally separated: the role expectations of mother do not conflict with those of worker if those roles remain clearly delineated and distinct. Because dreams do not separate roles temporally, they often clash in dreams, creating conflict and a “complex” that is not experienced in waking life.

While Jung considered complexes the architects of dreams, IDL reserves that designation for one’s life compass, in the role of “dream consciousness.” In Dream Sociometry, Dream Consciousness is often interviewed, providing the perspective of the architect of the dream itself.

Is conflict necessary? Jung states, “The apparently unendurable conflict is proof of the rightness of your life. A life without inner contradiction is either only half a life or else a life in the Beyond, which is destined only for angels. But God loves human beings more than the angels.” “The self is made manifest in the opposites and in the conflict between them; it is a coincidentia oppositorum coincidence of opposites. Hence the way to the self begins with conflict.”

IDL also views conflict as necessary and as one of the three stages of the developmental dialectic. It views conflict as a wake-up call, to be listened to. It does not view conflict as more important than ongoing thesis homeostasis or the transformation available through synthesis. Conflict is to be welcomed, embraced, and, above all, listened to.

What is Catharsis? For Jung, as with Freud, catharsis is “…a confessional approach to treating neurosis, involving the abreaction of emotions associated with a trauma. Through confession I throw myself into the arms of humanity again, freed at last from the burden of moral exile. The goal of the cathartic method is full confession-not merely the intellectual recognition of the facts with the head, but their confirmation by the heart and the actual release of suppressed emotion.” From this we learn that the emphasis of Jungian analysis, and also for related psychodynamically-derived approaches to therapy, is diagnosis and treatment related to suppressed or dysfunctional emotions, indicating a therapeutic focus at the second and third developmental levels or fulcrums. This is appropriate, because the vast majority of people who have mental health problems have fixations and disturbances associated with these foundational developmental levels. The problem is that the developmental spectrum stretches below and far above those developmental fulcrums. The farther away you move, the less effective catharsis is. For example, below and prior you quickly reach incohate levels that can only be reached by direct sensory intervention: diet, exercise, environmental adaptations, and alterations of physiology. When you move above you find that the roots of dysfunction are less and less emotional and therefore cannot be resolved by catharsis.

Jung acknowledged the therapeutic value of catharsis, but early in his career he recognized its limitations in the process of analysis. “The new psychology would have remained at the stage of confession had catharsis proved itself a panacea. First and foremost, however, it is not always possible to bring the patients close enough to the unconscious for them to perceive the shadows…They have quite enough to confess already, they say; they do not have to turn to the unconscious for that.” The problem with catharsis is that it involves a temporary change of state as a burden is lifted and the clouds part. Catharsis, like insight, brings temporary relief. IDL is interested in accessing states that transcend and include one’s own and incorporating them in a permanent way, as an advance in developmental stage, into an expanded sense of identity, through application of recommendations from the interview.

Why is guilt important for growth for Jung?  Individuation and a life lived by collective values are for Jung two divergent destinies. In his view they are related to one another by guilt. Whoever embarks on the personal path becomes to some extent estranged from collective values, but does not thereby lose those aspects of the psyche which are inherently collective. To atone for this “desertion,” the individual is obliged to create something of worth for the benefit of society. “Individuation cuts one off from personal conformity and hence from collectivity. That is the guilt which the individuant leaves behind him for the world, that is the guilt he must endeavor to redeem. He must offer a ransom in place of himself, that is, he must bring forth values which are an equivalent substitute for his absence in the collective personal sphere. Without this production of values, final individuation is immoral and-more than that-suicidal… The individuant has no apriori claim to any kind of esteem. He has to be content with whatever esteem flows to him from outside by virtue of the values he creates. Not only has society a right, it also has a duty to condemn the individuant if he fails to create equivalent values.”

This is reminiscent of Freud’s defense of sublimation. However, it reduces all individual growth to a compensation for abandonment of cultural norms. The question then becomes, “How does one reach authentic individuation if growth itself is a mere guilt-based compensation?” IDL views guilt as a destructive, unhealthy form of self-persecution. As such, guilt does not exist outside the Drama Triangle. Health involves the clear recognition of this fact and continuous decisions not to use guilt in any circumstances whatsoever. IDL sees individuation narrowly, as evolution in the interior individual quadrant of one’s holon, and broadly, as the integration and transformation of all four quadrants simultaneously, through evolution of states, stages, and lines. Individuation indeed produces conflicts with societal values as well as opportunities for aborted development. The answer is not guilt but development in all four quadrants, with attention given not only to collective values but to behavioral yogas and interpersonal relationships devoid of drama. Integral provides, a breadth of approach which traditional dream yogas do not address.

What are Jung’s four Functions? These are sensation, feeling, intuition, and thinking. IDL views them as interior individual ways of objectifying all four quadrants of the human holon that change with state openings and evolve with stage development.. For example, to the extent that these four are interior and individual, they define your present stage of development as consciousness. To the extent that these four are objective, individual behaviors, they are exteriors that can be measured, as is done with the Meyers-Briggs personality inventory. To the extent that these four are values to be interpreted, they have cultural and collective significance, and one may be valued over the others while others may be undervalued as an interior collective dimension of experience. To the extent that these four are exterior and collective, they define how you interact with others and your environment.

What is Jung’s understanding of synchronicity? One of the most creative and brilliant works I have ever read is Jung’s Introduction to Evans-Wentz’s translation of the Chinese fortune-telling classic, the I Ching. Based on the casting of wooden sticks or coins, the I Ching produces one of sixty-four possible hexagrams, each a unique combination of six strong “yang” lines and yielding “yin” lines. Each hexagram has associated historical commentaries that interpret its meaning for the person who is seeking an answer to some question. This sets up the conditions for what Jung called “synchronicity:” some event occurs that is not causally connected to another, yet is so strongly connected in meaning that reason says it is not coincidental.

In his introduction, Jung begins by not knowing what to write that would accurately and meaningfully describe the wisdom and beauty of the I Ching. He then does a most remarkable thing. He casts a hexagram on the question, “How shall I write this introduction?” He lets the I Ching interpret itself. The resulting hexagram, the historical commentaries that accompany it, and Jung’s exposition of them, provide an astoundingly clear and helpful understanding of what the I Ching attempts to do. In his introduction, Jung not only successfully explains the I Ching, but simultaneously demonstrates synchronicity in a very powerful and effective way.

What Jung did is very reminiscent of IDL. Instead of interpreting a dream – in this case, the waking dream of a casting of the I Ching,  Jung suspended his assumptions and took a phenomenological stance. He allowed the object of his interest to interpret itself. This is exactly what IDL does, and in this instance Jung does IDL better than this author does. His introduction also points to other fascinating applications of IDL. Whenever you experience a synchronicity, why not interview some element within it and allow it to explain itself? This may save you much grief, as fateful personal and historical decisions are often made due to interpretations of synchronicities.

To learn about dream yogas in general and how IDL relates to other dream yogas, go here and here.

To learn about IDL counseling, go here.

To learn about the IDL coaching program, go here.

•

Beginning in 1977 with his first book, The Spectrum of Consciousness, Wilber has taken into account three ways of knowing. The first is called “analogic” or the via affirmativa. It states what is true and false: “God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent.” “A red light means stop.” “Alligators have teeth.” It states things have being; it tells what a thing is. It tells you what you are looking for. The second way to know what is true is called the via negativa. It says that what is ultimately true cannot be described. The technical term for this is ineffability. It says that the way you know the truth is by something other than thinking, feeling, sensing, or knowing. But what could that be? Isn’t that pretty much everything? Yes, and that’s exactly the point. The via negativa says, “When you’re busy naming every tree and bush, you miss the forest. Stop. Back off. See what opens up.” Perhaps the crowning statement and greatest advocate of this approach was Nagarjuna, the great Madhyamika Mahayana Buddhist mystic and philosopher who lived in northeastern India in the second century. The third approach to knowledge is called the injunctive. It says that truth is best found by following a set of instructions, called injunctions, that say, “If you want to learn that, do this.” Directions are injunctions. “If you want to get to the bank take a left at the next corner.” Yogas are spiritual injunctions that say, “If you want to become one with the divine, do this.” Kundalini yoga says, “If you want to know Brahman, do these breathing exercises.” Karma yoga says, “If you want to know God, turn your daily work into a devotional practice.” What is interesting about injunctive methods is that they are operationally defined. That means that you don’t have to believe anybody or in anything, as you have to do with the via affirmativa. You don’t have to give up anything or anyone, as you usually end up doing with the via negativa. The injunctive method is in the tradition of Buddha, who famously said, Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

Wilber’s Integral Life Practice belongs to this injunctive school of knowing. It says, “If you want to speed your development, do these exercises.” While it is not intrinsically a yoga, in that you do not have to want to become one with the divine to succeed at any of these simple activities, your ILP can be approached in that context if you so desire. It’s up to you. Also, you don’t have to believe Wilber or his co-authors. You don’t have to trust the integral method or understand the AQAL model. You can think all of that is hooey or the work of the Devil and decide for yourself. In other words, Wilber’s opinions and yours really don’t matter with injunctive methods. As the old, overworked addage goes, “The proof is in the pudding.” Does it taste good or not? When you follow the ILP instructions, does your life get better or not? I am betting that it will. But don’t trust me, either!

Readers of Wilber will know that he approaches personal development in a multi-perspectival way that teaches you how to take into account your developmental level as well as various strengths and limitations of your physical, cognitive, emotional, empathetic lines of development, along with other lines. Your strength and weakness in each of these will impact on your success with your own integral life practice. Fortunately, ILP is designed to strengthen those lines that you are weak in. In addition, Wilber shows you how and why the state you are in when you learn matters. Are you dreaming or are you witnessing yourself? Are you tranced out or fully present? Another dimension of Wilber’s model, called AQAL, addresses your developmental style. Is your growth balanced between male agency and female communion? Sometimes how you approach a practice session makes all the difference. A final aspect of Wilber’s model involves balancing four basic aspects of who you are. As a holon, or “part-whole,” you have four faces or quadrants that determine your success at your chosen integral life practice. Do you take into account the needs and perspectives of your interior consciousness, your values and cultural context, your behavioral strengths and limitations, and the social structures in which you are enmeshed? In other words, if you want to learn to meditate, do you take into account your thoughts and feelings, your present level of understanding about what meditation is and is not, your present ability to sit still, and the physical environment in which you are meditating? Are those in your home supportive of your practice or will they be disruptive? This is a lot to keep in mind, and it can be daunting for a newcomer. We can rightly ask, “Do I really need to know all that stuff just to start an integral life practice?”

The short answer is, “No.” It is better to start a practice with what knowledge you have now than to procrastinate, telling yourself you first need to have a proper understanding, the right place, and plenty of time. There is never going to be a better time to get started than now. Throughout his various books and interviews Wilber is clear that his own understanding is partial and incomplete. He’s continuously revising his world view and approach to life, based on new information. However, partial knowledge has never stopped him from starting and improving on his own integral life practice and it shouldn’t stop you, either.

For a quick overview of his extraordinarily insightful and helpful AQAL model, read chapters 2 and 3 of ILP.  Wilber and company have worked hard at distilling the sophisticated, intellectually broad and deep theoretical foundation of his work into a bare bones overview. If you want to take your understanding of AQAL to the next level, his A Brief History of Everything would be a good next step.

To get started with your own integral life practice, the best approach is to pull one or two nuggets out of this terrific book and use them today. Try out four “no excuses” one-minute exercises, one from each of the four core ILP areas: Body, Mind, Spirit, and Shadow.  That’s balanced, substantial growth in four core life areas in four minutes.

However, before you charge out in a burst of enthusiasm to get started, Let me warn you that you have good reasons why you are stuck where you are. Like a gyroscope, your inertia maintains you where you are, even though you are in constant motion. You are comfortable and stable in your present level of discomfort and instability. The dysfunctionality of your stuckness has survival value. Right now, before you start your integral life practice, you are at one with your motivation; your resistance is asleep. Guess what will wake up when you start down that road paved with good intentions? In psychology this is called the approach-avoidance gradient: if you persist in your integral life practice, at some point you will reach your point of maximum resistance. If you break off there, guess what will be stronger the next time you try? Like those fat cells when you go on a diet but then break it off, you’ve taught them to be resourceful, more resistant, and resiliant. So learning to expect resistance and knowing how to make it your friend is core wisdom for any integral life practice. Wilber’s version handles this with the Shadow component of the ILP. In it you learn to listen to what your resistance has to say to you. By so doing you move out of opposition with yourself; you align yourself with that part of your alienated power that it represents. If you never reach any of your goals using Wilber’s ILP but just learn how to listen to your resistance, you are miles farther down the road to personal development than you were before. Why? Because realistically, you are not likely to accomplish your other goals until you first set the goal to listen to and learn from resistance to any and all goals.

The good news is that you don’t have to start from scratch in figuring out how to best grow. It’s been done before. Everything you are going to think through while setting up and improving your integral life practice has been thought through before. A lot of what time and experience has taught others is already in this book. You can save yourself detours in your personal growth if you get this book and take it for a serious test drive.

So, how to you make the most out of Integral Life Practice? The broader question is, “How do you make the most out of any self-help book?” The common answer is the injunctive one that we have already learned: follow its instructions and see what happens in your life. However, the problem is a deeper one. It revolves around the question, “Who do I trust?” We know that we are wise to trust different people in different ways. Because I am a psychotherapist and the developer of a process called Integral Deep Listening, you can probably trust me to listen to you. I’m a good listener. However, if you then trust me to invest your money, do your taxes, or to wash your clothes, you will probably be disappointed. I may do such a lousy job that you decide you can’t even trust me to listen to you. So it is important that we identify who is trustworthy in what areas and to be content with that, remembering that there are other people in the world that are trustworthy in other areas. This is the dilemma you will have with Integral Life Practice. You may rightly think, “Wilber is a smart guy. He has a lot of quality recommendations. But how do I know which ones are right for me?” Wilber’s answer would perhaps be, “Experiment! Try a number of things! Keep the ones you like that seem to work and forget the rest!” “In addition, when you have resistances or problems, do the Shadow process and find out what is going on.” This is very good advice, as we will see in a minute. It heads you toward the source of goal setting that Integral Deep Listening teaches is the most important: your own inner compass.

No one knows you like you do. Unfortunately, you don’t know yourself as well as you think you do. That’s why you need the objectivity of others. But most others don’t know you at all. Wilber doesn’t know you. Neither do any of his co-authors. I don’t know you. So who are we to tell you what goals would be best for you? The same could be said for your mother, your lover, your spiritual teacher, your therapist, or your best friend. They may all know you and deeply care about you, but they aren’t you. They may tell you they know what God wants for you or what your inner compass wants you to do or not do, but how do they know that? Did they ask it? Do they simply believe they know better than you do? Of course it may be true that they know better than you do, just as Wilber knows more about how to set up a successful integral life practice than you do, which is why you want to read his ideas. However, that doesn’t mean that he knows what your own inner compass is telling you to do or not do. He doesn’t know that.

Might it not be a good idea to get a consult with your inner compass as you set out to develop your integral life practice? Let’s consider the following scenario. I am dead set on creating and following an integral life practice so that I feel secure, competent, and have validation that I am at a high level of development. But what if my inner compass doesn’t care about any of that? What if it wants me to accept myself for who I am, warts and all, and to pursue my integral life practice for completely different reasons? If I am blind to my own motivations and they don’t track with the agenda of my inner compass, what will happen? At some point the divergence between what I want for myself and what my inner compass wants for me may become so great that I sabotage my integral life practice.  This is not a rare problem; it happens more often than not. There is a very good chance that it will happen to you too if you do not learn how to consult your inner compass.

Wilber’s Shadow process is an attempt to do just that. However, it is limited because it is framed in terms of listening to your resistances. Shadow elements are unrecognized or disowned self-aspects that have a different agenda from your own. Integral Deep Listening frames internal listening in a different way. It does not view your inner compass as either disowned shadow or as a source of resistances. Instead, it views it as the source of your emerging potentials. These emerging potentials express themselves as the characters in your dreams and as the personifications of your life issues. As an example, let’s say that one life issue you have is to choose the correct integral life practice for yourself, which means one that is in alignment with the priorities of your inner compass. What feeling would that bring up for you? Let’s assume it’s fear of failure – that you’ll bite off too much or attempt something that creates too much resistance and you’ll fail. Let’s say that, when asked to give that fear a color, you say “Grey.” Now, imagine that the room is filled with that grey color. Watch it condense into some shape or form. It could be anything – a plant, animal, human, object. There’s no right answer! Now let’s imagine that your grey color congeals into a big elephant with giant tusks. We have just duplicated, in a sense, the night time dream creation process. We now have the equivalent of a dream character, but one that is the personification of your life issue, your fear of failure at your integral life practice. Now we can have you imaginatively take the role of your elephant (or whatever image you came up with) and answer a series of questions that have been carefully developed since 1981. Your job is to pretend you are the elephant and stay in role. You can hear what you think later; in response to these questions you want to hear what your elephant has to say! These questions are meant to confirm or deny that he is a personification of your inner compass and exists to help you develop an integral life practice that is supported by your inner compass. Now you may find that your elephant gives you all green lights: he may support all your efforts and have no suggestions for improvement. However, he may not only have recommendations; it is possible that he will have serious questions about your priorities and recommend a completely different set. If that happens, why should you trust a figment of your imagination? First, you don’t have to, and you shouldn’t. You need to trust your own common sense! Second, how does your elephant score itself in confidence, compassion, wisdom, acceptance, inner peace, and wisdom? These are six core qualities of enlightenment. If your elephant scores higher than you do in one or more of them, then it might be advisable that you consider that it is indeed an emerging potential that you have not yet grown into, and that has something to teach you. Third, you can consult with other dream characters or personifications of your life issues to see if you get validating or conflicting responses. Fourth, you can again check out what you learn with people you trust.

Once you learn this simple interviewing procedure you can use it to monitor your entire integral life practice. You can use it not only to defuse resistances, as Wilber’s Shadow method does, but to align yourself more closely with the agenda of your inner compass. An example of the interviewing protocol can be found at . More information is available at that site, IntegralDeepListening.Com and at DreamYoga.Com. At DreamYoga.Com there is a comparison/contrast between Wilber’s Integral and Integral Deep Listening at: . There is also a comparison and contrast with Wilber’s Shadow methodology at .

These comments are meant to increase your success at pursuing your own integral life practice. By all means, begin! Be patient with yourself. Be persistent. And HAVE FUN!

This review is the second this author has done on a work by Wilber. The first is a review of his Integral Spirituality that can be found at .

One of them is Mike Krieger, whose articles at his site, Liberty blitzkrieg blog, are often cross-posted at ZeroHedge and sometimes picked up by InformationClearingHouse.com, an alternative news compilation site I regularly visit. Krieger’s background is as a commodities analyst and running a “family investment office,” so he is a card-carrying member of this financial menagerie, meaning he carries street cred with the other mongrels in this pack. Since Americans tend to be infatuated with people with wealth, status and power, I figured he might, through an article he authored, get Integral some air time in the financial community. He has indeed, and he is to be thanked for it.

In the spring of 2017 I ran across an article of Krieger’s on ZeroHedge that surprised me.^[2] Krieger had read Ken Wilber’s essay, Trump and a Post-Truth World: An Evolutionary Self-Correction, (Feb. 2017) and was favorably impressed, almost infatuated, judging by his rhapsodic tone. Here he was on ZeroHedge, extolling the virtues of Wilber’s analysis to fellow financiers! I thought this was excellent, because cognitive multi-perspectivalism is something everyone needs for a mutitude of rather obvious reasons.^[3]

I have recently come across another post by Krieger, Americans are Rapidly Descending into Madness.^[4] Krieger’s diagnosis of the problem of our times is good; it’s the solution Krieger offers that sticks in my craw and that this post is about. I was going to write Krieger, but then I realized that his perspective is wide-spread and that I needed to address my remarks to a broader audience.

First, his diagnosis, which I agree with:

“People are rapidly morphing into radicalized mental patients.”

“…this environment is providing a backdrop for the most destructive people of my lifetime – neoconservatives and neoliberals – to preen around on corporate media as the “voices of reason.”

“…if we really want to deal with our very real and very systemic problems, the last thing we need is a population-level mental breakdown that leads to a longing for the criminally destructive political status quo, yet that’s exactly what seems to be happening.”

Krieger then proceeds to sing the praises of Wilber’s solution:

“…Wilber thinks 10{be93f16b5d2e768a85ea81ebc8356f268811d3908838ae6233aa33d012b25ec9} is a key tipping point. In other words, if we can get 10{be93f16b5d2e768a85ea81ebc8356f268811d3908838ae6233aa33d012b25ec9} of the population to center around a yellow second-tier level of thought, which consists of a momentous leap in consciousness, the entire world will change for the better. I agree.”

While Krieger also suggests sensible actions, such as the decentralization of power into local initiatives such as community farming and food production, I am writing to take issue with his central thesis, which echoes that of Wilber:

“It’s imperative that we vigilantly guard our wisdom and consciousness, because the best solutions will only come from a place of spiritual and mental health. If you descend into the gutter with everyone else, your output will also end up looking like trash. That’s the last thing we need.”

What I hear Krieger and Wilber doing is favoring the interior quadrants, which is something that I discuss at length in Healing Integral, while de-emphasizing ethical behavior, accountability and transparency in the external quadrants. Krieger is also imagining the solution lies in separating the sheep, who understand Integral AQAL, from the goats, the poor, unwashed deplorables who have yet to receive the light of True Knowledge. This is what I call the “Myth of Progress.” The idea is that if we just expand our consciousness enough we will evolve ourselves out of the mess we have created of our world. If you don’t or won’t, you don’t deserve our respect, because you aren’t our peers in the elitist realm of cognitive multi-perspectivalism, but you do deserve our compassion because, after all, you’re lost and deplorable.

We should know by now that the Myth of Progress is not only patently false; it generates exceptionalism and elitism that simply creates greater personal and societal imbalances, leading to greater, more profound and deadly “legitimation crises.” I don’t know why intelligent people like Wilber and Krieger and the Integral community as a whole keep getting sucked into this ancient mythology. The Myth of Progress is a version of the psychology of eschatology, which in its negative incarnation manifests as the history of the apocalypse: people proclaiming the end of the world, getting others to sell, give away or donate all they have, climb up onto mountains or dig graves, put on grave clothes, and climb down into their own graves at the appointed hour. The first accounts of this Chicken Little catastrophizing are found at the beginning of written history, with the Sumerians. If there is any persistent collective psychopathology which can be found world-wide, this is it. For an amusing and impressive romp through a profoundly embarrassing history of human stupidity, I recommend A Brief History of the Apocalypse.^[5]

In its positive incarnation, as the Myth of Progress, we have the history of utopias, the promise of Lands of Milk and Honey; of justly-ruled Republics; universal love and peace, provided by colonialist and exceptionalistic Christians, Moslems and Jewish elites, chosen by God to rule; transformative democracy, liberty and justice administered by the generous imposition of Western imperialism by the US, NATO and the EU; national financial salvation via IMF administered regimens of austerity provided by friendly financial exploiters, up to and including Integral 2nd Tier wonderfulness, if we only embrace the Integral vision of our true nobility.^[6]

I do not have a problem with the cognitive multi-perspectival map paintakingly and thoroughly laid out by Wilber in more than twenty books over five decades; it is the confusion by Krieger, Wilber and most spiritual elites of the map with the territory that I take issue with.^[7] We buy the promise of the map, thinking that it will enable us to walk the territory. Because we understand a worldcentric morality we assume we embody a worldcentric morality. This is the Myth of Progess. We are drinking ancient, stale and toxic Kool-Aid.

It is the same mistake Greeks, Romans, Armenians and others made when they listened to Paul, or Saul of Tarsus; it is the same mistake Jews made when they listened to Theodor Herzl, Ben Gurion, Golda Meir, Sharon, Netanyahu and other supporters of Zionism, telling them God gave them the right to poison people’s wells, steal their land, run them off, murder them, and lock them up in ghettos and concentration camps, not for years, as the Nazis did to Jews, but for decades. It’s the same mistake Western liberals make when they buy promises of hope and identity politics while looking the other way as international laws are broken and their Constitutional rights gutted. “Just vote one last time for this sell-out pathetic excuse of a human being we offer you as a champion of human rights, and we promise you that next time we will deliver you justice, freedom, a 2nd Tier candidate, or whatever else you need to hear from us to get you to give us just a little more time to suck the rest of the life out of the middle and lower classes.” The Myth of Progess: snake oil for the masses.

The historical record is that there is no causal connection between buying some map of salvation and salvation itself; if you want “salvation” for yourself, your family, your community, your society, you have to meet objective, exterior quadrant standards of behavior, accountability and transparency regardless of what map you are reading. This is integral ethics. If you meet universal social standards of behavior, accountability and transparency, it doesn’t matter if you worship Jack the Ripper, Hitler or know Lucifer as your savior. It doesn’t matter if you are 2nd Tier yellow or merely a tribalistic, ethnocentric deplorable follower of Donald Trump. What matters are objective, measurable criteria of trustworthiness: Will I lie to you? Will I steal from you? Will I undercut you behind your back? Will I abuse you? Will I kill you? Will I listen to you and demonstrate that I hear you, even if I don’t agree with you?

These are the sorts of practical considerations we all care about; if we don’t, we are either naive or self-destructive. If these criteria are answered, we not only gain but deserve respect, regardless of our level of development, age, religion, race, ideology or mental state. We can be flat-out crazy, but if we meet these objective criteria of trustworthiness, we gain respect, and we deserve it. On the other hand, if we advocate 2nd Tier wonderfulness and do not meet these objective criteria, why should we expect anyone to trust us? Why should we expect anyone to respect us?

The reverse is even more true: Why in the world do we continue to drink the Kool-Aid? This is not something we can lay at the doorstep of Wilber, Democratic politicians or spiritual elites, but on our own. If we choose to trust those who have not only not demonstrated their trustworthiness but have demonstrated their untrustworthiness, whose problem is that? Whose responsibility is that? What level of maturity are we actually expressing? Are there any readers out there that really want to imagine that such misplaced trust ethically represents something late personal “green” or higher?

As I argue in Healing Integral, such ethical elitism and exceptionalism indicates a mid-prepersonal morality, nothing higher, because emotional irrationality is overwhelming not only rationality but late prepersonal self-interest in a profound and fundamental way.

Where is the evidence that grasping 2nd Tier integral cognitive multi-perspectivalism is correlated with ethical behavior? Yes, you can correlate it with moral intent and judgment, but behavior? Where? When? How? What? Where is the evidence that Integralists are more ethical than non-integralists? The reasons for this painfully obvious cognitive dissonance that has led to our present “legitimation crisis” and “evolutionary self-correction” are explained in depth in Healing Integral.

Whether or not you and I grasp AQAL and cognitive multi-perspectivalism has proven itself to be largely inconsequential, when measured in the context of the over-all evolution of society, as we watch committed integralists vote for Hillary Clinton, support neo-liberalism and globalism, demean Trump supporters as “deplorables,” imagine that the hope and change promised by the likes of Obama, Sanders or Warren is going to represent a break from the violation of international law, the criminal disregard of the Constitution, or support the vampire squid embrace of AIPAC on the American political system.

This is not an argument to throw out Integral AQAL. I have embraced it since the 1980’s and use “Integral” in the name of my own life work. I am an admirer of Wilber and AQAL. However, I am not an admirer of the Myth of Progress, and its latest incarnation in Wilber’s 2nd Tier prescription for the  current “legitmation crisis” is a contemporary verion of eschatology, a bait-and-switch switch from social responsibility to the idealism of consciousness expansion.^[8]

Here is one powerful example I cite in Healing Integral. Most authorities, including Wilber, agree that Japanese Zen Buddhism teaches a form of meditation that is causal and accesses the non-dual. It is rather difficult to promise access to a higher, clearer state of consciousness, since none exists, unless you want to start talking about parinirvanas. Japanese Zen Buddhist meditators have a non-dual practice, which is 3rd Tier, that is, quite a way beyond the 2nd Tier utopia Wilber promises if only 10{be93f16b5d2e768a85ea81ebc8356f268811d3908838ae6233aa33d012b25ec9} of us learn Integral AQAL and grasp cognitive multi-perspectivalism.

However, the history of Zen Buddhism during World War II demonstrates that there is no correlation between access to non-dual states in meditation, that is, accessing 3rd Tier, much less 2nd Tier consciousness, and ethical action, as these meditating monks picked up arms and fought in service to a fascist, colonialist, murdering regime that committed well-documented war crimes. The rationalization that they didn’t know will not serve; what is true is that killing and other abominations were justified by service to the Emperor. We have the writings of Zen monks from the time that substantiate it.^[9]

This is where Krieger is doing a disservice to his financial-class audience and where Wilber is doing a disservice to the “spiritual elite.” They are validating a strategy that has an ancient history of failure, and that is the conflating of cognitive maps and consciousness, on the one hand, with territories and accountability, on the other. Just as non-dual meditation does not predict ethical action, so Kohlber’s hierarchy of moral judgment, adopted by Wilber, does not predict ethical action. Progress in moral judgment does not indicate progress in objectively measured moral action, as the Myth of Progress implies.

What you and I, spiritual and financial elites alike, need is less emphasis on expansions of consciousness; we have had enough of that already, from flower power, psychedelic salvation, shamanism, brain-wave machines, lucid dreaming, yoga and meditation retreats. By all means, continue to expand your consciousness! Avail yourself of all the incredible tools that are out there and are multiplying at an astounding rate. However, what we need is not a greater imbalance between intention and cognition, on the one hand, and credibility in the external quadrants, as determined by others. What we need is to make ourselves increasingly accountable and transparent to each other in our everyday lives.

This means we need to keep our word and our commitments; to conform to social standards of conduct instead of pretending that because we have superior knowledge that we are exceptions to group norms; to ask people how they want to be treated and honor their preferences instead of imposing our own; to realize we are only as sick as our secrets and make our lives an open book, while demanding the same of our government officials, elected representatives and guardians of the public purse. We need to stop blaming other people, knowing that, as James Baldwin said, “Whoever debases others is debasing themselves.” This is founded on the principle that as we treat others we are treating those aspects of ourselves that they personify. If we abuse others, we are inevitably abusing ourselves. This includes lying, cheating, stealing and killing not only on both personal and governmental levels, but intrapersonally, that is, to outgrow our addictions and our various forms of self-abuse.

None of the depredations that are undercutting democracy and human rights are going to stop because we learn Integral AQAL and attain 2nd Tier, just as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Western democracy and capitalism have not lived up to their promise to end man’s inhumanity to man. Atrocities will end when we ourselves set a personal example of responsible, accountable, and transparent action and living. This is not only integral ethics; it is ancient common sense.

So please, Krieger, Wilber, Integralists, spiritual elites: we all, beginning with myself, need to stop calling for even greater imbalance by encouraging advancement to 2nd Tier. It’s time to de-emphasize consciousness and focus on accountability in the exterior quadrants. Generating elitist, exceptionalist delusions and over-emphasis on consciousness, as represented by the Myth of Progress, is killing not only ourselves, but civilization as a whole and the living systems upon which humanity depends for its survival.

^[1] Arguably, the last concrete improvement to society provided by the financial sector was the advent of the automated teller in 1967.

^[2] Krieger, M., Why Increased Consciousness is the Only Path Forward, Liberty Blitzkrieg, Feb 10. 2017.

^[3] Cognitive multi-perspectivalism is not experiential multi-perspectivalism, which transcends and includes cognitive multi-perspectivalism. Cognitive multi-perspectivalism is grasping of a multi-perspectival map, like AQAL; experiential multi-perspectivalism is a yoga, a meta-integral life practice that actually identifies with multiple other perspectives instead of simply grasping them cognitively. One example of experiential multi-perspectivalism is Integral Deep Listening, which is discussed in Healing Integral and at IntegralDeepListening.Com and DreamYoga.Com.

^[4] Krieger, M., Americans are Rapidly Descending Into Madness, Liberty Blitzkrieg blog, Aug 16, 2017.

^[5] A Brief History of the Apocalypse, abhota.info

^[6] The great scholar of comparative religion, Mircea Eliade, in his The Myth of the Eternal Return (1971), compares cyclical and linear time, sacred and historical time. In a sense, my argument resonates with his, but instead of a return to a mythical, original time, it urges the return to first ethical and moral principles, with the common thread that to do so generates an authentic sense of the sacred, because time and behavior are both thereby grounded in actuality and authenticity instead of a cognitive line that has far outrun the other three, generating not only massive imbalances but what Eliade calls, “The Terror of History.”

^[7] However, as explained in Healing Integral, I see Integral AQAL as applying to left quadrant intention and cognitive development but in no way an accurate representation of development in the exterior quadrants, because of the overwhelming power of societal holons in which we are embedded. These generate groupthink and collective norms which at present maintain the center of human civilizational gravity firmly at mid-prepersonal. Because we must tetra-mesh, we cannot ignore the reality of the groundedness of our moral and empathetic lines in prevailing societal groupthink. Our holons are not independent of the contextual societal ones in which they are enmeshed; they are interdependent, which means that our individual development is dependent upon and limited by the altitude of the social holons in which it is enmeshed. We can avoid or ignore this reality by escaping into monasteries or other sub-societal holons that ignore or minimize contextual social holons, but we cannot escape them. For example, see the history of the destruction of Indian Buddhism by Mogul invasions. When we evaluate our level of development by our lagging or fixated core lines, ethics and empathy, the necessary conclusion is that we are yet to tetra-mesh to late prepersonal.

^[8] There is, however, an important distinction between the Myth of Progress and progress itself. While the Myth of Progress is an idealistic, utopian fantasy that promises the carrot to the donkey as it dangles in front of its nose, progress itself is an inexorable mandate of life. Negentropy is as genuine and valid as entropy and synthesis; that is, dialectical advance to higher stages is as real as antithesis, or “evolutionary self-corrections.” But our ability to recognize, support and participate in authentic progress is not helped by belief in the Myth of Progress; on the contrary, the embrace of this delusion makes genuine progress less likely by defeating the balance between the internal and external quadrants that is required to progress to our next highest level of development.

^[9] “Author and Zen priest Brian Victoria has written extensively on the role that Buddhism played in supporting the Japanese Imperial Empire before and during World War II. In Zen at War and Zen War Stories, he chronicles the little known and disturbing history of renowned university professors, Zen masters, and lay monks of many different sects who gladly assisted their nation in waging multiple ‘wars of compassion.’ The Japanese Emperor was compared to the Buddha, and Buddhist teachings became an excellent tool to eradicate individualism and dissolve the “small-self” into the larger nation-state. Hitler was jealous: ‘Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good?’

“One of the many people Victoria profiles is Zen master Yasutani Haku’un. Yasutani was the teacher of prominent American Buddhist Phillip Kapleau, author of the now classic Three Pillars of Zen. While he received high praise from the likes of Huston Smith and delivered talks in the U.S., there is another side of him that went untold until relatively recently.”

“Although Yasutani’s influence on American Buddhism is widely revered, Victoria refers to him as a ‘militarist, not to mention ethnic chauvinist, sexist, and anti-Semite.’ On the question of Buddhism and killing, Yasutani was unequivocal:

‘Those who understand the spirit of the Mahayana precepts should be able to answer this question immediately. That is to say, of course one should kill, killing as many as possible. One should, fighting hard, kill everyone in the enemy army. The reason for this is that in order to carry [Buddhist] compassion and filial obedience through to perfection it is necessary to assist good and punish evil . . . This is the special characteristic of the Mahayana precepts.’

“At the time, Japan was engaged in a cruel war of imperial expansion. This received full support from Yasutani, who stated: ‘In making China cede the island of Taiwan, and, further, in annexing the Korean peninsula, our Great Japanese Imperial Empire engaged in the practice of a great bodhisattva, a practice that reveals itself through compassion and filial obedience.’ Yasutani also warned of the demonic ways of the Jews, dismantled liberal reforms, and reiterated sexist statements. He insisted that ‘the universities we presently have must be smashed one and all,’ and referred to trades unions and alternative political parties as ‘traitors to the nation.’

“Sadly, Yasutani was not a marginal voice. Rather, he was emblematic of how institutional Buddhism wholeheartedly embraced the worst aspects of Japanese imperialism.

Sawaki Kodo, ‘one of Japan’s best known modern Soto Zen masters and scholars,’ was a similarly staunch supporter of the unity of Zen and war. ‘My comrades and I gorged ourselves on killing people,’ he testified. ‘Especially at the battle of Baolisi temple, I chased our enemies into a hole where I was able to pick them off very efficiently. Because of this, my company commander requested that I be given a letter of commendation.’ Another Zen Master, Yamada Reirin, explained how Buddhism shaped his love for the state:

‘Wherever the imperial military advances there is only charity and love. They could never act in the barbarous and cruel way in which the Chinese soldiers act. This can truly be considered to be a great accomplishment of the long period which Buddhism took in nurturing [the Japanese military].’ In other words, brutality itself no longer exists in the officers and men of the imperial military who have been schooled in the spirit of Buddhism.

“Buddhist monks and leaders taught Zazen (sitting meditation) to “discover, through a thorough-going examination of the self, the origin of the power which enabled them, in their various work capacities, to serve the emperor.” This, they believed, would allow them to “realize infinite power.” When the tide turned against the Japanese, Zen priests abandoned this ‘thought war’ and took positions in factories producing military goods.”

“Books were also written to defend the Japanese empire. In The Buddhist View of War (1937), Komazawa University Professor Hayashiya Tomojiro argued that the Japanese aggression should be seen as ‘wars of compassion.’ Stating his strong support for the war effort, Tomojiro insisted that Japanese Buddhists would ‘as part of our self-sacrificial public duty . . . work for the spiritual general mobilization of the people.’ The aim of the war, he claimed, was to ‘save sentient beings and guide them properly.’

“While these examples are disturbing in their own right, this pairing of Buddhism and war isn’t confined to the Japanese Empire. The edited volume Buddhist Warfare (2010), clearly illustrates how Buddhism has been used to justify violence throughout its history. In a review of the book, Vladimir Tikhonov notes that: ‘From its inception, Buddhism was integrated into a complicated web of power relations; it always attempted to accommodate itself with the pre-existent power hierarchies while preserving a degree of internal autonomy; and it inevitably came to acknowledge, willingly or otherwise, that the powers-that-be use violence to achieve their objectives, which often overlap with those of the Buddhist monastic community.’” Scofield, B., 21st Century Yoga: Culture, Politics & Practice (Kleio Press, 2012.) The question integralists need to ask themselves is, “If Integral AQAL were to be adopted as the “state belief system” of the US or the West, or any country, for that matter, why and how do they believe it would escape a similar fate?

“Beginning over two decades ago, with the book Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, I summarized this postmodern disaster with the term “aperspectival madness”, because the belief that there is no truth — that no perspective has universal validity (the “aperspectival” part) — when pushed to extremes, as postmodernism was about to do, resulted in massive self-contradictions and ultimate incoherency (the “madness” part). And when aperspectival madness infects the leading-edge of evolution, evolution’s capacity for self-direction and self-organization collapses.”

In this statement, Wilber recognizes that it is not only the usual suspects, that is, government, politicians, the political parties, the media and the universities, that are infected with “aperspectival madness;” it’s not only all those “others” we like to bash as asleep, dreaming, and badly in need of understanding Integral AQAL. He recognizes that aperspectival madness “infects the leading-edge of evolution,” which strongly infers Integral AQAL itself, Wilber, you and me. “We have met the enemy and he is us.”[1] How could this be?

Wilber has for years and through multiple writings blamed aperspectival madness on our capture by the dark side of the late personal stage of development, which he refers to as the “mean green meme.”

“…Its broad-minded pluralism slipped into a rampant and runaway relativism (collapsing into nihilism), and the notion that all truth is contextualized (or gains meaning from its cultural context) slid into the notion that there is no real universal truth at all, there are only shifting cultural interpretations (which eventually slid into a widespread narcissism). Central notions (which began as important “true but partial” concepts, but collapsed into extreme and deeply self-contradictory views) included the ideas that all knowledge is, in part, a cultural construction; all knowledge is context-bound; there are no privileged perspectives; what passes for “truth” is a cultural fashion, and is almost always advanced by one oppressive force or another (racism, sexism, eurocentrism, patriarchy, capitalism, consumerism, greed, environmental exploitation); the utter, absolutely unique, and absolutely equal value of each and every human being, often including animals (egalitarianism).”

The implication is that cultural elites, including ourselves, have evolved at least to a late personal stage of development and have gotten stuck there. Wilber also indicates that the cure for aperspectival madness lies in our movement as individuals and a culture to a more integral perspective:

“It’s widely acknowledged that postmodernism as a philosophy is now dead; and books are everywhere starting to appear that are written about “What comes next?” (with no clear winner yet, but the trend is toward more evolutionary and more systemic — more integral — views). But in academia and the universities, it is a long, slow death, and most teachers still teach some version of postmodernism and its aperspectival madness even if they have many deep doubts themselves. But it’s telling that virtually every major developmental model in existence contains, beyond the stage generally known as “pluralistic,” at least a stage or two variously called “integrated,” “systemic,” “integral,” or some such, all of which overcome the limitations of a collapsed pluralism through a higher-level wholeness and unity, thus returning to a genuine “order out of chaos.”

In short, the solution lies in what has been called “the myth of progress,” the idea, popularized as early as the 1700’s by Diderot, and strengthened in the 19th century by its linkage to evolution by Darwin and Spencer, that if humanity will only grow, that it will evolve itself out of misery, suffering, ignorance and stupidity. The myth of progress is a strong, fundamental statement of meaning in the face of nihilism, of betting on the forces of negentropy in the face of overwhelming evidence of entropy, on aspiration and inspiration over a humanity “red in tooth and claw,” as Alfred, Lord Tennyson famously put it.

Progress is an ascensionist theology, which has given pause not only to descensionists, such as both secular humanists and the Gaia worshippers, but also those who attempt to find a balance between these two opposing evolutionary forces. In what follows, we will question both the belief in the primacy of progress, an assumption upon which the edifice of AQAL largely depends, and the idea that elites have not only arrived at late personal, but have been seduced by the Mean Green Meme. From our perspective, this is a far too generous assessment.

Since his earliest writings, Wilber has been very careful to balance ascensionist and descensionist forces, framed repeatedly as evolutionary and involutionary arms of spirit, and he continues to do so up to this day, in The Religion of Tomorrow. However, as we shall see, Integral AQAL views the salvation of humanity in transcending our stuckness and rising into 2^nd Tier, or Vision-Logic perspectives, or higher, into the transpersonal. Leading edge elites, such as ourselves, need to overcome their stuckness and grow into authentic examples of the values they profess. To do so, an “evolutionary self-correction” is required. We agree with Wilber, but the evolutionary self-correction that is required is not only different than what Wilber prescribes; it challenges some fundamental assumptions of AQAL. It does so not to be oppositional or to paint Wilber, who I greatly respect, deluded or wrong, but as a genuine attempt to objectively reframe how we got ourselves stuck in this “legitimization crisis” so that we can make an authentic evolutionary self-correction, as Wilber proposes, and get on with the advance of humanity. The broader context asks how we can best move beyond the current melt-down of society, embarrassingly obvious in the failure of elites, both spiritual and secular, to lead.[/vc_column_text][leezen_vc_section_title heading_type=”h3″ title=”The importance of balance” title_transform=”capitalize” title_weight=”600″ alignment=”left” title_size=”20px”]As has been discussed in depth in Healing Integral, what Wilber’s critique in Trump leaves out, misses, or ignores, is the difficulty, if not impossibility, of arriving at, much less maintaining, higher levels of integration when fundamental requisite elements have not attained or managed to maintain some minimal level of balance. This is not only a failure to balance the four quadrants of intention, culture, behavior and interaction, but the four core lines of cognition, morality, empathy and self. (We use “empathy” rather than Wilber’s “relationship” because empathy is the core characteristic or sub-line for the evolution of relationship.)

The higher any organism moves on the developmental ladder, the broader and more stable its supportive lower rungs must be in order to sustain increased altitude. The visual of a pyramid provides an appropriate model, an analogy mined by Wilber in Sex, Ecology, Spirituality.[2] The greater the altitude, the broader the foundational levels must be to provide required support. You can’t retrofit a broader base to your pyramid; you have to build a broad base according to the altitude you want to attain. We see an example of the problem in the Bent Pyramid of Dashur. An early attempt at pyramid building, the Egyptians did not initially figure correctly how broad the base had to be to sustain the height they wanted to attain. The result was something less than a perfect pyramid.[3]

In visual and idealistic contrast, most depictions of Integral development either show a widening spiral or an inverted pyramid, in an attempt to depict a broadening of consciousness as each level transcends as well as includes the last. The trade-off made by this depiction is that it ignores, minimizes, overlooks or flat-out denies the dependency of higher levels on lower ones and our increased requirements for lower level stability, the higher our elevation. The implication of this popular AQAL visual of an inverted pyramid/spiral is that expansion and the minimization of the importance of hierarchy are visually and conceptually favored over the depiction of a breadth and depth in foundational structures and processes that are fundamental and necessary pre-requisites for any level of development at all. While such depictions are useful bones to throw to descensionists and those who argue that AQAL is egg-headed patriarchical hierarchy intended to suppress the salvation of mankind through the advance of feminine communal egalitarianism and pluralism, the problem is that this inverted pyramid model and whatever ideology has been used to advance it, has not prevented the current “legitimation crisis” or prevented the painful subsequent “evolutionary self-correction.” On the contrary, it supports and maintains an untethered idealism that invites them. We therefore might be wise to consider the less politically correct but perhaps more realistic possibilities presented by a revisiting of the pyramid model.[4]

The justification for the use of inverted spirals and the concepts they emphasize over dull, patriarchical, hierarchical pyramids is more basic than mere pandering to political correctness. More fundamentally, it is the triumph of the interior quadrants over the exterior. Consciousness, intention and judgement, won out, at least among the spiritual elites, over the social commons, where objective and collective criteria of progress determine reality. As explored at some depth in Healing Integral, Wilber clearly, adamantly, importantly and wisely presents an emphasis on the interior quadrants as a necessary antidote to the flatland of both modernism and the aperspectival madness of post-modernism. However, tetra-mesh requires all four quadrants in balance. “Tetra-mesh” is Wilber’s term for the degree of balance in the four quadrants of the human holon (behavior, interaction, culture and intention) required to move up a story in our developmental skyscraper. Most of the time we are moving furniture and achieving balance on our current level. After childhood, we rarely achieve enough balance to move up a level in our overall development, although we may have mastered many levels in individual lines, particularly in our cognitive line, but often also excelling in non-essential lines, such as mathematics, music, sport, dance, or even meditative objectivity.

The requirement of tetra-mesh indicates that while AQAL’s emphasis on consciousness provided a needed and necessary compensation for the objectification of reality as a realm of observable “its,” our current “legitimation crisis,” implies that this favoritism has gone too far and become unhinged. It has itself swung into aperspectival madness.

If nature planned in advance for you and I to attain to what we call transpersonal altitudes, then our foundational physiospheric and noospheric levels are broad enough to sustain those elevations. However, if we find ourselves unable to attain and maintain such heights, one possible explanation is that nature exists in the here and now; it plans for the present, not according to some future master plan it wants to roll out. If that is the case, then it may be that we do indeed lack the breadth of foundational levels to easily sustain the altitudes that we desire.

The correction of this problem is not impossible, but it does not lie in continuing onward and upward, as dogmatists of every stripe do, or with the myth of progress, as Wilber suggests in advocating lifting (or pushing) people up into 2^nd Tier. There are some issues that continued movement forward will not and cannot address. We can’t just outgrow genetic errors and birth defects, no matter how much positive thinking we do or how much we embrace conceptual multi-perspectivalism.

The problem is that, to prevent dangerously over-extending the height of a pyramid beyond what its base can support, advanced planning is required. We have to not only build higher levels, as Wilber and the myth of progress advocate, but we have to continuously go back to broaden our base in order to sustain the higher altitudes we desire. These regressions are “evolutionary self-corrections,” a good term, because it reframes regression not as dysfunctional, but as appropriate antithesis, a necessary step in the developmental dialectic. However, even with such positive re-framing, restructuring foundational levels is not an easy thing to do. When you already have a noospheric, cognitive mansion reaching like a Tower of Babyon into the sky, complete with a very territorial and self-entitled owner living within it, there is going to be serious resistance. Expect it.

We will explore approaches to foundational upgrades below as an alternative to the “forge ahead” approach usually (but not always) advocated by Wilber and which is supported by conceptual and visual models that contradict the non-sexy but practical and grounding visual of a pyramid.

Why and how we create imbalance

It appears to be human nature, whatever that is, to emphasize our strengths and minimize our weaknesses, our future possibilities instead of our past limitations. While we can observe this tendency in animals as well, this favoritism is greatly increased for humans due to various social pressures, such as praise for success and punishment for failure, leading us to emphasize those areas where success is more likely and minimize or ignore those areas in which we are weak, and where failure, and therefore both self-criticism and a loss of social status are more likely.

Balance is hardly as glamorous as genius. Balance doesn’t sell books, win contracts or gain clients. Most people are looking to buy “gee whiz” moments of catharsis, insight and inspiration, not discipline and responsibility. They want the freedom they associate with comfort and validation, not the freedom that comes from effort and learning from failure. Like an addictive fix, mystical and near death experiences, psychic phenomena and claims to enlightenment lure us because we want to believe in ourselves and our specialness. We want to believe that perfection is always already present and we don’t have to do shit to earn it or deserve it. It is not only that hope blinds reason; it is that aspiration runs off and leaves our pre-requisite need for balance. Look at the disciples of secular and spiritual gurus of your choice and draw your own conclusions.

How our over-emphasis of the cognitive line prevents development

The problem this creates is a fundamental and a significant contributor to our present “legitimization crisis.” The more we emphasize our strong suite of the four core lines, cognition, while minimizing our weak ones, morality and empathy, the more unbalanced our development becomes. Our house might not be built on sand, but even if we build a well-designed mansion, it is downright foolish to construct a skyscraper on top of it. This is what an expanding spiral implies and why we need to reconsider the practical functionality of a pyramid, where most of the effort, breadth and width is not at the top, but at the bottom. If we do not, we lack the foundational breadth and width to support our aspirations. Like Icarus, we fly too high.

This problem most clearly shows up in genius, in which mathematical, musical or meditative savants typically show vast gaps in competencies most people take for granted, like communication skills or a concern about physical health. This is where the balancing of the four core lines becomes critical. The more intensively cognition excels and the self-line identifies with cognition, the more difficult it is to maintain overall balance, as more energy is poured into thinking, leaving less for our lagging moral and empathetic lines.

These lines have to lag if the cognitive line leads and the self line is comprised of all four (and additionally, other, non-core lines). But because morality and empathy naturally and necessarily lag, it does not mean that we can afford to ignore them or discount their importance, since they create and support the credibility and authenticity of both the cognitive and self lines. Without healthy, strong moral and empathetic lines both the cognitive and self lines are hollow and superficial. Healing Integral supplies a number of examples of this important and fundamental reality. A strong case can be made that attention to your moral and empathetic lines is more important than your cognitive line because you, as well as your socio-cultural contexts, are going to naturally favor your cognitive line, since it is used for everyday thinking and problem-solving and because your sense of who you are naturally tends to identify with what you think. Subsequently, your cognitive line will tend to take care of itself, to grow on its own, unlike your moral and empathetic lines. As we shall see, there are normally strong social and cultural headwinds that support your focus on your cognitive line and also support your avoidance, dismissing or minimizing of the importance of your moral and empathetic lines. It takes vigilance and discipline to become aware of and counteract these major socio-cultural preferences.

Our cognitive line leads

or Integral theory, as well as for you and me, the strongest of these four lines, by far, is cognition. This is because, as Wilber repeatedly tells us, “the cognitive line leads.” It should. Awareness is a pre-requisite to change, and understanding is a pre-requisite to healthy, planned change. In addition, there are huge social reinforcers for developing a strong cognitive line. Our educational system demands it, for good reason; most professional career paths leading to economic security and status require it. With notable but unlikely exceptions in the arenas of art and sport, society generally demands that the cognitive line lead.[5]  This strong emphasis on the cognitive line is closely related to the afore-mentioned myth of progress which, while tied to the rise of modernism, we have seen is also a foundational assumption of Integral AQAL itself.

Our cognitive line also leads because it provides the ability to objectify both experience and our sense of who we are so that we can not only manipulate things, feelings and ideas but also disassociate from them, turning distal selves into proximal ones. The progression made possible by noospheric advance in the cognitive line is to recognize “I am not my body,” (disidentification from early prepersonal leading to identification with mid-prepersonal), “I am not my feelings,” (disidentification from mid-prepersonal leading to identification with late prepersonal), “I am not the world,” (disidentification from late prepersonal leading to identification with early personal), “I am not my social roles,” (disidentification from early personal leading to identification with mid-personal), “I am not my ability to reason,” (disidentification from mid-personal leading to identification with late personal), “I am not my sense of self,” (disidentification from late personal leading to identification with vision-logic), “I am not my map of reality,”[6] (disidentification from vision-logic leading to identification with early transpersonal), “I am not energy, “(disidentification from early transpersonal leading to identification with mid-transpersonal), “I am not God, (disidentification from mid-transpersonal leading to identification with late transpersonal), “I am not my Self, (disidentification from late transpersonal leading to identification with the non-dual).

We can understand this progression far before we can accomplish it; we can experience it for short periods, as in meditation or in mystical experiences, far before we can sustain any altitude in tetra-mesh. But because we confuse both cognition and experience with who we are, we assume that because we understand and have had genuine openings to these broad and inclusive perspectives that we are them. Because we identify with our cognitive maps, our intentions and our state openings, we confuse temporary state access for stable state acquisition; we don’t want to go back and attain balance among our four core lines; we would rather identify with our cognitive line and feed both our egos and our delusions, confident that we are our thoughts and experiences. The result is a rickety, narrow, swiss-cheese foundation which becomes increasingly unstable until we are inevitably faced with some sort of retrenchment. Perhaps it is a health or relationship crisis; perhaps it is a social or cultural calamity like war or the collapse of civilization. In any case, these are “legitimation crises” leading to “evolutionary self-corrections” caused by a failure to attend to the necessity of balance. If the base of our developmental pyramid is not broad enough we will not be able to sustain our altitude.

The imbalance caused by an over-emphasis on the cognitive line is particularly important for tetra-mesh, or development from our current level to the next.

The self, cognition, moral and empathetic lines manifest in and have implications for the development of all four quadrants. This is easier to spot in the first than the second two, but the implications of morality and empathy, often associated with the interior collective quadrant when primarily framed as values, are equally behaviors, intentions and determinants of public or social trustworthiness in the exterior collective quadrant. Unless you attend to the condition and needs of both morality and empathy in all four quadrants, your self line, which relies on both as much as it does on cognition, will not develop. It can’t develop. It requires a balanced development of at least your cognitive, moral and empathetic lines. Without the evolution of your self line, which lags behind the other three, you cannot balance your four quadrants and therefore will not sustain tetra-mesh. You will not have the breadth and depth of foundational development necessary to maintain your balance at your next highest level of development. Whatever else you develop may get you social kudos, but in terms of your evolution from level to level, other aptitudes are gravy, topping or dessert.

The societal and cultural repression of authentic morality and empathy

While we are rewarded for exceptional development in cognition, this often means that we are actively dissuaded from developing empathy and morality. There are many social circumstances in which the expression, and therefore the development of, morality and empathy are punished. Important examples abound. Conformity to peer norms during adolescence is extremely important to the development of self-confidence and self-esteem as young people struggle to figure out who they are. We’ve all been there. However, the result is that this conformity is typically more important to us than either morality or empathy. We do what gains the approval of our peer group, which generally involves plenty of mid-prepersonal cognitive distortions and drama. Unfortunately, this sort of behavior, which has both a certain necessity and rationality given its context, rarely ends with adolescence. To maintain most relationships, we had better be willing to do at least some of what our partner requires, whether we like it or not, whether or not it is moral or empathetic toward third parties. At work, we all know what happens if we do not fulfill the expectations of our boss and conform to employment norms whether they are ethical or exploitative. In fact, if we want to rise in status and power in any group we have to demonstrate that we are a leader, which means that we embrace group norms as fully, if not more fully, than anyone else, regardless of the validity of those norms.

Most of us shrug our shoulders and accept such trade-offs as the price we have to pay to maintain a relationship, get a job, promotion or earn status.  Ironically, in the worlds of socio-cultural groupthink, to gain the respect of others we often must prostitute self-respect. It is no wonder people favor the interior realms of consciousness where they have much more control over their own development and destiny, and it is no wonder that we prefer to judge our morality by our intent instead of by the opinions of more objective others.

In the political realm, there is no doubt that the requirements for election skew competencies toward the development of lines of cognition and communication. Charisma, fund raising ability, brazen self-confidence, dogged determinism and psychological imperviousness to failure are also strongly desirable assets.  Political success also requires a highly refined ability to lie or, to put a kinder and gentler edge on it, to misrepresent where one’s loyalties lie and how much power one actually has in office to effect the changes one promises.  This is as true for liberals and libertarians as it is for conservatives, because all are subject to the same rewards and punishments baked into the rules for political success.

We can also see how such imbalances are rewarded on some career paths and how these imbalances can indeed become intentional. If someone wants to become a successful lawyer they have to win cases and please those who will hire them, which means they must put the interests of their clients before the broader societal interest in their innocence or guilt. If someone becomes a corporate attorney, to keep and advance in their position they have to put what is best for the bottom line of their employer before what is in the best interest of society as a whole. To a greater or lesser extent, this principle holds true for anyone who has a boss or clients. If you want to stay in business or grow what you do, you have to please those who keep the lights on.  These are cognitive line interests (“What do I have to do to increase my economic security, power and status?”) that are being given priority over moral interests (“How do I best serve the Prime Directive?”)[7] as well as empathetic interests (“How do I, in this situation, best treat others as I would want to be treated if I were them?”) The majority of professional career tracks reward cold cognitive calculation of financial benefit while discouraging the moral and empathetic lines, because they have different priorities that often conflict with the priorities of advance in status and economic security. Consequently, it is not difficult to see how and why very successful people are, almost by necessity, skewed or unbalanced personalities that lack the necessary homeostasis in their core lines for the tetra-mesh required for advancement to a higher developmental level. This applies to you and me, only we are too subjectively enmeshed in our broad cultural groupthink to easily see it.

Problems with our perception of who we are

The self line is a special case. Much of childhood is rightly committed to the development of a strong sense of self as a pre-requisite to success, as measured by society. We need to know who we are as a locus for meaning and as a point from which to assimilate expanded distal definitions of who we are. Throughout our lives, but particularly in our childhood, we are strongly rewarded by society for developing our self line and punished if we do not. However, this development is largely a matter of conformity to society’s assumptions regarding moral and cognitive development, meaning obedience and competence. None of this has much to do with being true to oneself or developing authentic empathy, and therefore does little to support the development of authenticity in either the moral or empathetic lines.

The problem is, as we all know, that after learning to develop a strong sense of self it is quite the challenging task to outgrow it. Typically, we don’t, even when we meditate for years and have repeated mystical experiences. Even then, we remain highly responsive to groupthink in those subcultures that we respect, like AQAL. The result is that the self that develops is a superficial, phony, plastic bonsai, a caricature of the authentic self, shaped, trimmed and stunted to mirror the dysfunctional groupthink of society or of some subset of society – your employer, religious or spiritual leader, spouse or peer group. This is the case because who you are is much more likely to be determined by those norms rewarded by prevailing groupthink rather than authentic morality or empathy intrinsic to you. However, because we internalize group norms as “conscience” when we are very young, most of us live our lives that prevailing group norms for morality and empathy are our own. Unless we have a methodology capable of differentiating conscience and intuition from our life compass we have no way of ever knowing the difference. Integral Deep Listening provides such an integral life practice.

As a result of the need of society and culture to emphasize both the cognitive and self lines, the self line typically becomes identified with the cognitive line. We are what we think. “I think, therefore I am.” Cognitive behavioral psychology, the most effective tool we presently have for dealing with both anxiety and depression, has demonstrated the importance, power and effectiveness of this connection. That we think, as well as what we think, determines who we are, but only on a superficial level, because it largely ignores the core lines of morality and empathy.

We are not only enmeshed in powerful social reinforcers that require us to identify with the cognitive line (make good grades, pass performance tests at work, persuade others), we gain meaning, orientation and value from doing so. The further result is that most of us assume that the height of our cognitive line, that is, the level to which our map of consciousness has ascended, is who we actually are. That map or world view is assumed to be an accurate measure of who we are, our self line.

You and I more or less grasp the cognitive map of AQAL. To the extent that we identify with our thoughts, that we think who we are is what we think, the conclusion that we draw is, “Because I understand AQAL, who I am, my self line, has expanded to include the possibilities and potentials it entails. Because I have a multi-perspectival world view I have attained 2^nd tier.” Because we have greatly expanded our cognitive understanding of who we are, we see how we meet the criteria for late personal and, because we understand AQAL, which is a multi-perspectival map of consciousness, meet the criteria for vision-logic, which is by definition the realm at which all previous developmental levels are grasped and respected. Cognitively, we are 2^nd Tier. To the extent that we identify with our cognition, the conclusion is that we are 2^nd Tier. This is a fundamental error, and I know of no passages in Wilber’s extensive writings that correct this fundamental and pernicious delusion.

This delusion is pernicious because it inevitably generates legitimization crises, such as the one that is seizing and collapsing our world. It does so because it fails to recognize that the self line lags, just as the cognitive line leads. It is fundamental because the self line is a measure of our combined cognitive, moral and empathetic development, not just a product of our degree of cognitive development, and tetra-mesh depends on the balancing not just of the four quadrants but these four core lines. What AQAL views as development to late personal or 2^nd Tier is actually development of the cognitive line and the mistaken identification of the self with it. It is mistaken because cognition is only one of three essential lines that comprise the self; it is therefore delusional because it is partial.

Because our moral and empathetic lines are lagging or fixated, our self line is as well. Without these three lines we cannot tetra-mesh. We lack the pre-requisite balance among our essential four core lines to achieve balance in the four quadrants. Our ability to sustain whatever altitude we attempt to achieve in our developmental pyramid is insufficient because our cognitive line, with which we falsely identify, runs off and leaves morality and empathy, due to the powerful siren calls of social validation, status, economic security and power, all of which are largely prepersonal developmental level priorities. Without them, we lack the requisite balance to sustain stable advancement to any higher stage. At best, we can have extraordinary breakthroughs on this or that line into this or that state, as mystics or near death experiencers do, but state awakenings and line proficiencies are not the same as tetra-mesh. This is an important factor for explaining why not only gurus, but entire civilizations, crash and burn.

Elites identify with their cognitive line because it is a requirement to become an elite in almost any field. Even in the arts and sports, people typically think they are who they think they are. Believing what you think and say is a key to persuasion, to getting people to do what you want. The development of the cognitive line, because of multiple social and cultural reinforcers as well as the addiction we develop to the control and validation it gives us, typically far outstrips our moral and empathetic lines. The result is addiction to “bubbles,” both economic and in consciousness. If we can only reach the next level of progress, if we can only get a certain percentage of humanity to 2^nd Tier, then we will work ourselves out of our Damocles dilemma. This line of reasoning has not worked and it will not, because it can’t. It lacks sufficient attention to fundamental elements required to generate the balance required to maintain altitude.

The consequences of mistakenly identifying with our thoughts

Because progress is given a priority over balance, this prescription for resolving our legitimization crisis and evolutionary self-correction merely feeds the fundamental problem: our mistaken identification of our self line with our cognitive line, which further widens the gap between who we think we are and our moral and empathetic lines. It also keeps us from knowing who we really are, which is based in part on an honest and realistic appraisal of our levels of moral and empathetic development. We cannot tetra-mesh, so we stay stuck in the delusion that we are developmental elites when in fact, we are nothing of the kind.

This is a fundamental delusion that AQAL, as it is currently constituted, unintentionally supports and maintains. It has made this mistake because it has confused development of the cognitive line with the self line and has therefore confused grasp of the cognitive map, AQAL, with an authentic knowledge of the territory itself. But that knowledge of the territory itself, necessary for tetra-mesh and advancement up the developmental progression, requires not only a pre-requisite knowledge of a map but moral and empathetic development that is not only not required for social and financial security and for status and power, but is discounted and even actively punished by our families, our employers, our national and personal priorities. We buy into contexts that create bubbles that are delusions of personal and societal development that become increasingly top-heavy, because they outrun the breadth and depth of moral, empathetic and self lines required to sustain them.

This general principle is equally applicable to the realm of transpersonal development and “spiritual elites,” such as meditators, those who embrace Integral AQAL, or those who view themselves as “cultural creatives,” “evolutionaries,” or New Agers. These people tend to emphasize their strong suits, such as consciousness and a multi-perspectival world view, both largely dependent on cognitive line development, while minimizing or ignoring their relatively weak moral and empathetic development. The result is that there is no authentic development of the self line, which is a pre-requisite for tetra-mesh.

The greater the imbalance, the less likely you are to get the tetra-mesh necessary to evolve to your next highest level.  The cognitive line is over-emphasized almost everywhere security, power, wealth and status are priorities, with the result that the other three cognitive lines of morality, empathy and self are under-emphasized. Since security, power, wealth and status are priorities for almost everyone in every society, what we are faced with is a pervasive under-development of other core lines in comparison to the cognitive line.[8] In human evolution, the cognitive line has far outstripped the evolution of the other three core lines and continues to do so.

To the extent that our sense of who we are identifies with our cognitive line we get “ego inflation,” grandiosity and narcissism, conditions that infect every stage of development, not just late personal as the mean green meme. This in turn blinds us to the reality that our level of development is based on the altitude of our lagging lines, that is, our level of moral and empathetic development. The inevitable conclusion is that if you want to know what your actual tetra-meshed level of development is, rather than your aspirational, cognitive, intentional and interior quadrant level of development is, look at the level of development of your lagging, most fixated line or lines. For reasons we will describe below and which are elaborated in Healing Integral, we typically greatly over-estimate the level of development of both our moral and empathetic lines.

Some consequences of our chronic elitism

This is all background to understand “aperspectival madness:” The greater the development of cognition at the expense of one or more of the other core lines, the more likely we are as individuals and as a society as a whole to experience a “legitimation crisis” leading to an “evolutionary self-correction.” It helps us to understand why the world is spinning out of control in many critical and fundamental ways. These include the vote in Britain for Brexit, the election of Trump, the deconstruction of the Democratic Party, Russophobia, chronic voting of people against their own economic interests, and the slow-motion collapse of multiple financial bubbles and economic institutions in the West, even as the stock market soars and rigged employment numbers continue to show “progress,” i.e., increases in GDP. Of more immediate concern to those of us concerned with the cutting edge of human development, our over-emphasis on development of the cognitive line and our identification with it helps explain the inability of Integral and spiritual elites in general to gain traction among the vast majority of both intellectual elites and the middle and lower classes of the world.

How post-modernism deconstructs itself

An “aperspectival” stance states that no perspective has universal validity. But this is itself a perspective, and therefore one that is fallacious because it is self-contradictory. It commits the performative fallacy by 1) implying that “aperspectival” is not itself a perspective when it obviously is, and by 2) further implying that aperspectivalism, otherwise known as post-modernism, is the one true perspective, while all the others are false. Wilber has made these same points.[9] Therefore, we can begin by dismissing the concept of “aperspectival,” upon which the Chinese ghost town of postmodernism is founded, as a fallacy. This does not mean that there is no value in post-modernism; rather, it indicates that by itself, without the other three balancing quadrants, post-modernism deconstructs not only modernism, but itself. As it does so, it brings down whatever societal institutions identify with it, meaning the deconstruction of most every elite you can name, even those that pose as pre-modern, like religions and cults. This is what has thrown liberals and conservatives, media and politicians, spiritual elites and scientific humanists, into a septic tank of fallacious reasoning and self-destructive beliefs and behaviors, from which they are yet to extract themselves.

Aperspectivalism is not multi-perspectivalism

The distinction between “aperspectivalism” and “multi-perspectivalism” is important. Whereas aperspectivalism says no perspective is true and is itself based on a logical fallacy, multi-perspectivalism says multiple perspectives are relatively true and that the more relevant perspectives that are taken into account, the more “true” your perspective is likely to be given a particular context. For example, the more blind scholars that are consulted regarding the various parts of an elephant, the more likely we are to gain an accurate composite description of an elephant. Still, the map is not the territory, and descriptions, which are what cognitive-based multi-perspectivalisms like Integral are, are maps. But growth and development is more than passing a class in cartography; we require a yoga or integral life practice that is relevant to important contexts and is not only cognitively but experientially multi-perspectival. Wilber’s Integral Life Practice and my Waking Up are examples of attempts to generate a behavioral balance to the over-emphasis on cognition and intention which are inherent in spiritual elites.[10]

An experiential multi-perspectivalism addresses multi-perspectivalism in all four of the core lines required for tetra-mesh to your next level of development. It is therefore not only a cognitive map but an experiential exploration of the territory of multi-perspectivalism.[11]

Experiential Multi-Perspectivalism in the Four Core Lines

A multi-perspectivalism is cognitive, like Wilber’s AQAL, while an experiential multi-perspectivalism is not only cognitive; it involves multiple disidentifications with your proximal self, who you think you are, and identifications with other perspectives that are not yet either distal or proximal selves. This twin process of disidentification/identification needs to be practiced not just in waking, but in dreaming and altered states. The intention of these identifications is the accessing of emerging potentials in the service of higher order wakefulness. Such broad-based identifications constitute an experiential multi-perspectivalism, and the first step is for the cognitive line to understand the concept so that it can differentiate the territory of multi-perspectivalism from a cognitive multi-perspectival map of it.

An experiential multi-perspectivalism requires multi-perspectivalism in all four core lines. What does an experiential multi-perspectivalism look like in each of these four lines?

Cognition: The cognitive line leads because without awareness we cannot objectify; without objectification we stay subjectively enmeshed in our contexts, which means that our current context is our truth. Postmodernist truth is defined by adherence to the dogma of aperpectivalism. The context integralists are immersed in, at least those of the AQAL variety, is that cognitive multi-pluralism balances all four core basic lines which in turn allows the four quadrants to tetra-mesh, moving the self to its next highest developmental level. Spiritual elites in general generally frame the core components for development as state expansions via mystical experiences, generally accessed through meditation, and the manifestation of love or wisdom or both within the cognitive context of their particular world view.  Like tire thieves jacking up one corner of a car, when you identify the self with your cognitive map, you not only produce something that won’t drive but a result that defeats the thieves as well. You have to jack up all four corners if you want to get to the next level – a full set of tires for your SVBIED (Suicide-Vehicle-Borne-Improvised-Explosive-Device).

“Evolutionaries,” “cultural creatives,” new agers and other members of the “spiritual elite” are immersed in their own version of cognitive levitation: “Because I am who I think I am, if I just think good and true thoughts, my prepersonal belief system, complete with my mystical and near death experiences that certify that I am indeed special, will magically transform all that pre-rationality into glorious trans-rational wonderfulness, propelling me into the realms of yogis, saints and sages.” (See The Cult of Positivity). The agnostic and atheistic scientific-humanistic intelligencia believe they are above all this because they either do math or have a PhD, wrote a book or headed a successful start-up. They pursue their own particular version of confusing who they think they are with the level of their cognitive development. The difference between a cognitive multi-perspectivalism, like AQAL, and an experiential multi-perspectivalism on the cognitive line, is that the latter insists on the same in the other three lines.

The Self: While the cognitive line leads, the self line follows. Because your thoughts create your reality, it does not follow that you are your thoughts. You are, at minimum, interior quadrant capabilities, such as your thoughts, intentions and values, plus exterior quadrant capabilities, such as the trustworthiness of your actions (your level of moral development) and your empathy (your ability to gain respect by experientially taking the perspective of others and then taking those perspectives into account in both your decision-making and your actions). These are exterior, social quadrant competencies because your level of both is not determined by you but by others. You don’t determine your trustworthiness; others do. You don’t determine how empathetic you are; others tell you how well your understandings and actions reflect their perspectives. Hubris is the inevitable result of not recognizing that the self line is dependent on the other two, in addition to cognition, for tetra-mesh. It represents the betrayal of accountability and transparency, critical external quadrant competencies.

While empirical yogas submit the results of integral life practice to peers in the method for validation, as Wilber points out in The Eye of Spirit, assessments of self-development in AQAL are not subject to objective social quadrant criteria. Other people do not have to sign off on your level of moral development or empathy for you to imagine that you are at late personal or 2^nd Tier. What do you suppose your level of development would look like if your life was an open book and the level of your moral and empathetic development were subject to the objective evaluation of all the people in the world?

People who understand AQAL generally assume that they have evolved to at least late personal and probably 2^nd tier because they understand those levels and they identify with their understandings. However, there can be no tetra-mesh to any level without meeting objective, not subjective, developmental criteria in your moral and empathetic lines, in addition to your cognitive line, because your self line is comprised of at least these three. (There are some twenty other helpful but not pre-requisite lines that greatly broaden the self.)

Empathy: The critical element in the relationship line is empathy, because it requires so many other interpersonal skills, such as listening, respect, clear communication, emotional responsibility, authenticity and transparency. Empathy is not monolithic, but evolves in stages, just like other lines. It begins with simple awareness of the other, then mimics this or that characteristic, then concrete role playing, then identifying with the internalized self-sense of the other, then deepening and refining the occasions and ways in which that identification is employed, then generalizing to empathy with multiple human, then both human and non-human, sentient and non-sentient, “real” and imaginary perspectives. In each of these steps, an equal and opposite ability to disidentify is cultivated.

Most of us are sure we are empathetic, largely because we have no clue about broader types of empathy. We imagine higher order empathy as egalitarianism, pluralism, altruism, universal love or Buddhist compassion for all sentient beings. An experiential multi-perspectivalism exposes higher orders of empathy to be much broader and textured than any of these concepts. If we do have such recognitions, those more advanced varieties of empathy are conceptual rather than experiential integrations of broader, more refined varieties of empathy. To grasp higher order empathy you have to grow into it. In order to do so, you have to have one or more effective methodologies designed to provide you with experiences of same.

Morality and empathy are related but distinct. While morality is a determination of our trustworthiness by others, empathy reflects our ability to accurately assume the perspective of another and take it into account in our behavior. It does not mean we have to agree or conform to the expectations of others, but it does mean that there is objective validation that we understand their perspective not just on a cognitive but experiential, four quadrant level. The miserable state of the level of development of our empathetic line is evident in our tolerance of exploitation and our economic participation in it; our support of war, that is, the tolerance of the institutional killing of people with concerns very similar to our own; our tolerance of economic insecurity and poverty and our tolerance of the senseless and needless death of children both in our neighborhood and world-wide. It is also evident in our unwillingness to disidentify with addictions, scriptings, dramas, models and self-definitions when and where doing so is supportive of our development, reflecting an inability or unwillingness to identify with emerging potentials that reflect the priorities of our life compass. While a cognitive multi-perspectival empathy involves the acceptance of the need for increasing the breadth and depth of our empathy, an experiential multi-perspectival empathy involves an integral life practice which intentionally cultivates both disidentification and identification across a broad variety of life realms, not just one, as meditation generally does.

While we normally cannot conceive of realistic levels of empathy that transcend and include our own, society does not want us to develop higher order empathy because it threatens group cohesiveness. Perhaps the best example of this is the training of soldiers in all countries in all centuries. Soldiers are not only taught primary loyalty to the chain of command and their fellow fighters, but to denigrate the humanity of their opponents so they can be killed without sticky, complicating factors like conscience and remorse getting in the way. Self-confidence in business and relationships often earns respect, power and status even when it is completely devoid of empathy. We can see this in relationships in which an employee or a partner remains devoted even when a supervisor or partner is non-empathetic and abusive. Because of such headwinds, most people possess nowhere near the level of empathy that they imagine that they do. The use of cognitive distortions as well as immersion in the Drama Triangle prohibit the development of empathy; their presence is an indication of its absence.

Morality: Elites, spiritual and otherwise, use various ruses and rationalizations to claim moral high ground and excuse their immorality and amorality. This is not intentional or some nefarious plot; it’s human nature; I do the same thing. These strategies include shifting the blame, exceptionalism, thinking, “everybody’s doing it,” or “I will be punished economically or socially blackballed if I act morally,” or “this one time won’t hurt,” or simple indifference. AQAL accomplishes the same simply by conflating interior criteria of level of development of moral judgement with exterior criteria of trustworthiness. Unless this distinction is made, we conclude that our level of moral judgment is much higher than it actually is.

While Lawrence Kohlberg and his Theory of Moral Development have made important contributions to our understanding of the development of moral judgment in childhood, it can easily used to greatly inflate our own level of moral development. By providing a research-based and sophisticated intellectual rationalization for a belief in moral behavior where only competency in moral judgment exists, it inadvertently defeats the recognition of moral indifference, fixation and regression. This leads to both “aperspectival madness” and to “legitimization crises” and “evolutionary self-corrections,” that are societal (Trump and Brexit), institutional (Integral AQAL and elites in general) and personal (loss in credibility and respect). As we shall see, this is due to a confusion of moral judgment, an interior quadrant criteria, with moral trustworthiness, an exterior quadrant criteria.

An experiential multi-perspectivalism on the moral line respects waking, dream and imaginary others as if they were aspects of oneself without imputing that ontological status. Disidentification and identification involves first becoming and then listening in a deep and integral way, such as taught by Integral Deep Listening.[/leezen_vc_section_title][leezen_vc_section_title heading_type=”h3″ title=”Disastrous results of the misapplication of Kohlberg’s model of moral development” title_transform=”capitalize” title_weight=”600″ alignment=”left” title_size=”20px”]Because morality is likely to be both a personal and cultural lagging or fixated line preventing tetra-mesh, we need to understand how Kohlberg got Integral AQAL (and elites in general) off track and what is required to get it back on again. Kohlberg’s three stages of moral development are based on his studies of moral judgment. Judgment is an interior quadrant capability. We can argue over whether moral judgement is mostly an internal individual quadrant issue of intention and thinking or an internal collective quadrant issue of values, culture and world view, but in either case moral judgment is a process of decision-making that individuals do inside their own heads. What Wilber and almost everyone else does, due to human nature but as validated by the authority of Kohlberg, is assume that moral judgment 1) leads to and 2) predicts, trustworthiness in behavior and relationships, that is, in the external quadrants. But it doesn’t. This is a logical and pragmatic fallacy.

Wilber, following Kohlberg, is quite clear that developmental stages on all lines, including morality, transcend and include the previous ones, in a more or less irreversible progression. More adequate perspectives replace less adequate ones. As explained in Healing Integral, he seems to have picked this concept up from Piaget, who indeed showed that at least some forms of cognitive development do not reverse. Wilber applied the concept to the other core lines, where the data simply does not exist. For Wilber, at worst, one gets “fixated” at their level of development, hence the “mean green meme,” instead of experiencing a complete melt-down to a lower level of development. Even an “evolutionary self-correction” is not a regressive melt-down but rather more of a “pause” due to capture of leading lines by the “mean green meme” or some other fulcrum fixation. Wilber does not accept the idea that liberals and neoliberals could actually be regressing in their core lines, much less that they only evolved their cognitive line past mid-prepersonal, because to make core lines reversible means that progress is reversible. To say that we are morally and empathetically at mid-prepersonal is to say that with the exception of our cognitive line, we really haven’t evolved. We really haven’t made progress. This is a direct threat to the myth of progress and ascensionist models such as AQAL, as currently constructed.

To clarify, our argument is not that we have not made progress; we most certainly have. It is rather to argue that the progress has been largely in cognitive and various auxillary lines, such as those associated with the successful development of technologies.  Personal progress stagnated at the mean level of society and culture in general, which is broadly mid-prepersonal. Economic security and social acceptability is largely determined by exterior measures, including prevailing groupthink, and these work to prevent empathy and morality from rising beyond socio-cultural norms. Because these two critical core lines remain stuck at mid-prepersonal, the self line, whose development is dependent upon all three other core lines, not just the cognitive line, also remains stuck at mid-prepersonal. A fuller description of what it means to be stuck at mid-prepersonal is below.

If regression is possible or if core lines really haven’t evolved at all, “evolutionary self-corrections” are massive social and cultural regressions rather than merely the dark side of attained levels of development. I will leave it to you to decide whether the destruction of the libraries of Alexandra and Nalanda, and Indian Buddhism under the merciless onslaught of the Moslem invasion, the destruction of the massive library in Baghdad that held priceless and irreplaceable Greek and Roman manuscripts, thrown into the Euphrates by Mongols in such amounts that the river turned black for days, are merely the dark side of some evolutionary level of development or massive social and cultural regressions. I will leave it to you to decide whether the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was an “oops moment” of a highly-civilized level of development or whether it was a full-fledged regression to mid-prepersonal. Are we really prepared to say that extraordinary rendition and torture conducted by American elites, doctors and psychologists, and largely supported or ignored by a broad cross-section of the American public, are the dark side of a highly-developed state of consciousness?  Do we really want to claim that such events “must be” the acts of little evolved neoconservatives, ethnocentrists, tribalists and deplorables when we know they were consensus policies of careerist bureaucrats appointed by both Democratic and Republican administrations who are more invested in their own positions than in ideologies? That many of these policies were undertaken by Democrats, liberals and neoliberals who supposedly have attained late personal, like Barak Obama, not only demolishes that argument but makes a mockery of the concept of his personal development to late personal. “I intend democracy, freedom and human rights for all” is easy enough for anyone to say. Intentionality and judgment are not measures of morality in the public domain; trustworthiness is.

For Kohlberg, as for Wilber, post-conventional judgment includes and transcends conventional moral judgment, which includes and transcends pre-conventional moral judgment. According to Kohlberg, if your level of moral judgment contains, for example, the injunction, “include the interests of others in your evaluation of what you do,” your moral decision-making takes that into account. You don’t go back to a purely narcissistic and hedonistic moral judgment: “I only need to consider my desires.”

Most of us can read Kohlberg’s criteria for development at each of his four stages and check off the boxes:

Pre-Conventional: “I avoid punishment; Check.” “I can act in my own self-interest. Check;”

Conventional: “I am a good citizen and can follow group norms. Check;”

Post-Conventional: “I can and do disobey wrong rules and act consistently with my own principles. Check.”

We can even go beyond Kohlberg, as Wilber does, into post-post conventional morality, and ask, “Do I support egalitarianism, pluralism and compassion for all sentient beings? Check.” We are now moral paragons because we understand the cognitive model of moral development and can cite instances in our life where we do indeed meet these standards. This allows us to believe we meet the moral standards required to qualify as late personal or 2^nd tier when, like Hillary Clinton, our actual behavior can be both immoral and lack empathy.

The moral criterion that matters is objective trustworthiness, not subjective intention

This comfortable but deadly delusion of moral excellence goes undetected because our intentions are so identified with our sense of who we are. Our actions must be moral because our intentions are pure. We divorce our morality from our trustworthiness, which is an objective determination of our level of moral development in the external quadrants, particularly the external collective social quadrant. You don’t care about my self-assessment of my level of moral development, nor about the honorableness of my intentions. You don’t care about my level of moral judgment. All of these things are interior, cognitive and intentional judgments of morality. Instead, you want to know if I will lie to you, and about what. You want to know if I will steal from you. You want to know if I will respect your interests even if I don’t agree with them or even if I desire to possess what you have.  You want to know if I will abuse or kill you.

These are the standards by which the commons, that is, the populations of the countries of the world, judge your level of moral development. In the context of Kohlberg’s model, they want to know if you are stuck at pre-conventional level of morality, as indicated by the previous criteria, because if you are, trust and respect must be provided very carefully and specifically, depending on the situation, contract or negotiation. Anyone who doesn’t ask these questions or have such concerns is likely naïve, self-destructive or already in collusion and compromised.

We commonly make contracts with others that tacitly say, “I won’t call out your immorality if you won’t call out mine.” In financially dependent relationships the unspoken but clearly understood agreement often is, “I will pay you and you will not only do what I tell you; you will do immoral things if you want to keep your job (or your status as kept partner).” With politicians, the tacit civilian contract is, “I will concede to you immoral amounts and applications of power because I need to delegate my responsibilities.” This has much less to do with trust than with a desire to wash our hands of culpability in the dirty aspects of keeping a society functioning.

Even tribalists and ethnocentrists understand this because we all depend on accurate information in these areas to create secure and stable relationships and to do business with each other. While we use measures of trustworthiness, an exterior quadrant objective measure, to make determinations of the level of moral development of others, we generally judge our own morality merely by our intentions, an interior quadrant criteria. This is a double standard that is hypocritical and leads to aperspectival madness and hubris.

Morality, as differentiated from moral judgment, is centrally an objective social construct, not a subjective, interior and cognitive one because morality is unnecessary in the absence of others. If we lived alone, morality would be unnecessary, nor would it develop. Therefore, any coherent discussion of morality is going to involve accountability: “How do others evaluate my level of moral development?” “How do others evaluate my trustworthiness?” If I can eliminate transparency, as the government does by labeling information “secret” if there is a remote possibility that it will embarrass bureaucrats or officials, you have no way of objective evaluating my trustworthiness. Morality boils down to interior appeals: “Trust me.” Obviously, trustworthiness via accountability to the commons is an entirely different question from moral judgment. We have seen that as a subjective criteria, even when evaluated in psychological experiments, as Kohlberg and others have done, moral judgment is not accountable to public determinations of trustworthiness. You can be post-conventional in your moral judgment and still lie, cheat, steal and kill. This is an indication that you are post-conventional only in your cognitive line and, because you identify with your cognitive line, you imagine you are post-conventional in your morality. This gives you what appears to be a free pass into the realms of higher development when it is actually a ticket to grandiosity and massive narcissistic inflation of your sense of who you are.

The pervasiveness of conspiratorial hypocrisy

The strong and pervasive delusion that moral judgment and intent is a reliable measure of morality is partially due to our cocooning ourselves in family and work situations where our moral status quo is less likely to be challenged. In fact, there typically exists strong silent collusion not to challenge the morality of either our motives or our actions. The result is that we can slide by on a persona of respectability, because our morality may not get tested in any significant way. Another common dodge is to disassociate ourselves from our immoral and amoral or indifferent acts: “It wasn’t me; I didn’t know what I was doing.” We also trivialize them and their effect: “My smoking, drinking and other addictive behaviors have no negative role-modelling effect on my children.” We can use ignorance as a defense against our amorality and immorality: “Nuclear war on North Korea? I can’t even find it on a map.” Another favorite is, “I have evolved beyond the need to respect collective socio-cultural ethical norms.”

Our moral and empathetic lines are not only exposed to the public; they interact with it, both influencing others and changing us as a result of those interactions. What you get when you identify your sense of self with your cognitive line is something different: the belief that interior criteria, such as moral judgment, constitute tetra-mesh, catapulting you into delusional developmental utopias. This is the groupthink of Integral and indeed, of spiritual elites in general.

Another reason for this is that objective determinations of morality are notoriously difficult. Lying, cheating, stealing and even killing can on rare occasion, be done in accordance with the Prime Directive, the Golden Rule and Kohlberg’s post-conventional level of morality. Consequently, it is quite normal for us to think that our own lying, cheating, stealing and killing fall in these rarefied realms of exceptions to common social acceptability while, of course, such actions directed at us by others do not. Morality is not, in the social quadrant, meaning contemporary and historical collective judgment, our interior quadrant intentions.

Moral hypocrisy generates legitimation crises

When we can no longer hide behind intention and are unable to escape that conclusion, we have to face the reality that morality is based on trustworthiness. We may then earn ourselves a well-deserved legitimation crisis. On a personal level, this is clearly observed in some varieties of post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide among veterans. Often this is precipitated by a return to a larger social context that does not share either the exceptionalistic morality or the esprit de corps of the military. Unable to continue to rationalize the immorality of their wartime actions, they are confronted with the fact that their intentions do not justify or excuse the immorality of what they have done.

Like soldiers, we do not easily spot our own immorality because we are subjectively enmeshed in social contexts that support it. For example, slavery did not continue to exist because people did not know it was evil; it continued to exist because people were locked in social contexts that accepted and promoted it, generally for economic reasons. Slave owners not only didn’t feel bad about it; they rationalized it using scripture and as a reflection of God’s will. The caste system in India has maintained itself in India for thousands of years by similar mental gymnastics. Good intentions can easily be used to promote, use and maintain the most inhumane of abuses.

Our variety of the esprit de corps used by the military to avoid adherence to collective standards of morality is our unthinking acceptance of the values and beliefs of whatever groups that we respect or depend on. We are only likely to experience a legitimization crisis when and if the intentions of those groups that we respect are challenged in ways that we cannot counteract. Such has been occurring for neoliberals and the Democratic Party with the election of Trump. The best they have been able to do in way of defense is diversion: blame Russia. They have been unable to throw up any acceptable justifications for the capitulation of Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party to the values of the Republican Party. While the faithful continue to excuse these massive failures, generally through identifying with bait and switch identity politics issues that have worked to keep attention off of wholesale larceny, considerable segments of the public aren’t buying it any more. More people are awakening to the conclusion that they are in collusion with an immoral and self-destructive system that will remain in place regardless of who they elect.

Regarding our own actions, it is safest to assume that we chronically excuse, minimize, rationalize or are indifferent to those of our actions which are immoral or amoral. To compensate for this universal tendency, we need to low-ball our own level of moral development if we want to match our self-perception with the likely perceptions of others. After all, this is exactly what we do with most other individuals and groups, if we are wise. We either suspend judgment or suspend trust until given reasons to do so. We then provide trust only in those areas where we have reason to be confident that it is warranted.

Why say we are stuck at a mid-prepersonal level of development? Why not something higher?”

There are several reasons. As you read the following, think of people you know who consider themselves late personal or 2^nd tier, perhaps because they grasp AQAL, and see how much of the following applies to them.

It is no wonder that most people do not like to contemplate the possibility that their level of development is largely mid-prepersonal. As noted above, most of us judge our development by our strongest, cognitive line and not by our weakest, lagging and fixated core lines. A good rule of thumb for determining level of development is to ask, “What is the weakest, most regressed or fixated of my four major lines?” If you do so, you will necessarily conclude that by definition, your moral and empathetic lines lag behind your cognitive line and that your self line, because it is composed of at least, your cognitive, moral and empathetic lines, is necessarily the most lagging line. But the only way that you can assess how much your self line is lagging is by asking, “Of my moral and empathetic line, which is most lagging? Which is most fixated? How do I tell how and where it is fixated? Here are some criteria for a mid-prepersonal determination.

You can and will find competent, capable, and remarkable people who are stabilized at mid-prepersonal. People at mid-prepersonal can be as intelligent, moral and capable as people at higher levels of development. In fact, they can be geniuses, savants or mystically gifted. Their ability to adapt to the realities of the world may indeed be superior to unbalanced individuals at higher stages. They may have fewer tools in their tool kit, but those who have achieved tetra-mesh at mid-prepersonal are likely to be quite capable of using the ones they do have effectively and meaningfully. A person who is authentically at mid-prepersonal is healthier and better to be around than a person who has highly developed lines and has never balanced at mid-prepersonal. And I can assure you, most people have not.

Can you have someone who is a PhD, college professor or President who is at mid-prepersonal? Clearly, yes. Essentially, think of someone who has a highly developed cognitive line who remains ruled by their emotional preferences, like a dog or a two-year old. There is nothing intrinsically wrong, bad or evil about mid-prepersonal, just as there is nothing intrinsically wrong, bad or evil about a dog or your average two-year old. I have known, and you probably have too, people who were vibrant and passionately alive emotionally – spontaneous, present and authentic, yet could think and be completely present with you. Such people are a joy to be around because they make us free to feel whatever we feel and to feel alive!

But most people have not reached a healthy balance at mid-prepersonal. Their feelings are not partners but their masters. To take a vivid unhealthy example, narcissistic personality disordered individuals function at mid-prepersonal. A person can be quite high functioning, achieving great wealth and be of advanced social status while remaining at mid-prepersonal, not yet balanced, not yet able to tetra-mesh to late prepersonal. These people can be quite charming, seductive, successful and socially desirable. They may make great CEOs, lovers, lawyers or Presidents. Or, they may be middle or lower class typical folks.

Pre-conventional morality is mid-prepersonal in that it is about the avoidance of punishment and acting in one’s own self-interest. These are emotionally-driven intentions based on fear and wants. At mid-prepersonal, you and I think we are our feelings: “I am sad/angry/confused/scared.” We are controlled by our feelings; our thinking is in the service of making us feel happy or sad or to make us avoid “bad” feelings.

Mid-prepersonal individuals identify with their preferences, seeking what they like and avoiding what they dislike. They want to be “happy,” which is an emotional state. A goal of seeking happiness and therefore avoiding unhappiness, guarantees that their life will be an emotional roller-coaster.

People attempting to find balance at mid-prepersonal make decisions based not only wanting to “feel good” but on fear of punishment, rejection, lack of physical and economic security, loss of status and greed. They ask, “What’s in it for me?” Because mid-prepersonal individuals want to “feel good,” they are excellent targets for advertisers. Most advertising is designed to have consumers associate good feelings with some product. Because people at mid-prepersonal are controlled by their feelings, they are also impulse buyers, but can just as quickly grow bored, impatient or tired of a possession or partner. What looks like empathy is at best a sharing of the emotions other people are expressing, something that can provide powerful, positive and healing experiences. At worst, what looks like empathy is role playing designed to manipulate others into giving them what they want. Mid-prepersonal individuals can be quite convincing actors conveying altruism, compassion and genuine affection – if these emotions help them get what they want.

Mid-prepersonal is the realm of familial-group bonding and an “us vs. them” mentality. We have seen how cognition is easily much more highly developed, simply by going to school, being a good student, or being intellectually curious. As a result, cognitive development easily runs off and leaves the moral, empathetic and self lines, leaving the impression that we are dealing with mature individuals when they have never learned how to deal with their emotions.  Those attempting to tetra-mesh at mid-prepersonal, no matter how advanced, use cognition to justify feelings. Sophisticated econometric models supporting trickle-down and austerity economics that justify the transferal of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the upper classes are excellent examples of the cognitive line in service of mid-prepersonal emotions.

Mid-prepersonal individuals view the world in terms of the three emotion-based roles of persecutor, victim and rescuer and endlessly circulate among them. Lying and other forms of abuse and persecution can be acceptable and expected practices when issues of profit, status, landing a mate or personal or national security are involved. Self-rescuing addictions don’t have to be about drugs, alcohol and smoking. Most self-rescuing addictions are more subtle, sophisticated and damaging. People at mid-prepersonal seek rescuing by others or lose themselves in various forms of self-rescuing, such as dependent relationships, surfing the internet, using work as an avoidance strategy or become addicted to the acquisition of wealth. Mid-prepersonal is the realm of addiction to self-rescuing, trance-inducing sedatives, like the pursuit of comfort at the expense of growth-promoting challenges and the avoidance of responsibility. It is also the core domain of pre-rational emotional cognitive distortions such as black and white thinking, emotional reasoning, always being right, and many more. These people personalize everything. If you say something, don’t say something, look at them, don’t look at them, laugh, cry, belch, whatever…it’s about them. They are not only the center of their reality; what you do or don’t do generates feelings that they think are about them that you have created, but have absolutely nothing to do with you. Instead, they are projections of their fantasies regarding your intentions that they project onto you.

Those at mid-prepersonal are closely identified with their familial and cultural scripts. Their ideas of personal fulfillment and happiness are based on values internalized as “conscience” when they were young. Family, work and entertainment cultures expect and even demand that people function according to mid-prepersonal script injunctions, even though society at the same time pays a great premium for advanced cognitive line development. Socio-cultural norms demand the cognitive line serve mid-prepersonal norms of cultural groupthink, conformity, drama, fear-based action and tolerance of exploitative business and social actions.

Aperspectival madness is not due to the mean green meme

Aperspectival madness is due to a vast imbalance between our supposed level of development to late personal or 2^nd tier and our actual level of development, which is determined by our most lagging or fixated of our core lines. This vast imbalance is based on one hand in an elevationistic identification of the self with the cognitive line and on the other, with the minimization of the grossly stunted state of our genuine moral and empathetic development. Without these two, an authentic self cannot evolve, which means that our actual level of development is indicated by our lagging lines. Because few, if any of us, in our present culture, meet Kohlberg’s criteria for conventional morality when we are judged by a broad cross section of the world’s population regarding trustworthiness, and taking our addictions and worst moments into consideration, we qualify for a mid-prepersonal level of development, far below our cognitive line. This creates a massive imbalance that prevents the tetra-mesh necessary for development to late prepersonal, or whatever your next highest level is.

Tools for developing empathy and moral accountability

Learning empathy and moral accountability requires more than the feedback of others; you need to learn to access and interview emerging potentials both in the form of dream characters and personifications of life issues of importance to you. An example of such a personification would be a pain in your back that feels like a burning fire. The fire is a visual metaphor that can be interviewed, just like a dream character. Instructions for how to interview both can be found here. You need to do such interviews because objective sources of feedback, such as friends, family members, co-workers and various categories of “experts” are still rendering subjective judgments that are enmeshed in their own particular variety of groupthink. This does not discredit their input, but it does mean it is invested with their priorities, groupthink and cognitive-emotional filtering. Becoming and interviewing subjective sources of objectivity such as dream characters and the personifications of life issues important to you can and will align your goals with priorities of your life compass in ways that both your own judgment and the preferences of others cannot. Your own judgment is subjectively enmeshed, by definition, and the preferences of others don’t know you as do interviewed subjective sources of objectivity which, after all, are at least partially self-aspects. Integral Deep Listening, the modality that teaches such interviewing, is a yoga or integral life practice that teaches experiential multi-perspectivalism that promotes realism in all four lines. The result is an assessment that we are very likely stuck at the mid-prepersonal level of moral and empathetic development of our collective human condition. It is wise to assume this is indeed the case unless there is good collaborated evidence that your lagging or fixated line(s) are at a higher level. When others claim that they are at a higher level of development, be skeptical; ask questions and ask for evidence. Then apply that same standard to yourself.

How to attain a realistic assessment of your level of moral development

To get grounded in a realistic appraisal of your level of moral development you have to take the appraisals of both your friends and enemies into account. You can’t base it on how honorable you appear when you are at your best; you have to base your level of moral development on how you are when you are at your worst, taking your addictions into account. If you don’t, you will ignore or gloss over your lagging fixated core lines and thereby prohibit your ability to tetra-mesh, necessary for growth into your next highest level of development. This is exactly the hubris of elites. They are convinced of their exceptionalism, which excuses them from being judged by the same normative standards as say, the poor, uneducated, non-citizens, or other non-members of whatever “club” you are in, where exclusion of some other group makes an important statement of group identity.

There is considerable evidence that as individuals and as a culture, civilization as a whole and more specifically, Western, post-enlightenment technocratic and plutocratic culture, does not achieve Kohlberg’s criteria for conventional morality, much less post-conventional morality. This is because we do not acquire a passing grade to graduate out of moral kindergarten. We are still focused on narcissistic desires to avoid punishment and act in our own self-interest, as demonstrated by our self-evaluation by our level of cognitive development and our intentions rather than by how others judge us in the exterior quadrants. We continue to lie, steal, abuse and murder, not only others but ourselves. To those who say, “I do not kill others,” the response is, “Who gives you the right to avoid the collective responsibility you bear as a beneficiary of the social contract you uphold to maintain your physical and economic security?” To those who say, “I do not kill myself,” the response is, “You have no addictions? You have no self-destructive behaviors?” To those who say, “But you make the criteria so universal that there is no way that anyone can ever rise above a pre-conventional level of morality!” the response is, “You know you lie, cheat, steal and kill both others and yourself in multiple ways. Stop lying to yourself. That’s the first step. Don’t waste your time in guilt and remorse. Just stop.

Of course, you won’t eliminate all of it, but you can do a lot better. A little honesty, humility and intellectual integrity is the first critical step toward an authentic move out of pre-conventional morality. The second step is to identify ways you lie, cheat, steal and kill both others and yourself. The next is to make a plan about how to catch and reduce them. Enlist feedback from those who like and don’t like you so that you are both accountable and transparent in your behavior. In addition, keep putting yourself in circumstances that challenge yourself ethically. If you don’t, you will cocoon yourself in socio-cultural echo chambers that will convince you that your level of moral development is quite high when in fact, it is not being challenged to grow.

By subjecting your level of morality to the judgment of others you are not conforming to their expectations. However, you are not ignoring their expectations either. You are simply taking objective factors into account in your self-assessment. It is fantasy to believe that at 2^nd tier or transpersonal levels of development you are no longer subject to group norms of morality. In fact, the opposite is true; you are more subject to group norms of morality because your identity is increasingly a collective one that includes the needs of others. To imagine that what others think is somehow no longer important is to dismiss accountability in the social quadrant and to thereby deny yourself tetra-mesh. It is to stay lost in delusion and hubris. You may continue to have status among your peers, but you will possess no personal credibility among the general public, because they will find you untrustworthy. This will in turn cost you in credibility, respect and eventually power. Hillary Clinton is a case study in this dynamic.

Until you make yourself transparent and accountable to the commons, not to your cultural, intellectual peers, your over-estimation of your level of development will form an unbridgeable chasm between you and the vast majority of fellow travelers on our living spaceship as you continue to reside in a bubble of aperspectival madness. You will constantly be laying the foundation for a “legitimization crisis” that necessitates some “evolutionary self-correction.” On a personal level, if you do make yourself transparent and accountable, there will be consequences. When you change your definition of what is ethical and what is not you will put yourself in conflict with those in your life who have not done so and see no reason to do so. This may result in a loss of friends, work, status or even family members. But your object is not to alienate people; instead, lovingly explain your motives and demonstrate a respectful understanding of the perspectives of others even if you disagree with them.

On a civilizational level, moral jeopardy leads to collapse. In both cases, personal and societal, retrenchment is required because honesty and authenticity are necessary for self-respect and to gain the respect of those who value honesty and authenticity.

Why and how we create imbalance

It appears to be human nature, whatever that is, to emphasize our strengths and minimize our weaknesses, our future possibilities instead of our past limitations. While we can observe this tendency in animals as well, this favoritism is greatly increased for humans due to various social pressures, such as praise for success and punishment for failure, leading us to emphasize those areas where success is more likely and minimize or ignore those areas in which we are weak, and where failure, and therefore both self-criticism and a loss of social status are more likely.

Balance is hardly as glamorous as genius. Balance doesn’t sell books, win contracts or gain clients. Most people are looking to buy “gee whiz” moments of catharsis, insight and inspiration, not discipline and responsibility. They want the freedom they associate with comfort and validation, not the freedom that comes from effort and learning from failure. Like an addictive fix, mystical and near death experiences, psychic phenomena and claims to enlightenment lure us because we want to believe in ourselves and our specialness. We want to believe that perfection is always already present and we don’t have to do shit to earn it or deserve it. It is not only that hope blinds reason; it is that aspiration runs off and leaves our pre-requisite need for balance. Look at the disciples of secular and spiritual gurus of your choice and draw your own conclusions.

Why say we are stuck at a mid-prepersonal level of development? Why not something higher?

There are several reasons. As you read the following, think of people you know who consider themselves late personal or 2^nd tier, perhaps because they grasp AQAL, and see how much of the following applies to them.

It is no wonder that most people do not like to contemplate the possibility that their level of development is largely mid-prepersonal. As noted above, most of us judge our development by our strongest, cognitive line and not by our weakest, lagging and fixated core lines. A good rule of thumb for determining level of development is to ask, “What is the weakest, most regressed or fixated of my four major lines?” If you do so, you will necessarily conclude that by definition, your moral and empathetic lines lag behind your cognitive line and that your self line, because it is composed of at least, your cognitive, moral and empathetic lines, is necessarily the most lagging line. But the only way that you can assess how much your self line is lagging is by asking, “Of my moral and empathetic line, which is most lagging? Which is most fixated? How do I tell how and where it is fixated? Here are some criteria for a mid-prepersonal determination.

You can and will find competent, capable, and remarkable people who are stabilized at mid-prepersonal. People at mid-prepersonal can be as intelligent, moral and capable as people at higher levels of development. In fact, they can be geniuses, savants or mystically gifted. Their ability to adapt to the realities of the world may indeed be superior to unbalanced individuals at higher stages. They may have fewer tools in their tool kit, but those who have achieved tetra-mesh at mid-prepersonal are likely to be quite capable of using the ones they do have effectively and meaningfully. A person who is authentically at mid-prepersonal is healthier and better to be around than a person who has highly developed lines and has never balanced at mid-prepersonal. And I can assure you, most people have not.

Can you have someone who is a PhD, college professor or President who is at mid-prepersonal? Clearly, yes. Essentially, think of someone who has a highly developed cognitive line who remains ruled by their emotional preferences, like a dog or a two-year old. There is nothing intrinsically wrong, bad or evil about mid-prepersonal, just as there is nothing intrinsically wrong, bad or evil about a dog or your average two-year old. I have known, and you probably have too, people who were vibrant and passionately alive emotionally – spontaneous, present and authentic, yet could think and be completely present with you. Such people are a joy to be around because they make us free to feel whatever we feel and to feel alive!

But most people have not reached a healthy balance at mid-prepersonal. Their feelings are not partners but their masters. To take a vivid unhealthy example, narcissistic personality disordered individuals function at mid-prepersonal. A person can be quite high functioning, achieving great wealth and be of advanced social status while remaining at mid-prepersonal, not yet balanced, not yet able to tetra-mesh to late prepersonal. These people can be quite charming, seductive, successful and socially desirable. They may make great CEOs, lovers, lawyers or Presidents. Or, they may be middle or lower class typical folks.

Pre-conventional morality is mid-prepersonal in that it is about the avoidance of punishment and acting in one’s own self-interest. These are emotionally-driven intentions based on fear and wants. At mid-prepersonal, you and I think we are our feelings: “I am sad/angry/confused/scared.” We are controlled by our feelings; our thinking is in the service of making us feel happy or sad or to make us avoid “bad” feelings.

Mid-prepersonal individuals identify with their preferences, seeking what they like and avoiding what they dislike. They want to be “happy,” which is an emotional state. A goal of seeking happiness and therefore avoiding unhappiness, guarantees that their life will be an emotional roller-coaster.

People attempting to find balance at mid-prepersonal make decisions based not only wanting to “feel good” but on fear of punishment, rejection, lack of physical and economic security, loss of status and greed. They ask, “What’s in it for me?” Because mid-prepersonal individuals want to “feel good,” they are excellent targets for advertisers. Most advertising is designed to have consumers associate good feelings with some product. Because people at mid-prepersonal are controlled by their feelings, they are also impulse buyers, but can just as quickly grow bored, impatient or tired of a possession or partner. What looks like empathy is at best a sharing of the emotions other people are expressing, something that can provide powerful, positive and healing experiences. At worst, what looks like empathy is role playing designed to manipulate others into giving them what they want. Mid-prepersonal individuals can be quite convincing actors conveying altruism, compassion and genuine affection – if these emotions help them get what they want.

Mid-prepersonal is the realm of familial-group bonding and an “us vs. them” mentality. We have seen how cognition is easily much more highly developed, simply by going to school, being a good student, or being intellectually curious. As a result, cognitive development easily runs off and leaves the moral, empathetic and self lines, leaving the impression that we are dealing with mature individuals when they have never learned how to deal with their emotions.  Those attempting to tetra-mesh at mid-prepersonal, no matter how advanced, use cognition to justify feelings. Sophisticated econometric models supporting trickle-down and austerity economics that justify the transferal of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the upper classes are excellent examples of the cognitive line in service of mid-prepersonal emotions.

Mid-prepersonal individuals view the world in terms of the three emotion-based roles of persecutor, victim and rescuer and endlessly circulate among them. Lying and other forms of abuse and persecution can be acceptable and expected practices when issues of profit, status, landing a mate or personal or national security are involved. Self-rescuing addictions don’t have to be about drugs, alcohol and smoking. Most self-rescuing addictions are more subtle, sophisticated and damaging. People at mid-prepersonal seek rescuing by others or lose themselves in various forms of self-rescuing, such as dependent relationships, surfing the internet, using work as an avoidance strategy or become addicted to the acquisition of wealth. Mid-prepersonal is the realm of addiction to self-rescuing, trance-inducing sedatives, like the pursuit of comfort at the expense of growth-promoting challenges and the avoidance of responsibility. It is also the core domain of pre-rational emotional cognitive distortions such as black and white thinking, emotional reasoning, always being right, and many more. These people personalize everything. If you say something, don’t say something, look at them, don’t look at them, laugh, cry, belch, whatever…it’s about them. They are not only the center of their reality; what you do or don’t do generates feelings that they think are about them that you have created, but have absolutely nothing to do with you. Instead, they are projections of their fantasies regarding your intentions that they project onto you.

Those at mid-prepersonal are closely identified with their familial and cultural scripts. Their ideas of personal fulfillment and happiness are based on values internalized as “conscience” when they were young. Family, work and entertainment cultures expect and even demand that people function according to mid-prepersonal script injunctions, even though society at the same time pays a great premium for advanced cognitive line development. Socio-cultural norms demand the cognitive line serve mid-prepersonal norms of cultural groupthink, conformity, drama, fear-based action and tolerance of exploitative business and social actions.[/leezen_vc_section_title][leezen_vc_section_title heading_type=”h3″ title=”Why say we are stuck at a mid-prepersonal level of development? Why not something higher?” title_transform=”capitalize” title_weight=”600″ alignment=”left” title_size=”20px”]There are several reasons. As you read the following, think of people you know who consider themselves late personal or 2^nd tier, perhaps because they grasp AQAL, and see how much of the following applies to them.

It is no wonder that most people do not like to contemplate the possibility that their level of development is largely mid-prepersonal. As noted above, most of us judge our development by our strongest, cognitive line and not by our weakest, lagging and fixated core lines. A good rule of thumb for determining level of development is to ask, “What is the weakest, most regressed or fixated of my four major lines?” If you do so, you will necessarily conclude that by definition, your moral and empathetic lines lag behind your cognitive line and that your self line, because it is composed of at least, your cognitive, moral and empathetic lines, is necessarily the most lagging line. But the only way that you can assess how much your self line is lagging is by asking, “Of my moral and empathetic line, which is most lagging? Which is most fixated? How do I tell how and where it is fixated? Here are some criteria for a mid-prepersonal determination.

You can and will find competent, capable, and remarkable people who are stabilized at mid-prepersonal. People at mid-prepersonal can be as intelligent, moral and capable as people at higher levels of development. In fact, they can be geniuses, savants or mystically gifted. Their ability to adapt to the realities of the world may indeed be superior to unbalanced individuals at higher stages. They may have fewer tools in their tool kit, but those who have achieved tetra-mesh at mid-prepersonal are likely to be quite capable of using the ones they do have effectively and meaningfully. A person who is authentically at mid-prepersonal is healthier and better to be around than a person who has highly developed lines and has never balanced at mid-prepersonal. And I can assure you, most people have not.

Can you have someone who is a PhD, college professor or President who is at mid-prepersonal? Clearly, yes. Essentially, think of someone who has a highly developed cognitive line who remains ruled by their emotional preferences, like a dog or a two-year old. There is nothing intrinsically wrong, bad or evil about mid-prepersonal, just as there is nothing intrinsically wrong, bad or evil about a dog or your average two-year old. I have known, and you probably have too, people who were vibrant and passionately alive emotionally – spontaneous, present and authentic, yet could think and be completely present with you. Such people are a joy to be around because they make us free to feel whatever we feel and to feel alive!

But most people have not reached a healthy balance at mid-prepersonal. Their feelings are not partners but their masters. To take a vivid unhealthy example, narcissistic personality disordered individuals function at mid-prepersonal. A person can be quite high functioning, achieving great wealth and be of advanced social status while remaining at mid-prepersonal, not yet balanced, not yet able to tetra-mesh to late prepersonal. These people can be quite charming, seductive, successful and socially desirable. They may make great CEOs, lovers, lawyers or Presidents. Or, they may be middle or lower class typical folks.

Pre-conventional morality is mid-prepersonal in that it is about the avoidance of punishment and acting in one’s own self-interest. These are emotionally-driven intentions based on fear and wants. At mid-prepersonal, you and I think we are our feelings: “I am sad/angry/confused/scared.” We are controlled by our feelings; our thinking is in the service of making us feel happy or sad or to make us avoid “bad” feelings.

Mid-prepersonal individuals identify with their preferences, seeking what they like and avoiding what they dislike. They want to be “happy,” which is an emotional state. A goal of seeking happiness and therefore avoiding unhappiness, guarantees that their life will be an emotional roller-coaster.

People attempting to find balance at mid-prepersonal make decisions based not only wanting to “feel good” but on fear of punishment, rejection, lack of physical and economic security, loss of status and greed. They ask, “What’s in it for me?” Because mid-prepersonal individuals want to “feel good,” they are excellent targets for advertisers. Most advertising is designed to have consumers associate good feelings with some product. Because people at mid-prepersonal are controlled by their feelings, they are also impulse buyers, but can just as quickly grow bored, impatient or tired of a possession or partner. What looks like empathy is at best a sharing of the emotions other people are expressing, something that can provide powerful, positive and healing experiences. At worst, what looks like empathy is role playing designed to manipulate others into giving them what they want. Mid-prepersonal individuals can be quite convincing actors conveying altruism, compassion and genuine affection – if these emotions help them get what they want.

Mid-prepersonal is the realm of familial-group bonding and an “us vs. them” mentality. We have seen how cognition is easily much more highly developed, simply by going to school, being a good student, or being intellectually curious. As a result, cognitive development easily runs off and leaves the moral, empathetic and self lines, leaving the impression that we are dealing with mature individuals when they have never learned how to deal with their emotions.  Those attempting to tetra-mesh at mid-prepersonal, no matter how advanced, use cognition to justify feelings. Sophisticated econometric models supporting trickle-down and austerity economics that justify the transferal of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the upper classes are excellent examples of the cognitive line in service of mid-prepersonal emotions.

Mid-prepersonal individuals view the world in terms of the three emotion-based roles of persecutor, victim and rescuer and endlessly circulate among them. Lying and other forms of abuse and persecution can be acceptable and expected practices when issues of profit, status, landing a mate or personal or national security are involved. Self-rescuing addictions don’t have to be about drugs, alcohol and smoking. Most self-rescuing addictions are more subtle, sophisticated and damaging. People at mid-prepersonal seek rescuing by others or lose themselves in various forms of self-rescuing, such as dependent relationships, surfing the internet, using work as an avoidance strategy or become addicted to the acquisition of wealth. Mid-prepersonal is the realm of addiction to self-rescuing, trance-inducing sedatives, like the pursuit of comfort at the expense of growth-promoting challenges and the avoidance of responsibility. It is also the core domain of pre-rational emotional cognitive distortions such as black and white thinking, emotional reasoning, always being right, and many more. These people personalize everything. If you say something, don’t say something, look at them, don’t look at them, laugh, cry, belch, whatever…it’s about them. They are not only the center of their reality; what you do or don’t do generates feelings that they think are about them that you have created, but have absolutely nothing to do with you. Instead, they are projections of their fantasies regarding your intentions that they project onto you.

Those at mid-prepersonal are closely identified with their familial and cultural scripts. Their ideas of personal fulfillment and happiness are based on values internalized as “conscience” when they were young. Family, work and entertainment cultures expect and even demand that people function according to mid-prepersonal script injunctions, even though society at the same time pays a great premium for advanced cognitive line development. Socio-cultural norms demand the cognitive line serve mid-prepersonal norms of cultural groupthink, conformity, drama, fear-based action and tolerance of exploitative business and social actions.[/leezen_vc_section_title][leezen_vc_section_title heading_type=”h3″ title=”Wilber’s account of developmental stages is excellent – for the interior quadrants” title_transform=”capitalize” title_weight=”600″ alignment=”left” title_size=”20px”]Wilber’s account of developmental stages is excellent from cognitive, intentional and consciousness perspectives, which are all interior. Problems arise when these same developmental states are assessed from exterior and objective perspectives. These domains are social, as in the feedback of others, and intrasocial, as in the feedback of subjective sources of objectivity such as interviewed dream characters and the personifications of one’s life issues. This last point is crucial, because a common defense of the applicability of the AQAL developmental model is to discount the objectivity of the commons on the grounds that differing opinions that result in moral criticism reflect the perspectives of less developed, narrower world views, which are therefore incapable of objectively judging our actions, since we are more highly evolved elites. However, when you consult interior sources of objectivity, as an experiential multi-perspectivalism teaches you to do, and their judgments validate those of the commons, this rationalization can no longer be used.

A movement to an even higher level of development by the interior quadrants of intention and culture, as recommended by Wilber, will only generate a greater imbalance by furthering unbalanced, and therefore phony, altitude. Those at lower levels of development see this and no longer respect elites. Even their foolish veneration for elites due to the status and wealth they have attained is now evaporating. This situation will not be ameliorated by elites jumping on the progress bandwagon and pushing to attain even greater imbalances between the interior and exterior quadrants. We know it will not be improved by teaching AQAL to the world and everyone learning cognitive multi-perspectivalism, based on the delusions of those elites who have already done so. It will also not be improved by the broader, more inclusive worldcentric world view of elites showing more compassion toward the poor ethnocentrists, tribalists and “deplorables.” This solution is, in fact, insulting as long as spiritual elites continue to support politicians that are corrupt and policies that hollow out the middle class and throw people into jail to support the private prison industry and generate successful prosecution statistics for courts. The ways elites, including those of us affiliated with Integral AQAL, have betrayed, and continue to betray, the middle and lower classes of the world are horrific and continuing, providing explanation enough for why Integral AQAL and spiritual elites appeal to only a small, rarefied audience around the world. This does not, however, prevent us from making real and important changes in our own families and work cultures. Frederick Laloux’s Reinventing Organizations is an excellent example of how cultures can be established in the workplace that respect and support the development not only of the cognitive, but of the moral and empathetic lines using Integral AQAL.

Objective proof of our lack of higher level tetra-mesh

Progress will indeed proceed, with or without Integral AQAL and yes, with or without the human race. That life itself does not care if we survive is indeed a direct assault on our narcissism. Life will continue to be abundant and creative with or without us. Yes, elites, like you and me, have attained late personal or even 2^nd tier, but only in our interior quadrants. In our social quadrant, where our progress is determined not by our intentions but by our actions, we are rubbing shoulders with ethnocentrists, tribalists and “deplorables.” The difference is that they are more likely to be authentic individuals while we are elitist posers. In reality, in terms of overall development, we have made very little progress at all. It only takes looking at the homeless, the world slave and drug trade, multiple wars of choice, the broad acceptance of state lying, stealing and killing, or the ethical structure of the vast majority of businesses, to see the truth. The many voices that argue that these are gradually improving, while probably correct, are also attempting to make themselves feel better in a world still full of massive inequities, many of which are not only supported but created by elites.

What does authentic humility look like?”

This is not a critique by someone who is a bleeding heart liberal pluralistic egalitarian. I am not advocating some rigid moral code or the deconstruction of AQAL. I have been a supporter of Wilber’s work since the early 80’s and my own work owes a great deal to his thought. It is, however, a plea for realism and humility to counteract what I see as hubris, idealism and utopianism. It would be quite valuable if AQAL itself reflected this shift in focus, but it is not Wilber’s responsibility. It is ours.

It is time to cultivate an authentic humility in which we can say, “I am at vision-logic on my cognitive line because I understand AQAL, but because my self line is dependent on the level of development of my moral and empathetic lines, and one or the other are stuck at mid-prepersonal, I have yet to tetra-mesh at mid-prepersonal. Therefore, morally and empathetically, there is not a significant difference in my level of development, that is, the level of development of my self line, and that of ethnocentric, tribalistic, conservative deplorables.” This is how we, as supporters of Integral AQAL, gain credibility among the elites and non-elites of the world. This is how we subject the quality of our behavior to the commons to make ourselves transparent and accountable to the common good. However, we do not recalibrate our place on the developmental spectrum to please or placate others, to gain credibility with them or to exonerate ourselves of our elitism and prove, like Peace Corps workers, that we are servants of the people. We do it because if we do not we cannot tetra-mesh. If we do not, we will not find the balance required to evolve. We will grow on this or that line, to be sure, but we will not evolve as authentically whole individuals.

A prescription for the development of an experiential multi-perspectivalism

One way to start doing so is to start remembering your dreams and interviewing characters and objects in them. This is because dreams are autonomous sources of both feedback and emerging potentials. We don’t have much control over or understanding of their content. They don’t reflect social or cultural standards of intention or conduct. Therefore, when we work with them we are submitting ourselves to contexts that care nothing about social acceptability, AQAL, multi-perspectivalism or much of anything that is important to you and me. They don’t play by our rules. In addition, interviewed dream characters generally have little interest in those things that drive most of our waking behavior: status, financial security, control, power and social acceptability. The more that we identify with perspectives that include but transcend such priorities, the less our lives are governed by agendas that are anchored in mid-prepersonal. Slowly, we grow into a morality and empathy that is defined by neither social and cultural agendas or by our own cognitive world view. Instead, as we identify with the perspectives of emerging potentials whose priorities reflect those of our life compass, our multiple attachments to who we think we are slowly dissolve.

When you play this game your level of development becomes much less important. What takes its place is balance, on the one hand, and integrity in both the eyes of others and yourself, on the other. This does not mean that you don’t screw up, but that when you do, you take responsibility, learn from it, and move on.

AQAL is magnificent. We need it. The world needs it. What we don’t need is to continue to confuse who we are with our level of cognitive understanding of the AQAL map. We certainly do not need to get caught up in aperspectival madness that forces regression in the service of balance, nor is there any requirement that we do so. But to avoid it we have to understand how we put ourselves there and what we need to do to stay out. That includes focusing on the rehabilitation of our lagging and fixated lines. To do so, we require an experiential multi-perspectivalism that interviews both dream characters and the personifications of our waking life issues, together referred to by Integral Deep Listening as “emerging potentials,” so that we access subjective sources of objectivity that know and reflect in their perspectives the priorities of our life compass much better than others or we ourselves can do. If we take upon ourselves such a yoga we are much more likely to find and address the weak spots in our moral and empathetic lines. By doing so we strengthen an authentic self line. Bringing all four core lines into balance, we are much more likely to achieve tetra-mesh and actually find ourselves evolving instead of simply imagining we are, because we understand more stuff, have had mystical experiences, or have gained the approval of people with status.

You can learn more about Integral Deep Listening by going to DreamYoga.Com and IntegralDeepListening.Com or by reading any of some twenty books that describe this or that aspect of the process. You are also invited to join “Friends of IDL” on Facebook where you can begin to develop a community of like-minded individuals who want to pursue this yoga. If you are interested in healing integral, you are encouraged to read Healing Integral, parts 1&2, and join the Healing Integral Reading Group on Facebook. We need your input, because Integral belongs to us all. It is only through our collective awareness and resources that we can evolve a version of Integral that is relevant to both the elites and the non-elites of this world, so that Integral AQAL can achieve its great potential as a source of awakening for all humanity.

[1] Kelly, W. 1970.

[1] “There are always fewer oaks than acorns – the so-called pyramid of development that necessarily gets smaller and smaller toward the top…” “Of course, it would be better to draw this diagram as an inverted pyramid, so that several of the multidimensional relationships within each quadrant could be better indicated. But then it would begin to lose the advantage of a certain type of simplicity.” Wilber is ambiguous about this but clearly the inverted pyramid has won out, a decision that has contributed to our current legitimation crisis. Ch. 3 Individual and Social, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, 1996.

[1] “…it has been suggested that due to the steepness of the original angle of inclination the structure may have begun to show signs of instability during construction, forcing the builders to adopt a shallower angle to avert the structure’s collapse.” Ancient Egypt, Part 3: Greatest Pharoahs 3150 to 1351, History Channel, 1996.

[1] Clearly, the solution lies through multi-perspectivalism, that is, honoring the truths revealed by multiple types of depictions: inverted pyramids, webs, spirals, nests, mandalas, cubes, crop circles, whatever…To say that the awarenesses of one type of depiction, in this case pyramidial, are a part of the solution, is not to discount or ignore the importance of other contributions.

[1] A cynic would point out that the societal and personal emphasis on attainment of success in the arts and in sport, so prominent in popular culture, like delusions of winning the lottery, is a useful way to divert public attention with dreams of status and wealth from the pervasive ongoing kleptocracy controlled by cognitive line elites.

[1] Importantly, this can also be written, “I am not cognitive multi-perspectivalism.” This is important, because it provides a good working definition of what our map of reality is: our cognitive grasp of multiple perspectives that relativize all previous self-definitions. When we identify with that map we commit the performative fallacy, like the post-modernists do, by confusing our cognitive map with the actual experiential territory of multi-perspectivalism, which, as we shall see, is only accessed through the development of all four core lines, not just the cognitive.

[1] The health of the entire spiral of development is our chief ethical imperative.

[1] There is room to argue about wealth and status; some people genuinely are not motivated by either, but if you are looking for motivations for human behavior you can do worse than to begin by asking, “In what way might money be a motivator?” “In what way might the approval and acceptance by others be a motivator?” Regarding security and power, these are prepersonal motivators that are necessary for survival and adaptation. As such, while they may become less important after some fundamental level of each is attained, they remain foundational. All of these motivations operate strongly for those at mid-prepersonal who have not yet tetra-meshed to late prepersonal. At late prepersonal the self knows itself as differentiated from emotions: “I am not my emotions.” It can observe security and status-based motivators and not be motivated by them. Cognition is no longer driven by emotion. Consequently, those stabilized at late prepersonal are much more likely to do what feels authentic rather than that which gains social reinforcement. How many people have reached such a stage? In my experience, we can all point to areas in our life in which it applies but when we look at our lives at a whole, not many, myself included.

[1] “…the postmodernists themselves violated their own tenets constantly in their own writing, and they did so consistently and often. Critics (from Jürgen Habermas to Karl OttoApel to Charles Taylor) would soon jump all over them for committing the so-called “performative contradiction,” which is a major self-contradiction because you yourself are doing what you say either cannot or should not be done. For postmodernists, all knowledge is non-universal, contextual, constructivist, interpretive— found only in a given culture, at a given historical time, in a particular geopolitical location… Their entire theory itself is a very Big Picture about why all Big Pictures are wrong, a very extensive metanarrative about why all metanarratives are oppressive. They most definitely and strongly believe that it is universally true that there is no universal truth. They believe all knowledge is context bound except for that knowledge, which is always and everywhere transcontextually true. They believe all knowledge is interpretive, except for theirs, which is solidly given and accurately describes conditions everywhere. They believe their view itself is utterly superior in a world where they also believe absolutely nothing is superior. Oops.” Trump and a Post-Truth World: An Evolutionary Self-Correction, Wilber, K. Pp. 5-6.

[1] Wilber, K., et.al., Integral Life Practice: A 21st-Century Blueprint for Physical Health, Emotional Balance, Mental Clarity, and Spiritual Awakening, 2008; Dillard, J., Waking Up: Using Integral Deep Listening to Transform Your Life. Deep Listening Press, Berlin, 2012.

[1] “For Gebser, integral-aperspectival consciousness is not experienced through expanded consciousness, more systematic conceptualizations, or greater quantities of perspectives. In his view, such approaches largely represent over-extended, rational characteristics. Rather, it involves an actual re-experiencing, re-embodying, and conscious re-integration of the living vitality of magic-interweaving, the imagination at the heart of mythic-feeling and the purposefulness of mental conceptual thinking, their presence raised to a higher resonance, in order for the integral transparency to shine through” (111). Gidley, J. (2007). “The evolution of consciousness as a planetary imperative.” In Integral Review 5.

First, an overview. What exactly is Wilber attempting to accomplish with this book?  Integral Spirituality attempts to answer the question, “[H]ow can we validate the existence of spiritual realities, specifically, the higher levels of mystical experience claimed by the world’s wisdom traditions, in the face of modern and postmodern attacks that deny those realities as unscientific or reduce them to social constructions?” Wilber is attempting to reconstruct the great truths of the wisdom traditions of the world’s religions but without their metaphysics. These “metaphysics” are assumptions about the nature of reality that have been thoroughly discredited by modernity (Kant) and post-modernity’s insight of the inherently contextual nature of all truth, which makes it relative.

Wilber views spirituality as a necessary engine for human evolution, along with the arts, sciences, and ethics. But unlike arts, science, and ethics, spirituality was discredited by the Western Enlightenment in the 1600’s and 1700’s when it was confused with religion, one manifestation of spirituality. Wilber has written this book to rehabilitate spirituality in the eyes of Western intellectuals and everyday people around the world who have lost faith in traditional religion but don’t know where to turn. It is true that most everyday people will not read this book, but the intellectuals who are at the top of their pyramids of influence will read it, and they will translate its concepts into forms that everyday people will grasp. So Wilber is writing for the opinion setters of the day, those who are influential, and those whose ideas are respected by broad numbers. His audience is, as always, those who are well read and broadly educated.

Wilber’s introduction is a succinct, compact overview of his AQAL (all quadrant, all levels, lines, states, and types) model. For those who have been following Wilber ‘s writing for years, this introduction is an excellent and lucid summary of his model, which is the broadest, most powerful explanatory model of everything that exists in the world today. Anyone not familiar with Wilber’s model should read this chapter over until they “get it” or they will get lost in the rest of the text. While it serves as an introduction, it is also truly the first chapter of the book. Don’t skip over it!   Toward the end of the chapter Wilber discusses implications of the integral

model for medicine, business, ecology, and other fields, which are enormous. Discussions about the relationships among fields of knowledge or discussions about the basic questions driving particular fields of knowledge will flounder on their own inherent contradictions unless they take place in the context of Wilber’s integral model. It’s that important to the further evolution of mankind.  This is because the context in which we approach our lives creates the perspectives, worldviews, and assumptions that both allow us to see connections among disparate facts and people or blind us to those transformative relationships.

Wilber’s Chapter One, Integral Methodological Pluralism, starts with a daunting name and gets more intimidating from there. Wilber is always revising and expanding his model. To that end, he has deeply considered the implications of the four basic perspectives that are inherent in every holon and determined that each includes two perspectives, doubling the number of fundamental perspectives to be taken into account to eight.   Wilber makes a very good case for both the existence and usefulness of these eight, because he points to well-respected fields of knowledge that are representatives of each. But let’s back up and take a look at the four quadrants, which contain eight fundamental perspectives. What does that mean?  Wilber contends that everything has an interior and an exterior aspect as well as an individual and a collective aspect. This is simple, obvious, and brilliant. Can you think of ANYTHING that doesn’t have those four aspects?

Each of these four perspectives can be experienced from the inside or investigated from the outside. You might think of your subjective experience of yourself, in which you are identified with who you are, on the one hand, and your ability to stand back from yourself and watch this or that aspect of your life go by, such as your feelings or your relationships, on the other.  Here is a summary of the eight perspectives, which Wilber believes have always existed but have only recently been differentiated or objectified. Wilber believes that all of these are forms of empiricism, in that they are ways of knowing that can be subjected to appropriate truth tests and verified.

#1: When we think, feel, sleep, dream, or meditate, we are having personal interior experiences of the upper left quadrant. When you study your own experience by say, observing your thoughts in meditation, you are practicing phenomenology. This is what mystics do and what you experience when and if you are enlightened. Without this perspective you wouldn’t think, feel, dream, or be able to have mystical experiences at all.  In perspective #1 you are subjectively identified with your experience, whatever it is.  It defines who you experience yourself to be.

#2: When you study what is going on in yourself or others while thinking, feeling, sleeping, dreaming, or meditating, you are attempting to evaluate personal interior experience, not directly experience it yourself. When you do such evaluations you are practicing something called structuralism. What you come up with are developmental models that depict the evolution of consciousness and your own personal development. Structuralism creates a road map to guide your own growth. Without it you are more likely to misunderstand your experience and waste a lot of time in confusion.  Clearly we need both phenomenalistic and structuralist perspectives to grow and experience our lives more fully.

#3:  We communicate our interpretations.  Your interpretations of your experience are both unavoidable and mostly unconscious.  You can make unconscious interpretations conscious and you and change them, but you can’t stop interpreting and still communicate.  When we state an opinion, such as, “Wilber is pedantic and egotistical and his system is grandiose,” we share a common or collective experience (a series of English words) that is interior for each of us. I have my meaning and you have yours, but out of that a sense of shared meaning arises. You are interpreting what I am saying and I am thinking about how you are hearing me and what interpretations are being made by you.  Interpretations are unavoidable. When scientists communicate their experimental findings they are sharing their interpretations, which is not merely a subjective affair, but because it is a form of communication it is called intersubjective. The study of how reality is shaped by our interpretations is an unavoidable and important part of life that has been given the unsufferable name of hermeneutics. Just think of it as the meanings we make out of people, words, and things. These shared meanings are called culture. Without meanings, life is meaningless.;

#4: Ethnomethodologists are people who study the way people make sense of their social worlds. They consider the cultural and linguistic contexts in which all experience is embedded.  You use it when you try to understand how other people arrived at how they look at things. When you attempt to understand how Wilber arrived at his conclusions in Integral Spirituality, you are practicing ethnomethodology.  When peer groups assess truth claims of scientists or gurus they are doing the same.  Consensus guidelines for truth cannot exist without this perspective.

#5: While the experience of consciousness is phenomenology and the study of consciousness is structuralism, the study of the mechanisms of perception that allow frogs and humans to make sense of the world is cognitive science or “autopoiesis” (self-creation).  Cognitive science is the perspective taken by the interior of the behavior of organisms.  It is not the study of thoughts and feelings, which would be structuralism.  Without it, it would be impossible for you to learn how and why you think the way you do or how you create the interior neurological realities that in turn create your perception.

#6: When individual behavior is explored from the outside we are doing traditional science. We make hypotheses in our minds and then test them out in the real world. For example, I could hypothesize that most people who read these words are sitting down. To test it I would either have to ask you or I would have to have you on camera or in some way observe you, say by sending my astral double over as a scientific voyeur. Also, if you hook me up to an EEG while I am meditating, you are doing traditional science. However, you are not measuring my state of consciousness but only its neurological correlates in the form of patterns of electrical neuronal discharges in my brain.

We can now see that part of what Wilber is doing is breaking science’s stranglehold on knowledge by making a strong case for seven other forms of empiricism. Here are the remaining two:

#7: All groups devise rules that govern communication. When you look at social groups from the inside, you are looking at the way their members communicate with each other. These patterns of group communication are how groups create themselves, in a process called “social autopoiesis.” Those of us who form an ad hoc group of those interested in discussing Wilber’s ideas and their applications are also practicing a type of empiricism that is internal to our social group. We develop our own shared criteria for determining what the rules for that communication are to be. Without it you will have no way of knowing how to communicate within any and all groups – your family, your network of friends, your place of work.

#8: When you look at social groups from the outside you are doing systems theory, chaos theory, and social psychology. This is how you understand your relationships with others and your relationship to the world.

Those are the eight perspectives that Wilber says are all basic, unavoidable, necessary, and equally important to human experience and, in fact, to understanding all holons. They all make sense to me and do seem to be irreplaceable.  What do YOU think? If you had to ditch one, which would you get rid of? Now, imagine your life without it!

Wilber has fun in this chapter intimidating us with his “Integral Mathematics of Primordial Perspectives.” This is the most mind-bending part of the text, along with further work on the coding of AQAL in the appendices. These shorthand codings are meant to quickly identify the “Kosmic Address” of any truth claim that can be made. Think of them as more specific extensions of the color coding of levels of consciousness, in that they tie any statement to a particular quadrant, perspective, and level of consciousness.  This is very important, because we often assume that a statement is say, transpersonal, when it is actually prepersonal or personal.

Wilber says that the recent realization that all these perspectives exist has created massive problems for traditional religions and for the credibility of people who have claimed to be enlightened in the past.  Modern and postmodern thinkers have been asking, “Because neither religions nor enlightened sages took into account most of these perspectives, just how spiritual, just how developed, just how enlightened could they really be?” This is the main reason why religion and spirituality have both lost credibility in the modern world and among intellectuals, according to Wilber. Because religion and spirituality do not take most of these perspectives into account they choose to remain both naive and ignorant. The truth claims of the masters are undermined.  So, what is to be done about it?

Wilber believes that  only spirituality that can heal the discounting of interior experience that is found in science and that only spirituality can overcome the yawning gap between rational scientists and egalitarian liberals, on the one hand, and religious true believers on the other. So most of the book is about laying out a description of that spirituality.

In Chapter Two, Stages of Consciousness, Wilber makes the following points:

• When we reduce transpersonal experience (like a near-death experience) to prepersonal experience (psychotic hallucinations), as science does, we are guilty of the reductionistic version of the pre-trans fallacy. Most scientists, from Freud to Skinner to Watson and Crick commit this fallacy.”

• When we elevate prepersonal experience (like voodoo trance) to transpersonal experience (thinking it is a mystical experience), as Carl Jung and New Age thought tend to do, we are guilty of the elevationistic version of the pre-trans fallacy.”

• The developmental progression disclosed by structuralism gives you ways of interpreting your experience that you just don’t get when you are subjectively immersed in it, as you do when you are say, meditating.”

Wilber uses the concept of an “integral psychograph” to talk about different developmental lines, such as cognitive, kinesthetic, emotional, moral, aesthetic, and spiritual. The idea is that we need balance in development, which means that we need to pay attention to important core lines that we are behind in.

Wilber explains the interaction between stages of development that occur on every line, and the different developmental lines themselves. On pictures after page 68 and also on pp. 248-9 he summarizes the stages as viewed from different structural models.

Wilber has moved partially away from the use of colors derived from Spiral Dynamics to reference stages and has returned to a modified version of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is a good thing, because the SD colors were arbitrarily chosen to reflect a higher personal pluralistic and egalitarian perspective which is to favor only one of some ten possible stage perspectives. I say Wilber settled on a “modified,” version of the electromagnetic spectrum because in my opinion, he had such an investment in using Spiral Dynamics colors to talk about certain levels (in particular pluralistic and egalitarian “green,”) that he has tinkered with the entire spectrum to make it fit his bias. So while I am still not happy with his version of the spectrum, at least it acknowledges that there is a genuine, “real” vibratory hierarchy that is far from arbitrary. That’s the main point.

In Chapter 3, States of Consciousness, discusses natural and trained states of consciousness.

• Think of these states as dealing with four different types of mystical oneness: nature, deity, formless, and non-dual. They represent a horizontal opening on any developmental level.

• These natural states (waking, sleeping, dreaming) do not show development. This means they can be experienced in their fullness by infants.

• Trained (i.e., through meditation) states (nature, deity, formless, and non-dual) do show development.

• Both the literature and scientific evidence demonstrate that meditation reveals very sophisticated stages of trained states of progressive enlightenment.

Chapter 4, States and Stages, differentiates stages of consciousness from states of consciousness. This is very important and a major contribution to man’s understanding of spirituality. Most writing about spirituality is dreadfully confused because it does not understand the distinctions made in this chapter. Here they are, in a nutshell:

• States are impermanent while stages are permanent. This means that having an experience of oneness with God when you are experiencing life from say, the rational level, is a) not going to last because it’s a state, or b) will not transcend and include higher stage experiences of oneness with God. It won’t, because you haven’t yet reached those higher stages yet; you’re still at rational.

• All states are available at every level. That means you can be at a prepersonal stage of development and have an experience of non-dual enlightenment.   But you will interpret it from a prepersonal worldview!!!

• Wilber gives a lot of examples of awakenings at different levels of development.

• He believes that to make sense, “enlightenment” must take into account 1) whether the experience is passing (a “state”) or permanent (a “stage”), 2) the type of experience of oneness (“Is it nature, deity, formless, or non-dual?”), and 3) the average over-all stage of development of the individual. (This is an average of their major developmental lines.)

• Wilber also differentiates among four different ways of using the word “spirituality:” 1) the highest level of any developmental line, 2) a specific developmental line, 3) a spiritual or religious experience, and 4) a specific attitude.

In Chapter 5, Boomeritis Buddhism, Wilber discusses what can go wrong with development in general and with spiritual development in particular. He uses the example of Western Buddhist meditators who have an individualistic, egalitarian, pluralistic (higher personal) perspective which they bring to their practice of meditation.

• Boomeritis is an example of the pre-post fallacy in that preconventional narcissism is mistaken for transpersonal world-centric awareness: “The harder you could feel your ego, emote your ego, and express your ego with real immediate feelings, the more spiritual you were thought to be.”

• High transpersonal experiences and meditation instructions were misinterpreted by people at high personal from a pluralistic, egalitarian perspective. Wilber thinks of this as being like a virus in a system, causing teachers of meditation to communicate these misperceptions to their

students.

• People can’t spot this virus from within their own meditative practice. Understanding and using all eight perspectives will create objectivity that reduces the likelihood that one will fall prey to the virus. When they do, they will have more tools for figuring out how to get unstuck. So having “correct views” by being able to use all of these perspectives as needed is very important to correctly interpret spiritual experience.

• To this end, Wilber recommends that meditators supplement their phenomenological (individual interior) perspective with structuralist developmental models, many of which he discusses in the text. He recommends taking up an integral life practice, which he discusses toward the end of the text. Finally, he recommends orienting personal spiritual practice in an integral or AQAL framework.  This is because you can’t see what your worldview won’t allow and you will distort what your unconscious worldview distorts.

In Chapter 6, The Shadow and the Disowned Self, Wilber discusses how meditative traditions have traditionally ignored and repressed thoughts and feelings and what a major contribution the West has made in its understanding of the necessity of acknowledging both before transcending them. He goes on to outline an easy method of doing just that.

• He defines the “Shadow” as “dynamically dissociated 1st person impulses.” (“1st person is the person speaking, 2nd person is the person being spoken to; and 3rd person is the person or thing being spoken about.”) Wilber’s point is that unrecognized impulses get projected onto the external world. We see others doing to us what we are actually doing to ourselves. “I see my

neighbor as a control freak when I am actually the control freak, but don’t recognize it.”

• Meditation lacks the objectivity to recognize or respond therapeutically to these disowned impulses. As a result, they simply get carried forward so that a person becomes enlightened, in that they are stabilized at a high state and perhaps at a high stage, yet unaware of their own shadow.

• Instead of letting go of everything, Wilber makes a case for first owning and accepting impulses fully and then letting them go.

• Ken next talks about vertical enlightenment (transcending and including up through the developmental stages) and horizontal enlightenment (becoming one with all states  – gross, subtle, causal, nondual). Later in the chapter he talks about how he believes proper meditation can allow one to jump two vertical stages in as little as four years. Nothing else can do that! (“Proper Meditation” for Wilber can be presumed to be those practices endorsed in the Integral Life Discipline in the final Chapter, Spirit: Big Mind Meditation, Compassionate Exchange, Integral Inquiry, the 1-2-3 of God. For more information on these, check out the Integral Institute website.)

• Wilber then talks about the damage that repressed, unaddressed shadow does in meditators.

• Wilber describes the 3-2-1 process of reowning the self before transcending it.

In Chapter 7, A Miracle Called “We,” Wilber makes a major contribution to systems theory by demonstrating how many theorists, from Capra to Chopra, mistakenly define groups as living organisms that include individuals. Wilber points out that groups lack what Whitehead called a “dominant monad.” Essentially, that means that individual group members don’t have to do what the group as a whole wants and that therefore individuals are not interior to groups.

• Instead of individuals being interior to groups, groups are the collective aspect of individuals. What is interior to groups is their communication. Systems theorists (mostly perspective #8) have missed these basic and critical distinctions.

• Wilber emphasizes the consciousness of “we” as a particularly effective doorway to spiritual development.

• Individual holons go through mandatory stages of development. Social holons don’t. The cycles of development social holons go through, such as societies, businesses, and civilizations are horizontal, in that any group at any level or stage can go through them. They are usually mistakenly described as vertical stages in most texts on the evolution of cultures, societies, and systems.

• Social holons change their stage of development as their membership varies. They can move forward or backward, while individual holons only move forward, at least in some lines, such as ethical.

• Social holons do not have four quadrants. They lack the internal individual “dominant monad.”

• Spirit in 2nd person is experienced as a devotional relationship based on love that deepens into compassion. Wilber emphasizes its importance.

• Wilber believes that most writers on spirituality have not grasped the “we” dimension of spirit. Partially this is because they have been trying to escape a suffocating personal depiction of God from their youth but mostly it’s because the exteriors of “we” are very difficult to see.

In Chapter 8, The World of the Terribly Obvious, Wilber discusses scientific empiricism (perspective #6) and autopoiesis (perspective #5). He discusses scientific reductionism and its attempts to reduce God to brain states.

• Higher order transpersonal experiences cannot be experienced or be said to exist for those who are not at those levels. Therefore they will be misperceived if seen at all by those observing them from personal levels of development, as scientists do.

• The basic problem of this perspective is that it does not grasp the relative nature of all individual experience, which is the basic insight of postmodernism, which gives priority to the intersubjective matrix of interpretations and cultural meanings in which all individual experiences

are embedded.

Chapter 9, The Conveyor Belt, is the heart of the book. Everything to this point has been laying a complex, sophisticated theoretical foundation for this chapter.

• Because everyone must navigate every stage of development in turn from birth, the average stage of people alive on the planet today is high prepersonal egocentric-mythic to low personal ethnocentric. 70{be93f16b5d2e768a85ea81ebc8356f268811d3908838ae6233aa33d012b25ec9} of the people on the planet are controlled by the world’s great religions. That’s

less than at any time before in the world’s history, but it’s still huge.

• There is a “vertical component crash” between individuals and cultures stuck at ethnocentric and below and the 30{be93f16b5d2e768a85ea81ebc8356f268811d3908838ae6233aa33d012b25ec9} that have evolved into rational and worldcentric perspectives.

• Terrorists are stuck at mythic and ethnocentric perspectives with a prepersonal narcissistic self-image, the kind you normally find in four year olds.

• The problem is that those stuck at these pre-rational belief systems cannot grow because the rational world view dismisses them as irrational and foolish. So they cannot grow without abandoning their prepersonal belief systems, which they will not and cannot do, because they are the belief systems of their entire culture.

• With the Enlightenment, Western intellectuals actively repressed any higher levels of their own spiritual intelligence. Reason was the answer.  “Death of God” meant “Death of the Mythic God,” which is the one 70{be93f16b5d2e768a85ea81ebc8356f268811d3908838ae6233aa33d012b25ec9} of the world believes in today.  Because religion and spirituality were equated, throwing out religion meant throwing out spirituality.

• Wilber describes this problem as a new type of fallacy, a “Level-line fallacy.”

• In disowning the Mythic stage of development rational intellectuals also disowned the entire spiritual line of development. They mistook mythic spirituality for ALL spirituality. This insight of Wilber’s is brilliant and right on. You are left wondering why no one has spotted it before. (Wilber says they missed it because  spirituality didn’t exist as a distinct, separate expression from religion when the cognitive, aesthetic, and moral lines were differentiated at the onset of the Enlightenment. It had already been dismissed and dropped by serious thinkers.)

• Wilber says there are four different multiple intelligences: cognitive, aesthetic, spiritual, and moral. All were differentiated and advanced with the Enlightenment, except the spiritual intelligence/line/judgment, which was brutally repressed.

• With the repression of that line, there was no way for prepersonal mythic spirituality to evolve. Any movement beyond the rational was discredited as well, leaving everyone who made it to rational got stuck there in their development. “Modern liberal intellectuals no longer had religion, they only had art and morals.”

• The “grand displacement” occurred: “Because the line of ultimate concern (spirituality) was repressed at amber (mythic), and because this is nevertheless a multiple intelligence still active, that inner judgment of ultimate concern was displaced from religion to science. In the modern world, it was now science that was implicitly felt to give answers to ultimate questions, and science to which ultimate faith and a pledge of allegiance should occur.”

• Absolute science is scientism, which collapses the four quadrants into the upper right. The spiritual line of development gets repressed along with the mythic stage of development.

• There are two parts to the problem: 1) repression of spirituality by rational intellectual culture and 2) fixation at the mythic stage for those who don’t have a way to express their spirituality in higher developmental stages. That means almost everybody living in religion-dominated cultures.

• Rational intellectual culture needs to stop hating mythic religion and start appreciating spirituality as it naturally expresses itself at the rational stage, including agnosticism, skepticism, and atheism. It also needs to understand that spirituality acts as a developmental conveyor belt for everyone, because everyone must move through the lower stages, and only the spiritual line provides fundamental meaning to life through addressing issues of ultimate concern. People need “real” myths at certain stages of development, and only the spiritual line provides it.

• Wilber is calling for the de-repression of the developmental line of spiritual intelligence.

• He also calls for religions to make training in meditative states part of the core of their message and training in stage appropriate ways to meditate made available at every stage of development. Such training will speed evolution through the stages.

In Chapter 10, Integral Life Practice, Wilber addresses what he thinks state training should look like as part of an over all plan for life integration and development.

• Wilber’s model is very sophisticated, including at least six or seven practice choices in each of the following areas: the core of body, mind, spirit, and shadow, and the auxiliary areas of ethics, sex, work, emotions, and relationships.

• Each of these areas has one or more “gold star” or “highly recommended” practice:

Body: F.I.T., ILP Diet, 3-body workout;

Mind: Integral (AQAL) Framework;

Spirit: Big Mind Meditation, Compassionate Exchange, Integral Inquiry, the 1-2-3 of God; Shadow: 3-2-1 Process;

Ethics: Integral Ethics;

Sex: Integral Sexual Yoga;

Work: Work as a Mode of ILP;

Emotions: Transmuting Emotions;

Relationships: Integral Relationships, Integral Parenting.

• Wilber repeatedly points the reader to resources at the Integral Institute.

Wilber includes several appendices that are actually part of the text and need to be read. They amount to fully a quarter of the text, not counting the extensive footnotes that take up almost all of some pages of the text.

Appendix I, From the Great Chain of Being to Postmodernism in 3 Easy Steps, deals with the rehabilitation of mysticism by making it compatible with modernity and postmodernism.

• The first problem is that the Great Chain of Being views spirit as above and beyond mind and matter. The solution is to view spirit as interior to matter, as the two left quadrants of the human holon. This addresses a basic criticism of modernity.

• The second problem is that the Great Chain of Being views spirituality as basically an individual and interior expansion. The solution is to view spiritual development as also collective and thereby including the bottom two quadrants of the human holon. This addresses a basic criticism of post-modernism.

• The third problem is what to do with the subtle levels of energy talked about in all the mystical and esoteric traditions: etheric, astral, psychic, causal. Wilber’s solution is to associate increasing complexity of form (in the upper right quadrant) with increasingly subtle levels of energy.

As if he hasn’t covered enough, in Appendix II, Integral Post-Metaphysics, Wilber tackles the issue of what a healthy spirituality looks like once it sheds the assumptions that cause it to be discounted and deemed irrelevant by modernity and post-modernity. Both religion and spirituality have been discounted since Kant showed that all of our concepts, including “God” and “spirit” are conditioned by natural cognitive structures. What we think is real and existing “out there” is only perceived and understood in terms of the way our minds organize the experience. Metaphysics doesn’t grasp this.

• Wilber launches into an extensive discussion of what it means to be enlightened in previous historical epochs and what enlightenment now would consist of. Very interesting reading, starting at the bottom of p. 237 and going all the way through p. 248. Here’s the summary:

The great spiritual traditions believed that the Great Chain, with all its levels, was given all at once and exists in its entirety right now, even if parts of it aren’t realized or awakened to. But when you acknowledge evolution, you are saying that the lower 4 or 5 levels of the Great Chain –

matter, sensation, perception, impulse, emotion, symbols, concepts – evolved over 14 billion years! What this means is that the upper part of any “Great Chain” has not yet unfolded, has not yet evolved! This would mean that the only way to get Enlightened would be to wait until all of time has unfolded! Wilber’s answer is to say you can realize Emptiness and attain absolute Freedom on any level, by mastering the gross, subtle, causal, and non-dual states, but the fullness of that Enlightenment increases over time as consciousness evolves. If some levels have evolved and more will evolve, then instead of thinking about them as levels of knowing and being, which is how they are viewed by the Great Chain, you have to look at them more as aquired natural habits of consciousness!!!! Wilber calls them “Kosmic habits” or “Kosmic memories.” So, after describing this historical process, Wilber defines enlightenment, in light of evolution: “Enlightenment is the realization of oneness with all states and all structures that are in existence at any given time.” “…the same structure that 6000 years ago could be said to be fully Enlightened, is no longer so today. Somebody at mythic-membership today is no longer one with the Totality of all Form, because there are, “over the head’ of amber, the orange and green and teal and turquoise structures. Those are real, ‘ontological,’ actually existing structures in the Kosmos, as real as if they were Platonic eternal givens (except they aren’t), and if a person has not transcended and included those levels in their own development, then there are major levels of reality that they (the amber individuals) are not one with.” So, with this conception, “the ontologically pre-existing levels of being and knowing…which both modernity and postmodernity absolutely savaged, are simply no longer needed, because we can generate the essentials of every one of those levels but in a completely post-metaphysical way.”

He concludes by stating that levels of reality do not pre-exist but are created by the evolution of consciousness. This means that enlightenment, while always equally free and empty, becomes more “full” as habits of consciousness create higher stages. Wilber believes his answer satisfies the criticisms of modernity and post-modernity without postulating a metaphysical foundation for spirituality.

“Nobody ever has any truth, just various degrees of falsehood.”

• “Things” do not exist objectively in a pregiven world. “All real things are first and foremost perspectives.” You locate something in the universe by determining the level on which it exists and by determining the quadrant in which it exists. You also must take into account the level and

perspective of the perceiver!

• A “quadrant” is a perceiving subject’s perspective; a “quadrivium” is the object’s location as it is perceived. This is because only individual holons have all four perspectives (artifacts like chairs lack a “dominant I,” but all objects can be looked at from any of the four quadrants.

• Wilber goes on to get very sophisticated about this, basically laying out his epistemology, or what can be known and how you can know it. He explains why and how any statement can be (and should be) located in terms of perspective and stage. He goes on to suggest letter and number designations as shorthand for identifying any statement according to where it exists and

who can see it.

• Wilber now makes a very critical and important point. After you have gone  to all the trouble to specify the “Kosmic address” of God, Santa Claus, or imaginary numbers, you “must be able to specify the injunctions (instructions) necessary for the subject to be able to enact the Kosmic

address of the object.” In other words, for you to just give an address but not provide the injunctions by which that address can be verified, you are just doing metaphysics. What Wilber is doing here is creating a very rigid epistemology not only for spirituality but for every truth claim of every kind. This could have been (and probably should be) a book all by itself. It’s huge.

• He sums the last point up in a succinct and revolutionary way: “Any language other than injunctive is metaphysics.” Wow! This is the most important part of the book, and it’s in the second appendix!!! “No injunction, no meaning, no reality. Just metaphysical gibberish in an age

that is no longer capable of being impressed by such.”

In his FINAL appendix, number III, The Myth of the Given Lives On, Wilber gives a series of examples of areas of thought that are stuck in a metaphysical, pre-integral world view.

• Both the sciences and the humanities rejected introspection, interiority, spirituality, and subjectivity in the 20th century.

• Wilber gives a terrific summary of the rise of post-modernism and its attack on modernism in its phenomenological forms (existentialism, humanism, phenomenology).

• Wilber thinks that contemporary writers on spirituality like Capra and Chopra have done little to rehabilitate spirituality for intellectuals. They write for a popular audience that has not come to grips with the serious questions, much less the disheartening answers, that modernism and post-modernity pose for spirituality. Their mistake is that they have attempted to demonstrate that mysticism has modern scientific support in an attempt to give it the credibility necessary to have it be accepted by the humanities. “This was EXACTLY THE WRONG MOVE in every way. The enemy was never science, which won’t listen anyway. The enemy was the intersubjectivists. And by showing, or trying to show, that spirituality could be grounded in quantum physics, or dynamical systems theory, or chaos theory, or autopoiesis, they played right into the hands of the intersubjectivists.” (p. 282)

• Wilber’s point is that the post-modernists reject all forms of reality that do not take into account the relativism created by the consideration of unavoidable contexts created by language and interpretation. Science is as guilty of this as the humanities in their critique, which Wilber accepts.

Finally, Wilber critiques a number of contemporary and classic works on consciousness, mostly to point out where respected thinkers are missing the point. His critique of William James’ The Varieties of Religious Experience is amazing and his critique of meditation in his piece on Daniel Goleman’s, The Varieties of Meditative Experience, is fairly astonishing, coming from a very practiced and advanced long-term meditator like Wilber: “Meditation is still hobbled by the myth of the given because it is still monological; it still assumes that what I see in meditation or contemplative prayer is actually real, instead of partially con-structed via cultural backgrounds (syntactic and semantic).” “Meditation is the extension of the myth of the given into higher realities, thus ensuring that you never escape its deep illusions, even in Enlightenment.” “Again, meditation is not wrong but partial, and unless its partialness is addressed, it simply houses these

implicit lies, assuring that liberation is never really full, and even satori conceals and perpetuates the myth of the given .” (pp. 289-90)

• On pages 291-2 Wilber writes a devastating critique of the “new physics,” including What the Bleep Do We Know? (on pp. 294-5).

• An equal opportunity paradigm basher, Wilber next takes to task a post-modernism that refuses to recognize stages of development beyond language and the personal. Pp. 295-6.

Here are my thoughts about this text:

• Ken Wilber has once again proven himself to be the most brilliant, revolutionary, important thinker of our time. Anyone who, from this point forward, does not take his model into consideration while attempting to advance knowledge on any subject is just not even trying out for the “A” team. They are announcing their contributions to be “pre-integral” in the big picture of human evolutionary thought.

• If a person reads and re-reads this text until they understand it, they will get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in a branch of philosophy called epistemology, or “how we know what we know,” “what is true,” and “what is real.”

• I have already mentioned my problems with Wilber’s present color layout.

• Wilber would have strengthened the text and tied in the difficult first chapters with the important last chapters if he had shown how each of the eight perspectives could be used to move people from mythic to worldcentric rational in the context of an integral life practice.

• It would also have been helpful if he had talked about how an integral life practice shows up at each stage. What’s different?

• Again and again Wilber tells his readers that they must take the arguments of post-modernism seriously. He is convinced that spiritual studies cannot and will not be rehabilitated in the West until this is done.

• Wilber’s claim that proper meditation can provide stabilized development of as much as two stages in as little as four years is unsubstantiated, although I would like to believe it.

• Wilber would probably say that whatever thoughts and feelings are aroused in you as you read this text reflect the level of development that you mostly hang out on. What ideas don’t you like? Explore your reasons why. Are parts of yourself threatened by them? If so, what parts?

• Wilber has created a classic. I would not say that it is easy, but it is clear. It’s just that it includes an ENORMOUS amount of information, most of which will be new to most readers. About a fourth of it was new to me, and I’ve read everything Wilber’s written that has come to my attention, at least once, many twice. So if it seems somewhat overwhelming, that’s a good sign. It means you’re in the right chair, in the right class, in the right school. Keep learning.

There are essentially four different basic answers to the question, “What is art?” that are represented by the various schools of art criticism. Each of these throws light on the question, “What is a dream?” In both cases, these four perspectives can be understood as expressions of one or another of the four quadrants of the human holon.

Dreams are Representational

Wilber’s interior collective quadrant is the home of culture, which interprets the events of the objective world in ways that create personal and collective meaning. Just as dreaming is a form of objectivity that is interior to the individual, so culture is a form of objective meaning that is interior to society. Art is imitative or representational and its meaning is to accurately portray its object. Therefore, in a literal sense, a depiction of The Last Supper by da Vinci would be more meaningful because it is a more accurate representation of a living person than the one in the picture above. This view dates back to at least Plato and Aristotle. The dreamwork correlate is to those schools that say that dreaming basically represents something else — waking life issues, the soul, repressed desires, biochemical reactions, and so forth — and that the worth of a dream, or its efficacy, comes from the clarity with which it does its representing. Dream elements are therefore symbols. This is the symbolic interpretive school of dreamwork, represented by dream dictionaries, Freud, Jung, Cayce, and their contemporary disciples. According to this approach to understanding dreams, in and of themselves, dream images have no meaning. Those waking or physiological events which they depict are what is meaningful, and a dream is significant only to the extent that it accurately depicts real, objective events. For instance, if a dream clearly depicts a health crisis, it is more meaningful than one that does not. If a dream clearly reflects or imitates the day residue which preceded it, it is more meaningful than a dream that distorts the events of the previous day. If a dream accurately portrays the future, it is more meaningful than one that misleads us about someone we are sure is our soulmate. If a dream is a real communication with a deceased relative or contains divine archetypes, it is more real than the average dream because it depicts real things in a representational and non-symbolic fashion. Dream symbols are representations of realities; literal dreams are accurate representations. In this approach, dreamwork is meaningful to the extent that it faithfully portrays the object of the dream. 

But this assumes that we know what the object of the dream is when this is, in fact, basically conjecture. Clearly, to understand the canine depiction of The Last Supper, we have to start with the assumption that the artist was attempting to portray some realm of objective meaning that is different from that of historical Christianity. 

Just as all approaches to art are not imitative or representational (for instance conceptual, expressionist, minimalist, surrealist, and so forth), all dreams are not imitative. In fact, it is an interior collective assumption that a dream is an attempt to imitate anything. Wilber points out that imitation for imitation’s sake makes documentary photography the highest form of art. Is it? It would mean that the dream that is an exact imitation of waking experience, not adding anything new, would be the most creative and artful dream. But then the dream would not offer anything other than a reflection of waking or mystical experience. It would not be a unique expression of creativity, but merely an approximation of waking awareness. Such a perspective does not accept a dream on its own terms, but instead demands that it not only represent something else, but those objects and values important to us. The worth of a dream is based on how much it conforms to our waking expectations of what is real and valuable and what is not. We thereby turn ourselves into Narcissus, finding in dreams only those things that validate our assumptions about reality, including our hopes, expectations, and fears. 

While there are certainly representational aspects of dreaming, this view by itself is limited and reductionistic. Representational theories of dreaming assume that their value and meaning lies in the external individual and collective quadrants. It amounts to what Wilber calls a “flatland” approach which reduces the significance of a work of art or a dream to that which is valued by waking identity.

Dreams Express Intent

If a representational approach to dreaming and art is reductionistic, perhaps meaning lies in the ability to express the motive, personality and life of the dreamer or artist. This is the expressivist school or art, represented by such theorists as Benedetto Croce, R.G. Collingwood, and Leo Tolstoy. Art is not simply the imitation of an external reality, but the expression of an interior reality – the intentions and feelings of the artist. We can thus best interpret art by understanding the original intention of the artist. As an example, Wilber writes, “Collingwood made the original intention of the artist so utterly primary, that the inward, psychological vision of the artist was itself said to be the actual art, whether or not that vision ever got translated into public forms.” The expressivist approach to art interpretation gave rise to hermeneutics, still perhaps the most widespread school of the interpretation of art. It holds that the key to the correct interpretation of a visual, auditory, or literary piece of art is the recovery of the maker’s original intention, requiring a psychological reconstruction of the author’s or artist’s original intent in its historical setting.2 Was the artist who created The Last Doggie Supper making a joke, deriding Christianity, turning dogs into deities, or something else? What was his/her intent? Proponents of this approach to art theory include Emilio Betti and E.D. Hirsch.

Artistic motivations are hardly a superficial matter. Since at least Freud and up to and including cognitive scientist George Lakoff, many people have accepted the idea that the great preponderance of human intentions exist out of our awareness. Even the Indian concept of karma assumes an expressivist interpretation of experience. The art critic, to be effective, must therefore be a psychoanalyst, psychic,  or mystic who has opened his “Eye of Spirit,” someone who can gain knowledge of, recreate, and accurately communicate the true intentions of an artist. Is this even possible? The meaning of art becomes the particular set of unrecognized intentions thought to be affecting the artist, and so we may have racism, sexism, elitism, speciesism, anthropocentrism, androcentrism, imperialism, ecologism, logocentrism,  or phallocentrism each put forth as the “true” meaning of the work of art. Feminists have made the case that the true intentions behind art are those of gender and that Marxists and other economic interpreters of art are driven by unconscious or thinly disguised intentions of patriarchal power. How is this anything other than the projection of the critic’s own pet theories onto not only a work of art but onto the artist themselves?

It is not very hard to find parallel approaches within the dreamwork community. For those taking an expressivist approach, the meaning of a dream lies in its ability to express the life of the dreamer. This usually means the waking life of the dreamer, and it is assumed that the dream has its referents in the personal waking experience of the dreamer, although group and transpersonal factors, such as the “real” existence of the “true” Self may be easily factored in as well. Consequently, in order to understand a dream, we therefore have to understand the original intention of the dreamer. But who is this dreamer? Do we have to ask, “What were you doing the day before you had the dream?” “What issues have been on your mind lately.” “What sorts of childhood traumas did you experience and how are they expressing themselves in your dream?” Such questions assume that the dreamer is waking identity. But if we instead ask, “What were you doing in your past lives?” “What are the purposes of your soul that are attempting to express themselves through your dreams?” “How does the collective evolutionary arc of humanity manifest in this dream?” – we have a set of entirely different intentions that are being expressed because the “dreamer” is defined in a completely different way. The assumption of an expressivist approach is that dreams are so inscrutable precisely because most of these intentions lie out of our awareness. There are all sorts of formative factors that come into play if the true intention of a dream is to be unearthed – archetypes, defense mechanisms, karma and dharma.

Just as in literary theory, the application of this approach to meaning has unleashed a flood of pet interpretive frameworks. The dream is symptomatic of adaptive challenges, cultural expectations, social roles, interpersonal dynamics, and so forth, and its proper interpretation requires that the dream interpreter know about these things. The dream is symptomatic of larger currents that the dreamer is largely unaware of — sexual, economic, ideological, cultural, spiritual, and developmental factors. A valid interpretation of the dream decodes and exposes the hidden intentions of the individual as expressed in it. Consequently, expressivist theories of both art and dream interpretation boil down to projection by the interpreter onto the dream of a particular agenda which the interpreter believes was the actual intent of the artist or dream. What is therefore disclosed is not the meaning of the dream but the prejudices, biases,  and assumptions of the interpreter. The expressivist approach involves a projection of the values and meanings of the interpreter onto the motives of the artist or dreamer. As such, it reduces dreamwork to the interior collective quadrant of the human holon.

Dreaming is “Formalistic”

If there are problems with art as representation and art as the intention of the artist, perhaps its true meaning lies in the work itself. Wilber associates this approach to art theory with the formalist school, represented by Zola, Balzac, Flaubert, Courbet and the Impressionists (Monet, Renoir, Manet, Pissarro, Degas) who attempted to capture “immediate visual impressions,” with the intentions and motivations of the artist being quite secondary at best. Founded in Kant’s Critique of Judgment, this school is represented in music theory by Eduard Hanslick and in the visual arts by Roger Frey and Clive Bell and in literature by the American New Critics such as Wimsatt and Beardsley and by the post-structuralists (Derrida, Paul de Man, Hartman, Lyotard). 

For formalism, the meaning of a text or an artwork is found in the formal relationships between elements of the work itself. A valid interpretation of the work involves the elucidation of these formal structures; the intention of the artist is irrelevant. The meaning of art does not lie in what it may represent about an object or express about the artist. Interpretation should center first and foremost on elements intrinsic to the artwork considered as a whole in itself. What is the nature of the relationship between the  Husky and the other dogs? What is the nature of the relationship between the dogs and the humans?  But such an approach assumes you can separate art from the consciousness and intentions of its creator and still make it understandable in some sort of objective way. Is this possible?

Theories of dreamwork that minimize external referents, such as content analysis of Van de Castle and the phenomenalism of Boss assume formalism. What is going on in the waking life of the dreamer or what the unconscious intent of the dream is, or what the dreamer is attempting to express, are less important factors. The emphasis is instead on an evaluation of the formal or structural relationships among the dream elements themselves, one to another. 

While consideration of formal elements is invaluable, many find formalism too rational for something as visceral and affect-laden as a piece of art, particularly when that creation is a dream. Formalist approaches illuminate the dream by killing the dreamer, by reducing him or her to irrelevance. Such an approach can reduce dreams, extraordinarily subjective and internal experiences, to external and objective facts and their relationships.

Dreams are Interpretations

Perhaps then, the meaning of a dream is not found in the dreamer’s original conscious and unconscious intentions or in any specific features of the dream itself. Perhaps it is only found in the looking. Perhaps the primary locus of the meaning of the dream can only be found in the responses of the viewers themselves. According to this view, the nature and meaning of art is to be found in the history of the reception and response to the artwork and a valid interpretation of the artwork consists in an analysis of these responses. “…the interpreter, not the artist, creates the work.”3 Adherents of this approach are Martin Heidegger and his hermeneutic philosophy, Hans-Georg Gadamer, one of the foremost theoreticians of aesthetics, and Jacques Derrida. Interpretation of art is therefore about the language and history, both personal and human, of the viewer. “The artwork is the sum total of its particular historical stream, not something that exists by itself, outside of history, isolated and self-regarding, existing only because it looks at itself; rather, the only way we know the artwork is by viewing and interpreting it, and it is those interpretations, grounded in history, that constitute the overall art.”4

So what matters is not what the piece of art or dream means, but what it means to us, the viewer of it.  Do we find The Last Doggie Supper sacriligious, funny, stupid, esoteric, creative, or uplifting? By looking at the art or dream we are disclosing our meanings, not those of the artist or dreamer. This creates a highly subjective, almost solipsist, approach to both art and dreamwork. While honest in that it owns its projections and imparts no meanings or value to either the work or its creator, few would want to refrain from a thoughtful consideration of either the work in and of itself or of the consciousness which created it. Such projectionism is a very strong internal collective approach to dreamwork: “Only the meanings I project onto the dream can be accessed; they have to be the meaning of the dream, for none other is accessible.” 

One problem with such an approach is that there are other accessible meanings of any dream. When we take the time to leave our solipsism and interview other art critics and, regarding dreams, dream interpreters and dream characters themselves, we find a multiplicity of other meanings that sometimes conflict with but always enrich our own.

If art theory is a spirited attempt to decide exactly what the center of art is so that we can locate the meaning of the artwork and then go on to develop valid interpretations of the art, then dreamwork theory is the attempt to decide exactly what the locus of a dream is so that we can locate the meaning of the dream and then go on to develop valid interpretations of the dream. Each of these views of what art is, what a dream is, may be seen as a context, with each different context conferring a different meaning on art and dreaming. Reduction to one or another approach is quadrant reductionism; like the Blind Men and the Elephant each insisting that an elephant is like a tree trunk, a wall, or a snake, we are insisting that art, dreaming, and life are centered on exterior objectivity, intent, relationships, or interpretations. It is not that any of these contexts are not true or useful, it is just that each is partial. Each context makes its legitimate contribution. The vanity, elitism, exceptionalism, and hubris descends when the part believes that it is the whole and knows the whole, containing the other views within it and transcending them. In Integral AQAL, which to its credit is cognitively multi-perspectival, this hubris is disclosed by the primacy of intent in the interior individual quadrant, which, as the Eye of Spirit, proclaims its ability to know and speak for all four quadrants. This is perhaps best demonstrated by Wilber’s determination to hold fast to a  teleologically-based theory of evolution as “Eros as spirit-in-action” rather than seriously deal with the different conclusions of the vast preponderance of scientific opinion. 

Why do we cling to one core perspective, interpretation, or worldview rather than another? The low hanging fruit is to rule out that it is not a defense against cognitive dissonance, the fear that we are nothing, that life is nothing, if the assumptions on which we have based our sense of self and the meaning of our lives is found to only be partial. However, instead of spiraling downward into postmodern nihilism and narcissism, with all meanings relative and indeterminate and all interpretations egoic projections, we can view each approach to art theory and to dreamwork as valid and truthful perspectives, each anchored and subsumed by yet more valid and truthful perspectives. Wilber’s Integral AQAL does see and honor this approach in its awareness that all four quadrants co-arise and co-evolve, and that holons exist within larger holons.

Integrating the Four Approaches

To meaningfully interpret a piece of art or a dream is to situate it in its various contexts. These include:

The original intent of consciousness as creator. This is not easy to do. For example, as regards dreaming, it is to take into account the various dimensions of AQAL: all lines, levels, quadrants, states, and styles in waking as well as out of awareness, prepersonal, personal, and transpersonal, physiological, cognitive, affective, and spiritual, developmental stages. These can be inferred by taking a careful history and evaluation of these factors, and mystical experiences can provide an overwhelming sense of certainty as to what is real, true, good, and unifying. However, such approaches rely on perspectives that are at foundation psychologically geocentric. That is, they view a singular identity, either self or Self as the center of interpretation. 

However, consciousness is multi-perspectival, meaning that multiple sources of interpretation need to be considered, and these cannot be reduced to either a collective or cosmic self. Instead, they have to maintain their own autonomy and individuality apart from that of any definition of self, if interior individual reductionism is to be avoided. 

This can best be done by not only taking into account the other three quadrants and the interpretations of others, but also by interviewing the characters in the dream themselves. After all, what loci of identity are in a better position to interpret a dream (or any experience) than those which are embedded in the experience itself? Such an approach embodies formalism, in that it centers on relationships intrinsic to the unique context of this or that dream, expressivism, in that it deals with the associations of each interviews character, intent, in that it elicits the motivations of different participants in the experience, and interpretation, in that it recognizes that in the final analysis, what a dream, piece of art, or life experience “means” is determined by the particular perspective doing the interpretation. This includes eliciting the interpretations of the perspective which created the dream itself, called “Dream Consciousness” in Dream Sociometry, and is analogous to accessing the intentions of the author of a piece of art. While we can never be sure that we have arrived at the original intent of the dream, a consensus of internal and external, personal and collective opinions regarding the intent is more reliable than the opinions and interpretations of the persona of the dreamer or of dream interpreters.

The work/dream itself, in both its form and content. This is essentially a consideration of external individual holonic factors in the creation of art and dreams: behavior; observable relationships and objectively agreed upon information.

The history of reception and response to the art by the viewer, or to the dream by the dreamer and by other viewers (interpreters) of the art/dream. These are internal collective holonic factors.

The wider contexts of the world at large, economic and technical, linguistic, cultural, and spiritual, without which specific meanings could not be generated in the first place. This is basically a consideration of external collective holonic factors in the creation of the work of art or dream.

So what is the meaning of art? Of a dream? Can we say that the evocation and elucidation of any particular meaning or context is more than a simple descent into post-modernism?  How do we know if our interpretation is justified? That is an epistemological question, which enters the Hall of Mirrors of varieties of validation: correspondence, coherence, consensus, and pragmatic. Generally we settle on an interpretation that is clever, educational, eye opening or, most often, agrees with our assumptions, expectations and biases. However, a justifiable interpretation verifies that a particular context is indeed real and significant, which involves a careful look at the total web of evidence. To understand art or a dream means, at least in part, to enter it. To do so is basically a process of identification, in which I stretch my own boundaries and broaden myself by broadening my context.

While there is no one right interpretation of any piece of art or any dream, since there is no end to the contexts in which either may be placed, there remain plenty of incorrect ones. Dream interpretation, like art criticism, is falsifiable, and must be if it is to have any lasting validity. We test our interpretations in Integral Deep Listening (IDL) when we initially state what we think the dream means. This acts as a pre-test by which we can assess our self-awareness after we have listened to what interviewed dream characters have to say, and by which we can assess our ability as an interpreter after we have listened to the interviewed characters from the dreams and life issues of others. We also test the interpretations of interviewed others by eliciting recommendations, operationalizing them, and submitting the results to the court of public experience. 

Meaning is about interpretation. Interpretation is secondary to the raw, vital apprehension of art and dreams themselves (a bow to formalism). This may be the original experience of the artwork or dream, which can frighten, amaze, sadden, or anger us. While we may reinter that experience upon its retelling, a surer way is to identify with the characters in the dream or the beagle or schnauzer in a piece of canine art, and experience it from those perspectives. It is the vital, direct experience of art and dreams which transforms us. It is the direct encounter with life, giving ourselves totally to it, allowing ourselves to be transfixed by it, which gives purpose to any search for meaning, to any interpretation, whether from art or dream, or in attempting to understand and use some worldview, such as Wilber’s Integral AQAL. Before mind is the raw encounter with direct experience, and before interpretation is identification, or becoming the work of art or dream character. Otherwise, in our blindness, we mistake a part of the elephant, a particular theory of art or dream interpretation, for the elephant itself. We mistake a doggie take on life as reducible to our interpretation of it. We will benefit if we spend more time directly experiencing the marvel of an elephant or canine epiphany than in arguing about what it means.

Wilber, Ken. Transpersonal Art and Literary Theory, Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1996, Vol. 28, No. 1.  Much of the language and many of the ideas here presented are lifted directly out of this excellent article.

1 Wilber, Ken. Transpersonal Art and Literary Theory, Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1996, Vol. 28, No. 1, p. 69. Much of the language and many of the ideas here presented are lifted directly out of this excellent article. We can see here a view of art that would likely encompass dreams themselves.

2 Wilber, Ken. Transpersonal Art and Literary Theory,  Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1996, Vol. 28, No. 1, p. 70.

3 Passmore, 1991, p.34, quoted in Wilber, Ken. Transpersonal Art and Literary Theory,  Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1996, Vol. 28, No. 1, p. 75.

4 Wilber, Ken. Transpersonal Art and Literary Theory,  Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1996, Vol. 28, No. 1, p. 74.

Wilber, Ken. Transpersonal Art and Literary Theory, Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1996, Vol. 28, No. 1.  Much of the language and many of the ideas here presented are lifted directly out of this excellent article.

“What does Ken Wilber’s Integral AQAL say about dream yoga? How does it compare and contrast with Integral Deep Listening (IDL), in particular, one form of dream yoga?”

What does “AQAL” mean? It is short for “all quadrants, all lines, all levels, states, and all types.” “Types” refer to the style in which you develop. For example, developmental “levels,” alternate between male and female developmental emphasis or styles. Levels build on each other dialectically.

What do you mean “dialectically? Thesis at some point is replaced by its opposite, antithesis, and if things go well, these two integrate in some higher order synthesis. That’s the developmental dialectic. It involves a thesis sub-stage, which is an ongoing, habitual consolidation of the status quo. This is primary everyday consciousness and action, and it often looks like nothing much is happening, for instance in learning to walk or talk. It is where we spend perhaps 90{be93f16b5d2e768a85ea81ebc8356f268811d3908838ae6233aa33d012b25ec9} of our time; it is habitual, comfortable “normal” consciousness. Thesis involves generating a broad foundation and maintaining balance among various lines of development.

How many developmental lines does Wilber differentiate? Over twenty. The most important one are the cognitive, self, moral and interpersonal lines. Others include empathetic, kinesthetic, artistic, musical, and mathematical. Your level of development on the core lines determines your over-all level of development. This means that the weakest of your major lines is most important because it acts as an anchor, or “fixation,” which limits your development. If you ignore it and try to run off and leave it, as we most often do, you will become our of balance. You will find it harder and harder to maintain your altitude and you will either crash repeatedly or crash profoundly. Integral and IDL both emphasize stable, gradual, cumulative stage development, with emphasis on your lagging lines, not the ones that are most fun and easiest for you.

What are the different states of consciousness? There are four basic states of consciousness, waking, dreaming, sleeping, and non-dual. However, there are plenty of other intermediate states, such as shamanic trance, drug-induced torpor, coma, and various mystical states. In addition to non-dual, these include energic, devotional, and formless experiences of unity. Confusion exists because these mystical states also have their transpersonal stage parallels. States may be intense and liberating, but they also are relatively short-lived and generally quickly forgotten. They are also notoriously difficult to duplicate.

What are “Quadrants”?  That term refers to the four core aspects of “holons,” wholes that are always parts of some larger holon. Holons have four quadrants and together they represent the entirety of human experience. They co-evolve, which means that just as level development depends on the co-development of core lines, so the four quadrants evolve co-dependently. Humans are one type of holon, so you are a holon. What does that mean? Do you have an interior? Yes. Have you ever seen, does one ever see, an interior without an exterior? No. Have you ever seen, does one ever see, an exterior without it possessing an interior? No. Therefore, all holons have both interiors and exteriors. Similarly, you are an individual, correct? You are also a member of a number of groups, such as a family, community, state, occupational category, correct? Have you ever seen a collection that did not have individual members? No. Similarly, there are no individuals that are not members of larger contexts, called collectives. Therefore, all holons have both individual and collective aspects.

 Wilber came to recognize in the later 1980’s that there are basic categories of experience that we all share that cut across all developmental levels and lines. As discussed above, he noticed that there is no part that is not part of a larger, more inclusive whole and that every whole contains parts. For example, every individual is a member of the human race, and the human race contains many individual humans. There are no individual elements that are not part of a larger collective, and you can ever find a collective that is not comprised of individual parts. Wilber also recognized that you cannot have an outside without an interior or an interior without an exterior. For example, space is defined as an exterior that only has interiors; nothing exists that is outside space. However, a number of theories from both physics and philosophy provide evidence that space itself is an interior, whose exterior can only be deduced and presented as a hypothesis, because it is not experienced directly. Interiors and exteriors each imply the existence of the other.

These are the four quadrants: interior individual, exterior individual, interior collective, and exterior collective. These correspond to your personal consciousness, including your thinking, feeling, and level of development as a self; your behavior; your values, interpretations, and world view; and your relationships as well as the various systems in which you are embedded. The importance of these four is that once you understand that they are irreducible aspects of every experience, they will cause you to think in a multi-perspectival way about everything and everyone. The result is that you will see more, make better decisions, and grow quicker. They will be explained in detail below.

How does IDL use the concept of holons? IDL encourages its students to use AQAL to examine their waking lives, dreams, mystical experiences, deep sleep, and life after death as well as the actions of others, whether alive today or historical. Every interviewed emerging potential is a holon that possesses these four aspects. They can be found in any and every IDL interview. Awareness of the four quadrants of holons strengthens the cognitive line of development in students of IDL, which provides a powerful and broad multi-perspectival map to make sense of any and all life experiences. IDL encourages the development of an integral life practice that addresses these four quadrants, as well as lines, stages, states, and types, and taking that integral life practice into the dream state. It also focuses on two other extremely important lines of development in addition to the cognitive and self-lines. These are the lines of empathy and moral development.

Do you need to be an intellectual to understand and profit from AQAL? People who find value in AQAL are often thought by people who do not to put too much value on thinking. They are not just intellectuals, but over-conceptual eggheads, remote elitists who do not value relationship and emotion. This is made worse by the tendency of some who find value in AQAL to view those who do not as developmentally limited: they do not know how to think; they have not learned to objectify their emotions; they place connectivity over transcendence instead of attempting to balance the two. Such conclusions confirm suspicions of elitism and lead to cultural wars among people who should be natural allies. This is similar to the traditional schism between conservatives and liberals, with liberals viewing conservatives as making fear-based decisions that limit growth while conservatives tending to view liberals as foolish elitists who do not respect traditional values. The funny thing about AQAL is that many of these liberals suddenly transform into conservatives when assessing AQAL. Their inclusiveness, egalitarianism, and pluralism magically melts away as they are challenged to consider that hierarchies really are real and that structures matter and produce important differences. One way to get integral AQAL across to both conservatives and liberals is to start with a human interest story that they can relate to. Fortunately, Wilber has written just such a book, Grace and Grit, the autobiographical story of mortal struggle by Ken and his wife Treya with her breast cancer.

How important to using IDL to understand AQAL? IDL is not built for people who can think or talk AQAL; it is created with the mothers of children with nightmares in mind, with young adolescents who are trying to figure out they are in a world that pulls them between the expectations of parents, teachers, peers, and their own self-critical expectations. All of the conceptual information in this chapter and indeed, in this entire book, is designed to add depth to practice for those who desire it. For those who do not, IDL will allow anyone to develop in their own way at their own speed. None of this information on Wilber’s integral AQAL is necessary or essential to being an effective IDL Practitioner; it is merely useful. The assumption is that the more familiar you are with the conclusions of those who have been immersed in spirituality, integral, or IDL the less you have to learn through the trial and error process of your own life. The human intellectual heritage exists to create support where there was none before.

Why is integral important? What Wilber’s integral AQAL allows us to do is to imagine, contemplate, and consider that there are higher and more transcendent levels than our own even if we cannot perceive them. It gives us a model in which they can make sense and exist theoretically, if not in actuality for us. This is an important start, because we will never perceive something that we cannot even entertain the possibility of existing.

Until the 20th century there has been no model that has been broad enough to look at dream yoga from the perspectives of shamanism, Tibetan Buddhism, science, and contemporary spirituality simultaneously. Without such an overarching, integrating context we are so many blind men pronouncing on the true nature of an elephant. Wilber’s Integral AQAL allows blind men to put their heads together and come out with a closer approximation due to the acquisition of a multi-perspectival world view. We are still blind, but we grope forward with more information and a considerably broader understanding than we had before.

Wilber’s integral AQAL model sets the terms for rational discussion of human development in the twenty-first century. Those who are not familiar with it and who do not address its implications largely take themselves out of the evolving conversation regarding human development. While that undoubtedly sounds elitist and exclusivistic to some, knowledge marches on. Awareness of important common assumptions creates a foundation for discussion; without those shared understandings people talk past each other because one party doesn’t understand the context out of which the other one is speaking, because it is broader than theirs. Other examples are the difference in conversation regarding childhood education among childhood educators who are also parents, on the one hand, and among parents on the other; laypersons concerned with health issues and medical professionals; new agers interested in life energy processes and physicists interested in questions of spirituality. The point is that while all are concerned and have something to contribute, the depth of both conversation and contribution is going to be predictably deeper and broader in one group than the other, because knowledge, context, and underlying assumptions matter. Unfortunately, this is rarely grasped, even within professional guilds. People hear this as elitism and the marginalization of perspectives that are not shared by the “initiates,” pointing out that those who are not members provide necessary objectivity and creativity that is often stifled or overlooked by the narrowness of specialization. The exclusion of integral by the American Psychological Association is an infamous example. This boils down to the argument that it is important to listen to children when designing childhood education and to take their needs into account. Cannot one do this and still recognize the need for childhood educators? Is it rational to have the children design their own curriculum and provide their own supervision? Such experiments have been tried; something resembling Lord of the Flies eventually results. Wilber argues for inclusion by saying, “No one is smart enough to be wrong all the time.”

Why do so many people have problems with the AQAL model? None of us are aware of contexts that transcend and include the assumptions of our particular world view. This is the predicament that Wilber’s model has generated for well-meaning people across the human developmental spectrum. Our remarks generally reveal rather quickly whether or not we are aware of AQAL, what we think of it, and how we address its issues. When you learn AQAL your cognitive line of development, generally the leading line, tends to rise toward multi-perspectival vision-logic, the level bridging the personal and transpersonal realms. This is an impressive and amazing accomplishment. However, there are at least four fundamental lines of development, cognitive, self, moral and interpersonal, and we generally make the mistake of equating our level of cognitive understanding with our overall level of development. This is a form of psychic inflation and elevationism, which causes us to believe that we are much further developed than we are because he have an expanded understanding of the spectrum of development. But access to the map is not the same as traversing the territory.

Why are we so blind? Almost everyone at a late prepersonal or early personal level of cognitive development is sure their perspective is multi-perspectival because they see themselves as inclusive without awareness of their exclusiveness and as democratic egalitarians without awareness of the multiple ways they deprive others of rights.  Their world view may rise to the multi-perspectivalism of vision-logic but if they practice exclusion and exceptionalism their actual center of developmental gravity is much lower than they imagine it to be. Because we simply cannot perceive that which transcends our own context we conclude we must be much more highly evolved than we actually are. This is psychic inflation and something that IDL works to counteract by practicing actually becoming perspectives that are broader and more inclusive than one’s own. In this regard, IDL offers an important antidote to one of the basic challenges of AQAL. Wilber himself seems to be quite aware of this issue and has responded to it by developing a sophisticated model of Integral Life Practices which are designed to counteract this psychic inflation while generating balanced development.

How does IDL support the understanding of higher and more inclusive levels of development? It provides access to perspectives that embody same as well as providing experiences that validate their existence. These are both rational and trans-rational statements that only make sense within broader contexts than our own. For example, when you interview a large black dinosaur that is choking you, the very idea is absurd until you drop your waking perspective and observe reality from its perspective. When you do so, things fall into place; they make a sort of sense you did not recognize before. Such perspectives  are accessed through temporary state openings into broader perspectives, often transpersonal, provided by repeated experiences of becoming interviewed dream characters and personifications of life issues. This is because such perspectives have the degree of waking awareness that you do plus the awarenesses intrinsic to their own unique perspective. The result is receiving the benefit of perspectives that are in some developmental lines more integral than your own.

Is AQAL the last word, the sine qua non? Wilber views AQAL as provisional, a model that is meant to be tested and superseded. It is itself developmental and one more perceptual cognitive distortion. However, like Napoleon the pig in Orwell’s Animal Farm, some perceptual cognitive distortions are more equal than others. While Napoleon’s privileged status follows Thrasymachus and “Might makes right,” Wilber’s integral is privileged because it respects, takes into account, includes, and thereby transcends, many models developed up to the present time. This is the appropriate function for hierarchically contextual holons, and one contribution of Wilber’s is to show how hierarchies can and do co-exist with heterarchies without repressing community, connectivity, pluralism, or egalitarianism.

Is Wilber’s Integral AQAL a Dream Yoga? The dream yoga milam, is only one of Naropa’s six dharmas or doctrines within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. Like the others, it is dedicated to a broader purpose: waking up in all states of consciousness. It is in this sense that integral AQAL is also a dream yoga. Its basic function is enlightenment, or the awakening of human consciousness, but it uses many methods and approaches to do so.

In What Sense is IDL “Integral?” IDL is “integral” largely because it attempts to honor and stay in congruence with the integral world view of Ken Wilber’s AQAL model of human development. The explanation that follows is designed for those who already are familiar with Wilber’s AQAL. Those who are not can find a quick overview at Wikipedia or by reading one of Wilber’s own excellent introductions, such as A brief History of Everything, or The Integral Vision: A Very Short Introduction to the Revolutionary Integral Approach to Life, God, the Universe…

How did  you first come across Wilber’s work? I first read Ken Wilber in about 1985, some five years after Dream Sociometry, the precursor to IDL, was developed. By that time, Wilber had already written The Spectrum of Consciousness, No Boundary, The Atman Project, Quantum Questions, Up from Eden, The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes, A Sociable God, and Eye to Eye, all of which I read several times, as I did his subsequent works. Because of my background in comparative religion, philosophy, and psychology, I was immediately taken with the magnificence and importance of what Wilber was doing: synthesizing these three fields in particular, but also drawing heavily on anthropology, sociology and writers on the philosophy of science.

What are some of the features of Wilber’s approach? He has systematically worked to understand and associate the models of reality proposed by the greatest thinkers of past and contemporary history and to create a model that honors all of them. In his words, “…what I am trying to do is this: If we take all of the truths that have been advanced–in the West and the East; in premodern, modern, and postmodern times–and we put them all together, then what system of thought can honor, acknowledge, and integrate the most number of truths from the most number of traditions?” While philosophers like Schopenhauer, writers like Hesse, religionists like Aurobindo and Houston, and psychologists like Jung had previously attempted syntheses of various types, Wilber’s integral is broad and inclusive and is grounded in empiricism. Wilber’s AQAL integrates scientific humanism with these other fields, particularly religion and spirituality, in revolutionary and powerful ways. It sets the bar of discourse in all of these fields higher. Wilber’s integral model will no doubt in time be superseded, but for now, the world will increasingly judge the consistency and usefulness of both theoretical and practical approaches to life by how well they address or ignore the integral model.

Does Wilber’s work have a depth that keeps on teaching? Yes. Another reason to read Wilber is to get a college level overview of about five fundamental fields of human thought and to do so relatively easily and quickly. This is because Wilber is a clear and thorough author and you can read his work at whatever depth you wish and learn an enormous amount. You are unlikely to outgrow the depth of his insights or the breadth of knowledge that he has to share, because every time you re-read his books you will make associations among thinkers and ideas you did not make before because you did not have that degree of depth or familiarity.

How does IDL use AQAL? IDL is not only a phenomenological discipline, it is an integral one. While the phenomenological method of IDL is an offshoot of JL Moreno’s sociometry, the cognitive map which IDL uses attempts to stay congruent with Wilber’s integral AQAL. “Integral” implies an inclusion, yet transcendence, of both prepersonal belief and secular rationalism. It acknowledges the importance of developmental stages and lines, states of consciousness, the four quadrants of the human holon, and individual styles of growth. The perspectives provided by emerging potentials in IDL interviews are considered in the context of AQAL. The recommendations for meditation offered by IDL are provided with consideration of Wilber’s integral. However, such waking interpretations do not supersede those of emerging potentials. To do so would be to violate the fundamentally phenomenological nature of IDL. IDL recognizes that interpretation is inevitable and that it is the role and responsibility of waking identity to make such interpretations, with the knowledge that they will be partial, distortive of reality, and perpetuate delusion. At best they are upaya — constructive, intentional delusions intended to serve the purpose of enlightenment.

What is the basic purpose of AQAL?  To find the common truths that underlie the various approaches to human experience, be they religious, philosophical, psychological, historical, sociological, or scientific, and to use these to create an integrative model that can guide personal development. Wilber cites the Indian story of the Blind Men and the Elephant, in which each grasps a part of the elephant and believes they are describing the whole. The experiences of each must be included if a model that accounts for each – a description of the entire elephant – is to be provided. In a similar fashion, IDL demonstrates that a reasonable description of consciousness, experience, and life needs to include the perspectives of a cross-section of knowledgeable, invested perspectives if it is to have any claim to inclusiveness. While this can never be fully realized because both life and consciousness expand, closer approximations can be reached. This is called a “multi-perspectival” approach, and it is basic to both Wilber’s AQAL and IDL.

How important is recognizing and correcting cognitive distortions for IDL? Like AQAL, IDL views human misery as due to cognitive distortion rather than “sin,” or “evil.” Wilber generally frames cognitive distortion in terms of traditional Eastern concepts of maya, samsara, dukkha, and avidya – illusion, delusion, suffering, and ignorance. The difference is that cognitive distortions look at sleeping, dreaming, and sleepwalking as conditions subject to human perception, including cognition, expectations, and assumptions, all of which are subject to personal control and can therefore be changed. Traditional Eastern formulations look at illusion, delusion, suffering, and ignorance as conditions of life itself; if you are incarnate, you are going to experience them. While they can be reduced, changing your perception will not eliminate them. The only way to do that is to stop incarnating.

Does IDL recognize more than one type of cognitive distortion? It recognizes three types of cognitive distortions. Emotional cognitive distortions, such as all or nothing thinking, generalization, blaming, and personalization, are essentially associated with the limbic brain and fixation at a mid pre-personal developmental level.  They also manifest as identification with the Drama Triangle, that is, assuming an identity that is framed by the three roles of victim, persecutor, and rescuer. Emotional cognitive distortions are a major source of “neurotic” depression and anxiety. They are addressed by cognitive behavioral therapy, developed by Ellis, Beck, and Burns.

What are logical cognitive distortions?  They are flaws in formal reasoning, like ad hominem attacks on the person, changing the subject, straw man, or non sequitur arguments.  These logical crossed transactions[1] are generally used to justify both emotional and perceptual cognitive distortions and are associated with both the executive functions of cerebral frontal lobes and fixation at a mid-personal developmental level. Logical cognitive distortions are reductionistic in that life itself is seen as either rational or irrational; reason cannot and does not conceive of arational alternatives, like Nagarjunas’ Madhyamika, because concepts and reason are dualistic.  Logical cognitive distortions are a higher order of Drama Triangle in which reason is used to persecute victims. It is addressed by IDL with its Socratically-influenced questioning protocol.

What is the third type of cognitive distortion called? Perceptual cognitive distortions are based on the idea that your context defines what exists for you. That also means that it does not allow you to perceive what exists. To the extent that you do perceive what exists, you distort it to fit into your perceptual model. For existence, if your world view holds you responsible for everything that happens to you, as some forms of karma do, you will not recognize abuse by others because you must deserve the abuse. Perceptual cognitive distortions are the most destructive and most difficult of the three types of cognitive distortions, because it is the most subjective of the three. You don’t see how you are trapped by your own delusions so you have no ability to escape them. You are in the Drama Triangle because you are a victim of contexts you are unaware of that are conditioning and controlling both your perception and your choices. Your perceptual cognitive distortions are generally used to define your sense of self, your core identity, at whatever stage of development your self-line happens to be. Consequently, threats to your perceptual cognitive distortions are likely to be experienced as attacks on the integrity and stability of your identity, making them not only difficult to detect but almost impossible to challenge. While IDL addresses all three types of cognitive distortions, it is particularly interested in recognizing and neutralizing perceptual cognitive distortions as a way to minimize defensiveness and threats to self-definition. To do so it provides repeated experiences of identification with perspectives that include, yet transcend, your own, thereby providing objectivity that you lack.

Can you have cognitive distortions outside the Drama Triangle? All three varieties operate within the Drama Triangle, in that they generate and maintain the roles of victim, persecutor, and rescuer. Inequality, prejudice, and violence are products of cognitive distortions. The cure involves enhanced awareness, through access to information, reason, clarity, and objectivity, because the cognitive line leads the development of the others. This is because our cognitive schemas determine the sense we make out of the world. If they are narrow and limited, our opportunities for growth will be the same. If they are broad and open, our opportunites for growth will likewise be far greater. Note how different this is from saying, “love is all you need,” or reducing enlightenment to trust or belief. Such elements become important components of cognitive schemas that include and then transcend them. Your cognitive schema is in turn used to direct the design of your integral life practice, which is an empirical method or yoga that is designed to test both the information and the priorities upon which it is based. For IDL, this practice is overseen by your life compass, as accessed through repeated interviews with emerging potentials.

Holons

Here is another version of Wilber’s quadrant diagram, first published in Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality, which not only depicts the evolutionary progression of consciousness, culture, behavior, and systems but some of the individuals and schools of thought associated with each quadrant:

 Wilber’s model tends to view dream characters and the products of human imagination as self-aspects. Due to its phenomenological methodology, IDL does not assume that interviewed emerging potentials are subjective creations. Instead, it asks interviewers to suspend such assumptions, at least during the interviewing process, and see how each perspective defines itself. It views emerging potentials, such as dream characters and the personifications of life issues, as holons.

Are interviewed dream characters also holons? While both AQAL and IDL approach holons from the perspectives of various human “selves,” (even when discussing non-human holons), IDL also considers the perspectives various interior collective, interviewed emerging potentials. In effect, this is the interior collective quadrant (values) of interior collective perspectives (interviewed emerging potentials), when viewed from the vantage point of waking identity. For example, in evaluating the holon of a nightmare it is considered from the perspective of the dreamer, which is the holon of a human self. But when the dream monster or antagonist is interviewed, the holon that is the nightmare is being perceived from the perspective of an interviewed emerging potential, which is a non-human perspective without a stable self-sense. Now it is of course possible to think, “But of course it is a self-created self-aspect.” However, that is both a waking interpretive projection and a discount of the ontological status of the interviewed perspective itself. Is that how it defines itself or is that how you define it?

Are interviewed characters real or imaginary? When IDL suspends such assumptions it does so without thereby giving such perspectives either the status of sub-personalities or the objective ontological status of independent entities, because both are equally projections of self. Instead, it suspends such assumptions in favor of listening to what each interviewed emerging potential has to say. It may state it is a sub-personality, an autonomous being, both, or neither. You do not know until you interview it. This is reminiscent of the Johari Window, but with that known to others but not known to self, as well as that known to self but not known to others, and that known neither to self nor to others, coming into focus, conveyed by that which transcends and includes both self and others. Consultation of such holons provides both more information and greater freedom than human-based perspectives are likely to provide. This is not to say emerging potentials are omniscient. They clearly are not. The transcendence of their perspective is limited to their areas of expertise, which can be narrow, yet remain germane.

What determines the reality of interviewed characters? Whatever else they may be, images and characters both in your dreams and in your waking life are conditioned by your perception of them; as Kant long ago established, their reality is independent, yet secondary to the conditioning filters through which they are experienced. What they are in themselves, completely separated from our perception, can never be known. Interviewed emerging potentials determine their degree of autonomy and objectivity, not the interviewer, the subject of the interview or a theoretical model such as integral. Even in near death and mystical experiences, in which we are convinced that all filters have been lowered, holonic theory points out that this is only relatively so; you have simply moved into a context whose limits are incomprehensible to you and therefore remain unperceived.

Are interviewed characters holons? Yes, and holons can be interviewed and approached as emerging potentials. Whether it is a dream character, a personification of physical symptoms, or of some waking life issue, each interviewed emerging potential exhibits all four quadrants. “Emerging potential” is a synonym for “holon” in that there is no thing that is not an emerging potential, and there is no thing that is not a holon. They are two very different ways of describing the same phenomena. “Holon” has the advantage of emphasizing the multi-perspectival nature within each interviewed emerging potential, increasing the likelihood that its consciousness, behavioral, interpersonal, and normative aspects will be taken into account. “Emerging potential,” emphasizes the fact that who you think you are, and self-identity in general, exists within contexts that are larger than you are. These are factors that are outside of or external to your sense of self. The assumption of larger contexts is not outgrown, although there exist experiences, such as ones of mystical unity or as expressed in some near death experiences, of oneness with all contexts. However, while this is a perceptual reality, it is more likely that there exist still broader contexts that are incomprehensible at your present level of development. This is Wilber’s position as well. The way he frames it is by saying, “It’s holons all the way up and all the way down.” While Wilber emphasizes both the transcendent and evolving nature of contexts, IDL emphasizes experiential identification with a multiplicity of them, as Genpo Roshi does with his Big Mind process.

Are interviewed characters objective and independent or subjective and dependent? Interviewed emerging potentials experience themselves as autonomous in many ways, yet dependent upon your consciousness. If you have done IDL interviews, you have probably experienced this paradox for yourself. This is not autonomy in the sense that these interviewed perspectives really exist in other dimensions, on the one hand, or as shadow, subconscious, or unconscious split off and therefore relatively independent aspects of yourself, on the other, but that their beingness is distinct from your self-sense in general, in addition to being distinct from your waking sense of who you are. Emerging potentials tend to function as aspects of larger, collective holons of which your identity, including both your self and cognitive developmental lines, are subsets.

What are the four quadrants of an emerging potential? As with other holons, emerging potentials possess an interior individual (UL) consciousness with awareness, perception, thoughts and feelings, an interior collective (LL) culture with contexts, interpretations, scripts, worldview and values, an external individual (UR) behavior observable behavior of a holon: a cell, person, or dream character within the dream or imagery context, and an external collective (LR) dealing with society, relationships, systems, and collective behavior. The concept of “holon,” which Wilber derived from Arthur Koestler, puts these four, interior, exterior, individual and collective, together. Each embodies a different approach to life and a different perspective while providing four arenas of evolutionary development for any entity.

How is a Tibetan Buddhist dream snake a holon? The essay, Tibetan Buddhism and IDL recounts a dream of a Rinpoche involving a huge female temple cobra. Is this dream snake a holon? Does it manifest all four quadrants? The external individual quadrant involves behavior, so we ask, “What does it do?” It slithers, sticks its tongue out to smell different meditating monks, stops in front of our Rinpoche, and bites him in his third eye. We can conclude that this cobra definitely has an external individual holonic presence. This is its self-creative or “autopoeitic” aspect.

The external collective quadrant involves interaction, so we ask, “How does this snake interact with its environment and others?” It is inside the temple, it crawls over the floor, it looks at various monks, it smells them, and it bites one of them. We can therefore conclude that this cobra definitely has an external collective holonic presence. This is its social and interdependent aspect.

The interior collective quadrant involves culture, values, worldviews, and interpretations. These are private. You aren’t going to discover these unless you ask the snake. This is core to IDL. When you do you learn how it scores itself in all six core qualities, what aspect of the dreamer it personifies, if any, its view of its purpose, in contrast to that assumed by the dreamer, both during the dream and later, when he is thinking about it. These are the types of considerations that imply what the snake’s worldview is. The snake said that Rinpoche had done wrong unintentionally and that he still needed to be more careful. Her intention was not to eat or kill Rinpoche, but to punish him, despite his good intentions. All of this confirms that this dream snake has an interior collective quadrant.

The interior individual quadrant involves consciousness, thoughts, and feelings, the private realm of identity and cognition. The contents of this quadrant are not revealed unless they are volunteered or one asks. When we do so we learn some of its thoughts and feelings. In this case we learn Rinpoche needed to be punished. This implies that this snake is not so much a guru as a persecutor in the Drama Triangle with the Rinpoche the victim. However, the fact that it is high scoring implies that from its perspective punishment is a necessary tool to wake this Rinpoche up. These are interpretations, to be checked out with the snake, if possible, and cross-checked by interviewing another dream character, such as the temple. In any case, we can conclude that this dream snake very much has a level of consciousness, thoughts and feelings, and therefore an interior individual quadrant. We can also notice the dissonance between the interpretations we want to believe and project onto the snake and the dream and what we are told. For example, we may believe Rinpoches that meditate for hours a day do not need to be punished because they must be at transpersonal levels of development. Or, we believe that a character cannot be high scoring and demand punishment at the same time. The challenge becomes, “Do I insist on my biases, prejudices, and presuppositions or do I suspend them and consider the possibility that what I am hearing really does represent a very different value system and reality from my own?” This is a common challenge evoked by IDL interviews, and it does so in a way that is difficult to avoid or rationalize away.

All four of these quadrants are interdependently co-arising. From the perspective of the snake, the dream is about it, its intentions, and the Rinpoche is a character in its reality! Like Chuang-Tzu and his famous butterfly, from its perspective, Rinpoche is an aspect of this cobra.

How is a four quadrant analysis of experience helpful? A four-quadrant analysis allows us to focus on characteristics of the snake that we otherwise might overlook. If all four quadrants evolve, then all four quadrants of who you are in a dream and a lucid dream are evolving, co-dependently with the dream environment and its inhabitants. This means that everything you see and everyone you meet in a dream or mystical experience is also a holon, with its four aspects to consider, each evolving in its own way, in response to how its environment, including your presence and the choices you make in the dream, impacts each of its four faces. We immediately begin to grasp one of the important implications of the integral model: we start perceiving ourselves and others, whatever state of consciousness that we are in at the moment, differently. Our perception moves from naïve realism rooted in shamanistic dualism and naïve realism to a multi-perspectival and empathetic grounding that allows us to see, appreciate, and respond to many more possibilities than we could before.

Which quadrant is the most important? For a holon to evolve, the four quadrants must co-evolve. Each of these quadrants can be viewed as most important and as generating the other three. Whole schools of thought are built around the assumption of the superiority of one quadrant or another. Skinner’s behaviorism assumes the external individual quadrant is most important. Buddha, Freud, Jung, and Burns (of cognitive distortion fame) assume the internal individual quadrant of consciousness is most important. Socrate, Plato, and Kohlberg assume the internal collective quadrant of values is most important. Interactional therapies like Moreno’s sociometry, Perl’s gestalt, and Berne’s Transactional Analysis, along with sociologists, anthropologists, and systems theorists in the sciences assume the external collective quadrant is most important. These are all blind men each grabbing a different part of our mythical elephant and each proclaiming they accurately describe all of him.

What happens when a holon quadrant lags behind the others? The object for both AQAL and IDL, in respect to holons and quadrants, is to identify and balance the four. This is because a lagging quadrant will slow down or stop development. There must be a minimal adequacy in all four at any particular level, whether of a stage or line, in order for a higher level of development to be sustained. Each of these four quadrants shows up in every interview, and it is an instructive practice to look for them.

Why is quadrant balance so important? The goal is to support the evolution of all four quadrants of every element in a dream or waking life issue. There are several good reasons for this. When you do so you are supporting the balanced evolution of those aspects of yourself personified by that particular element. In addition, the more balanced and evolved any emerging potential becomes the stronger is its pull on you. It lifts you up, supporting you in your evolution. The more strong and balanced emerging potentials that you access the less powerful is the effect of your lagging lines. At the same time, you have more resources for understanding, neutralizing, and supporting the unwinding of your fixated knots.

Which quadrants do interviewed characters occupy? Dream characters and the personifications of life issues, two categories of holons recognized by IDL, occupy your interior collective quadrant in that they are interior to you and always exist in relationship to you. However, they also occupy your exterior collective quadrant in that you have objective relationships with them as autonomous others, both during dreams (if they are also dream characters) and during the interviewing process (both dream characters and the personifications of life issues.) In that they have individual behaviors and reveal autonomous thoughts and feelings it is also obvious that they occupy both individual quadrants as well.

How are the four quadrants represented by an interviewed character? IDL holons themselves possess all four of these quadrants. For example, if you dream of a monster, its appearance and actions are characteristics of its exterior individual quadrant. How it interacts with other dream characters and objects, including you, the dreamer, are characteristics of its exterior collective quadrant. It is not part of your exterior collective quadrant because you are dreaming or re-experiencing the dream in your head, so it is part of your interior experience. However, it is not “your” interior experience, because even if it is a character from your imagination, you have an objective relationship with it, so that is in your interior collective quadrant. In order to access the interior quadrants of the monster or any IDL holon you have to interview it. You have to ask it questions, which it answers. If the monster says something to you or answers questions in a dream, it is disclosing its interior individual quadrant to some extent. IDL interviewing provides a very broad disclosure of the interior individual quadrant of these elements. Interviews also disclose the values and interpretations, as well as the culture and world view, or the interior collective quadrant, of the monster. The reason this is important is that misperceptions of life issues and dream characters, based on your perception of their individual and collective exterior behavior, can create fear where none is necessary and false conclusions that are simply based on an absence of information about the interior quadrants of the element. This contributes to physiological stress reactions, anxiety, and depression whether or not such a dream is recalled. The same analysis applies to our common misinterpretations of our life dream; we draw false conclusions about the nature of others and wake-up calls, because we make assumptions instead of respectfully asking questions and practicing deep listening in an integral sort of way. Therefore, interviewing such elements and disclosing their interior quadrants is a major resource for preventive health. The perspective of any interviewed emerging potential, for example a tree, can itself be viewed from four different perspectives, each represented by a different question:

What question does the interior individual quadrant ask? The interior individual quadrant asks “What is its level of consciousness of this tree?” “What is its intention?” This is determined by assessing the level of its cognitive, empathetic, moral, and self-lines by its responses to questions, its reasons for its actions, its self-scores in the six core qualities, and its recommendations to the student. How inclusive are the awareness, perception, thoughts, feelings, and clarity of the perspective with which a student is identified? Consciousness is generally associated with issues of psychological and spiritual development, but in a context different from that of AQAL. In that model, it is the psychological and spiritual development of the self and the “self-line” that is under consideration. In IDL, it is the psychological and trans-rational development of a particular interviewed emerging potential, the self, and other emerging potentials. What is important about this difference is that it approaches this important window on experience in a multi-perspectival way rather than from the assumption of a unitary self. Evolution is not about the self or the self-line. It is about life as it manifests in multiple forms, one of which is your primary locus of identification at this moment.

What question does the interior collective quadrant ask? The interior collective quadrant asks the question, “What is meaningful from the perspective of the tree?” “What is the world view of the tree?” “What does the tree value?” “From what does the tree derive meaning?” The answer is derived from the tree’s comments in the interview, and in particular by its self ratings in the six core qualities, including the reasons it gives for those various ratings, as well as by the tree’s recommendations for life priorities. How competent are the interpretations of the tree? How inclusive are its perspectives? What context does it provide? What type of morality does it demonstrate? Because such questions have generally been equated with culture, the internal collective quadrant addresses issues of ethics, sociology, and post-modernism. As in the individual interior quadrant, IDL focuses on the meanings of the interviewed character or life issue personification, not on those of the “self.” The self of a student already knows what it means when it says, feels, and does what it does. However, that self doesn’t know what the tree means. It generally assumes it does, but IDL interviewing demonstrates it generally does not. This can be confirmed by simply writing down the student’s prediction of what the tree will say when it is interviewed and compare it to what the tree actually says.

What question does the exterior individual quadrant ask? The exterior individual quadrant asks, “What is the behavior of the tree?” “What does it do?” “What does it not do?” Does it answer questions? Does it demonstrate autonomy? Does it transform? This quadrant is associated with sensory empiricism, science, behaviorism, homework, career, spiritual disciplines, or yogas. It focuses on how intentions are expressed by behavior. Closely related to this are the predictions that it makes about how the four quadrants of the self of the student will be affected if he or she becomes it at particular times and specific situations and follows its recommendations. The tree is making predictions for external individual behavioral changes for the four quadrants of the holon of the student.

What question does the exterior collective quadrant ask? The exterior collective asks, “How does the tree relate to others?” If it is a dream tree, how does it relate to other dream characters, including dream self? If it is the personification of a life issue, how does it relate to itself, its environment, and the student? This generally turns out to be quite different from the perception of the tree than from the dreamer, who probably perceived the tree in the dream as it does waking trees. However, an interviewed tree often notes relationships and interactions that are unrecognized by the dreamer. The exterior collective quadrant focuses not on individual behavior, but on collectives, such as couples, families, groups, society, civilizations, and systems. It is associated not with individual psychology, such as the psychology of personality or classical/operant conditioning, but with social psychology and the investigation of systems. This may involve not only its relationship with the student who is being interviewed, but with a dreamer.

What impact, if any, does the tree have when the student “becomes” it and answers questions from its perspective? Is there any shift in the energy or consciousness of the dreamer? These would be interior individual relationship impacts. Are there shifts in the values, meanings, interpretations of the student as a result of having become and listened to the tree? These are impacts in the interior collective quadrant of the student. Are there changes in the student’s behavior? Is she more or less hesitant to speak? Does she procrastinate more or less? These are impacts in the external individual quadrant of the student’s holon. Are there changes in the student’s relationships with others that are a consequence of having experienced the tree? These would be shifts in the external collective quadrant of the student.

Are interviewed characters human or “its?” Because both of the exterior quadrants deal with the objective other, Wilber often refers to both of them together as the realm of “its,” or “things,” as opposed to the interior individual quadrant of “I,” or “identity,” and the interior collective quadrant of agreed meanings. He calls this agreement “We,” for short, or the “I-Thou” quadrant, the realm of sacred relationship. Wilber’s AQAL also discriminates whether a holon is animate or inanimate or subordinate to individual consciousness. These are not discriminations that are emphasized by emerging potentials themselves. Whether you are dealing with a whale shark or a lawn mower, an interviewed character’s comments reflect your level of holonic development and then adds its own. Therefore IDL holons can be viewed as essentially human and not inanimate. However, during IDL interviewing, such assumptions about holon type are suspended in favor of a phenomenological choice to allow each emerging potential to define itself.

How does IDL interviewing emphasize the internal quadrants and why? Everyone tends to favor one or the other of these quadrants; consequently, most individuals and schools of thought tend to be reductionistic, that is, they attempt to boil reality down to their favorite of these four, which says much more about who they think they are than about life itself. Wilber has observed that modernity collapses holons to the objective, external right quadrants, valuing holons as specimens to be analyzed, as “its,” and for their functional and measurable natures. While valuing that which can be externally measured and tested in a laboratory, modernity tends to deny or marginalize subjectivity, values, individual experience, and feelings as unproven or having no meaning. Wilber calls this pervasive reductionism “flatland,” and views it as a fundamental cause of current social dysfunction, such as the pervasive exploitation of resources and labor in the name of greater accumulation of capital. IDL views itself as a partial response and rebalancing of holons by emphasizing phenomenology, the internal individual consciousness of alternate perspectives, identifying and eliminating the three types of cognitive distortions, and by emphasizing the values and meanings of interior collective multiperspectivalism.

How does IDL interviewing emphasize the internal quadrants and why? It emphasizes the external quadrants through establishing an integral life practice (individual exterior), eliminating the Drama Triangle in relationships, and transforming family and collective relationships through the use of IDL (collective exterior).

How does IDL interviewing emphasize multiple (I-We-It) approaches to growth? This is another way of talking about quadrants. For Wilber, an “I” or interior individual approach involves the evolution of your self-line through the direct experience of the various stages of consciousness. How you experience both your dreams and lucid dreams evolves as you do. A “We,” or interior collective approach, involves meanings that further the growth dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and higher order synthesis. As you develop, the meanings that you project onto your dreams are likely to be less self-centered and take into account multiple possibilities and perspectives, including those of other entities and objects in your dreams. An “It” approach involves interacting with others and your waking and dream environments in ways that support the next stage of your growth. Lucid dreaming, for instance, may or may not do this. The way you normally interact in your dreams may or may not do this.

What quadrant do dream yogas typically favor in understanding dreams and lucid dreams? Dream yogas in general tend to take an “I” approach to waking up; it is all about the consciousness of the dreamer. However, there are plenty of accounts in the literature of sacred “We” relationships with a particular character, a group, or the entire dream environment. However, dream yogas tend to maintain waking assumptions into sleep, meaning that dream environments tend to be viewed as “Its,” that is systems of others, with the relationship either controlled by the perception of the dreamer or else a fear of overwhelm by the other.

How does IDL support “I,” “We” and “It” approaches? IDL supports the evolution of the individual “I” through triangulation, including identification with either disowned emerging potentials or unrecognized potentials and applying their recommendations in an integral life practice. IDL supports an “It” approach to growth through honoring all interior and exterior projections as manifestations of life. It emphasizes a “We” approach to growth by cultivating “I-Thou” relationships both with multiple emerging potentials and secondly with sentient beings.

What are some examples of developmental lines? Anything that can evolve or develop as an aptitude or competency can be considered a line. Lines of development that Wilber has mentioned include the following: cognitive, ethical, aesthetic, spiritual, kinesthetic skills, affective, musical, spatial, logical-mathematical, karmic, affective (emotions & feelings), self-identity, psycho-sexual, ideas of good, role taking, socio-emotional capacity, creativity, altruism, care, openness, concern, religious faith, meditative states, witnessing, joy, communicative competance, modes of space and time, death-seizure, needs, worldviews, gender identity, empathy, and karmic.

Why are developmental lines important? Each of these has a corresponding pathology that evolves along with it, meaning that each is better thought of as a polarity. For example, your capacity for love is one line, and it exists on a line with an opposite polarity of fear and hate. Therefore, the expression of fear and hate also evolves over time, just as the capacity for love evolves. Depression provides another example. There is neurotic depression, which is generally associated with getting what you don’t want and not getting what you want. Then there is social depression, which is generally associated with getting what you don’t need from others and not getting what you need from them. Then there is existential depression, which is generally associated with finding that both your wants and needs are meaningless. People who have neurotic depression have no conception of existential depression, but people who have existential depression understand neurotic depression, because existential depression transcends and includes neurotic depression. Anxiety provides another example. Fear of physical death is quite different from the fear of a narcissistic injury, that is damage to a self one thinks is invincible. Both are quite different from the fear of loss of status, or social death. The death of a belief is yet another type of anxiety, as is the fear that life is essentially meaningless. Because the sophistication of the opposite pole of every line grows as it advances in level, challenges become more complicated and sophisticated. Recognizing and neutralizing these barriers to development require increasing support; you will not automatically know how to handle these new and previously unencountered obstacles just because you are growing your cognitive and self-lines. For example greater cognitive breadth implies more fundamental misperceptions and blind spots; a broader self means more forms of psychic inflation and narcissism. Consequently, accessing emerging potentials can make a huge difference, because they provide objectivity that you lack about issues that fewer of your peers understand, the higher you climb on the developmental ladder.

What developmental lines do dream yogas tend to emphasize? Dream yogas tend to focus on developing either clarity on the self line or else a particular skill set that is associated with a particular line or value. For example, skull practice in fail-safe dream environments develops confidence in a particular developmental line, such as getting past awkwardness with the opposite sex or overcoming fear of failure or death; perhaps it involves enhancing problem-solving capabilities. There is no reason why any line cannot be practiced during dreaming and lucid dreaming.

What lines do both AQAL and IDL view as particularly significant for balanced development?  The cognitive, self, interpersonal, and ethical lines are of central importance. Regarding the interpersonal, IDL focuses in particular on the development of the empathetic sub-line.

Why does the cognitive line lead? Like AQAL, IDL sees the cognitive line as leading the others, in that it creates perceptual possibilities that are not otherwise seen and are therefore unattainable. IDL emphasizes the importance of broadening your ability to dream your life by identifying with perspectives that personify facets of your life compass. This is one of the most important and powerful steps anyone can do to generate a life dream that is inspirational, credible, and attainable. Because you cannot attain dreams that you are incapable of dreaming, the cognitive line creates contexts which in turn allow important new growth possibilities. If your cognitive structures do not allow you to see it, feel it, smell it, or be it, you cannot dream it. Your world view creates what is possible and determines what is valuable. Interviewing your own emerging potentials, whether dream characters or the personifications of your life issues, creates cognitive contexts that are innate, authentic, autonomous that transcend and include your own. They are “yours,” yet do not belong to you. They are not internalized injunctions of your parents or society. They are not reducible to “soul,” “higher self,” “intuition,” or “God’s will.” Both the meaning of your life and the passion of your actions becomes generated and propelled by something that is closer to life itself, as it spontaneously and uniquely manifests in and through you. This approach to growth reflects autopoiesis, a term introduced by Varela and Maturana referring to a system capable of maintaining and reproducing itself, something life itself is much more capable of doing than any sense of self, which is by definition figure differentiated from ground. Consequently, IDL interviewing expands the cognitive line in ways that transcend both personal and vision-logic consciousness.

Why is empathy a particularly important developmental line for IDL? Your empathy, or your ability to take the role of another, determines your access to the multiple perspectives that expand your world view. It also advances your cognitive line and develops your moral sense by shifting your perspective to that of the other, whomever or whatever it may be. The self-line evolves based on the foundation provided by the levels of development of the cognitive, empathetic, and ethical lines. It tends to follow these three, but not necessarily any of the others. Capitalism, on the average, is an example of an early to mid-personal cognitive line, a late prepersonal to early personal self-line, a mid-prepersonal to early personal ethical line, and a mid-prepersonal to late prepersonal empathetic line. What keeps capitalism out of balance and eventually leads to the collapse of capitalist societies is, in particular, the lagging empathetic line.

Much work has been done in recent years to clarify the importance of the empathetic line by people like Roman Krznaric and Jeremy Rifkin. IDL has found that repeatedly taking the perspectives of emerging potentials first strengthens and then thins the self-line until it has no ontological status whatsoever. Within this framework, the moral line tends to take care of itself. It does not need to be taught; all that is required is habitual identification with emerging potentials that intrinsically personify higher moral perspectives than does waking identity.

Where does evidence of transpersonal states come from? While Wilber bases the transpersonal nature of AQAL on the objective testimony of mystics and to a lesser extent on the accounts of psychologists, sociologists, and philosophers, IDL bases its transpersonal nature on the personal experience of transcendence of self that generally accompanies an IDL interview or the identification with this or that emerging potential. Waking, dreaming, and deep sleep are the three natural states of consciousness.

What are examples of non-transpersonal states? For Wilber, states of consciousness may be natural, phenomenal, altered, and peak experiences. Phenomenal states arise from interior experiences such as bodily sensations, emotions, mental ideas, memories, or inspirations, or from exterior sources such as sensorimotor inputs, seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, and tasting. IDL views these as filtering states, comparable to Kant’s a priori categories that frame perception and make it possible.

What are the varieties of altered states? The third category, altered states, may be exogenous, or induced, or endogenous, or trained states. Examples of exogenous states include psychedelic and other drug-induced states; hypnosis; psycho-therapeutic techniques; gestalt therapy, psychodrama; voice dialogue; biofeedback states, and forms of guided imagery. Endogenous states are intentionally generated from inside or from interior influences such as various performance enhancement techniques in sports therapy; dream incubation; meditative training which work on calming, relaxation, equanimity states; and mental imaging and visualization such as tonglen meditation. Some techniques, such as IDL interviewing, involve both endogenous and exogenous states.

What are spontaneous or peak states? A fourth category of states is spontaneous or peak states. These involve unintentional or unexpected shifts of awareness, such as occurs in mystical, out of the body, and near death experiences. IDL categorizes peak states as a type of altered state that can be either exogenous, endogenous, or both. Altered states are by nature temporary, meaning that while often powerful and transformative, they are extremely difficult to consciously generate or duplicate. People can spend their lives trying to re-experience a state experience, and for some of these, such as some near death experiences, life is pale by comparison. Your perception of an altered state is dependent on the cultural framework you bring to the experience as well as your current needs, thought processes, and emotions. Your level of development in your internal individual quadrant, as well as the contextual framework of meanings in your internal collective quadrant, determine what you experience and conclude about an altered state. Consequently, experiencers are typically extremely insistent on the truthfulness of their description of an altered state and yet have no sense of how their everyday mind and cultural context conditioned their perception of it.

Is there any necessary correlation between particular states and your stage of development? No. This is fairly clear with waking, dreaming, and deep sleep, but far less clear with altered states. There is a common assumption that blissful, psychic, and lucid states are a reflection of higher levels of development, but this is not the case. Children, criminals, and the mentally ill can experience blissful states, and those who are relatively highly developed may report very few experiences of blissful states. There are developmental correlations with states. For example, children tend to dream about animals much more than adults. The waking state is itself clearly subdivided into well demarcated stages of development.

What sorts of states are most valuable to cultivate? IDL believes that a focus on natural, phenomenal, and both exogenous and endogenous states is more beneficial to personal development than a focus on the spontaneous or peak states that are often equated with spirituality and spiritual development. These, and to a lesser extent, exogenous states, can give you a taste of what is possible as you grow into expanded broadened awareness, and this is what identification with alternate perspectives in the IDL interviewing process is intended to do. The situation is somewhat analogous to a young child looking at all the keys her father carries and marveling at what they might unlock and how wonderful it must be to have so much power. However, the experience of the adult with all those keys is typically not like that at all. Each key represents another responsibility; all of them together represent a weight that can wear a hole in one’s pocket. Many books are sold, many adherents created, by selling the attractiveness of higher states. The reality is often quite different.

Is self-development essential? Only to a point, about the mid-personal level of development. IDL also is interested in evolution not centered on the self. For example, transpersonal, dream, and deep sleep state evolution are not centered on self development. Perspectives interviewed by IDL are not centered on the self; they are centered on themselves and their needs.The transpersonal is centered on a thinning of and disidentification with any self; dream and deep sleep are centered on first collective and later contextual evolution. IDL encourages these broader and higher forms of evolution by de-emphasizing the evolution of the self-line for those who already have a healthy and relatively balanced sense of self, in favor of emphasizing first acquisition of an integral world view on the cognitive line and the evolution of the empathetic and ethical lines, which are typically mediated by the internal collective quadrant but show up in the external quadrants in significant ways.

IDL views waking consciousness as typically self-centric, dream consciousness as polycentric, and deep sleep consciousness as contextual, that is, the ground for which all experience is figure. There is nothing “absolute” about the non-dual; it is the integration of the first three. It evolves as waking, dreaming, and deep sleep evolve.

How do levels or stages of development unfold? They do so in a set order when previous level prerequisites have been met. These essentially involve reaching a certain level of competency on one or more core line: neurological, kinesthetic, imagery, linguistic, self, empathetic, ethical, and so forth. Each level includes the preceding lines; they are incorporated into the new level in a way that is generally but not always reversible. For example, while one may lose muscular coordination with disuse or suffer impairment due to an injury, it is difficult to forget how to ride a bike. Muscle memory tends to be permanent. The ability to regrow tissue is widely available pre-birth; afterward that physiological competency becomes highly specialized and limited; it is largely a one-way street, although medicine is making amazing breakthroughs in “waking up” regenerative capabilities. Piaget has laid out the stages of cognitive development. Erikson developed a useful theory of stages of psychosocial development, while Jane Loevinger described stages of ego development. Maslow differentiated a hierarchy of needs. Kohlberg, who has done the same with morality, has shown that ethical development appears to be irreversible; once a person has reached a level of moral reasoning they do not regress to a more fundamental way of making ethical judgments. All of this research indicates that human physical, emotional, mental, and interpersonal development unfolds in predictable, hierarchical sequences.

Does development progress hierarchically? Yes. Consequently, to accept the reality of developmental stages also requires the acceptance of hierarchies of both structures and processes. This is important, because shamanistic, pre-rational approaches, and even some rational approaches, such as that of Plato, believe that enlightenment is about recovering that which was lost, essentially a regression to a state of primordial oneness. This is reflected in the myth of the Garden of Eden and its various world-wide versions of romantic primitivism. Rousseau and the entire romanticist movement in literature, art, philosophy, and sociology are built on this assumption. Wilber’s integral AQAL and IDL disagree. They point out that regression leads to decompensation, destructuralization, chaos, and unconsciousness. Much data exists to indicate that the farther you go back historically the more brutal and short life becomes, with more wars, infanticide, slavery, rape, incest, and lawlessness. Although you can’t tell it from the news, the number of wars and deaths due to violence continues to diminish world-wide on a per capita basis.[2]

Why is it such a problem to mix up states and stages? Mystical states, however, do not lend support to a developmental perspective because they create the belief that because free and unconditioned states are accessible to anyone regardless of their level of development, that those who have them must have attained a higher stage of development. This is indeed true, however, they do so because they are temporary and substitute one non-regressed perspective for another, for example a channeled spirit for one’s waking awareness or a self in an NDE or mystical experience that perceives life with markedly reduced filtering. Advocates of state openings tend to forget that such filtering is necessary for remembering to eat, pay bills, and not walk into traffic. There are functional and genuine reasons and benefits for a ground of developmental hierarchies into which appear occasional blasts of liberating state freedom. These people generally take for granted their current state of awareness, as if it always existed, and then put state openings on top of that. They tend to forget that their current state of awareness is developmental and did not exist when they were five. In fact, when older children are shown videos of their thinking and problem-solving abilities from the age of five or six they are incredulous, refusing to believe that they could ever have not seen things that are now so obvious to them, and want to dismiss the evidence as some sort of fraud. Romantic primitivism, like shamanism, are natural default states of human perception. It is the unusual person that questions them and evolves beyond them.

Do IDL and AQAL promote hierarchy over hetewarchy? While dream yogas may emphasize either hierarchy or heterarchy, neither Wilber’s integral nor IDL promote hierarchy over heterarchy. They both insist that development is evolutionary, meaning that life evolves more complex structures and processes that transcend, yet include, previous structures and processes. However, to say that this is more important than integrative and balancing functions would be like saying that day is more important than night or that masculinity is more important than femininity. It is a discussion or argument that can only arise when the importance of both polarities are not recognized. However, this is exactly the problem with shamanistic, pre-personal, traditional and late personal approaches to spirituality. They tend to not understand, appreciate, or ignore the hierarchical and developmental aspects of life. This is partially because evolution is a new understanding in human consciousness, with Darwin’s Origin of Species only published in 1859. Therefore, a developmental, evolutionary perspective on life is relatively new and has not had enough time to sink into various aspects of mass culture, including information about and attitudes toward yogas.

 What are the three major divisions, and their three sub-categories, into which developmental stages fall? Early prepersonal development focuses on physical needs for food and shelter. This is the relatively concrete, sensory, and unconscious awareness of a baby. There is no language and one’s sense of self is fused with immediate, sensual experience rather than emotions or ego. The life, sexual, and death drives of the Freudian id are associated with this level and the next. When you enjoy the taste and smell of a good meal you are evoking early pre personal, regardless of your level of development. People on this level can be as lovable and generous as any; it is in fact easier to love and trust these people because their emotional spontaneity has the honesty of a baby or a dog, because it is non-complex and it is not hidden. Ulterior motives simply do not exist, because they require a complexity of awareness that does not yet exist. When things go wrong on this level you get problems with sensory reality testing, and psychosis. They often will not magically go away with development, but instead become embedded in the foundation of higher levels generally unnoticed until stresses appear. At those times deficits and imbalances can create major risks for health and relationships. Problems also arise when people attempt to reduce humanity to its lowest common denominator. It is one thing to say that physical survival is a vital and fundamental human need; it is quite another to therefore proclaim, like the Hobbesian and Freudian world views, that it therefore provides the motivation for all human desires.

Children and adults at early prepersonal dream, and they perhaps need IDL more than any other group. This is because their dreams are real and overpowering; the interpretations, reasoning, and dismissals that are generally provided are not likely to help people at this level. Instead, they need a combination of soothing and make-believe that provides them with a sense of security and control. The best source of soothing for these people is physical; simply holding them and generating a sense of physical security, perhaps by giving them a transitional object to hold, if they are a child, or a favorite food or drink if an adult. If they will role-play the threat or some aspect of the dream experience this will enhance their sense of security and control because they will thereby embody the qualities associated with that dream element. This is not so different from shamanistic possession by a spirit in a process that is therapeutic. However, where shamanism encourages trance identification, IDL does not.

The mid-prepersonal level focuses on familial and tribal bonding and uses magic and emotion to understand and control the world. Everything is about preferences: what you like and want defines happiness; what you dislike and do not want defines unhappiness. This is the realm of instinctual images that direct behavior unconsciously, prerational belief, faith, and superstition. This and the previous level account for the mentality of hunter-gatherers. early agricultural societies, and the world view of shamanism. Because it is the foundation of our early life scripting, of our fundamental preferences, sense of self, and relationships, it is both extraordinarily strong and omni-present as a ground of emotional pre-disposition, dualistic perception, and escapism into magic and pre-rational beliefs. Within the context of this world view, these people can be loving, generous, courageous, and nobel. Life can manifest in healthy, balanced fullness on the mid-prepersonal as it can on any and all levels. In fact, a healthy navigation through this period is almost a requirement for later healthy relationships and clear thinking. A combination of physiological factors (early pre-personal) and emotional experiences at the age of three or four can, for example, make it highly unlikely that a person will ever outgrow conservatism.[3] When things go wrong on this level you get personality disorders, associated with an inability to empathize, pervasive perceptual cognitive distortions, such as the splitting of the world and individuals into good and bad, and profound personalization. What looks like empathy is a manipulative charm offensive.[4] Whenever you make decisions based on your emotional preferences, regardless of your reasons or explanations, you are operating out of mid-prepersonal consciousness. The developmental goal at mid-prepersonal, as every level, is to encourage both integration and balance on this and every level, because these are prerequisites to evolution to the next.

IDL encourages discussion about the Drama Triangle with people at mid-prepersonal. Even young children understand persecuting monsters, feelings of victimization, and the need for rescuing. These dream roles can be pointed out to the child or adult; when they take the role of this or that dream element it will probably be in one role or another, but through the process of the interview it will often move out of the Drama Triangle relative to the dreamer and the dream characters. This presents experiences and therefore opens the possibility to the cultivation of emotional objectivity, which supports development within and beyond mid-prepersonal.

The late prepersonal focuses on the creation of a narcissistic, narrowly defined self-sense, often called the “ego.” It uses belief, myth, and personal power to understand and control the world. This is the birth of “self confidence” in the narrowest and strongest sense. Because one’s self-sense is narrow, prepersonal level consciousness is self-centered and exploitative, but also expresses nurturing and generosity within the context of that level. Developmentally, it correlates with the normal, healthy self-awareness of a four-year old. It is dependent on the linguistically-based definitions of self that arise with grammar and extensive vocabularies. Thinking is concrete and self-centered. There is no self-reflection on motives or empathy, although there is a great deal of role play. What looks like empathy is mimicry. The cognitive sophistication of late prepersonal is largely due to the acquisition of language as an adaptive tool for an organism, homo sapiens, that lack the physiological compatibility with the environment that other mammals do.[5]

Language allows the development of an abstract, cognitively derived sense of self that can retroflect, that is, turn around and look back at itself with a degree of objectivity that is not attainable at early and mid-prepersonal levels. Their actions are generally controlled by fear. When things go wrong on this level you have abuses of power and control by strong selves for very narrowly defined self-interests: power, control, status, and money. People fixated at this level, regardless of their biological age, do not empathize and so they can and do abuse and kill with impunity. What looks like empathy on this level is social conscience based on fear of punishment. “I will do what you want because I will be punished if I do not and I will be rewarded if I do.” People who have evolved to late prepersonal may be extraordinarily powerful and therefore respected for their power and its ability to bestow both blessings and punishments. People tend to ask few questions of great power, which gives it great freedoms, which it generally uses to over-reach and cause its own downfall. The NSA and its relationship to the executive, the legislative, judicial, media, and general citizenry of the United States and the world provide spectacular example of the advantages and disadvantages of consciousness stabilized at late prepersonal.

Late prepersonal dreamers who do interviewing access perspectives that are relatively selfless, unafraid, and detached from power, although they may indeed and obviously be powerful. This allows people at this level to objectify a separate sense of self that requires both defense and power so that these needs can be met without self-rescuing compulsion.

Early personal development focuses on identification with skills, professions, religions, political parties, ethnic groups, and nations. Belongingness creates a social definition of self that is based on exclusion and exclusiveness. I know who I am based on who is not a member of my group. The doctrines, beliefs, and practices of my group create my identity. My success and power rises and falls with the success of my group. My self-worth is created and validated by my membership. The meaning of my life is defined by the goals of my group. When I conform to them, I thrive; when I fight them, I lose. Think of those conditions as applied to religious affiliation, political party membership, company loyalty, and nationalism and you see how powerful and corrosive it can be. Thinking for oneself, at least in areas involving basic group tenants, guidelines, and behaviors, is dangerous individually, because independence of opinion is seen as a threat to the survival of the group as a whole. While self-sense has obviously expanded over the narrow selfishness of late prepersonal, this self is not yet independent from collective cultural definitions of success and happiness. Most people function no higher than at this level because they make their living through their group loyalties. As Upton Sinclair famously said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Dysfunction on this level occurs when the group self-destructs, because your identity and fate is merged with it. A classical example is Germany in the 1930’s. When the German people became identified with National Socialism their individual fate became dependent on the fate of that group identity.

IDL offers people at early prepersonal a collective identity that is authentic and that they cannot outgrow. That identity does not ask them to choose between loyalty to it and to themselves. It does not force compliance with its preferences, nor does it appeal to fear, groupthink, exceptionalism, or exclusivity in order to gain and maintain allegiance. Most people never have the experience with such an approach to collective identity, so how could they recognize it and come to outgrow exterior group loyalties and the myths that bind the group together?

The middle personal extends rights to others based on universal rational principles. This group generates laws, and these laws generate justice for all, not just for my group. People at this level have a set of principles that they have either learned and accepted or developed themselves, and these define who they are and provide meaning in their lives. They understand and control the world by making it in harmony with “natural law,” – the rules of science and nature. These people pride themselves on being rational, independent thinkers. Scientific empiricism operates at this level. They like to question, challenge, and doubt, and they are not afraid of offending either individuals or groups by doing so. When things go wrong at the personal, it is because reason has failed to answer important questions about the status quo. One has played the game and found success in the eyes of the world but is still not happy. There is a crisis of identity, because social and even principled definitions of self are no longer sufficient or satisfying.

People at middle personal either make a god out of reason, are blind to their own inconsistencies, or both. President Obama, for example, presents rational arguments for his decisions and clearly believes he is a rational actor, when his actions are based on the interests of earlier memes, such as early personal exceptionalism and a late prepersonal resort to power, not reason, to achieve his ends. This is also an example of what IDL terms perceptual cognitive distortions which blind people to their actual circumstances, level of development, and developmental needs.

Although they are generally more rational and objecetive than we are, interviewed emerging potentials do not base their decisions on rationality, but on the congruence of their perspective. While that perspective, even if it reflects high scores in the six core qualities, remains a perceptual cognitive distortion, it provides a broader, more inclusive framework than one’s own rational perspective in most cases. For example, a common dilemma for people who are outgrowing this level involves finding meaning in life when social roles, scripts, and pursuits are found to be hollow and superficial. Substituting other external sources of meaning can feel like avoidance of the underlying dissatisfaction with the rational life structure one has built their life on. IDL interviewing generates sources of meaning for people that are intrinsic and satisfying, but not because they are or are not rational.

Late personal extends not only justice but nurturing to all others, not based on reason and law, but the flowering of empathy as compassion. If you haven’t evolved your empathetic and moral lines to late personal, your self-line is not going to be at this level, regardless of how advanced your cognitive line is. Most people self-assess their moral and empathetic development as high, but how would they know? The only way to test morality in particular is in morally compromising circumstances which most people either do not experience, avoid, or forget.

At late personal it is recognized that to exploit others is to exploit the parts of oneself that the other represents. An example of phony altruism would be a Koch brother buying a seat on the board of the Metropolitan Museum in New York City with a sizable donation. While anyone can do actions that look like they function at this level, to authentically be at late personal there has to be evidence that a person has first attained the mid-personal as a rational believer in justice. This is typically very difficult for capitalists to do, because their first allegiance is to profits, not justice. Bill Gates, who learned the laws of programming and business and then went on to use his expertise and resources in philanthropy is an example of someone who appears to be at a late personal developmental stage. Noam Chompsky is an example of a brilliant intellectual who uses that ability in service of a late prepersonal emphasis on pluralism and egalitarianism.

People who fight for the welfare of everyone and for animals, for pluralism and egalitarianism, may be surfing on a cultural or sub-cultural wave. They may have identified with a group or with the values of a group and be doing very good work at an early personal or even mid-prepersonal. One does not stabilize at late prepersonal or above unless he or she has learned to think rationally. For example, there are plenty of Buddhist monks who spend many hours in meditation who are still functioning at pre-rational levels of development. Late personal development implies emotional objectivity and an ability to recognize and avoid both emotional and logical cognitive distortions. It also implies having undergone a thoroughgoing questioning, doubt, and skepticism toward one’s own most central and prized beliefs. How many people typically do so?

IDL is beneficial for people at late prepersonal who want to make sure their universal concern is anchored in their life compass instead of some prevailing sub-cultural groupthink. The difference is not only authenticity, but validation that they really are at late personal instead of at an earlier level and participating with cultural demonstrations of egalitarianism and pluralism, like, for instance, AVAAZ.

What comes next after late personal? Beyond late personal is a transitional stage which Wilber calls “vision-logic.” It is associated with two primary characteristics, the objectivity of being able to think about thinking, or to generate cognitive maps of cognitive maps, and the ability to tolerate ambiguity and practice multiperspectivalism, or the ability to take more than one perspective at the same time. Almost everyone who learns AQAL fancies themselves at late personal or above. Few are. That is because while everyone thinks of themselves as selfless, generous, and “good,” most people do not understand that definitions of morality evolve through stages, as does empathy. Just understanding the map is not the same as access to any particular part of the territory. Climbing a mountain necessarily means moving up, step by step from its base. Yes, you can take a helicopter or fly over, which is by analogy state openings, but there is no permanence to either, because you haven’t learned how to climb the mountain. IDL interviewing trains multiperspectivalism in ways that macrocosmic approaches, like Wilber’s integral AQAL tend not to do. Such approaches teach and support multi-perspectivalism among sources and disciplines through broader cognitive understandings. IDL supports and teaches the same, and adds to it experiences of multi-perspectivalism with perspectives that undercut dualisms of good and bad, real and false, spiritual and secular, pure and contaminating. This is a major broadening of multi-perspectivalism from the cognitive into the experiential realm and from dualistic assumptions and frames of reference to non-dualistic ones. Consequently, it represents a radical departure from the shamanistic world view, one that Wilber’s integral AQAL on the whole does not relativize.[6]

What are the thee transpersonal states that lie beyond vision-logic? Beyond the realm of the personal lies three states of transpersonal experience that are accessible to anyone at any level. Wilber and the classical religious traditions believe these are also stages. IDL is not so sure, for several reasons.[7] Consequently, these will be discussed as states, which are realities, rather than as stages, which are possibilities. These transpersonal states are often described as self-identities, for example, Aurobindo’s Overmind, Emerson’s Oversoul, nous, and the Hindu Atman, or world-soul. This implies an equivalence of the self-line, or who one experiences themselves to be, with a soul-type, undying identity. Prior to Wilber there was no consideration among the religious traditions of the world of other developmental lines that could be as important as the self-line, although moral development has been widely viewed as essential.

What is the difference between prepersonal and transpersonal experience? Transpersonal stages are experiential, but this is definitely and absolutely not the prerational experience of children, animals, and humans at prepersonal stages of development. Because they are both experiential, and the only experience most people have with them is in transpersonal states that are accessible to anyone, at any stage of development, they conclude that prepersonal and transpersonal oneness are the same. This is what Wilber calls the “pre-trans fallacy,” in which prepersonal experiences are thought to be transpersonal or transpersonal experiences are discounted as delusional, psychotic episodes. By assuming mysticism is a regression to infantile states, Freud committed the latter fallacy, called “reductionism;” by assuming pre-rational myths reflect divine realizations, Jung committed the former, called “elevationism.”The experiential nature of the transpersonal transcends and includes reason. It is not based on belief but is an outgrowth of rationality. These people can give objective reasons for their experiences instead of appealing to myths, feelings, or scripture If the prepersonal and transpersonal are the same, then there is no reason for development or evolution. None of that matters, because what is real is communion, egalitarianism, and pluralism. This is essentially the position of the great preponderance of new age, shamanistic, and energy medicine proponents.

For IDL, while transpersonal states are realities, transpersonal stages are theoretical. It is one thing to experience transpersonal openings and thereby dedicate oneself to living in such a way that those experiences are honored; it is another matter entirely to be stabilized in your development on one or another of these transpersonal levels. The higher you go, the more prerequisite linear building blocks must be in place; consequently, each successive stage becomes increasingly less likely. It is much more likely that people who have a cognitive grasp of AQAL are at early to mid-personal in their level of development with a world view that is late personal. It is unlikely that their overall or average level of development on all four of the basic lines is stabilized at late personal, much less at vision-logic or early transpersonal.

How can you tell someone’s overall level of development?  First, do they think straight? Are they logical? Can they, do they, give rational reasons for their beliefs? If they cannot, will not or do not, assume they are at best early personal in their level of development. Secondly, and related, these people generally are discovered to not understand the distinction between state and stage development or between self-sense and other developmental lines. Thirdly, look at what they do and what they say when they are under attack and stressed, when they are indulging in their favorite addiction. It is easy for us to wear a mask or persona of a higher level of development when we are in some customary life role, but what happens, who are we, when the mask drops off? Whatever you see at that time, whoever you become, consider that your overall level of development is much closer to that regressed state than who you present yourself to be the majority of the time. Consequently, those who claim openings to these levels are to be listened to and respected; those who claim to be stabilized at some level above mid-personal are to be treated with a considerable amount of skepticism. Such a level of development is both very difficult and unlikely, as viewed from the perspective of IDL; Wilber has a much more lenient reading of development.

What are some other problems with over-estimating one’s level of development? The above distinctions apply primarily to the lines of cognition and self. They do not so much apply to the lines of empathy and morality, the other two primary lines for IDL. Consequently, a person can be stabilized in the self and cognitive lines at a level and have an overall development below that. This is a point that is easily overlooked and needs to be emphasized. If it is not, society creates role models that are high in one line or another but imbalanced over all. Examples would include Barak Obama, Werner Von Braun, most economists, actors, athletes, and musicians. Obama is clearly stabilized at personal on the self-line, based on his multiple life accomplishments, and his statements regarding the universal rights of individuals. However, his empathetic and moral lines are late prepersonal to early personal, based both on chronic ignoring of international law regarding drone assassinations and the treatment of prisoners, and on his lack of support for fourth amendment rights and prosecutions of whistleblowers. Such limitations bring his overall level of development down. The scientist Werner Von Braun, famous for his creation of the V2 rockets that rained terror on English cities during World War II and later for designing the massive Saturn rockets that flew men to the moon, appears to have been at personal on his cognitive and self-lines of development; however his willingness to put science above the cause it served imply empathetic and moral lines that were less developed. Austerity and neo-conservative economists, such as Kenneth Rogoff and Milton Friedman, are highly intelligent intellectuals who demonstrate a similar pattern. Actors, athletes, and musicians have highly developed lines that have little to do with cognitive, empathetic, moral, or self development, yet they are generally assumed to be worthy of emulation as human beings in areas other than their particular areas of expertise. This is a common logical fallacy, a type of cognitive distortion, called “appeal to improper authority.” IDL emphasizes the identification and reduction of emotional, logical, and perceptual cognitive distortions as a necessary step for evolving the cognitive and self-lines.

Are higher stages of development better? While IDL both emphasizes and encourages waking up and enlightenment, it believes it is a human tendency to put too much emphasis on accessing transpersonal states and then confusing those state experiences with proof of attainment of higher levels. While development is hierarchical, and higher levels are more inclusive than the lower, and therefore more adequate in their explanatory and adaptive capabilities, this does not make them “better.” For Wilber’s integral, as well as for IDL, “better” is balance and integration where you are right now, today. As noted above, this is thought of in terms of what is called the “developmental dialectic,” which is comprised of three stages, thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, and which operates at every stage of development and on every line.

What is the thesis stage of the developmental dialectic? The thesis stage involves “translation,” which is Wilber’s term, for consolidation, balance, integration, and a horizontal organization and stabilization wherever you are in your development. This is where most of us spend the great majority of our time anyway, finding balance within the context of our current levels of competency and world view. The “pump-like” process of successive identification/disidentification which is intrinsic to IDL interviewing results in more effective “translation,” that is, greater stability and competency at your current level of development. However, as you continue to practice not only IDL interviewing, but applying the recommendations from the interviews, the development in core lines of self, cognition, morality and empathy expand until the next developmental level is accessed in a stable, ongoing way. This process is relatively invisible, like learning to walk or talk, but equally as real and momentous.

What is the antithesis stage of the developmental dialectic? As “translation,” or balancing occurs, threats arise to test the balance. Your competency is called into question. All of the assumptions of your life may be antithetically challenged. As these challenges are faced and assimilated a higher order synthesis can emerge, which is the foundation for the next higher level of development. This is why IDL encourages interpreting such challenges as wake-up calls and interviewing them, because by doing so you will move through antithesis much faster and see your way forward to a higher order synthesis.

How does IDL promote stage development? By reframing blocks and fixations as emerging potentials and wake-up calls. IDL does not assume that such blocks and fixations are “shadow,” or parts of your own disowned larger identity. It suspends such assumptions in favor of a phenomenological stance of integral deep listening to whatever dream character or life issue is being interviewed. By doing so, the normal boundaries of waking identity are suspended, resulting in the assumption of a perspective that includes, yet transcends, that of your normal sense of who you are. This results in a temporary expansion of identity. The subsequent contraction may return you to 90{be93f16b5d2e768a85ea81ebc8356f268811d3908838ae6233aa33d012b25ec9} of your previous sense of self, but it is never a 100{be93f16b5d2e768a85ea81ebc8356f268811d3908838ae6233aa33d012b25ec9} return. Over time, with repeated interviews, this process of repeated expansion and contraction gradually but genuinely expands and thins your sense of self. This process has been found to be equally the case for children and advanced meditators. It represents both an antithesis and a higher order integrating synthesis within the developmental dialectic of stage development.

How do we know whether synthesis on some line means we really have attained a higher level of development? Because this dialectic plays out on all lines of development, which themselves may be higher or lower than your current stable level of development, it is easy to mistake synthesis on one line for a breakthrough to a higher stable level of development, as when someone cognitively grasps Wilber’s integral model, or, at the other extreme, to mistake a reawakened childhood conflict dealing with rejection, abandonment, or old fears as proof that all one’s work hasn’t gotten them anywhere at all. Both conclusions mistake line dialectic stages for indications of overall stage development. It is only when people learn this model that they can, through such distinctions, understand what is going on in their lives and not be swept up by mistaken assumptions.

What are early transpersonal states like? The first of the transpersonal states is associated with nature mysticism and oneness with energy, purification, power, control, and psychic ability. It has also been called “the path of the yogis.” IDL refers to this as the energic. Having experiences of oneness with nature, being out of the body, or communication with a deceased relative in a dream are states, but in no way indicate a stable habitation of this consciousness as an ongoing, everyday consciousness. Remember, children and criminals can have state experiences of any transpersonal level. If you take the life, writings, and thought of anyone you can imagine, including any mystic, you will have a very difficult time finding one that is stabilized on this level, much less a higher level. You may find some that are stabilized on the cognitive or the self-line, but not on the empathetic or moral line. You may find many who claim or who others claim were so stabilized, but the data generally supports high development in a sensational line, like clairvoyance or out-of-the-body experiences, and these exceptional capacities are taken to be signs that a person is stabilized at one of these transpersonal states as an ongoing stage. If someone seems stabilized on the self-line but lacks a multiperspectival world view, then it is questionable that they are transpersonal anything. This is because the cognitive line leads; if one’s world view is not at vision-logic, how can ones’ identity be stabilized at some higher level?

The reason why IDL is not convinced that the energic exists as a stage is that holons have not yet evolved to that level. What we have had so far are selves that have accessed transpersonal states, but there is little evidence that most of these mystical selves developed their cognitive line to the rational mid-personal, much less the multi-perspectival or beyond. For instance, take St. Theresa of Avila or Ramakrishna. These saints are both widely acknowledged as being subtle-level mystics. If the cognitive line leads the self-line, what evidence is there that either developed the doubt and questioning of cultural assumptions that are hallmarks of the rational? Nagarjuna, who most would agree was a causal level mystic, if not non-dual, and whose cognitive line was certainly solidly rational if not above, still believed in the inherent dualism of the Two Truths Doctrine. We also must remember that each higher stage not only transcends but includes previous stages. Therefore, transpersonal mystics who claim stage stabilization must be able to demonstrate a transition and integration of each of the previous stages. To the best of my knowledge, this is merely assumed of mystics; it has not been demonstrated.

A third piece of evidence is the lack of environmental support for stabilization at transpersonal stages. Monastic life is not enough because everyone remains subject to the assumptions of the perceptual cognitive distortions that determine what they can and will perceive. Dualistic assumptions in the internal collective quadrant imply state awakenings, not stage stabilization.

When the self-line continues into this level it not only contaminates it with the perceptual frameworks that define its sense of self as soul, but its own preferences, assumptions, and expectations. These generally involve that the assumption that the qualities associated with this stage, power, control, freedom, psychic abilities, energy, and purification are good. Such assumptions actually block stabilization on this level, because they are dualistic, and transpersonal stages are, by definition, experiences of unity, not dualism. Therefore, what most people assume is energic stage mastery is generally energic state access which presents itself as a yogi or black or white wizard or shaman.

What is the second transpersonal state like? Commonly called the “subtle,” or “saintly mysticism,” it is associated with an I-Thou mergence with All in love. Young children naturally have an I-Thou relationship with their parents as well as a sense of oneness with life. Does this make them mystics? Most people who either claim or other people claim are subtle-level saints express astoundingly beautiful love and compassion and appear to be in a constantly blissful state. They are selfless. What does this have to do with their cognitive line? Is it somehow no longer important? Does it no longer matter, because they have transcended the world of conceptualization? Someone who claims to be a subtle level mystic needs to first be stabilized on cognitive, empathetic, moral, and self-lines at the energic. Have they done so? What is the evidence that they have? Buddha and Christ awakened within world views and cognitive frameworks that were clearly early personal, at best. We know this from their division of reality into three realms of Heaven, Earth, and Hell inhabited by more evolved and less evolved beings. Jesus clearly believed in demons and had a model of disease at least partially based on possession. This reflects a shamanistic world view. Wilber discusses the conditionality of enlightenment in Integral Spirituality in terms of unfolding cultural contexts.

When a self-sense is maintained into this level it is experienced as an eternal, immortal Self or Atman that is One with All. This would be wonderful, but enshrines consciousness and beingness as things that are separate from and prior to the flow of experience which is life. Identity is abstracted out of life. The result is the maintenance of a subtle dualism, which is capable of continuing to experience the disorders and suffering that is associated with it.

What is the third transpersonal level, referred to as the “causal” or “the path of the sages,” like? It is a selfless and “empty” perspective that transcends thinking. It is essentially pure objectivity or witnessing, without content to either the witness or that which is witnessed. There is no longer a projection of identity, separateness, or “thingness” into whatever is perceived.

What is the “non-dual?” Transpersonal levels of development are depicted by Wilber and others as followed by a space which is no longer a stage, but an “always already” present reality called the “non-dual.” Theoretically there is no dualism here, which means there is no distinction between perceiver and perceived, self and object, good and bad, pure and impure, true and delusional, sacred and profane, enlightenment and everyday mind. IDL demonstrates that this state not only exists but is easily accessed by most anyone, because it is not unusual to experience oneself as perspectives that embody this non-duality. As such, there is nothing inherently mystical about it, nor is it inherently associated with bliss, timelessness, spacelessness, or transcendent anything. Instead, it is found to be present in the fabric of the present moment, complete with its filters. The difference is that experience, including all the filters, are perceived from perspectives that are themselves relatively non-filtered and non-dual. Because holons are parts of wholes, any state of non-duality experienced by IDL is understood to be the content of a broader non-duality that is context. Consequently, non-duality is not static and ultimate, but an unfolding, growing process.

Does the dialectic stop in the transpersonal? IDL emphasizes the dialectic of stage transformation even in transpersonal stages. It is relatively easy to have insights and transformational experiences which are generally state openings. Such freeing vantage points create hope, belief, and temporary insight while often presenting themselves as permanent transformations due to their radical otherness and overwhelming positive qualities. IDL demonstrates that repeated access to transpersonal states does not add up to the stable attainment of any transpersonal stage. We see this in opium addicts and experiential workshop junkies. More, better orgasms do not translate into higher stages of development. Without this distinction we are constantly searching for our next high, not only for the good feeling, but often in the mistaken belief that just one more experience will push us over the edge into permanent bliss. This is one of the reasons IDL does not emphasize lucid dreaming per se. It does not believe in seducing people with false hopes and promises when an easy, fun, and quicker way to get to where you want to go already exists. In this regard, both AQAL and IDL follow the Zen attitude toward experiences in meditation: they are regarded as makyo, or irrelevancies, no matter how beautiful and profound they are.

Types

How does Wilber’s AQAL use “type?”  Types refer to the style of your growth process. The most important type involves the polar characteristics associated with yin, the feminine, and yang, the masculine. Wilber associates the feminine with grounding, community, and heterarchy, among other things, and the masculine with transcendence, individuality, and hierarchy. He believes that these tend to alternate with development as follows:

early prepersonal archaic: masculine

mid-prepersonal magic/tribal: feminine

late prepersonal egoic: masculine

early personal mythic membership: feminine

mid personal rational: masculine

late personal pluralistic/egalitarian: feminine

vision-logic multiperspectival: cognitively masculine but overall androgynous.

At this point the sequence tends to break down, because

nature mysticism energic: masculine

deity mysticism; divine union through love: feminine

sage mysticism, causal: masculine

non-dual: androgynous.

Of course, these general trends can be and sometimes are over-ridden. A person can identify with the opposite style in various ways on any level, or they can integrate the two and move into androgeny. It is therefore probably more accurate to think of each of these levels as androgenous when integrated, balanced, and whole.

Any dream yoga can be pursued with either a male, female, or androgynous emphasis. Like AQAL, IDL emphasizes a balancing of male “agency” and female “communion.” Agency is provided by the intentionality of interviewed emerging potentials. Communion is provided by the act of role-play, or disidentification, while remaining aware of oneself in the here and now, as well as by application of recommendations from the interview. Triangulation can be thought of as an attempt at androgeny in decision-making with the integration of internal and external sources of objectivity. At stages where a masculine style prevails, a tendency toward the feminine is a good idea; at those stages where a feminine style prevails, a tendency toward the masculine probably is wise.

Emerging potentials themseles tend not to be masculine or feminine but androgynous. However, each interviewed character self-scores in each of the six core qualities, the result being various mixtures of characteristics that tend to be one or the other. The correlations would be:

Confidence: masculine

Compassion: feminine

Wisdom: masculine

Acceptance: feminine

Inner Peace: feminine

Witnessing: masculine

However, one goal of IDL is to bring feminine characteristics into the “male” values and masculine characteristics into the “female” values. IDL encourages students to work to integrate the masculine and feminine at whatever level of development they are presently at, in the belief that life can only express itself through who you are now, not through who you hope to become.

What is an integral life practice? IDL isn’t just an experience; it is a life discipline. Wilber states, and IDL agrees, that integral development requires the daily, balanced application of an integral life practice that addresses at least body, mind, and the sacred, and what Wilber, following Jung, calls “shadow.” AQAL approaches enlightenment, or the waking up out of delusion, as a series of integral life practices. One of these is learning AQAL to grow the cognitive line, because it creates the skeleton or scaffolding on which the other lines climb. Another is to do “shadow work,” in order to defuse self-sabotaging desires and behaviors and get out of your own way. Another is to create a healthy physical platform that supports the focus and generates the energy growth requires. Another is to do things that bring life into consciousness. These range from exercise and shadow work to meditation.

How is IDL different from other integral life practices? A dream yoga, such as lucid dreaming, would normally be considered as one line of development within an integral life practice. IDL attempts to establish a dream yoga that oversees one’s integral life practice in addition to being one line of development within one’s integral life practice. IDL heartily endorses both Wilber’s reasons for taking on a multi-disciplinary integral life practice and the many concrete, practical, and useful ideas that he provides for how to structure them. Typically and integral life practice is designed by and for the self and the evolution of the self-line. The other lines, such as the cognitive line, are strengthened in order to evolve the self-line toward enlightenment according to a pattern or map provided by the self. In Wilber’s Integral Life Practice, goals are chosen and progress determined by waking identity, the “self,” or the “Self” in consultation with various specialists in body, mind, relationship, finances, shadow work, and so forth. The clear, present, and immediate problem is that the involved source of delusion, misery, and dysfunction is designing the program to wake itself up. An analogy is a flat worm being asked to imagine three dimensions or a dog to grow and use hands. Flat worms are adapted to two dimensions; they cannot conceive of three dimensions. Dogs are adapted to paws; they would as be as unhappy with hands as you would be with paws.

How does triangulation work? In IDL, integral life practice goals are first established by waking identity, in consultation with specialists, but then submitted to various interviewed perspectives. The idea, called “triangulation,” is to align the priorities of your waking identity with those of innate perspectives that score high in core qualities associated with enlightenment. Why? Because if you don’t, you will think you are striving for goals that are in alignment with your highest good when in fact you may not be doing so. How would you know? The goals you choose may or may not reflect the priorities of your life compass. How do you know? Instead, they may reflect internalized external sources of objectivity, such as script injunctions, parent voices, intuition, conscience, and God’s will. The result is that you may well find yourself at cross-purposes to the agenda of your life compass, as indicated by the growth preferences of interviewed emerging potentials. Such cross-purposes create inner conflict that can sabotage your integral life practice.

This is not a rare occurrence. If you have ever fallen for someone and convinced yourself they were your “soul mate,” made a move to another job or city that you were sure was “right,” or made an investment – and to have it turn sour, you have experienced what we are trying to reduce here. This is why IDL encourages you to set up and direct your integral life practice with triangulation. In IDL, your ongoing work with your integral life practice is monitored with ongoing feedback on progress from interviewed emerging potentials. Your self may not know what it needs, but it has an important say in what is to be done and whether or not it is done. Others know more than you and need to be consulted, but they are not you; their job is to access and follow their life compass, not yours. Your interviewed emerging potentials provide perspectives and priorities that inherently include, yet transcend, your own. Their consensual priorities are a better guide to the priorities of your life compass and the way life wants to evolve itself in and through you than either yourself or others. That’s a fact, and that’s why you need to coordinate your integral life practice with the process of triangulation. Consult your emerging potentials; consult others; use your common sense.

How important is AQAL? IDL believes that for any approach to growth to be truly transformative in an integral sense, it needs to take into account AQAL. Anything that does not is more likely to be prepersonal or personal and claiming to be transpersonal. This does not imply that any and all approaches, including IDL, are truly transformative just because they claim to be integral and attempt to take the AQAL model into consideration. That could result in an approach that claims to be vision-logic when it is not, or representing an energic world view when it is merely shamanistic prepersonal, or representing a subtle I-Thou bhakti/divine unification through love world view when it is more along the lines of a near death experience, which can be had by anyone at any stage of development. It could result in an approach that claims to be causal empty sunyata when it has a questionable tradition of multiperspectivalism or the cultivation of a culture of empathy. It could result in claims that an approach is non-dual either because the expositor of the approach has had non-dual experiences or because they hold a non-dual world view.

What are the requirements for an approach to be transpersonal? It has to produce transpersonal levels of development in people, not just transpersonal states and not just access to the transpersonal by the self-line, although that in itself is quite an accomplishment. To be transpersonal, an approach needs to demonstrate an ability to stabilize development on one or another of the three transpersonal levels across at least what IDL considers to be the four core developmental lines: cognitive, empathetic, moral, and self. Cognitive and self are the easiest; empathetic and moral are the more important. They tend to lag and become fixated. It is also important to point out that people can grasp AQAL and therefore have the benefit of an excellent cognitive map of development and still not attain to mid-personal on the cognitive line. We know this if they allow their emotions to overrule their intellect, use logical fallacies or do not detect those used by others. “Evolutionaries” endorsing Hillary Clinton for President because she was the lesser of two evils is an example of a logical (and moral) fallacy that strongly implies that these luminaries have centers of gravity that are prior to mid-personal, regardless of how “integral” their world view may be.

If you run into an approach to growth that claims to be transpersonal the best response is to be very, very skeptical. The proper response is to run it through a series of integral filters. Ask, “Does it provide stable stage development or only temporary state openings to the transpersonal?” “Does it account for transpersonal development of all four of the core lines or does it only offer a path only for the cognitive or self-lines?” “Does it provide an empirical transpersonal yoga or discipline that can be tested and replicated, that leads to stabilized transpersonal holons?”

In what sense is IDL transpersonal and in what sense is it not? For these reasons, while IDL claims to be transpersonal in the sense that it integrates pre personal belief with personal reason to access a higher order experientially-based perspective, it does not claim that it provides stable access to energic, subtle, causal, or non-dual stages. Other dream yogas may indeed do a better job of this than IDL does. IDL claims that it is effective at stabilizing people at vision-logic, or multiperspectivalism, which means to evolve all four of the core developmental lines to that level. Approaches that claim to take people higher have a responsibility to provide the data to support the claim that they bring people up to stabilized development at mid-personal, late personal and then vision-logic. Remember, each successive level has to include the basic competencies of all previous lines. There is no skipping. For example, if you can levitate but cannot reason there is no way you are transpersonal anything. The most that can be said is that you have an impressively developed psychic line. If a guru or someone who has had an NDE or mystical experience cannot demonstrate that they have mastered the four basic lines on all previous levels of unfoldment and explain how they do so, any claims that they make are to be questioned. However, like many other approaches, IDL does claim to access and disclose some transpersonal states, which is relatively easy to do. This is different from claiming to be transpersonal, or to provide a method that produces transpersonal enlightenment as a stabilized consciousness. If an approach is unaware of these distinctions, that also implies they are providing something less than transpersonal.

What is a multi-perspectival world view? As mentioned above, multi-perspectivalism is associated with vision-logic, the doorway to the transpersonal. It is supported by Wilber’s integral by learning the AQAL model, because doing so requires the consideration of multiple perspectives. This tends to bring cognition, the leading line up to vision-logic. There is no similar imperative in most forms of dream yoga. However, Tibetan Buddhism implies a similar ability in the embodiment of various Bodhisattvas, and this can be combined with a practice of dream yoga and lucid dreaming. In addition, there is no reason why any dream yoga cannot incorporate an emphasis on multi-perspectivalism both while awake and during lucid dreaming.

How does IDL provide experiences of multi-perspectivalism independent of one’s stage of development? The reason IDL is able to provide such access is because it anchors multi-perspectivalism in the innate ability of children to role play. Consequently, anyone who is able to identify with some non-self role and “become it” can use IDL to awaken and grow a multi-perspectival world view. Obviously, these are state openings, or even stable acquisition by the cognitive line; both are available much earlier than actual stabilization at vision-logic, which is much more difficult.

How does practicing multi-perspectivalism support the development of children? When grasped in an experiential rather than a cognitive way, perspectives that transcend, yet include, our own integrate both pre-personal and personal levels of development and make innate sense, regardless of our understanding of AQAL or our level of development. The result is that actions motivated by a vision-logic perspective are made available to children and those who have never heard of AQAL. This does not automatically catapult people up to the level of vision-logic, but what it does do is expose them to multiple perspectives, just as the world does, and to multiple perspectives that transcend yet include their own. Notice that such exposure to alternative perspectives in the outer world normally becomes less helpful as we reach adulthood because we outgrow the common base of experience that older mentors share as we develop our unique interests, personalities, and challenges. Adults have been children, so in some ways their perspectives innately include those of children. They are no longer children, so their perspectives innately transcend those of children. However, no adult has been the interior of this or that particular child, so there is no inclusion of their unique priorities on a deep level. No adult represents the emerging potentials of this or that particular child, only of children in general of a particular family, neighborhood, society, or culture. So while taking the roles of surrounding adults definitely supports the development of empathy of children, it does not address the specific, unique needs of a particular child, or, if it happens to, it is often the result of good fortune, where interior needs happen to coincide with the competencies of available role models.

What sort of people are most likely to benefit from IDL? Because IDL is primarily experiential instead of cognitive, it opens major opportunities for the expansion of AQAL to those most in need of a  world view that is relatively liberating and empowering. It is designed for people who are focused on the challenges of daily living, not cognitive development and ideas. This can occur because as experiences and temporary states, core characteristics of all levels of development, if not the levels themselves, are available to most everyone all the time. So, for example, a child at early pre-personal can have glimpses of the non-dual in their dreams; this does not mean she is an ascended master, but it does mean that she has had an opening into the perspective of the non-dual. If she is taught to listen to that perspective she can broaden her awareness of life and herself in a profoundly healing and transformative way. Similarly, when people of any age have openings into a multi-perspectival world view it means that they are less likely to succumb to black and white thinking, personalization, or other emotional and logical cognitive distortions, regardless of their level of development. This is not only release from mid-prepersonal but insurance against falling back into it.

Why doesn’t the objectivity and witnessing provided by meditation translate into growth on the empathetic and ethical lines? The simple cultivation of objectivity does not necessarily translate into empathy. Wilber discusses this in terms of the difference between “its” in the external individual and collective quadrants and “I-Thou” in the internal collective quadrant. Professionals and systems are objective; does that make them empathetic? Similarly, a sense of self that transcends and includes prior definitions and others is not necessarily either empathetic or multi-perspectival. You can have clear causal or non-dual awareness without experiencing either. For example, imagine right now that you are interstellar space. You have no height or depth; there is no sense of time; because you lack color there is neither black nor white. Notice that to experience yourself as interstellar space you have to do several things. You have to be willing to suspend your normal sense of self; you also have to suspend your cognitive line with its typical assumptions and perceptual filters; you also have to be willing to act for reasons that do not have any necessary relationship to morality or ethics. However, if you do so, while becoming interstellar space is highly objective, there is nothing necessarily empathetic or multi-perspectival about it. If you lived your life from that perspective you could conceivably live in a causal or non-dual state but without any empathy or the ability to shift perspectives. Therefore, a sense of self that transcends and includes prior definitions and the entire universe is not necessarily either empathetic or multi-perspectival. If you want those two characteristics you must first differentiate them from the others, which Wilber’s AQAL teaches you to do. You then need some discipline, methodology, yoga, or integral life practice that requires you to practice empathy and multi-perspectivalism in well thought out and effective ways. That is what IDL attempts to teach.

What are some of the shared attributes of AQAL and IDL?

Focus on Waking Up

Like AQAL, dream yogas focus on the removal of filters that block awakening and enlightenment. AQAL does so chiefly in two ways. First, it attempts to bring the cognitive line up to multi-perspectival vision-logic, post late-personal. Secondly, it attempts to ground that expanded perspective yogically, through integral life practices. This acts as a “sky anchor” that tends to bring the other lines up to that level. IDL serves as an executive yoga that prioritizes other yogas according to the priorities of one’s own life compass. At the same time it keeps generating state openings of transpersonal experiences that represent higher orders of functional wakefulness. They are “functional” in that they are directly related to your current ongoing life issues.

As mentioned above, the focus of enlightenment for IDL is at your current level of development, not on some future and final enlightenment. It focuses on the awakening of collective, intrasocial identity, in both its individual and collective aspects, through the interviewing process, because these tend to lag behind the more obvious, objectified and external quadrants of the human holon. In this regard, like AQAL, IDL focuses on changing the world from the inside out. While recognizing that holons evolve by balancing interiors and exteriors, individuals and collectives, both AQAL and IDL recognize that we create our reality, and that therefore we start by taking responsibility for who we think we are, how we are stuck, and how we interact with others and the world. For IDL, particularly within the context of Ending Nightmares for Good, this means helping children awaken to their own life compass and then to follow it, based first on the recommendations of their interviewed emerging potentials and then through triangulation.

IDL believes that the act of interviewing embues these previously largely preconscious perspectives with a level of wakefulness that is at least comparable to that of the student and is often found to transcend their level of wakefulness. As also mentioned above, the dream state represents or personifies another broader context in which the enlightenment of waking identity can occur. The dream state is not centered on the enlightenment of waking identity, but on the enlightenment of encountered dream characters, by making them conscious through interviewing them, both while awake and while dreaming.

What does it mean that IDL views life as if it were a series of “wake-up calls” to be listened to? Life is itself; it is not a series of wake-up calls, but this fiction places us in a receptive, “listening” stance in which we are more likely to be alerted to physical, mental, interpersonal, and emotional imbalances when they show up in our dreams or lives as cautionary “yellow” indications rather than when they are critical, “red” emergencies: accidents, disease, heartbreak. The more we listen to these wake-up calls, by interviewing them, whether as dream characters or the personifications of our waking life issues, the more likely we are to find and follow our “life compass,” or the innate set of priorities of our emerging potentials: life as it wants to be uniquely born in and through us. Hearing, understanding, and responding to the priorities of our emerging potentials recalibrates our own; it can mean the difference between a life doing what we think is God’s will, but is in fact based on internalized social injunctions, and allowing life to be born within us according to its spontaneous richness.

Does IDL believe that when you are awakened you no longer dream? Some spiritual traditions state that when you completely wake up you transcend the need to dream. For example, Hinduism views earthly existence as samsara, a dream-like illusion of maya. Enlightenment, as moksha or bodhi, is a state of existence free of the delusions of dreams. IDL believes that such traditions express a fundamental confusion. Because their perception of a dream while dreaming is illusory they assume that dreams themselves are illusory. What follows is a mistaken conclusion: that by waking up out of all illusory states, dreaming must necessarily end. You can disprove this common misperception for yourself by using the IDL process and interviewing dream characters. What you will discover is that dream content is a projection of life into the tenuous reality of dreaming, just like trees, tables, and dogs are projections of life into our relatively stable and objective waking dream. When you become enlightened, trees and tables do not cease to exist. Neither do other internal and subjective manifestations of life. All that happens is that you stop projecting silly and nonsensical beliefs onto them, whether while asleep and dreaming or when you are awake.

Wilber’s AQAL thankfully avoids these confusions. It has the benefit of being inclusive of Eastern and Western, psychological, religious, scientific, spiritual, and historical perspectives while providing something of a “check off list” of criteria by which to determine just how transformative an approach is.

Integral approaches attempt to take the best from both belief-based and rational worlds and then integrate and transcend them. Regarding dream yoga, the best in the prepersonal, belief-based paths recognizes that the goal of lucid dreaming is not salvation or rescuing, but waking up, wherever one is, in whatever state of consciousness you happen to be in. In the case of the rationally-based personal levels, the best that they offer to a dream yoga are empirical methodologies and ways to test truth claims.

Emphasizes Waking up In All States

While Wilber’s integral AQAL emphasizes waking up in all states – waking, dreaming, and deep sleep, and dream yogas may focus on waking up while dreaming, during deep sleep, while awake, or all three, IDL emphasizes waking state lucidity while supporting and encouraging dreaming and deep sleep lucidity. This is because the illusory assumptions of an unenlightened waking identity create misperceptions that color all other states with its perceptual cognitive distortions. Cognitive distortions don’t magically vanish just because you enter a radically different state of consciousness. This is because they are different than space-time-causal filters; they represent the assumptions you use to make sense of your perceptions. To get beyond or behind them you have to stop perceiving entirely. For most people, most of the time, this is equivalent to a state of deep sleep unconsciousness.

When you wake up in the dream state you are most likely to colonize that consciousness with the delusions of your current level of waking development. The solution to this is not to simply change the dream or to transcend dreaming with clear, dreamless sleep. The solution from an IDL perspective is to ask questions of emerging potentials in waking interviews and then learn to do so in dreams, with respectful listening as the default response when confronted by any event or character.

The more that you focus on moving out of drama in your waking life the less likely you are to be in drama in your dreams, whether you remember them or not, whether you are lucid or not. The more you move out of cognitive distortions into clarity in thinking, the less likely you are to jump to conclusions in your dreams about what you see, experience, or what you are told. The more that you focus on identifying with clear awareness and the other six core processes and qualities in your waking life, the more you are likely to do so in your dreams. Because these are core characteristics of enlightenment, the more you become them in your waking life the more you are likely to wake up in your dreams in a broader sense than typically occurs in lucid dreams. This involves the quality of your wakefulness in whatever state you are in, whether you remember it or not. This is a very different emphasis from simply waking up on the self-line in all three states.

Enlightenment Evolves Due to Evolving Contexts

Wilber makes the point in Integral Spirituality that the enlightenment of Buddha and Jesus is constrained by a Bronze-age world view. The cultural and societal matrices in which their lives were embedded framed what it meant to “wake up” in ways that are more constrained than the cultural and societal matrices in post-industrial contexts. For example, waking up in terms of science, empiricism, human rights, culture, and integral were not possible because those concepts did not exist. If you were able to describe them to a Bronze age mind it would most likely understand, framing it in terms of a Bronze age world view, but because these concepts did not exist in the culture or society they would mean much less than they do today. Jesus’ enlightenment occurred within a context of heaven, hell, and demons. Buddha’s enlightenment occurred within a context in which it was socially acceptable to walk away from one’s wife and child to pursue one’s own path.

IDL believes that because both inner and outer contexts continue to evolve regardless of the degree of development of the self-line, that enlightenment will continue to evolve after the self is commonly understood to be a tool rather than a reality, opening opportunities for the evolution of dream development. Dreaming, as a state of consciousness, is relatively stable in relationship to the development of waking identity. This makes sense because it is rather clearly an earlier evolutionary state, with most mammals routinely dreaming, yet without having evolved a self-reflective identity. For example, few recognize themselves when looking in a mirror.[8]

Dreaming consciousness is normally a combination of early and mid-prepersonal development. Dreaming is stabilized at mid-prepersonal for almost all humans with only a few breaking into a late prepersonal level of dream state development. Indications of these levels include their focus on imagery, not language, the instability of detail, such as numbers on a clock’s face, their emotionality, the normally regressive assumptions of dreams, including that what is seen is real, that waking perception is accurate, that physical laws apply in dreams, and a constant immersion in drama, that is the roles of victim, persecutor, and rescuer. Far from being a sign of transpersonal enlightenment, lucid dreaming is a normal evolutionary outcropping of late prepersonal into the dream state, in that it is an awakening of self-awareness into that state for the first time, just as a four-year old awakens to self-consciousness as he identifies with a name, social roles, and a repetoire of behaviors. You can’t wake up in a dream until you have evolved the context of a late prepersonal sense of self that has the ability to objectify or separate itself out from its context. But any time after that, it is possible to evolve the dream state to that point as well. However, this is an example of how dream evolution follows waking evolution: you are not going to wake up in a dream more, or to a greater extent, than you are already capable of waking up in your waking life.

There is little doubt that lucid dreaming represents a further evolution of frontal lobe structures. Researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich have demonstrated that lucid dreamers have measurably bigger brain structures in the prefrontal cortex than those who do not. They also found that lucid dreamers score higher on self-reflection and thought-monitoring tests when awake, suggesting that lucid dreamers are more “lucid” during the day too.[9]

Developmental Dialectic

In addition to supporting Wilber’s application of the evolutionary movement of the self from thesis to antithesis and then to synthesis through each stage, IDL applies the developmental dialectic to Dream Sociograms. Patterns of emerging potential preferences that are elicited in the construction of the Dream Sociomatrix fall into these three main patterns of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis when depicted in a Dream Sociogram. These are explained in the text, Dream Sociometry. This implies that processes of stabilization, turmoil, and higher-order integration are not simply phenomena of waking state but apply at least to dreaming as well, if not to other states.

While Wilber’s developmental dialectic applies to the advancement of the self-line, which represents an individual evolutionary thrust, the intrasocial dialectic revealed by dream sociometry is a collective dialectic. This is not a trivial distinction. While waking evolution is on a unitary identity moving up the ladder of consciousness, in dreams collectives, in which waking identity is embedded, do so. Many members of these collectives exhibit a consciousness that includes, yet transcends, that of waking identity, thereby pulling it up the evolutionary ladder. This means that massive, consistent support for development is accessed in ways that are not available to a self-line directed dialectic. It means that support for collective aspects of evolution are accessed to support those aspects of holons that tend to be de-emphasized in psychologically geocentric evolution.

Emphasis on Stage Development Over States

Both Wilber’s AQAL and IDL agree that access to a transpersonal state is no indication of stabilization at a transpersonal level of development, since pretty much anyone can access transpersonal states under a variety of different conditions: drugs, near death experiences, accidents, love, and mysticism.   This recognition has particular importance for IDL in that it reduces its emphasis on waking up in dreams, that is, attaining the state of lucid dreaming, in favor of waking up to a higher stable stage of development across waking and dreaming. An example of a concrete way to do so is to recognize and avoid invitations into the Drama Triangle in the three realms of interpersonal relationships, cognition (thoughts and feelings), and while dreaming. It also results in a hierarchical discrimination among emerging potentials based on their developmental stage, as roughly indicated by their self-scoring in the six core qualities.

Mindful of Avoiding Both Reductionism and Elevationism  

Both of these tendencies are manifestations of Wilber’s “Pre-Trans Fallacy,” in which higher states and stages are misperceived as prepersonal ones or in which lower states and stages are mistakenly elevated to transpersonal status. An example of the former would be Freud’s reduction of dream characters to manifestations to prepersonal libidinal impulses. For Wilber’s integral AQAL an example is when shamanistic prepersonal openings are believed to be transpersonal revelations. For dream yogas it occurs when one assumes that the ability to lucid dream is a sign of transpersonal competency.   IDL suspends such assumptions and allows each interviewed emerging potential to have its say. Based on that written record, as well as the results when its recommendations are followed, objective conclusions can be drawn as to its level of development.

Differentiates Prepersonal From Transpersonal Spirituality

This is another way of saying that Wilber takes care to avoid the Pre-Trans Fallacy. In respect to IDL, no assumptions are made about angels and Gods being more spiritual than toilet bowls and turds 

Via Positiva, Via Negativa, and Injunctive Path

Wilber describes affirmative, detachment-based, and injunctive paths to enlightenment. An affirmative path says what is good, true, or harmonious, such as does the statement, “God is love,” or “Sat, Cit, Ananda.” IDL and Wilber’s integral AQAL use the affirmative when they describe the AQAL model and how it applies to dream yogas. The detachment-based via negativa refuses to say what is, but only says what is not. For example it may say, “dreams are neither real nor illusory;” “the truth is neither absolute nor relative;” “things neither exist nor do not exist; I am neither real nor am I non-existent.” The injunctive path gives instructions, which when followed, are then validated by peers in the method. While interviewed emerging potentials make affirmative statements of what is, they are themselves relatively detached from reality, in that they are generally imaginary. IDL emphasizes an injunctive path, providing instructions that say, “to get these results, do this.” Its system of validation triangulates with other truth systems, “experts,” and common sense. Its phenomenological method can be viewed as a combination of the via negativa and injunctive paths, in that both the via negativa and phenomenology table assumptions, and both injunctive paths and phenomenology rely on an empirical methodology.

Interpretive Multi-Level Approach

Wilber has suggested interpreting dreams from each perspective or level, to look at them from prepersonal, personal, and then transpersonal perspectives. What would that look like? Your answers are going to depend on whose perceptual cognitive distortions are creating the context for both the questioning and the interpretation of the answers. If it is waking identity, then you can pretty much predict that the interpretations will be congruent with the present level of development of the self-line of the interpreter – how they interpret each of the levels and the dreamer’s relationship to them in the dream.

IDL takes a different approach. It is possible to get an interpretation of the dream for each of the developmental levels from the perspective of the interviewed emerging potential rather than, or in addition to, that of waking identity or a dream interpretation expert familiar with integral. IDL chooses to suspend the perceptual cognitive distortions of waking identity and instead proposes to ask various invested dream characters questions regarding the various developmental levels. Here are examples of some questions to be asked about each level. They can first be asked of this or that interviewed perspective, and then the dreamer and other interpreters can add their interpretations.

Early prepersonal: “Are there concerns for physical safety and security?” “If so, what are they?” “How are they expressed?” “Are there powerful expressions of nature?”

Mid-prepersonal: “Is there a desire for emotional nurturance, strong preferences, self-persecution or self-rescuing?” “Are there overwhelming expressions of fear?”

Late Prepersonal: “Are there expressions of self-control? Are there expressions of fear of loss of self-control?” (Themes of losing things, losing one’s way, forgetting test items, losing identity, etc.) Are there overwhelming expressions of impotence?”

Early personal: “Are there expressions of mythic group bonding?” “Does belief trump reason?”

Mid personal: “Does reason trump belief and emotion?” “Is there adherence to law and principle?”

Late personal: “Is there not only adherence to reason and law but egalitarianism and pluralism?”

Vision-logic: “Is there tolerance for multiperspectivalism, as reflected by the ability to take the perspectives of others while dreaming?”

Oneness with energy: “Is there the ability to do the above and expressions of kratophany?” (These include psychism.)

Oneness with beingness: “Is there evidence of all prior competencies and expressions of hierophany?” (This includes dying in service to other dream characters.)

Oneness with emptiness: “Is there evidence of all prior stages and selfless clarity?” This includes an ability to witness oneself, an entirely different witnessing from the normal experience of watching dream action in a disembodied state.)

Integration of the sacred and the secular: “Is there evidence of all prior stages and experiences of mundane dream objects and experiences as luminous and sacred?”

While in the final analysis waking identity must interpret its experience, IDL interviewing leads to the conclusion that your waking identity is an inadequate interpreter of your dreams and those of others, and by extension, of your life dream. Consequently, IDL chooses to suspend waking interpretation in favor of a phenomenological approach to dreamwork and to life in general. Once the perspective of one or more invested emerging potential is interviewed, then the interpretations of others and self are much more likely to be relevant and helpful.

Meditation

Like AQAL and most forms of dream yoga, IDL encourages the practice of meditation as a central integral life practice. For IDL, this is because many interviewed emerging potentials recommend it. They often treat meditation as a high-octane food. IDL has found that when meditation is combined with the regular interviewing of emerging potentials and the application of their triangulated recommendations in one’s daily life, that stage evolution is speeded in a synergistic fashion. That is, growth progresses at a pace that is faster than either only meditating or only doing IDL interviewing. The approach to meditation that IDL teaches emphasizes the naming of the contents of awareness to cultivate clear objectivity, detachment from the five skandhas of thought, image, feeling, sensation, and state, and observation of seven octaves of breath in a practice of pranayama.[10]

Some differences between AQAL and Integral Deep Listening

Language

Language is very important, but it is hardly everything; it is merely a tool and context for thinking about and communicating life. Language is not life itself. It is a map, not the territory. Therefore, concern about language is easily criticized as obsession with details that takes one’s eye off the fundamental purposes of language: to support development and to disclose that which transcends and includes it. Wilber uses language artfully and thoughtfully, to build bridges for people with prepersonal and personal level perceptual cognitive distortions to cross. In the Buddhist tradition this is called upaya, “skill in means,” or the purposeful use of illusion, maya, and delusion in order to support and promote enlightenment. We naturally do this when we change our mode of speech and action to those readily understood by children in order to build relationships with them. It doesn’t have to involve being either condescending, artificially immature, or even infantile. For example, physical play with children builds bridges, and using simple, clear language that emphasizes the equally clear communication of feelings also helps children to understand.

While Wilber is outspoken in his desire to distance himself and AQAL from metaphysical claims, he maintains a central place for words that have direct and strong metaphysical connotations. He does this primarily with the use of the words “spirit” and “God,” “soul,” and “self.” Anyone who has read Wilber knows that he views both self and Self in a Buddhist framework, meaning that they do not refer to eternal, independent substances but rather to conveniences and habits born of human sensory experience and language. It is less apparent that his concept of God is similar, in that he commonly uses it in a non-Buddhist sense, as a way to talk about the gross, subtle, causal, and non-dual transpersonal dimensions. In this regard he follows in the tradition of the via affirmativa, that uses language to point toward what is, what exists, what is Real, True, Good, and Beautiful. We see this throughout his writings on the three faces of God, meaning the three ways in which life manifests itself in a sacred context in the world.

In Integral Spirituality Wilber lists different ways the word “spirit” is commonly used. It can refer to a feeling, a state, an absolute or final destination, or a level of development. He points out how confusion and misunderstanding inevitably result when the intended usage is not specified. This points to a further, underlying assumption that some people have, that if you stop using such words you will thereby lose contact with what these terms generally refer to: a realm of ultimate meaning, existence that transcends death, the sacred, or life itself. The implication is that if you lay these assumptions aside you are either denying the existence of God, soul, and spirit, or else secularizing life. You are giving up the via affirmativa. 

Are such assumptions correct? Is this in fact what happens in IDL interviews when these metaphysically associated concepts are set aside? On the contrary, what most people report is a direct connection with that toward which these concepts point, but without the filtering that God, soul, and spirit necessarily bring to the experience. You, the interviewed subject, are left to experience life directly, including its sacred dimensions, without the use of preconceived ideas, conceptualizations, and filtering world views which can only place life in one or another artificial and constraining mental box. Consequently, throughout writings about IDL there are not many references to “life” and few to “God,” “soul,” “spirit,” or “spirituality,” unless referencing someone else’s usage or in an attempt to clarify how these concepts are used. IDL uses “life” instead of “spirit” and does not “God,” “soul,” “self,” or “Self” in most of the traditional ways because it wants to model the ability to look at life, think clearly, and to live without linguistic and conceptual dependency on these very common concepts. It wants to show that by doing so there is no implication of a loss of connectivity, compassion, acceptance, or respect, which is the underlying suspicion and fear of people who are used to this language.

Why doesn’t IDL  use God, soul, self, Self, and spirit? They may or may not show up in interviews with emerging potentials, even very high scoring ones. When they do so, it seems to be a matter of linguistic translation of experience associated with the scripting of the student. In addition, these words are linguistic and cognitive assumptions; they reflect the filtering of mental definitions and a particular map of reality. A thoroughgoing phenomenological methodology, such as IDL strives for, attempts to table such assumptions. This setting aside, or “bracketing,” of linguistic and cognitive assumptions does not imply either a belief or disbelief in them or what they point to, but rather serves as an experiment. What happens when you treat such concepts as metaphysical assumptions and lay them aside for the course of an interview?

IDL does not view language essential for life. If you ask life questions, it will answer back using your terminology and conceptual cognitive distortions. It will most likely access perspectives that are emerging potentials that you have not recognized yet, but which are in the process of being born. For example, Edgar Cayce, whose waking world view was Christian Fundamentalism, tapped into the world view of Vedanta Hinduism, kundalini yoga, Theosophy, and holism when these concepts were extremely foreign to the cultural cognitive frameworks, groupthink, and conceptual cognitive distortions of his early 20^th century waking reality. Cayce, his son Hugh Lynn, and the majority of people who were attracted to the readings believed that his world view as a window on Truth and Reality. They did not recognize that Cayce simply tapped into an emerging cultural potential that was going to transform the perceptual cognitive distortions of the masses as New Ageism and holism before it was itself conditioned and marginalized in part by the world view of Buddhism. That process is still going on, and now the perceptual cognitive distortion that transcends and includes Buddhism is on the horizon as an emerging potential, and we are like blind men confronting the proverbial elephant in relationship to it. Many are shouting, “I can accurately describe the elephant!” Doubt them all, including IDL. The nature of emerging potentials is that they are not yet born; they are mere possibilities; they are not predetermined or predestined to be born, and they may congeal into infinite shapes, as we learn from a rudimentary observation of our own nighttime dreams.

In this regard, IDL trusts and respects emerging potentials and lets them speak for themselves to each person in their own language. This is an excellent reason for interviewing others: it allows us to recognize both the need for and the arbitrariness of language and conceptualizations of all sorts; what is an emerging potential for one person is not an emerging potential for another, and IDL is not about telling you what your emerging potentials should be, nor what language is best or that you need to use. However, it would be disrespectful for IDL to pretend it does not have preferences or to mislead readers to think that it has more in common with traditional conceptions of spirituality than there might actually be. To grow we need both commonalities to create connection and differences to generate discrimination and challenges to our current level of development. IDL attempts to do both.

IDL sees nothing unloving about believing that people can learn to experience life directly, without the mediation of filtering concepts. Like a rocket that allows you to escape Earth’s gravity, once you are in space it becomes unnecessary and irrelevant to hold on to that rocket engine. Pointing this out to people and showing them how to reach orbit and stay in outer space as long as they desire does not mean that they cannot return to Earth whenever they wish or pick up conceptual rocket engines again whenever they so desire. Metaphysical conceptions like God, soul, and spirit can also be compared to ladders. People are already not only familiar with metaphysical conceptual ladders; most have become so addicted to them that they cannot and will not get off the ladder when they reach the “top.” They either stay on the ladder or insist on carrying it with them, once they are at the top! IDL focuses on helping people give themselves permission to experiment with putting their ladders down, with giving up the escape velocity rocket engines once they are in orbit or beyond. It focuses on helping people see that this in no way denies the meaning or usefulness of metaphysical concepts, that to access perspectives that include, yet transcend cognitive filters it is necessary to take up contexts that naturally do so directly, because they are alive.

There are better ways to practice upaya than to use inherently misleading language that catches one in logical contradictions. For IDL, those ways are experiential: asking people to become emerging potentials during interviewing, when they are meditating, and at specific times during the round of their life: when they have a problem with their partner, child, or work colleague, when they are going to sleep, when they are dreaming, when they are showering. There is nothing deceitful or misleading about experiencing life directly through a form that embodies a perspective you need to take your next developmental step.

Triangulation

Triangulation is a decision-making process that is not found in AQAL or other dream yogas, although there is no reason why it could not be. IDL supports evolution from the perspectives first of interviewed emerging potentials, then the multiple values that they embody, and from life itself. It does so through the decision-making process of triangulation. A life issue is proposed. It will represent one of the four quadrants. For example, questions about feelings (“How can I worry less?”) deal with internal individual issues of truthfulness. Questions about meaning, (“How do I interpret this dream?”) deal with internal collective issues of justness. Questions about personal behavior, (“How do I lose weight?”) deal with external individual issues of truth. Questions about relationships address external collective issues of functional fit. (“How do I get people to stop being mean to me?) The question is, “How shall I best proceed in addressing this life issue?” Interviewed emerging potentials, whether from dreams or as personifications of life issues, share their perspectives and recommendations. They provide an internal collective source of truth that may address issues in any of these four quadrants. It is internal because interviewed emerging potentials arise out of the consciousness of the person being interviewed, although they are not dependent upon it nor defined by it; it is collective because the perspectives that are offered are multiple. They are experienced in relationship to the perspective of waking identity, who you think you are when you are experiencing them. Such perspectives are not primarily derived from external authority or from waking identity. They are considered to be “subjective sources of objectivity” in that they draw on sources normally considered to be subjective, in that they are not subject to consensus validation by others, and yet provide amazing degrees of objectivity from both personal and professional judgments. In triangulation, the comments and recommendations of interviewed emerging potentials are considered by your own common sense, which is an internal individual source of truth. These suggestions may be evaluated by authorities, whether external or externalized: experts, mentors, confidants, conscience, angels, deceased relatives, extraterrestrials, intuition, one’s “higher self,” or God. The seers of the mystical traditions of the world represent the “emerging potentials” of the human species. When you look for points of agreement or consensus among them you are doing on a cultural and social level what IDL does on intracultural and intrasocial dimensions (the internal collective quadrant of the human holon). Recommendations are operationally defined and tested in the realm of your behavior (the external individual quadrant) as part of an integral life practice. It then compares the advice of both subjective and objective sources of authority and weighs the advice of both against common sense to make decisions that are considerably wiser than consulting only one or two of the above sources of authority.

Emphasis on The Drama Triangle

IDL considers self-centered stories of evolution as existing within the Drama Triangle, meaning the self is experienced as the victim of its own self-persecution and needs rescuing. When this is done, salvation, whether by messiahs, mystical experiences, or the dharma, becomes necessary. Rescuing in turn generates the need for purification and enlightenment. Consequently, IDL emphasizes the importance of understanding and avoiding the Drama Triangle. For IDL it is an existential recognition and reduction of what Buddhists call dukkha, suffering, in the three realms of interpersonal relationships, cognition, and dreaming.

Emphasis on the Evolution of the Empathetic Line

The word “empathy” is defined in different ways. It can refer to feeling and sharing another person’s emotions, experiencing emotions that match another person’s emotions; caring for other people and having a desire to help them; making less distinct the differences between the self and the other, and discerning what another person is thinking or feeling. It is in this last sense that IDL primarily uses the world, although the state changes that accompany identification with dream characters and the personifications of life issues probably come from feeling and sharing the emotions that are evoked by inhabiting a different perspective from one’s own.

There is perhaps no more effective tool for socialization than putting oneself in the perspective of another person. When this is effectively done there is no longer either a desire or any motivation to disrespect or abuse anyone. When this is extended to all objects of awareness, including dream spoons and clouds, as IDL does, one’s default assumption is one of respect combined with a reflexive desire to objectify and retroflect, that is, stand back and look at oneself from not one, but several, not individual, but collective points of view.

Emphasis on the evolution of the empathetic line is an excellent antidote to an over-emphasis of both the self-line and the cognitive line. Traditionally this has been both understood and expressed as an expression of morality: do to others as you would have them do to you; put yourself in the shoes of another person before you judge them; others are mirrors of your own strengths, weaknesses, and preferences; how you treat others is how you are treating the aspects of yourself that they represent. Such injunctions are all true and helpful, and they are higher level awarenesses on the cognitive line from the perspective of a more broadly perceiving self. They support the evolution of the lines of cognition and self and require a high degree of moral development. However, cognitive awarenesses are not empathetic experiences. Self-centered perceptions, regardless how evolved the self is, are not experiences from the perspective of the other. An action, feeling, or emotion that is morally evolved may or may not be empathetic.

To develop the empathetic line you have to learn ways to disidentify from your normal sense of self and to do so in ways that are not primarily cognitive or moral. It involves not only the cultivation of objectivity, but multiple sources of objectivity. This means that while the self-line is fundamentally individual, the empathetic line is fundamentally collective. IDL provides repeated, practical, useful experiences of empathy. When you become a lamppost, you are de-centralizing your consciousness, to be sure. There is no moral imperative to be a lamppost.

The source of the desire to empathize tends to evolve with the other lines. Children seem to be hard-wired to role-play in order to internalize adaptive behaviors and roles. This is an exploration of possibility through mimicry, through acting out the fantasy a child has of what it means to be this person or that object and by so doing, internalize its strength, usefulness, values, and value. Internalization of a role is not, however, the embodiment of its perspective or the values that are associated with that role. For young children, the process is too concrete to be considered to be empathetic; it is more doing what those in the role do than thinking what those in the role think, or feeling what those in the role feel. Mimicry is very concrete.

Even as a child, role selection is largely identity driven. There are reasons why a child plays with dolls or becomes Bat Man rather than a lamppost. Role identification becomes narrow and targeted to the acquisition of certain skill sets demonstrated by admired mentors: rock stars, athletes, teachers, lawyers, or doctors. Becoming a lampost is seen as something that is either useless, bizarre, or crazy. No value is placed on it by society because there is no understanding of how it could support society in its goals: to raise, compliant, obedient, hard-working, and complacent citizens.

The natural childhood urge to try on different roles fades as the socially-validated structures of identity grow stronger, defining what roles are appropriate to one’s sense of self and which ones are not. As we get more comfortable with our repetoire of roles our interest in collecting new ones tends to diminish. We want to put more energy into strengthening the roles we have that “fit” rather than stay in the ambiguity of continuously trying on new ones. This further implies that role identification is typically driven by identity requirements rather than any evolutionary drive toward empathy. In contrast, the development of empathy seems to be much less of an evolutionary imperative, if at all, up to and including mid-personal levels of development. It is more likely to be important either before or after the roles of the self have been clearly defined. It becomes important afterward only when and if self-identity is found wanting, insufficient, or dangerous. If this is so, then why would people who have built a strong, socially validated sense of self, desire empathy? Where does the motivation come from? If you derive money, status, and security from a strong sense of self, what would compel you to question it? If it gets you what you need while questioning it only reduces your status, security, or income, why in the world would you do so? This is important to understand, because it is a fundamental explanation for why IDL not only does not make sense to many people, but is actually threatening to them.

Doing so also evolves empathy, by accessing and identifying with broader, more inclusive perspectives regardless of your level of development. For example, when a small child has a nightmare and “becomes” the dream monster, this identification will be largely concrete rather than emotional or conceptual. However, doing so, and answering the questions in the interview, requires growth in emotional and conceptual identification to answer while still staying in role. This is very important for development, because it generates objectivity, identification with other points of view, the neutralization of internal conflict, and the development of confidence and self-esteem.

Empathy is not assumed by IDL. Rather, it is demonstrated by concurrence of interviewed perspectives. For example, they determine whether you are in role or not, not you or the interviewer. They determine whether they are being listened to or not, not you or the interviewer. They determine whether they are being understood or not, not you or the interviewer. If these criteria are met, it is asumed that empathy exists in the IDL use of the word. This might be considered perspectival empathy rather than emotional empathy or agreement with thoughts, feelings, or actions. It does not imply, nor does it require, agreement.

Wilber’s “Morphogenic Field of Potentials” and Integral Deep Listening Emerging Potentials

Wilber sees the evolution of consciousness as “a vast morphogenetic field of potentials,”^_ a concept that is based on Sheldrake’s thinking – is similar enough in some ways to the IDL conception of “emerging potentials” that similarities and differences need to be discussed. Wilber hypothesizes that the way these potentials become reality is through the morphogenetic processes identified by Rupert Sheldrake. IDL bases its understanding of the genesis of possibility in consciousness and form on the precipitation of emerging potentials. This is not a metaphysical process; we can see it in operation in our own lives every day. For example, a dream monster is two things. First, it is our perception of it, which defines and limits its influence and determines our reaction to it. Second, there is its perception of itself, largely unrecognized, but still existent. This perception does not exist until it is embodied by us. Until that time it is a crystallized potential, part of a manifested holon that is a context in which the perspective of waking identity is embedded. Consequently, because it innately personifies a “ground” consciousness in which waking identity is content, it works largely in a fashion independent of whatever status quo is in place. That is, it is typically unrecognized or misunderstood until or unless a phenomenological process is taken up and that perspective is allowed to amplify itself in consciousness. Think of it as a collective internal perspective or value that brings holonic balance when integrated. That integration requires respectful listening. Because of the relationship of emerging potentials to your  life compass, this is not normal listening; it is deep listening. IDL believes that demonstrating respect to emerging potentials is revolutionary and transformational, essentially because it not only neutralizes the normal resistances of waking identity, but actively supports their expression. This in turn furthers the evolutionary influence of what Wilber, following Sheldrake, calls “the morphogenic field of potentials.” Wilber sees “potential forms” as comprising all four quadrants of holons, just as IDL does emerging potentials.

Wilber, again following Sheldrake, considers the universal characteristics of potential forms and patterns to be “universal habits.” IDL emerging potentials appear to differ in this respect. While humans have predispositions to view dream monsters as threats or fire as a source of warmth or potentially, of harm, when these are interviewed as emerging potentials, “universal perspectives” or “habits” do not seem to emerge. Your interview with your monster or fire will probably demonstrate autonomous and individualized preferences and perspectives. While there is not an unlimited number of possible profiles for the disclosed perspectives of interviewed emerging potentials, “universal” or “archetypal” “habitual perspectives” associated with specific forms are not in evidence. Answers are much more ideosyncratic. Monsters will not always be friends or enemies, fire will not always be about light, warmth, or danger. Water will not always deal with unknown inner realms, purification, or life force. An interview with air will be radically different from one person to another. Life seems not to play the pigeon holing game that people use as a form of shorthand to fool themselves into thinking they understand. Life does not seem to associate particular qualities or quantities of the six core processes or qualities with one form or another. For example, confidence is not associated with a certain type of form or character that one would associate with strength. This is the same with wisdom, compassion, inner peace, acceptance, and witnessing. Emerging potentials are so personal, unique, and autonomous that they do not reflect universal patterns and forms.

AQAL Shadow Work

If you have unknown aspects of yourself, whether detrimental or positive, they are termed “shadow.” If you are reading much current integral or communicating with many people with this world view, you are going to be running into this usage, which is a term coined by C.G. Jung. Every model that we build is based on the ever-evolving perspective held by our sense of who we are, however we define it. That self is made up of a multitude of perspectives, some of which contradict others. Wilber tends to view those perspectives we adopt as interior to our sense of self. Self transcends and includes subsidiary perspectives as it evolves. Consequently, those not consciously claimed as our own tend to get lumped under shadow work, a term derived from Jung that refers to repressed or dissociated aspects of ourselves. Wilber’s integral Shadow 3-2-1 Process is a “gold star practice” in the Shadow module of his integral life practice.  He would most likely view IDL as a variety of the 3-2-1 process, in which he would also include “Big Mind” and Voice Dialogue.

Wilber’s shadow work starts with the assumption that we are in conflict with aspects of ourselves and that we project those conflicts out onto others and our environment. Wherever there is a disturbance it probably has something to do with you. You begin with a “3rd person exercise,” in which you start by thinking about a person that is upsetting to you. You are then told to describe why the person is upsetting you. Next, you have a dialogue with the person who is upsetting you, either in writing or as a Gestalt two-chair type exercise. When you respond as the person, you ae workinug with the “2^nd person exercise” part of Wilber’s 3-2-1 Shadow process. You are responding as if you were the other, owning and honoring their perspective. When you re-own the projection as a part of yourself you are doing the “1^st person exercise” of the Shadow process.

What we find in IDL is that most emerging potentials do not view themselves as repressed or dissociated, although some do. We find many emerging potentials describe themselves as springing from what Wilber has called our “overall” self, to distinguish it from our conscious, “proximal” self and our unconscious, “distal” selves. IDL does not use this terminology, because it frames relatively autonomous interviewed perspectives as part of some self sense, some self identity, whether recognized or not. Self-identities, even when multiple and composed of social and psychological roles and personas, are singular in the sense that they represent the current assumed identity of some unitary self. Otherwise, the term “self” has no meaning, because there are no boundaries distinguishing between self and other. People want to have it both ways: they want to use the word “self” to describe autonomy when they want autonomy and to describe boundless unity, as in “Self,” or “soul,” or “Atman,” when they want boundless unity. But this is a formal fallacy, because it uses two contradictory definitions interchangeably, as if they meant the same thing.

Emerging potentials, as defined by IDL, are not part of any self-sense, and they may never be, by definition. In addition to not being part of a self-sense, they are not unitary selves in the sense of waking identity, in that they are usually obviously imaginary, such as dream collanders or the personifications of life issues. These perspectives are approached phenomenologically; that is, assumptions about their ontological status is suspended. Where Wilber views them as aspects of self, IDL does not do so. Consequently, it does not conclude that they are “shadow.”

IDL agrees that we are in conflict with aspects of ourselves and that we project those conflicts out onto others and our environment. Also, health involves recognizing, owning, and withdrawing these projections. This is an important topic, because it has to do with how we relate to both our disowned or unconscious scripting and emerging potentials, on the one hand, and how we perceive “other interior stuff.”  Is it all shadow? Is shadow the best term for any of it?

Jung used the term mostly to represent disowned parts of self but also unrecognized potentials. “Shadow” sets up an unnecessary and often oppositional/conflictual dualism between self and the internal other, something that is to be avoided if possible, because such dualisms divide us from ourselves. There is you, and then there is your shadow, and the various elements of your shadow.

The basic problem with this usage is that it is projective, which means that using it keeps us stuck in our waking perspective. With projection, life is not viewed from the multiple perspectives of emerging potentials life but instead in terms of the evolution of the self. Projections are self-centered, both in the assumptions the self makes and in terminology, with the result being that it is difficult to think in ways that are not self-centric when one uses such terms.

While life as about the evolution of the self is a legitimate perspective, it’s not life’s perspective. From life’s perspective, growth, development, evolution, and life is about it, not about us. With the shadow concept there is “us,” who we think we are, and then there is the inner “disowned us.” But the concept of disownership implies that something was once owned. Our dreams and life experience is overflowing with emerging potentials that have never been owned. Are these shadow? That does not seem accurate, since they are not primarily, from their perspective, about us and our reality. They are about themselves and their reality. Such emerging potentials have their own agendas, and they may be very different from our own, yet not be a reaction to ours either.

So, how else could one view “not self?” One possibility is to interview these aspects and let them tell us how they view themselves. This minimizes the problem with projection. In addition, it has the advantage of being a phenomenogical approach, in that it suspends our assumptions and allows the “other” to speak for itself.

Of course, the common objection is that we are simply putting words into the mouth of the interviewed figure or are generating an outlet for shadow. Both of these objections are easily overcome by experience interviewing. Words come out of many interviewed figures that are radically not our own and that do not see themselves as shadow. When we interview such figures what we find is that they are unlikely to view themselves as shadow; they may as likely view you as a shadow of them. You will also find that many of these “others” have not been disowned because they have never been owned.

Consequently, IDL calls interviewed figures emerging potentials because they are emerging into our awareness and they represent unexamined, unappreciated, or unincorporated potentials for becoming more awake, regardless of whatever else that they are. Some are most certainly disowned.

Of course, “emerging potentials” is also a projection by our sense of self, since life doesn’t call itself anything. However, it is a projection that knows it is a projection and that intentionally sets out to minimize the problems of thinking in terms of the self and its interpretations. Certainly there is no way the problem of psychological geocentrism can be avoided, but it can be minimized, and the term “shadow” supports rather than works to dismantle, our identification with our self-sense. That self-sense keeps us from seeing ourselves as life sees us. In other words, while it is a great tool for waking up, in other ways it is a positive barrier to enlightenment

Wilber and Deep Sleep Lucidity

The following demonstrates that Wilber is more than a pandit, or scholarly intellectual, but is, in fact, a yogi who has the ability to do nidra yoga:

“….At some point in the evening we got into a discussion about meditation and the changes it can produce in brain waves. A young man training to be a psychiatrist asked me to get out a videotape I have of me connected to an EEG machine while I meditate he believed none of the discussion about how meditation could profoundly alter brain waves, and he wanted ‘proof.’

The tape shows me hooked to an EEG machine; this machine shows alpha, beta, theta, and delta waves in both left and right hemispheres. Alpha is associated with awake but relaxed awareness; beta with intense and analytic thinking, theta is normally produced only in the dream state, and sometimes instates of intense creativity; and delta is normally produced only in deep dreamless sleep. So alpha and beta are associated with the gross realm; theta with the subtle realm; and delta with the causal realm. Or, we could say, alpha and beta tend to be indicative of ego states, and delta of spirit states. Delta presumably has something to do with the pure Witness, which most people experience only in deep dreamless sleep.

This video starts with me hooked up to the machine; I am in normal waking consciousness, so you can see a lot of alpha and beta activity in both hemispheres. But you can also see a large amount of delta waves; in both hemishpheres the delta indicators are at maximum, presumably because of constant stable witnessing. I then attempt to go into a type of nirvikalpa smadhi — or complete mental cessation — and within four or five seconds, all of the machine’s indicators go completely to zero. It looks like whoever this is, is totally brain-dead. There is no alpha, no beta, no theta–but there is still maximum delta.

After several minutes of this, I start doing a type of mantra visualization technique — yidam mediation, which I have always maintained is predominantly a subtle-level practice–and sure enough, large amounts of theta waves immediately show up on the machine, along with maximum delta. The fact that theta, which normally occurs only in dreaming, and delta, which normally occurs only in deep sleep, are both being produced in a wide-awake subject tends to indicate a type of simultaneous presence of gross, subtle, and causal states (e.g., turiyatita). It is, in any event, attention-grabbing.”[11]

Is Development “Self” Development?

Beginning with his first book, The Spectrum of Consciousness, Wilber looks at life from the perspective of “spirit,” or life, in describing a cycle of involutionary and evolutionary processes. This is a context he recognizes and maintains throughout his writings. Within that context, throughout his published works, at least through 2013, focus tends to be on the evolution and development of the self, including the means and challenges to its thinning and disidentification. The emphasis on self self-development, including its dissolution, implies psychological geocentrism, but thinned and relativized in sophisticated ways. The self first creates itself and then deconstructs its identification with that identity until it is a Self that is one with God, transcending Self-definitions. Geocentrism is replaced by Heliocentrism, which IDL notes is different from polycentrism and a holographic universe in which all perspectives are the center.

IDL views development as fundamentally about life, rather than any self. The perspective of self is an essential perspective that life takes at some but not all stages of its evolution. Both prior to the awakening of self-consciousness at late prepersonal, which is closely related to the awakening of linguistic aptitudes, and afterwards, when linguistically-derived conceptualizations no longer adequately define experience (in the transpersonal), development is not primarily about the self. It is only in the middle ranges that evolution is about self-awareness. Wilber knows this, and because he is communicating to minds at these middle ranges of development, just as this text is doing, he can do little else. Interviewing and becoming a multiplicity of perspectives with IDL generates a growing perception that the lowest common denominator is not a stable, solid sense of self but the unbounded life that animates whatever sense of self one takes up from moment to moment. This is another reason why interviewing is an important adjunct to meditation. It provides regular, ongoing, and different experiences of non-self-centered development.

Evolution Beyond Attainment of the Non-Dual by the Self-line   

What results, when we consider the perspectives of emerging potentials and the general state of dream and deep sleep awareness, is a view of evolution different from the story told by the self-line. From the perspective of our emerging potentials and dream consciousness, life remains bogged down in prepersonal awareness even after the self-line attains the non-dual. This in turn has implications for the nature of life after death as well as for what it means to wake up in the dream state.

What does enlightenment mean in the context of the dream state? While waking identity and its evolution is the story of an expanding singularity thinning as it broadens and expands its sense of self, dream identity and its evolution is the story of an expanding collectivity thinning and broadening as it wakes up. This is not primarily a self evolution but a collective evolution. How do we know this? We know that people can be awake while dreaming and still be at prepersonal levels of development. Some children and pschopaths can and do lucid dream. Consequently, lucid dreaming is not an indication of enlightenment. Within the dream state, lucid dreaming is an indication of late prepersonal egoic awakening, not of anything more. Whatever your sense of self is in your waking identity wakes up within a dream. This is parallel to one’s sense of self becoming consolidated at late prepersonal in normal waking development. Notice that lucid dreamers rarely maintain this state; they fall back into the dream equivalent of mid-prepersonal stage of development.

Just as your self-sense can be stabilized at non-dual, say through regular, intense, and advanced practice of meditation, while your overall development remains much lower, so you can access the non-dual and remain, in the context of the dream state, at a late prepersonal level of development. This is in fact where you are in dream evolution even if you learn to maintain dream lucidity whenever you dream – a very unusual and difficult proposition. The implication is that waking enlightenment does not necessarily imply overall stabilization at the non-dual. It does not imply enlightenment in the realm of the collective dreaming realm of consciousness, and even less so in the realm of deep sleep evolution.

Consciousness in dreaming and deep sleep is regressive. Dream consciousness is a trance state that is normally less conscious and unified than waking. Deep sleep consciousness is a trance state that is normally entirely unconscious. To wake up within either is not an indication of an enlightened self, but it is an indication of relative consciousness colonizing states of relative unconsciousness. These two states of relative unawareness probably evolve at their own pace, in their own broader context, since dreaming is more subjective than waking and deep sleep is more subjective than dreaming. In that they are foundational substrates, they are normally as likely to evolve as are the pons and limbic brains. They have largely done with their evolution; where the evolutionary action is happening today is primarily in the frontal lobes. They are analogous to the first and second stages of a three-sage rocket. They have done their job, and continue to provide essential foundational support, but the lifting into orbit is now being done by the third stage, the cerebral cortex.

Evolution of wakefulness in each of these is therefore most likely contingent on first waking up in the more objective state or states: first waking, then dreaming, then deep sleep. The analogy would be to an enlightened waking consciousness supporting the further evolution of the pons and limbic brains. It is possible, but unlikely. Why? Because they evolved according to adaptational needs that are long-standing, fundamental, and profound. Further evolution of prior structures can only proceed if it does not disrupt those basic, supportive competencies. Such decisions are unlikely to be made by an autonomous waking self; they are much more likely to be made by a collective identity that transcends and includes autonomous waking identities.

IDL assumes that the dream state is a broader context that limits the breadth of enlightenment accessible by any being at any age or any time, just as the socio-cultural context of a bronze age awakening cannot reach the potential of a post-industrial age enlightenment. A goal, therefore, for IDL, is for the waking up of characters in dreams. This represents an advance beyond self-lucidity and a movement into the early personal level of development as defined in the dream state, as a collectivity of identities.

It appears that dream reality is stuck at early to mid-prepersonal in its development, and it does not appear that topping out the self-line with non-dual consciousness changes that permanently for individuals and certainly not for the social-cultural and other collective contexts that condition any enlightenment.

Enlightenment

What does it mean to be enlightened? For Wilber and those traditions he has studied, it is realization of oneness. The problem is, the more one looks at what that means, the more complicated and conditional it becomes. Does that mean a realization of gross, subtle, causal, non-dual oneness or all four? Does it mean a temporary state or a stable, ongoing level of development? Does that involve just the self-line or also other lines, such as cognitive, empathetic, and moral developmental lines? Is it the end of development or not? Is enlightenment represented by only one true, pure, perfect, and real world view by many? Is enlightenment a final goal or an ongoing developmental process? Are only certain behaviors associated with enlightenment and others excluded or is there no relationship between behavior and enlightenment? Wilber points out that if your self-line stabilizes at non-dual awareness without developing the moral, cognitive, and empathetic lines into the transpersonal, you can experience yourself as authentically enlightened and not be enlightened at all. He discusses the problems that arise when a sense of self is carried into the gross, subtle, causal, and non-dual states and stages.[12]

IDL acknowledges the importance of both state and stage forms of enlightenment and is cautious about drawing too many strong conclusions from overwhelmingly positive state experiences of enlightenment, due to the above-mentioned questions. Because of both the ease and commonality of meditators to overestimate their level of development, largely because they confuse state openings with stable access to permanent stages, IDL focuses on a process model of waking up over various developmental stages and on various lines of development rather than on some theoretical space of complete awakening. It also emphasizes triangulation in order to provide objectivity in self-assessment of enlightenment. IDL notes that when enlightening openings occur we continue to find ourselves relatively still stuck in our own subjectivity. No matter how highly developed our self-line is we continue to access emerging potentials that are more highly developed than we are. They point out areas in which our development is still lagging. Such experiences quickly teach us to be cautious about what others claim for themselves in terms of enlightenment.

When you emphasize reality in terms of the development of the self-line, as humanity has tended to do, you tend to see life in terms of that identity, instead of other perspectives, regardless of how good you are at assimilating the perspectives of others into your own worldview. You can experience yourself One with All and still perceive reality from your self-perspective. Anyone who reads multiple accounts of near death experiences will observe this common occurrence. Once the self reaches vision-logic and beyond, it is very good at honoring many perspectives and talking about the aperspectival nature of reality. However, even this is still an awareness of the self-line. What are the preferences and awarenesses of other, non-self perspectives?

People normally tackle this question by considering the accounts of different mystics and compare them with their own, as Wilber does. Few assess the accounts of multiple internal sources of objectivity, different interviewed emerging potentials, and compare them with their own. This is why IDL returns again and again to retroflection back at the self from the objectivity of not-yet integrated perspectives of “others,” that we experience as “not-self.” This differs from person to person and at different stages of development, but there is no situation in which there does not exist one or more perspective that is not integrated and that is “not-self.” Again, in distinction to Wilber, IDL does not view these as components of “overall self,” because to do so both eliminates the meaning of “other” and “self” as meaningful distinctions. Such non-integrated “others” may be obvious, as the appearance of some waking or dream threat, or it may be completely ignored, as are most of the “props” in dreams – the ground, the sky, air, and background landscape. When you become these you tend to create a worldview that transcends and includes the evolution of the self, including transpersonal stages and even the non-dual, as a definition of self. All of this becomes de-centralized as the story of the evolution of life, which is a bigger story than that of self-enlightenment, or the self-line attaining non-dual awareness.

Challenges People Routinely Encounter With AQAL

Once people learn AQAL they typically mistake their level of development on the leading cognitive line for their overall development. It is much easier to grasp a concept or imagine a reality than to inhabit it on an ongoing basis. Often, when people do, they find there are challenges and complexities that they have not foreseen. They also find that they are unprepared and ill-equipped for a greatly expanded and redefined experience of reality. In addition, people routinely mistake their level of personal development, that is the development of the self-line, for their overall development, when they are not at all the same. This is similar to equating being in an adult body with being an adult. The equipment is on board but the competencies necessary to use the equipment often have arrived yet. These include emotional maturity, the ability to reason, objectivity, empathy, interpersonal skills, and a developed ethical sense. None of these are required for the development of the self-line. You can have a rich, famous, psychic, or brilliant self-line that is all out of proportion to other necessary competencies.

People also tend to define their level of development in terms of prevailing cultural norms. For example, Barak Obama gave a speech in which he discussed American “exceptionalism.” The implication is that Americans are somehow more evolved, more special, more aware, than other human beings. Americans hear such words and tend to conclude they are not only unique, but special. The consequence is that they lack an accurate assessment of their actual level of personal development in relationship to humanity as a whole. A prevailing cultural norm among many of those that are attracted to AQAL is that enlightenment is either state access, like psychic or mystical experiences, or social liberalism, as in freedom and justice for all, or both. But these are cultural fashions, the first a hold over from pre-personal shamanism and the second an expression of personal and late personal emphasis on egalitarianism and pluralism. In fifty years these preferences are likely to look dated and quaint. To reduce the myopia of cultural contexts we need to access emerging potentials that are not submerged in them.

Some Comments on Various Criticisms of Wilber and AQAL

Wilber’s model has created considerable reaction; it appears to be threatening to a lot of people. Why is that? Essentially, Wilber’s model relativizes everybody and everything; it punctures intrinsic narcissism and “specialness.” It also makes a strong case for enlightenment as a developmental process rather than a revelatory one. It is always useful to ask, “What does this argument say about this author’s own level of development? Those who have problems with such relativizing and the consequent interdependence it generates, or who mistakenly conclude that Wilber does not subject himself and his model to the same constraints, seem to be the most critical.

The criticisms fall into several broad categories. Some people discount Wilber’s model because they don’t like or trust their originator. A common complaint is that they find his writing too cognitive and intellectual and not emotional and experiential enough. Maybe they have seen him talk and hog the stage; maybe they don’t like that he has endorsed questionable figures. While justification for those conclusions exist, they have little to do with AQAL. Equating a man and his ideas is a logical fallacy that equates personality with evidence. Ideas stand or fall on their own, independent of their source. Those who support ideas based on who says them are basing their experience on pre-personal belief, not on personal rationality. When they reject ideas based on who says them they are rejecting the wisdom and truth of the parts of themselves that personify those ideas.

Another common response is to create straw man arguments and triumphantly disprove them. This occurs when one either misreads Wilber or takes an earlier version of his writing and presents it as his present thinking. The problem is with the premise; an idea is presented as Wilber’s thinking when it is not or else it has been superseded by later thinking.

Some people object to Wilber’s style of writing, but this says nothing about the reasonableness or usefulness of his ideas. Others think Wilber emphasizes “masculine” characteristics of hierarchy and logic over “feminine” characteristics of heterarchy and emotion. This is stereotyping on the basis of gender, which degrades each sex, exactly what Wilber is accused of doing. As I read Wilber, he leans over backwards to point out the strengths and weaknesses of both masculine and feminine styles while emphasizing both barriers to and reasons for their integration. Wilber’s integral life practice provides practical tools to move toward androgyny.

Another criticism is that Wilber “commercializes spirituality.” The implication is that by making spiritual development accessible to more people Wilber somehow cheapens it. If I were Wilber, I would find this criticism amusing. The depth of Wilber’s writing tends to make it most of it accessible mostly to those who already have a fair amount of education, meaning that the real issue is how to make something so sophisticated available to a broader audience. Wilber has clearly wrestled with this issue and his integral life practice is an extraordinarily well-thought out response to those who want more experience, more emotion, more feminine energy, or simply less Ken Wilber.

Another common criticism is that Wilber and his work are judged based on the personalities of those who are attracted to it. It is true that the preponderance of those who read Wilber are themselves likely ahead on the cognitive line of development and therefore not as strong in emotion and empathy. Some readers of Wilber make the mistake of assuming a good cognitive grasp of AQAL is the same as evolution of the other major lines of self, morality, and empathy. This is a mistake; Wilber makes clear again and again that cognition is a necessary leading developmental line, but that conceptualization of a stage of development is not the same as balanced identification with it. People who assume they are more evolved than others undercut their own credibility and marginalize themselves. People who do not naturally favor the cognitive line tend to be suspicious of those who do, because they can see intellectuality as cold, rigid, judgmental, controlling, and exclusivistic. These are legitimate criticisms of those who are overly intellectual. However, judging Wilber by those who are attracted to his work is about as fair as judging who you are by those who are attracted to you. Those who are attracted to his work are not Wilber; even if they were, or Wilber himself were in fact subject to all the weaknesses that tend to show up in intellectuals, that does not reflect on either the logic or usefulness of AQAL, which stands or falls for different reasons.

An Interview With Ken Wilber

Since IDL interviews dream elements and personifications of life issues, it seems appropriate to interview the personification of the life issue under consideration at the moment, AQAL and its relationship to IDL: To do so we can have it represented by its originator, Ken Wilber. Note that everyone will produce their own unique interview and there are no truth claims associated with what follows. Instead, it serves as an example of how IDL can be used to support the development of multi-perspectivalism.

Ken, would you please tell me about yourself and what you are doing?

I am listening to you with some amusement! I think you need to remember what is written in the Bhagavad Gita, where Krishna says, “Be focused on action and not on the fruits of action. Do not become confused in attachment to the fruit of your actions and do not become confused in the desire for inaction (2,47).”

So you’re telling me to stop thinking about how IDL is received or how popular it is and just do what makes sense to me.

Yup!

I knew that, but I forgot. Thanks for reminding me…

Ken, what do you like most about yourself? What are your strengths?

I like my determination to see the big picture, get it out there in front of the right people, and make it useful.

Ken, what do you dislike most about yourself? Do you have weaknesses? What are they?

I have my failings. I haven’t lived up to my expectations or those of others. I have set priorities that I know some other people find selfish. But I tell myself that I can’t please everyone, and that it is difficult enough pleasing myself.

Ken, what aspect of humanity do you represent or most closely personify?

I represent the part of humanity yearning for wholeness and integration. To some I represent an over-intellectualization of that yearning. And that is their truth, their reality.

Ken, if you could be anywhere you wanted to be and take any form you desired, would you change? If so, how?

I am changing enough as it is! I will not be alive that much longer. It’s not just my age; it’s this condition I have. I am sick a lot, without the energy I need to work. It makes it much harder for me to maintain balance in my life. Would I like to be healthy? Yes!

Healthy Ken, how would you score yourself 0-10, in each of the following six qualities: confidence, compassion, wisdom, acceptance, inner peace, and witnessing? Why?

Confidence, 0-10. Why? 9 I don’t want to be over-confident; I know I have more growing to do.

Compassion, 0-10. Why? 9 I care deeply about the future of humanity and I also have compassion toward my own physical disability and my own short-comings.

Wisdom, 0-10. Why? 9 I know enough to know that there is a great deal I do not know.

Acceptance, 0-10. Why? 9 There are some things that are not to be accepted: cruelty, abuse, lying, stealing, corruption. One has to speak out for what one believes and denounce what is false and deadly. I focus on building what is good, in hope that it will overwhelm the evil in man.

Inner Peace, 0-10. Why? 8 I’ve fought the good fight; I’ve stood for what I believe. I’ve attempted to respect everyone for who they are. I’ve meditated enough to know what real inner peace is.

Witnessing, 0-10. Why? 9 One can always develop more objectivity. I have worked hard at that most of my life. I do attempt to see myself from the perspectives of my critics.

Ken, if you scored tens in all six of these qualities, would you be different? If so, how?

I would be complete! But I am not so sure I want that. The incompleteness of humanity and its awareness of that incompleteness is one of its greatest strengths.

Ken, how would human life be different if they naturally scored like you do in all six of these qualities all the time?

Much less drama, much less personalization, much more focus on putting plans into action, much more clarity.

Ken, if you could live the lives of humans for them, how would you live it differently?

The most important thing is kindness, respect, love. However, having a model like AQAL creates a structure in which and through which that kindness, respect, and love can express itself. So I would have them do both.

Ken, if you could live the waking life of others today, would you handle their life issues?

I would tell everyone to trust what you call their life compass. People can easily learn how to differentiate it from their internalized cultural scripting, parent voices, intuition, conscience, and whatnot, and listen to it. Continue to respect and listen to others, whether they are human, sentient, or imaginary! Continue to stand up for what makes sense and what works. Continue to teach others to find and follow their life compass. It’s core; it’s necessary; it’s part of the evolutionary destiny of humanity. Focus on those things and forget about all those doubts. You can always do better!

Ken, what life issues would you focus on if you were in charge of the lives of others?

Human priorities are awakening. The cultural vessel which supports and nurtures development through the perils of prepersonal stages is growing stronger and wiser with each passing year. More knowledge of what works and doesn’t work is becoming widely available. Help others find their own path, their own means of waking up.

Ken, in what life situations would it be most beneficial for humans to imagine that they are you, become you, and act as you would?

When they have doubts about the goodness of the life force that directs their personal development and the evolution of life.

Ken, why do you think that you are in the lives of humans?

To reassure them that they are on track and that they just need to continue to respectfully listen and be persistent.

Thank you, Ken! I hear you say for us to focus on our priorities; not to feed our doubts. To feel ourselves supported by you when and if we think it might help. Also, to relax and enjoy our individual paths!

[1] “Crossed transaction” is a term taken from Eric Berne’s Transactional Analysis. He uses it to refer to communication among three internal perspectives, which he calls “parent,” “adult,” and “child.” Uncrossed transactions can occur parent to parent, (“We need to set better rules” “What do your recommend?”) adult to adult, (“What time is it?” “8:00”) child to child, (“Will you play with me?” “Let’s play house!”) between parent and adult, (“You’re late.” “You’re right.”) parent and child, (“Please brush your teeth.” “OK Mommy.”) or adult and child (“Which story do you want to hear?” “The funny one about the dancing rats!”). Such interactions are healthy, because they are clear and are not covert and manipulative. Crossed transactions are unhealthy, in that they claim to be healthy but are actually unhealthy cognitive distortions of one type or another. Examples of crossed transactions are adult to adult, with a response of child to parent, (“Are you going to be on time?” “You always think I’m late!”) parent to child (“Have you done your homework?”) with a response of parent to child, (“Have you stopped drinking?”) or child to adult, (“Do you love me?”) with a response of parent to child: (“Of course I love you! How many times do I have to tell you?”) Crossed transactions involve both the Drama Triangle and one or more cognitive distortion. Logical crossed transactions are overtly logical but covertly emotional. For example, a parent-child logical crossed transaction: (“Don’t yell!”) is met with the adult-adult response, “Do you know that you are yelling right now?”)

[2] Pinker, Steven. 2011. The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence has Declined. Viking, New York, NY.

[3] Steinmetz, K, Is there any biology behind our political affiliations? Time, Dec 21, 2010; Mooney, C. Scientists Are Beginning to Figure Out Why Conservatives Are…Conservative, Mother Jones, Jul 15, 2014.

[4] Regression to mid pre-personal is very powerful. The award-winning documentary, The Corporation, identifies characteristics of psychopathy and personality disorder as common traits associated with capitalism, including callous disregard for the feelings of other people, the incapacity to maintain human relationships, the reckless disregard for the safety of others, the deceitfulness (continual lying to deceive for profit), the incapacity to experience guilt, and the failure to conform to social norms and respect the law.

[5] For example, while dolphins have language, they are much better adapted to their environment than humans are to theirs, making language much less important as a survival technology; because dogs and most other mammals have fur, skin, or scales that protects them from the elements, they lack major, ongoing environmental stressors that humans have, and that drive the development of evolutionary technologies, such as sophisticated shelters, fire, and language.

[6] One can point to any number of statements in Wilber’s writings that are non-dualistic and that question dualistic assumptions, but these are largely conceptual and are not likely to sink down into experiential realizations of non-duality without practice in a transpersonal framework. For this Wilber recommends meditation. However, both historical and personal experiences with meditation demonstrate that meditation is quite compatible with dualism and the maintenance of dualistic world views. Nor is there any assurance that with “enough” meditation one will naturally outgrow them.

[7] Levels of development are self-centric, in that they cannot conceive of developmental stages above their own and therefore tend to reduce genuine higher phenomena to their own developmental stage or below. IDL is aware that it may in fact it be doing that when it doubts the existence of transpersonal stages. There are several reasons why this is probably unlikely, however. The first is that it freely acknowledges the reality of transpersonal states that exist beyond a particular level of development. This is not reductionistic. Secondly, it provides experiential validation of the existence of these states. Therefore, it does not deny the existence of states that represent all four distinct transpersonal levels of development. Its objections are based on the common confusion of states and stages and the observation that when these are disentangled, and the criteria for stage stability are investigated, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to find historical examples that meet those criteria. IDL believes that this is because these stages are largely, if not completely, emerging potentials for humanity that the species has not yet evolved stable access because there are too many cultural, social, and personal preconditions that are holonically interdependent that are yet to fall into place. Therefore, while IDL believes that such stages are theoretically possible, it is skeptical toward claims of their attainment and believes that most claims are examples of elevationism, transpersonal line attainment, and state access. Extraordinary claims take upon themselves an extraordinary burden of proof. According to AQAL, stable access to a transpersonal stage means meeting a lot of criteria. IDL agrees.

[8] The Mirror Test, Science Daily.Com

[9] Lucid dreams and metacognition: Awareness of thinking – awareness of dreaming. Max-Planck Institute, http://www.mpg.de/8869963/lucid-dreams-prefrontal-cortex

[10] Transcending Your Monkey Mind: The Five Trees and Meditation; Meditation and Integral Deep Listening

[11] One Taste, Ken Wilber, pp, 75-76

[12] See Transformations of Consciousness: Conventional and Contemplative Perspectives on Development (co-authors: Jack Engler, Daniel Brown), 1986.

TA emphasizes intentionality and choice rather than emotional catharsis and psychic archaeology.

In his education as a psychotherapist, Joseph Dillard was influenced much more powerfully by Transactional Analysis and cognitive therapy, including Ellis’ Rational Emotive Therapy, than he was by Gestalt or Moreno’s psychodrama, although he was trained in all four. The adaptation of the Drama Triangle by IDL came in the early 2000’s, and was expanded to cognition and dreaming in addition to interpersonal relationships.

What Do Freud and Psychology Have to Do With Dream Yoga?

What do Freud and his offshoots in modern psychology, counseling, and coaching have to do with dream yoga? On the surface, relatively nothing at all. Most know nothing about yoga and are completely unaware of its empirical nature. Nor do they share the traditional goal of yogas: liberation from samsara. Regarding Wilber’s integral AQAL, which IDL regards as a potent and effective re-definition of dream yoga, most of psychology doesn’t even know who Ken Wilber is. If you look in most introductory text books on psychology (as of 2015) you won’t find him in the index and you may not even find the term “transpersonal.” So what? There remains in psychology a strongly humanistic and rationalist emphasis that avoids and discounts anything that could be categorized as a significantly more advanced developmental stage.[1] IDL shares this caution and skepticism, but largely for different reasons, believing it throws out the sacred baby with the metaphysical bathwater.

Psychology is a relatively young field that is still attempting to justify its existence as a “real” science. Consequently, the mainstream tends to veer away from interests that appear unscientific. While there have indeed been scientific studies of meditation carried out by psychologists, among others, these are generally not associated with the word “yoga,” as if meditation were not a yoga, and meditation is not widely accepted as a legitimate psychological intervention, although it is gaining in both credibility and popularity, mostly among some psychotherapists. Instead of being called “meditation,” it is generally called something else, like “mindfulness,” or “relaxation therapy,” or “stress management.” Why? Even Wilber’s integral could be faulted for something similar. Yogic practices are called “integral life practices” rather than “yogas.” Why? IDL has no problem with the term “integral life practice” and uses it. It goes on to define them as forms of yoga. Why?

Yogas are life disciplines with the intention of union with the sacred, however it is defined. What is it about the sacred, and union with it, that is either toxic or out of fashion in many contemporary psychological circles? Why do science and psychology avoid it? At this point one cannot say that yoga is too closely related to Hinduism or even Eastern spiritual traditions, because the largely secular invasion of hatha yoga has largely disassociated the term from either the sacred or the East in the minds of many. Are meditation and yogas too experiential and not “rational” enough? Yoga presents development as primarily a sacred and experiential process rather than a rational and cognitive one. For people who are focused on achieving, maintaining, and advancing credibility at a mid-personal level of development, claims of levels that transcend and include their own are threats. The response is to ignore such claims; if this doesn’t work, then the next response is reductionism, that is, to claim that which transcends and includes one’s own world view is actually a prepersonal belief system. This is the prevailing assumption regarding yogas in general.

One would think that in light of all of this that the answer to the above question would be, “Freud and psychology have little, if anything, to do with dream yoga.” However, this is not IDL’s answer. Both traditional yoga and psychology address the question, “How does man wake up?” Where traditional yogas are interested in awakening man out of delusion and into an imagined utopian state of consciousness, psychology has mostly focused on awakening man out of delusion, generally defined as sickness, and into his potential for normalcy, or a balanced, satisfying life within his current culture and society. While this may seem like a mundane and secular goal, a strong, healthy self-sense is a pre-requisite for stable, higher development.

The goal of normalcy and the steps required to insure it have tended to be hidden in bronze age and traditional cultures because of tight-knit social and monastic communities, the paternalistic, disciplined structures they embody, and the regularities of routines within them. These provided tremendous stabilizing factors that tended to compensate for individual deficiencies in ways that individualistic, industrial and technology-mediated existence since the 1800’s does not. Psychology has been understood by some as a response to both the alienation and exposed roots of dysfunction that become both obvious and problematic outside of traditional cultures.[2]

When the goal of achieving waking competency in the world is understood to be a form of waking up, psychology can indeed be appreciated as a powerful dream yoga. The acquisition of balanced mid-personal level development, which is the fundamental goal of most psychology, is an accomplishment that few attain, and without it attempts to achieve balanced development into higher levels will fail. Therefore, anyone who is interested in dream yogas, waking up, or enlightenment needs to seriously consider the significant assistance psychology offers in bringing development to mid-personal levels.

Mid-personal level development entails “ego strength,” the holy grail of some forms of psychodynamic psychotherapy, “self-esteem,” real world competencies as measured by the ability to hold down a job, raise a family without abnormal amounts of discord, and maintain mental-emotional equilibrium in the process, that is, no major depression, anxiety, addictions, or volcanic eruptions. It entails the use of reason in problem solving and the control of emotional impulses. In other words, the major goal of psychology is the attainment and maintenance of normalcy in the interest not only of personal health but societal stability. These are the goals, purposes, and functions that the public expects from psychology and psychologists: to promote personal health and social functioning. The agendas of psychologists are mostly shaped by the motivations of the people who pay their salaries. There are notable exceptions in both research and practice, but those are standard deviations away from the bulk of the bell curve. Most people don’t seek counseling to be super-normal, to access the sacred, to learn a yoga, or to not be “normal.”

Classical yoga and lucid dream training today tends to focus on transpersonal competencies, such as meditation, and shamanistic competencies, such as psychic abilities, control, freedom, power, without mastering personal ones, such as getting a suitable education, making a living, learning to get along with others, managing life stress, juggling nutrition, exercise, work, family, and leisure, developing emotional objectivity, and learning how to think. Lucid dreaming is less likely to ask questions about what sort of control, freedom, or power is to be developed or what one is going to do with them once they are developed. In addition, dream yogas marginalize themselves when they become associated with pre-rational superstition, magic, belief, tradition, and mythology. This makes it easy for psychologists and other mainstream professionals to discount dream yogas in general instead of discriminating between the rationally-based and beneficial, and that which is less so.

Those who us who would like to see yoga rehabilitated have a responsibility to separate the wheat from the chaff and speak up when the emperor has no clothes. One embarrassing example, the naming of which will irritate many in this age of pluralism and egalitarianism, is ayurveda. Based on Vedic scriptures between two and four thousand years old, ayurveda is a yoga that claims to provide scientific solutions to everything from nutrition to architecture. Really? The same can be said about meditation. Both Hindu and Buddhist traditions claim meditation develops psychic powers. We now have millions of people around the world who have meditated, and research studies on serious meditators from various Hindu and Buddhist traditions. Good research on the many astounding and profound benefits of meditation are widely available. Where is the research demonstrating these psychic powers?

Yogas of all forms will do much better if they align themselves with and draw from the many tools psychology provides to help people wake up. These include helping people objectify their emotions, problem solve, develop confidence, acceptance, and reason. What is not sacred about these skills? What is not yogic about them? Notice that these are intertwined with the six core qualities of confidence, compassion, wisdom, acceptance, inner peace, and witnessing. How important are such competencies to waking up? How important are they to enlightenment? IDL considers them to be pre-requisites, and those who think they can bypass them are in fact lengthening the time and increasing the amount of energy expended in the journey to those goals.

Most psychologists do not see themselves as practicing a yoga. Instead, they aspire to be rational scientists, empathetic listeners, or problem solvers. However, the basis of science is empiricism, which is a logical, rational process. Despite their often non-rational contexts, yogas are also logical, rational processes in that they are empirical methods. Like science and psychology they say, “In order to get these results, follow these instructions. Confirm your results with peers in the method.” Psychology has tended to ignore both the rational roots behind the highly experiential nature of yoga and the implications of pursuing psychology as if it were a yoga. Traditional yoga has tended to ignore the importance of understanding the perils of unquestioned beliefs and mythologies.

IDL can be viewed as a yogic re-definition of psychology in several ways. It addresses the dysfunctionalities associated with prepersonal and personal levels of development, as psychology does, but for different reasons. Like psychology, IDL recognizes that a stable, integrated prepersonal through mid-personal foundation is required if higher levels of development are to be accessed and maintained. This is a different focus than simply returning people to normalcy. IDL and Healing discusses what can go wrong on each of the different levels and what interventions may be most effective. IDL is also yogic in the sense of emphasizing, following Wilber, the importance of establishing an integral life practice, which is a holistic approach to both goal setting and healing. This is different from both traditional yogas, which tend to assume that the religious context in which the individual is embedded is sufficient and provides the goals they need in order to achieve enlightenment, and most forms of psychology, which tend to assume that treatment related goals are sufficient for its goals of a happy, healthy life.

IDL is heavily indebted to psychology through Wilber’s integral, Moreno’s sociometric methology, Berne’s transactional analysis, and the work on cognitive distortions by Ellis, Beck, and Burns. However, with the exception of Moreno’s contribution, these are primarily tools for developing objectivity through cultivation of the witness. IDL is non-psychological in that it emphasizes an “inner compass” which is not a self-construct or centered on the development or actualization of a self. It is not a “superconscious,” “higher self,” “soul,” “intuition,” “conscience,” nor is it to be equated with Cayce’s “Ideals,” Plato’s “Forms,” Maslow’s, self-transcendence, Kohlberg’s post-post conventional, Jung’s “Self,” Aurobindo’s “supermind,” or Loevinger’s and Cook-Greunter’s “spirit-self.” The difference fundamentally lies in its multi-perspectival, collective, and ontologically indeterminate nature. This is a radical departure from psychology, which is centered on self-development and self-actualization. While IDL wholeheartedly agrees it is important to develop a balanced, competent, well-functioning identity, its purpose is to become a transparent tool rather than the central, governing reality of life.

Psychodynamic Psychotherapy

Psychodynamic psychotherapy has its roots in Jung, Adler, Rank, Klein, and theorists of the object relations movement, such as Winnicott and Guntrip, but particularly and most profoundly in Freud and psychoanalysis. It is difficult to overestimate the impact of the contributions of Freud on consciousness and culture, how we think and feel about ourselves and others, on our understanding of behavior, as well as on society and how we interact with one another. While many approaches vigorously emphasize their differences from psychodynamics, almost all individual, couples, and group psychotherapy has roots, recognized or not, in psychodynamic concepts and assumptions about the nature of therapy, whether it is in assumptions about the unconscious and ego, the nature of resistance, the importance of defense mechanisms, the nature and importance of therapist and client interpretations, or an emphasis on insight or catharsis. Just as adolescents believe they are asserting their autonomy by doing the opposite of their parents’ wishes, so many forms of therapy confuse reaction to Freud and psychoanalysis with freedom, autonomy, and individuality in their theoretical structure and work. Even those branches of psychology which vociferously distance themselves from Freud share a debt to his work as a source of their reactivity. Any approach that assumes the reality of an unconscious, a subconscious, defense mechanisms, or the interpretation of covert thought, feeling, or action are anchored in Freud.

His most profound and lasting contributions lie not only in the provocation of an ongoing explosion of research into human behavior and motivation, but in reframing much of human activity as a defense against various internal and external onslaughts, instead of in traditional religious, ethnic, or even Darwinian terms. For Freud, waking up involves resolving intrapsychic conflicts between instincts, conscience, and the self. Like psychoanalysis, psychodynamic psychotherapies are based on a medical model of history taking, diagnosing, and treating in which interpretations by trained professionals provide the cure. Like Freud, psychodynamic psychotherapies assume a model of being that presupposes an unconscious, a subconscious, a psyche, psychic tension, and relies primarily on the relationship between an authority figure, the therapist, and a supplicant, the patient. Because this is essentially a parent-child relationship issues of transference and counter-transference are unavoidable in the therapeutic relationship. While it may not rely on Freud’s constructs of Id and Superego, the concept of ego remains central to psychodynamic psychotherapy.

Most of the assumptions that are foundational to psychodynamic psychotherapy are derived from Freud, in that they focus on the centrality of intrapsychic and unconscious conflicts and their relation to development. They view defenses as developing in internal psychic structures in order to avoid unpleasant consequences of conflict. They believe that psychopathology develops primarily from early childhood experiences. Internal representations of experiences, such as thoughts, emotions, and dreams, are organized around interpersonal relations. Insight is seen to be critically important for success in therapy. Symptom removal, as pursued by behavioral therapy, is seen as not addressing the “real” and “underlying” problem. There is a supposition that life issues and dynamics emerge in client-therapist relationship as transference and counter-transference. Psychodynamic therapy often uses patient and therapist interpretations of patient associations as a major method for exploration of internal conflicts and problems. It focuses on interpretations of transference, defense mechanisms, and current symptoms and the “working through” of these present problems within a context that emphasizes confidentiality.

Because psychological dysfunctions are presumed by psychodynamic approaches to have developed early in life, they tend to focus on history taking, psychic archaeology, and “uncovering.” Dating from Brück’s initial formulation based on thermodynamic concepts of the late 1800’s, psychic dysfunctions are often conceptualized as energy blockages. This association of the working of the mind with recently discovered models in physics was part of the attempt to make psychology scientific. If mental dysfunction is due to energy blockages, then the release of those blockages, called catharsis, becomes an important and basic element of treatment. This tradition has been broadly disseminated not only within various psychotherapies, but through Ida Rolf and others into those forms of body work which believe that trauma is stored in bodily tissues. Its release, through manipulation of muscle and fascia, is often accompanied by sudden cathartic upwellings of emotion, which are desired demonstrations of the release of blockages and a return to normal physical and mental health.

The basic assumptions of psychodynamic approaches to therapy indicate a broad shared world view. Therapy is about self development. Whether it is considered a return to “normalcy” or a movement to “self-actualization,” it is the self that is being developed. This self is the center of the psychodynamic universe. While it may be defined narrowly as ego or broadly as the constellation of conscious and unconscious forces, the work of psychodynamic psychotherapy is its “adjustment” and “integration.”

Another basic assumption, one that psychology shares with most yogas, is that people need guides, therapists, coaches, counselors, and gurus, in addition to friends and teachers, in order to wake up. While psychotherapists may also serve as friends and teachers, they see themselves as having skills that friends and teachers lack.

In 2014, psychodynamic psychotherapy, in one form or another, remains the most popular model for individual, group, and family therapy, for a variety of reasons. Social workers, psychologists, and counselors, who do most of the individual, couples, group, and family therapy, are primarily trained in psychodynamic psychotherapeutic approaches, as are the majority of psychiatrists who seek training beyond medical management. While a multitude of other approaches have their share of practitioners, since the 1990’s cognitive behavioral therapy has become the most widely accepted and practiced modality, usually within a psychodynamic framing. Insurance companies pay professionals based on the diagnostic categories proposed and maintained by those who use a medical model of diagnosis and treatment which has its origins in Freud’s work.

The centrality of conflict

Freud was greatly influenced by Hermann von Helmholtz, a scientist whose interests were in physics, physiology, and understanding the laws of psychology. From Helmholtz’s work Freud developed associations between the thermodynamics of steam power and personality. Freud used analogies to thermodynamics to explain his newly developing theories of “psycho-dynamics.”[3] Freud adapted the first law of thermodynamics, that “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed,” to the functioning of the human personality. He also adopted Darwin’s assumption that emotion is a form of physical energy.[4] Hence, ‘psychic energy’ can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another.

The principle of conservation, another principle of thermodynamics, states that the total amount of energy in any given physical system is always constant, that energy quanta can be changed but not annihilated, and consequently that when energy is moved from one part of the system it must reappear in another part.  Freud used this principle to conclude that society cannot eliminate the impulses it condemns in its citizens. All it can do is make individuals unconscious of their impulses, which then continue to assert their influence in disguised forms. In pursuing this analogy from physical laws of thermodynamics, Freud noted that the human personality is also an energy system that contains “psychic energy.” The function of psychology is to investigate the modifications, transmissions, and conversions of psychic energy, which shapes and determines personality.[5]

For Freud, human psychology is a product of three competing intrapsychic processes, the id, superego, and ego. The id is instinctual and comprised of biological needs and drives such as hunger, thirst, and sex. It provides energy for the psychic system just as fire provides energy in thermodynamics. The superego consists of society’s rules, internalized as conscience. In thermodynamic terms, the superego would be a lid on a boiler that contained water, which was to be converted into steam. The ego is the conscious mind, containing your thoughts, judgments and memories. In Freud’s thermodynamic metaphor, the ego is analogous to the wheels and escape valves where steam is turned into work or otherwise released.

The ongoing, never-ending conflict between id, superego, and ego was seen by Freud as a battle between the desire to live and grow, called eros and personified by the id, and thanatos, or the desire for self-destruction and death. Freud saw the ego as caught between these two pulls, and generally overwhelmed, by the combined powers of the id, which often presents highly threatening urges that are experienced as self-destructive and deadly to the ego, and the super-ego, which, as internalized social injunctions, generally pulls the ego away from itself and toward thanatos. 

Part of Freud’s success was due to his ability to anchor his concepts of the mind in popular and well-respected scientific laws that gave his theories a patina of respectability. In addition, he was himself a respected scientist, medical doctor, and neurologist who had professional credibility among his peers. However, the main reason for the success of Freud’s ideas was his creative genius. In particular, his description of defense mechanisms and their function was brilliant and has stood the test of time. Freud also possessed an outstanding ability to communicate novel and challenging ideas in clearly understandable ways to a broad audience. His books are still easily read today.

Conflict is Often Unconscious

Although Freud was not the originator of the concept of the unconscious, it was fundamental to Freud’s understanding of the human mind and he is without a doubt chiefly responsible for its popularization. It provided a reasonable way to explain why people do things that are both irrational and self-destructive. That understanding was so useful and sensible that it is still in common usage today. It remains part of a lasting cultural inheritance and conceptual framing for the great preponderance of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, counselors, and mental health workers. The concept of the unconscious is useful because it explains why and how people sabotage their happiness in ways that they do not understand, expect, or control. The unconscious is not simply latent, or a “black box” that lies outside of awareness; it contains many active components of mental activity. Freud’s famous analogy, still widely in use today, was to an iceberg:

“The mind is like an iceberg, it floats with one-seventh of its bulk above water.” The part above water is “conscious;” the part just below water is “preconscious,” the realm of dreams. The vast majority of the iceberg is out of awareness, or “unconscious.” Freud thought that pieces of the deep unconscious could “break off” and float to the surface, where they would appear as neuroses or psychoses.

An analogy to an iceberg is also used by Integral Deep Listening. However, that which lies beneath the surface is not described as unconscious. This is because for IDL it is not out of awareness. “Ice cores” are taken of the underwater body of the iceberg, by interviewing emerging potentials. When this is done, awareness that is clearer and more integrated that that of waking identity is often provided, instead of conflict, needs, desires, and instincts battling with conscience and a waking need for control. These clearer and more integrated perspectives are not considered by IDL to be either aspects of some “superconscious” awareness, or repressed aspects of self, but rather simply listened to while taking a phenomenalistic stance. The result reveals co-existing, alternative valid perspectives which are not subordinate to any part of the “iceberg.” It is as if a holonic imprint were discovered in the core taken from the iceberg. The subject of the holon does not reside in the iceberg even though the imprint does.

Another reason why IDL does not use “unconscious,” “subconscious,” and “superconscious” is that their usefulness is largely due to ambiguity and confusion between these terms as processes and things. It is one thing to say something is “unconscious,” meaning it is out of awareness, or to say that something is “unconscious,” meaning it is in a particular place. It is one thing to say something is unconscious, in the sense it is a process that is out of awareness, and another to mean it is something that exists with the characteristic of unconsciousness. Is it the thing that is unconscious or do we lack awareness of it? These confusions and ambiguities are inherent in this terminology, and lead people to misleading confusions about the nature of awareness and how to understand it. Therefore, IDL chooses to use less problematic terminology.

There are implications for therapy of non-reliance on the concept of the unconscious. Without it, there is no assumption that psychological defenses, such as repression, are the source of internal conflict, or that those conflicts are the source of human dysfunctionality. For example, if a person is depressed, the interpretation is not made by IDL that they are repressing their anger. Instead, this or that personification of the depression is interviewed and the interpretations of that perspective are given priority as hypotheses to be tested via triangulation. This might be viewed as a psychological process if it were about the self, its healing, and its balancing. However, IDL is not about a self, which it views as a habitual and useful fiction. Instead, it is about learning to get clear and out of our own way in order to listen to life and its priorities and perform the yoga of testing its recommendations in our own lives. Waking up in a psychological sense is in service to a broader enterprise of awakening life to itself through us.

While psychoanalysis focuses on identifying, understanding, defusing, and integrating various unconscious influences, Integral Deep Listening is interested in listening to various personified perspectives which are clearly aware. It does not assume these perspectives are conscious or unconscious, “other” or self-aspects, spiritual or mundane, because these are dualistic assumptions that get in the way of deep listening. Consequently, Integral Deep Listening does not use the idea of an unconscious realm in which such perspectives reside. This is a fundamental and important difference, because Integral Deep Listening does not assume that what comes up is unconscious, disguised, or some need of uncovering and disclosure. Integral Deep Listening does not find the bifurcation between conscious and unconscious helpful, which it considers a contemporary re-envisioning of ancient and largely unhelpful dualisms springing from mid-prepersonal shamanic consciousness. Nor does IDL find conflict between the conscious and unconscious to be a topic for most interviewed emerging potentials. Instead, they tend to generate contexts that include, yet transcend, the conflict in a nurturing, respectful, authentic embrace. There is no denial of conflict, but it is reframed in a way or ways that the interview subject generally finds relevant and helpful.

Our own awareness, as well as that provided by interviewed emerging potentials, is similar to a spotlight that illuminates whatever it shines on at the moment. What you are now aware of is part of your current dream; what you are not aware of is not. Integral Deep Listening speaks of influences that are not part of your waking dream as “contexts” or “perspectives” instead of contents of your unconscious, subconscious, or superconscious mind. From the perspective of life, these perspectives are not internal or external, real or imaginary, sacred or secular, true or false. From the perspectives of most interviewed emerging potentials, these perceptual distinctions, so basic and important to you and I, are largely irrelevant. While emerging potentials generally say they personify this or that aspect of the student, that does not mean that they are interior to them or reducible to them. Indeed, the very concept of emerging implies a reality that both transcends and includes interior and subjective consciousness.

Personality Defenses

The defense mechanisms are perhaps Freud’s most brilliant and lasting intellectual insight. For Freud, conflict is an essential element of life. Integral Deep Listening agrees, viewing it in Hegelian terms as the antithetical stage of the ongoing developmental dialectic. Defense mechanisms used by Freud include repression, regression, reaction formation, introjection, turning against one’s own person, reversal into the opposite, and sublimation or displacement. Many more have subsequently been identified. How do these defense mechanisms work and what makes them so important?

The key concept for Freud is that personality defenses are unconscious; they occur out of awareness. When you become aware of them they are no longer defense mechanisms. Consequently, a large part of psychoanalysis involves the unconvering, acceptance of, and defusing of defense mechanisms.

Repression is the most primitive and effective of all defense mechanisms. Since we can only change what we are unaware of, we can escape responsibility for change by remaining unaware. The problem is that repression is a highly effective and beneficial adaptational response. It is only by remaining unaware of many stimuli that we are able to focus and complete any task. It is only by remaining unaware of constant pain signals in our bodies that we are able to experience comfort and well-being. The problem that repression raises is not only that some repression is beneficial, but that the concept is basically misunderstood and misused. For example, it is common to say or think, “He is repressing that.” However, “he” cannot be doing so, because repression, like all defense mechanisms, occur outside of conscious awareness by definition. That means, if a person chooses to ignore or forget something, it is not repression; it is ignoring or forgetting.

IDL assumes that repression exists as an automatic, survival strategy but refuses to use it as an explanation for ignoring or forgetting, because to do so projects motivations and intentions onto a person that they, by definition, do not have. Consciousness ignores and forgets; biological programming and survival scripting represses.

Regression is the falling back into an earlier state of mental/physical development seen as “less demanding and safer.” This is commonly what occurs when we dream: earlier, habitual reactions to threat, stress, and adversity are practiced, thereby reinforcing immature emotional responses and primitive forms of problem solving. Thereby, much therapy and positive waking intent and behavior are undone while addictive rescuing and persecuting emotional, cognitive, and behavioral habits are reinforced. This reality goes a long way toward most people’s avoidance of their dreams. Who wants to remember or investigate events that make them feel worse and confused? Integral Deep Listening reduces regression when interviewed emerging potentials reframe regressive waking and dream themes. For example, interviewed dream monsters are generally no longer experienced as threatening but instead bearers of important perspectives that the dreamer vaguely knew about but was ignoring.

Regression is important because it protects us from our insecurities by returning us to wht is familiar, comfortable, habitual, and reassuring. The price we pay is fixation. Unwilling to think outside the box or see beyond the horizon, growth not only stops; it is actively fought. IDL reduces this cost of regression by making identification with emerging potentials and their recommendations a comfortable and realistic response to the life issues that most concern us.

Projection, according to Freud, involves possessing a feeling experienced as socially unacceptable. Instead of facing it, that feeling or “unconscious urge” is seen in the actions of other people. For example, inadequacy or failure are generally not experienced as socially acceptable. You lose approval from your parents and teachers and status from some peers when you fail. That fear can be projected outward as impatience and intolerance toward others. Freud explained dreaming as wish fulfillment, a form of projection. While we are dreaming we are generating the meaning of what we experience and responding to dream events according to those projected meanings. Our essential unity is projected onto the canvas of waking and dream experience, with the result being that we assume others are responsible for that which we ourselves create and feel.

IDL suspends the assumption that dreams and our interpretations of waking events are projections on the ground that we don’t know until we gain additional information. While the advantage of assuming that everything is a projection is similar to that of karma, in that we take responsibility for all our experience, the disadvantage is that it is grandiose. We are making our sense of self much more responsible for both the actions of others and what happens to us in our lives than it actually is. Consequently, IDL advocates respectful enquiry of our interpretations and assumptions, rather than jumping to conclusions. However, Freud provided an invaluable service by teaching us the importance of asking, “Could this be a projection? If so, what could I be defending myself against?”

In reaction formation you act in the opposite way, which is often exaggerated and obsessive, from how your unconscious instructs you to behave. For example, if a husband is infatuated with a woman who is not his wife, reaction formation will cause him to become obsessed with demonstrating his love and affection to her. In this model, violence is a reaction formation to fear of being killed. Freud viewed waking life as a reaction formation to the instructions the unconscious plays out in dreams. Freud thought that dreaming itself was used as a form of escapism for those who view life as cruel and meaningless, in an act of reaction formation. Integral Deep Listening defuses reaction formation by undercutting the fears that generate the need to react or to move to a polar opposite psychological or experiential stance. It does so by internalizing the perspective of that which is feared through the process of assuming a fear is a wake-up call to be interviewed. Once the fear is listened to it no longer needs to be disowned through conversion into a violent response. When this is done on an international level by politicians and soldiers it makes war impossible, because it is only by first dehumanizing another person that they can be attacked. The more that another person is experienced as a brother, sister, parent, child, or as oneself, the more difficult it is to hurt or kill them.

Sublimation is the expression of anxiety, fear, and aggression in socially acceptable ways, such as debate, lawyering, joining the military, art, poetry, sport, music, invention, and any sort of creativity. Integral Deep Listening interviewing could itself be viewed as a form of sublimation, except that it also seeks to identify and interview any fears that might generate a sublimation, thereby undercutting the mechanism by which the defense is assumed to work. Sublimation projects assumptions of underlying fear and aggession onto emerging potentials. IDL provides an easy and effective way to check those assumptions. When emerging potentials are interviewed, what reasons do they give for their scores? If their high scores are sublimations, regardless of their explanations, then what are their low scores? A simpler, less projective assumption is that their scores and recommendations are not defenses. This can be tested by applying their recommendations in your waking life and see what happens.

Along with cognitive distortions, defense mechanisms are the conceptual glue that maintains the Drama Triangle in consciousness. This happens on at least two levels. The source of the defense mechanism (the Id for Freud), is the persecutor and we are the victim. When the defense mechanism is used the experience is one of self-rescuing, when it is, in fact, self-persecution because it is based on deceit and manipulation. On the level of interpretation, that is, when we say, “I am using sublimation,” “He is repressing,” or, “You are projecting,” we are posing as rescuers, saving the victim from their own ignorance, forgetfulness, stupidity, and destructiveness. We get to feel intelligent, helpful, smart, caring, and in control. The “victim” is likely to be at first grateful, because they hadn’t considered their problem in such a light, and therefore feel helped. However, with closer examination, what they are likely to realize is that they have been made wrong and inferior to someone who considers themselves smarter, more knowlegeable, and capable of mind reading, that is, accurately identifying motives, intentions, and feelings when they are in fact picking out what fits into and validates their own biases, prejudices, and expectations. This means that there is a very real danger that victims will awaken to a recognition that they are being persecuted, which will now be labeled as “transference.”

The recognition of the Drama Triangle and cognitive distortions largely avoid the labeling, interpretive, and projective problems that are intrinsic to defense mechanisms. While it is unlikely that we can completely free ourselves of using defense mechanisms, because they are such effective tools for generating useful introspection, the more that we do so the less cognitive filtration stands between life and experience. By using the simple yet powerful interventions, of awareness of the Drama Triangle, cognitive distortions, interviewing, application of triangulated recommendations, and meditation, Integral Deep Listening concludes that while defense mechanisms exist, they may be minimized rather easily and effectively.

Many fears play a central role in keeping people stuck. For example, a fear of gaining weight can lock one into anorexia; phobias involve consciously acknowledged fears. PTSD is a state of being overwhelmed by fears that are all too conscious. The object is to become aware that we are afraid and listen to what it has to say. To do so, Freud’s distinctions between the conscious and unconscious are not necessary.

For Integral Deep Listening, defense mechanisms are important because they explain how and why we lie to ourselves, based on both unrecognized and recognized fears. They are also important for people who are moving from late prepersonal and early personal to a personal level of development because they teach us to question our motivations and consider how we may be sabotaging ourselves. However, past the early personal they cease having much relevance or usefulness. After these lessons are learned, we need more than understanding or professional interpreters; what is required are tools for stopping and preventing non-productive fear.

Integral Deep Listening neutralizes defense mechanisms. For example, in repression a feeling is hidden and forced from the consciousness to the unconscious because it is seen as socially unacceptable. In Freud’s conception, this would define sexual, infantile, and sociopathic urges as well as all dream images. Called “symbols,” because their essence lies in what they represent, these images are both repressed and disguised psychosexual and thanatonic urges. Integral Deep Listening does not view dream characters as symbols, nor does it assume they are repressed or socially unacceptable. Feared images, such as dream monsters and threats, or fear itself, are given form, interviewed, and incorporated into an expanded, more inclusive self-definition. While this is a never-ending process, sources of fear and life disruption become increasingly less significant and potent as more that was perceived as “other” becomes internalized into an expanded and less rigidly defined sense of self. When children learn deep listening to their fears the utility of learning about defense mechanisms is largely bypassed.

Creative Support in Handling Resistance

“Resistance” plays a big role in Freudian psychoanalysis and psychodynamic psychotherapies. The idea is that the self, called the “ego,” fights the impulses of the id or the conscience of the superego. This concept makes conflict central to Freud’s understanding of both therapy and dysfunction. Much of therapy, then, is about uncovering the sources of resistance and neutralizing them, generally through psychic archaeology, proper interpretation, and catharsis. In psychoanalysis, as in most forms of therapy, passive and aggressive behaviors are often labeled as indications of resistance. Examples include refusal to speak, interrupting the therapist, changing the subject, transferance, or anger at the therapist. The cause, nature, and resolution of these behaviors, once they are defined as resistance, is generally also provided by the therapist’s interpretations, which are themselves projections. Resistance is in the eye of the beholder. If change resists the intentions, desires, and interventions of the therapist, is that a good or a bad thing? If change resists the intentions, desires, and interventions of the patient, is that a good or a bad thing? The answer, of course, is that if you are the patient and you experience resistance to accomplishing some change you desire, that is typically considered to be a bad thing. If you are the therapist and you experience your patient as “non-compliant with treatment,” that is typically considered a bad thing. Is it? How do you know?

Integral Deep Listening recognizes the importance of resistance. It sees it as an expression of a need to maintain stability, even when that stability is dysfunctional, as it is in addiction or states of developmental fixation. It does not see resistance as a problem to be eliminated, but something to be listened to, understood, respected, and taken seriously. Issues of resistance are minimized by avoiding a focus on teacher and student definitions of resistance. Therefore, Integral Deep Listening will often ask students to describe their resistance, name the associated feelings, give those feelings colors, surround themselves with those feelings, and watch the color or colors condense into some object, animal, or person which is then interviewed. The assumption is that a personification of the resistance itself is much more likely to provide helpful recommendations for addressing it than either the patient or the therapist. The result is that the functional nature of what is viewed as resistance is often disclosed, which in turn teaches interviewers how to pace interventions and best support work with recommendations that are made during interviews.

Saying “I don’t know” is often a form of resistance. It may mean, “I don’t want to think about it,” or “I do know, but I don’t want to tell you.” In the following interview, the feeling of saying “I don’t know” felt like the color grey, which took the form of a horse. Here is what the horse had to say:

Horse: “I’m a full-grown horse. I like that I’m free! I can do what I want to do! I don’t feel like that all the time. Sometimes it’s better not to feel free, for companionship. If I were free all the time, I wouldn’t have any companionship. No herd. I most closely personify Betty’s strength. It would be helpful for Betty to imagine that she is me. If I were living Betty’s life for her, my life purpose would be to live in wide open spaces.”

For this student, “I don’t know” was a way of saying, “I don’t feel free; I want to feel free.” By shifting her attention to her desire to experience freedom, Betty gave herself permission to move out of resistance. By becoming the horse she could explore what it meant to feel free and strong in the here and now and to know what she wanted and did not want.

Whose Interpretations Shall I Listen To?

Because historical and developmental information is essential for arriving at an accurate diagnosis, psychoanalysis has a preference for the accessing and amplification of memories. Memories are stories we tell ourselves about the past to generate some desired consequence. It may be to validate some fear or to explain some desire or failing. The assumption is that a meaningful story will both free us from the past and provide a better way of relating to ourselves and our world today. Proper interpretations by patients, clients, and students, that is, appropriate stories, translate into health today. But health is life, and life exists independently of our interpretations of it. To be alive, we need to experience life, not to experience better interpretations of life.

This leads us to a progression of interpretations. While the interpretations of others allow us to see our blind spots, those things which are known to others but not to ourselves, the interpretations of others are projections; we know ourselves better than others. While our interpretations of our past are likely to be more meaningful, whether accurate or not, than those of others, the past is a fantasy; what we choose to focus on and what we make of it is totally dependent on our present level of development, which is stuck and limited. The same is true of our interpretations of the future and of our present moment. While the interpretations of our interviewed emerging potentials, be they dream characters or the personifications of life issues, are likely to be more objective than our own, they remain interpretations of life rather than life itself. At some point we need to give ourselves permission to let go of the need to interpret and instead to live. But this is much easier said than done. We can say that animals rely minimally on interpretations, when compared to humans, and therefore live much more in the here and now. However, they are subjectively enmeshed in their contexts; lacking self awareness and the ability to stand back and observe themselves, their aliveness is subjective, without self-awareness. The trick is to develop and maintain self-awareness without it suffocating aliveness. This is essentially the role of meditation. Its purpose is to teach us to transcend our interpretations so we can experience life directly and intimately. This is basically why Integral Deep Listening teaches meditation as part of learning integral deep listening.

Medical Model: History, Diagnosis, Treatment

Because Freud saw himself as a scientist working in a new field that lacked the foundation of the hard sciences of chemistry and physics, he not only proposed mental mechanisms that imitated those of physics but created a form of treatment that imitated standard practice in medicine. Following the medical model in which he was trained, Freud first accessed a thorough history from his patients so that he could make an accurate diagnosis and prescribe an appropriate treatment. Diagnoses, which are formal interpretations by therapists that are designed to direct treatment, are necessarily indicated by the medical model.

Although clinicians who use Integral Deep Listening may use these procedures for various reasons exterior to Integral Deep Listening, such as for insurance billing or to communicate with other professionals, they are not necessary for Integral Deep Listening itself. The student knows their history; so do interviewed emerging potentials. The diagnosis is rarely put in clinical terms by interviewed emerging potentials, but it is generally clear enough to make sense to the student as a legitimate description of how and why they are stuck. It is a story framed in language that makes sense to the student because it is their own.

As an interviewer or Integral Deep Listening Practitioner, your job is to teach your students to listen to their interviewed emerging potentials. They already know how to listen to their own self-talk; they already know how to listen to external authorities. Integral Deep Listening interviewers do not need to diagnose because interviewed emerging potentials both diagnose and provide treatment recommendations. It is up to the student to decide if those recommendations are reasonable and worth applying, in consultation with you. The job of the interviewer, therefore, is not primarily as a source of diagnosis or treatment, but as a provider of structure and accountability for the maintenance of an ongoing, effective dream yoga that heals, balances, and transforms from within.

Marilyn said, “In my dream I am looking at a horse walking along the edge of a meadow. It thinks that there is a fence there, that it can’t get out. But there is no fence.” Typically, a therapist would ask many historical questions and then reach a tentative diagnosis, based on the information given by the client about their past about the dream narrative. That diagnosis will be an interpretation. A common one, based on such a dream account, might be, “The patient is feeling trapped, constrained, limited in her life when she is not.” Another possibility is, “The patient is threatened by the possibility of freedom and therefore chooses to stay stuck.” From this, in addition to drawing on information about sleep habits, relationships, and worries, the therapist may conclude that the patient is depressed, anxious, both, or something else is going on.

How IDL Evaluates Psychological Truth Claims

Integral Deep Listening does not make such interpretations. Instead, interviewers suspend such assumptions, interpretations, and projections and interviews one or more character in the dream, such as the horse, fence, or meadow. In this case, the meadow was interviewed. The job of the interviewer was to make sure the student allowed the meadow to be heard and to create an accountability structure so that its diagnosis and prescribed treatment could be tested in the laboratory of the patient’s daily life. Is their depression reduced or not? Does their anxiety decrease or not? Do their nightmares lessen in frequency and intensity or not? Do their symptoms of PTSD diminish or not? There are objective ways these things can be measured. Pretext and post-test scales of depression, anxiety, and PTSD can be given.

Integral Deep Listening considers attempts to frame consciousness and human psychology in terms of sensory empiricism, as Freud, and indeed mainstream psychology to this day, to be reductionistic. Sensory empiricism does not take into account two other varieties of empiricism, interpretive, and transpersonal. Interpretive empiricism involves the empirical evaluation of theoretical, historical, or literary theories. For example, the theory that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya is not sensory empiricism associated with physics, chemistry, and physiology, yet it is definitely subject to empirical tests. The same is true for truth claims of mystical experience. There are empirical means to evaluate these experiences that are not at all sensory-based.

Consciousness cannot be reduced to the external individual and collective quadrants of the human holon as scientism does. A broader definition of empiricism includes the laying out of injunctive protocols, the performing of those protocols as experiments, and the evaluation of the results of those experiences by peers in the methodologies, in the internal collective and internal individual quadrants as well. Evaluating the appropriateness of interpretations is an empiricism of the internal collective quadrant; evaluating the level of consciousness at play is an empiricism of the internal individual quadrant. All three of these types of empiricism are required for an integral approach to life. Therefore, scientific studies of behavior and relationships are welcomed and encouraged by Integral Deep Listening. Interpretations of Integral Deep Listening and its application to other modalities are also welcomed. Integral life practices that monitor and evaluate the amplification of consciousness itself are also encouraged.

In the case of this lady with the horse dream, pre and post measurements of anxiety and depression can be given to provide some objective, empirically measurable determination of efficacy of treatment. The adequacy of therapist diagnoses can be and are tested against the diagnoses of interviewed emerging potentials. This is internal collective empiricism: adequacy of interpretation or perceptual field. Empiricism of the interior individual quadrant is measured by assessments by the client, the therapist, and interviewed emerging potentials of expansion in consciousness, or higher functioning either on a level of development or advancement to a higher one. For most people this is most fundamentally associated with enhanced capabilities at recognizing and avoiding drama in the three realms of interpersonal relationships, cognition (primarily the reduction of three types of cognitive distortions), and dreams. It is also associated with increased capability in setting realistic goals, adapting them to changing circumstances, and consistent movement toward them.

Help In Setting Treatment Goals

In psychoanalysis and directive or authoritative psychodynamic therapy, treatment goals are defined by the clinician based on both the diagnosis and prognosis. In non-directive approaches to therapy, goals are set and monitored in consultation with the client. The problem with both of these models is their partiality; they deal with one or at most two, of the three legs of the triangulation triad that Integral Deep Listening uses. Is the patient making progress or not? Therapists can rely on objective measures, such as pre and post tests, on their own subjective assessments, and on the subjective assessments of their client,

In the case of the lady with the dream of the horse in the meadow, she initially stated the following three life issues: “My finances. I think I have enough but I’m not sure how I spend it; Relationships, especially with Henry; Work in the school where I teach; my relationships with my colleagues and the children.” Three goals are tacitly indicated: improved financial security, improved love relationships, and improved work relationships. The assumption is that if a student receives help in attaining life goals important to them that their investment in Integral Deep Listening is worthwhile.

Help in setting treatment goals does not stop there, however. Does the interviewed emerging potential, in this case the Meadow, agree with these goals or does it recommend others? It recommended that Lorna focus on balancing her need to be with others and her need to be autonomous, separate, independent, and alone. Notice that this is a sophisticated formulation; it is not simply the overcoming of dependency; it is not simply the mastering of independence, Because most therapists are trying to do one or the other it is easy for them to move into counter-transference and to make the process about the vicarious working through of their own issues with dependency/independence. Instead, the Meadow is encouraging interdependence: the ability to balance both dependency needs and healthy autonomy. If a therapist hasn’t learned interdependence themselves they may miss this recommendation entirely, even when it is communicated to them directly and clearly in an interview such as this one.

Strengthening of the Self

In psychoanalysis and directive or authoritative psychodynamic therapy, treatment goals are defined by the clinician based on both the diagnosis and prognosis. In non-directive approaches to therapy, goals are set and monitored in consultation with the client. The problem with both of these models is their partiality; they deal with one or at most two, of the three legs of the triangulation triad that Integral Deep Listening uses. Is the patient making progress or not? Therapists can rely on objective measures, such as pre and post tests, on their own subjective assessments, and on the subjective assessments of their client,

In the case of the lady with the dream of the horse in the meadow, she initially stated the following three life issues: “My finances. I think I have enough but I’m not sure how I spend it; Relationships, especially with Henry; Work in the school where I teach; my relationships with my colleagues and the children.” Three goals are tacitly indicated: improved financial security, improved love relationships, and improved work relationships. The assumption is that if a student receives help in attaining life goals important to them that their investment in Integral Deep Listening is worthwhile.

Help in setting treatment goals does not stop there, however. Does the interviewed emerging potential, in this case the Meadow, agree with these goals or does it recommend others? It recommended that Lorna focus on balancing her need to be with others and her need to be autonomous, separate, independent, and alone. Notice that this is a sophisticated formulation; it is not simply the overcoming of dependency; it is not simply the mastering of independence, Because most therapists are trying to do one or the other it is easy for them to move into counter-transference and to make the process about the vicarious working through of their own issues with dependency/independence. Instead, the Meadow is encouraging interdependence: the ability to balance both dependency needs and healthy autonomy. If a therapist hasn’t learned interdependence themselves they may miss this recommendation entirely, even when it is communicated to them directly and clearly in an interview such as this one.

Strengthening of the Self

Freud emphasizes cure as a return to “normalcy,” meaning appropriate “ego strength” for a particular age or, at best, Freud’s own mid-personal level of development. The assumption is that the ego is rational and, if strengthened, will act in the best interest of growth. However, “normalcy” is a culturally-determined state which is seen by successive generations, and with the objectivity of time, as itself dysfunctional. Rather than attempting to return patients to a mythical state of “normalcy,” Integral Deep Listening teaches students to access, listen to, and become one with the priorities of their inner compass. “Normalcy” is defined by Integral Deep Listening as a state of acting on the priorities of your inner compass, and has nothing to do with the norms of society or the expectations of waking identity for health or happiness.

“Ego strength” is a psychodynamic measure of competency in the world. It is the ability of the ego to deal with the demands of id, superego, and reality. The assumption is that a weak ego means invasion and control by uncontrolled unconscious impulses. Consequently, some therapists view the sort of role playing used by Integral Deep Listening as superficial on the one hand, and dangerous on the other, in that it supports the voicing of uncontrolled unconscious impulses, which can in turn lead to dissociation and the dissolution of ego control and even decompensation. If your goal is increased control by the ego, why in the world would you encourage it to give it up?

Integral Deep Listening demonstrates that a more controlling, stronger sense of self is a primary task of childhood and youth, and then begins to obstruct growth, because its need for control blocks the development of a non-localized, transparent, and objectified self-sense. Role playing is the primary means by which children develop a sense of self; it leads not to fragmenting or decompensation but to increased adaptive flexibility and a broadening of one’s identity. By emphasizing the development of multiperspectival transparency, identity is strengthened. This is indicated by reductions in drama, cognitive distortions, use of defense mechanisms, disruptive dreams, addictive self-rescuing behaviors, and higher, more balanced self-scorings in the six core qualities.

Unlike psychoanalysis, Integral Deep Listening does not break the psyche into three parts. Instead, it assumes that your experience creates who you think you are right now, which Integral Deep Listening calls your “waking identity.” You are free to define yourself as narrowly or as inclusively as you desire, and indeed, how you do so is a mark of your level of development. Anything that is not part of your sense of self is considered to be a non-interviewed emerging potential that is best assumed to function as a wake-up call. Wake-up calls are to be listened to so that they can be incorporated into a more inclusive, integrated, stable, and healthy sense of who you are. Doing so keeps dream wake-up calls from getting louder, first manifesting as nightmares and then, if not heard, externalizing as waking nightmares of various types: accidents, physical health problems, or relationship issues.

Broadening of Definition of “Normalcy”

For psychoanalysis, as for most patients, a successful outcome to treatment is adequate social and personal functioning. Most people just want the pain to go away so they can get on with their lives. The problem with this goal is that it is short-sighted. It tends to ignore the issues of prevention and possible relapse.

Normalcy is a socially and culturally defined moving target; what is normal for one family, workplace, spiritual path, nation, or culture is abnormal for another. The multiperspectivalism provided by Integral Deep Listening generates definitions of normalcy that change as you evolve and as your external circumstances change. Integral Deep Listening focuses on cultivating six core qualities of wakefulness, on the assumption that these innately produce heath, balance and ongoing life transformation. These are confidence, compassion, wisdom, acceptance, inner peace, and witnessing. Different emerging potentials recommend different combinations of these qualities to deal with life issues and improve balance and growth. Their recommendations generally balance and expand these qualities without reference to ego, ego strength, enlightenment, spirituality, or the balancing of body, mind, and spirit.

Broader Understandings of Childhood Development

Freudian insights are largely a mid-personal evaluation of prepersonal developmental processes. Because “normalcy” for Freud was rational and humanistic, all higher levels had to in fact be lower, mid-personal at best. Consequently, psychoanalysis, as many other approaches that do not attain to vision-logic or above, historically has not honored the entire spectrum of development, but instead tended to be reductionistic or, as in the case of Steiner’s Anthroposophy, and the systems devised by Jung, Assagioli, Sorokin, and de Chardin, elevationistic. This occurs when pre-personal non-rational experience, like shamanism, is interpreted as trans-rational and transcendent.

IDL thinks that the earlier that a child is exposed to their inner compass the better. This is because it grounds them in an authentic sense of life priorities which in turn generates balance and improved problem-solving. This is most easily done by interviewing dream characters, because children get into role quite easily and naturally and are also often either curious about dreams or else want bad ones to go away. Therefore, nightmares and dreams serve as convenient and readily available “wake-up calls” that provide an age-appropriate introduction to Integral Deep Listening. An added advantage is that parents and other care-givers gain understanding of the inner compass of the child as well as conceptual framings of life issues that are important to the child. This allows those issues to be addressed, in parent-child communication, using metaphors that reflect the child’s own level and style of cognitive and emotional processing, which in turn increases the clarity and depth of communication.

Treatment is Interpretive

“Working through” was introduced by Freud in 1914 as a way of repeating, elaborating, and amplifying interpretations made by the patient. The assumption is that the partiality of the patient’s interpretations keep him stuck and sick. The exploration and elaboration of unconscious content by “working through” is a way of breaking up his fixation on inaccurate, harmful, and partial interpretations. The process of working through the transference, or the projection of needs and resistances onto others, particularly the therapist, plays a central role in psychoanalysis, objects relations theory, self psychology, and group therapy.

Freud’s preferred way of eliciting unconscious information from patients was through having them share what this or that word reminded them of, in a train of uncensored associations, leading to interpretations by the analyst of whatever associations he or she deems important. Integral Deep Listening uses structured interviewing, but interviewed dream characters or personifications of life issues are free to make whatever associations they want to them. One could say that subjects are encouraged to “free associate” in response to the questions they are asked, but this is not entirely accurate. Interviewed emerging potentials are elaborating or expressing their point of view, worldview, or perspective, sometimes as recommendations.

Integral Deep Listening attempts to minimize interpretative projection by deferring to the interpretations of interviewed dream characters and the personifications of life issues. If the interviewer has an interpretation, they may pose it as a question to the interviewed character. For example, “Skulls, do you represent a repressed fear of death?” In this case, the skulls answered: “We represent older, wiser, forgotten, ignored knowledge, experience, and potentials.” Such an answer demonstrates the relative autonomy of the majority of interviewed emerging potentials. They tend not to want or need to please the interviewer by supplying “right” answers the way clients do. Their answers are often unexpected by the interviewed as well. For example, the interviewer may have wanted to associate the skulls with a death wish, or depression. If they had gone ahead and made such an interpretation, it may or may not have been helpful to the client, but it would have been their interpretation, rather than a reflection of some level of understanding from the perspective of the skulls themselves.

Freudian psychoanalysis also emphasizes psychic archaeology, or uncovering the “roots” of dysfunction in early childhood, in the belief that first awareness and then emotional catharsis will allow the development of a healthy “ego.” Integral Deep Listening may or may not deal with early childhood; content is determined largely by the life issues addressed and the priorities of the character interviewed. However, it does encourage students to identify fundamental script injunctions that serve as permissions and threats of punishment, in the belief that as long as these exist out of awareness they cannot be questioned, challenged, or changed.

Improve the Interpretations of the Practitioner

While dreams can indeed be interpreted by trained psychotherapists, among others, dreamers need a way by which they can evaluate the accuracy of those interpretations. By developing internal and subjective sources of objectivity, Integral Deep Listening provides such a way. Interpretations by books, professionals, and one’s waking identity are subjected to the interpretations of various emerging potentials, who know you better than any trained psychotherapist ever can. Integral Deep Listening does not dismiss the usefulness of interpretations by others, but only points out they are one aspect of the triangulation process. The other two involve the interpretations of interviewed emerging potentials, including their opinions of the interpretations of external authorities, and your common sense.

Freud developed most of his theory of defense mechanisms based on his observation of dreams. Regression is a defense mechanism and Freud considered dreams to be regressive. Most defense mechanisms we observe in dreams are projections of our waking minds onto dreams; they are not intrinsic to the dream state. The reason this can be said is because anyone can do interviews with dream characters and test that statement. Do the perspectives of interviewed dream characters manifest defense mechanisms or not? Most people will conclude on their own, if they do such experiments, that most do not, most of the time, although there definitely are exceptions.

Integral Deep Listening also considers dreams to be regressive, when viewed from the perspective of waking identity, both awake and while dreaming. In distinction from Freud, this is not because of anything intrinsic about the dream state, but because your dreaming self, that sense of who you are while you are dreaming, tends to use early problem solving and early emotional preferences and reactions until new, improved adaptational strategies are learned and applied to perception while dreaming. For example, most dream themes involve the Drama Triangle. Look at your dreams and you will generally find that there are victims, persecutors, and rescuers, both as characters and events. The Drama Triangle is a regressive, emotionally-based structuring of experience. As people learn to objectify their emotions, they find themselves in the Drama Triangle both less often and at less depth, and both these changes are reflected by less involvement in the Drama Triangle in dreams.

Freud believed dreams reveal repressed motivations, such as sexual desires. While it is normal in our waking life to ignore, discount, or dismiss dreams, Integral Deep Listening does not find anything repressed or repressing about dreams themselves. To use the above example, the Drama Triangle is not intrinsic to dreams, but an artifact of the level of development of waking self. A much simpler, effective formulation than repression is to assess our willingness to listen to whatever is wanting to be heard in a dream. Dream characters want to be heard not because they are repressed, but because like you and I, they want to be heard. They desire respect and acknowledgment.

One young man experienced his fear of career failure as the color grey. The grey color turned into a strong, locked wooden wardrobe containing the skulls mentioned above. If such an image were in a dream it would probably be interpreted by Freud as a classic depiction of thanatos – psychic forces leading to death and one’s fear of them. The wardrobe would represent repression of this young man’s fear of death.

The same can be said of interpretation. Freud believed dreams can be interpreted by psychoanalytically trained psychotherapists. Such interpretations are easily shown to be arbitrary projections that reveal more about the interpreter, his or her beliefs, and culture, than about dreams themselves. Integral Deep Listening sees interpretation as inevitable and unavoidable, but invites the interpretations of interviewed emerging potentials, including dream characters, and gives those interpretations priority because of two factors. The first is their relative objectivity, since they personify perspectives that often demonstrate autonomy. The second is that because they are enmeshed in the dream or life issue at hand, their perspective generally is demonstrated to have a relevance that far surpasses the interpretations of either the student or the therapist. This does not mean that the views of students or therapists are not to be taken into account. Indeed, in Integral Deep Listening dream interviewing, the associations and interpretations of the student are always collected. Subsequent to the interview the therapist is also encouraged to make their own interpretations, generally as follow-up questions addressed to the interviewed emerging potential. The interpretations made by the therapist or teacher of Integral Deep Listening are important. For example, what are the implications for treatment of this quote from Freud? “I have found little that is good about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to one at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think.”

Integral Deep Listening finds that trained therapists are often its most problematic students, because they have to learn to temporarily park or set aside years of training in history taking, diagnosis, and interpretation in order to learn to be practitioners of deep listening. While interpretive skills are considered valuable by Integral Deep Listening, they are secondary to listening to the interviewed perspective. This means learning a phenomenological approach, including the ability to suspend one’ assumptions, is essential to Integral Deep Listening.

In Integral Deep Listening, such assumptions are suspended in favor of the phenomenological process of deep listening. It is not that Integral Deep Listening practitioners disagree or agree with this theory; they simply suspend such interpretations out of a preference of a Socratic type questioning, but not of the dreamer, patient, client, or student, but of the Wardrobe and Skulls themselves. When this was done with this dream a conflict became clear. The Wardrobe wanted to get rid of the Skulls, but its job had been to keep them locked away, where no one would be able to see them or know they were there. The Skulls think the Wardrobe is over-reacting and do not experience themselves as a threat to anyone. They score themselves high on core qualities of wakefulness. They are high in confidence because they have each other; in compassion because they have been through a lot and understand pain; wisdom, because they are old and have had many experiences; acceptance because they understand the Wardrobe’s fear of them and they accept that they are dead; inner peace because they can’t die; and witnessing because they can witness the world without getting into drama. Instead of being repressed fears, the skulls say that they are able to see more clearly and better decide where to go than the dreamer can. “Now he is stuck; we’re not stuck because we are more able to see what can be and what could be; we aren’t afraid of going down the wrong path.”

This raises interesting questions. If the Wardrobe is an agent of repression, how is it that the Skulls can speak? If the Skulls are repressed psychic elements, are they still repressed when they speak? How about the interpretations of the Skulls? Are they less reliable than those of a therapist? Why? If you have to choose, whose interpretations should you listen to, those of the Skulls or the therapist? Why?

Freud saw dreaming as an expression of unconscious conflict. We certainly see conflict in the different perspectives of the Wardrobe and the Skulls, but is it unconscious? Does calling the conflict unconscious have any usefulness whatsoever? Integral Deep Listening does not rely on the concept of “unconscious,” but instead views awareness more as a searchlight, bringing into awareness what it illuminates. For Freud, unconscious influences need to be understood and neutralized. For Integral Deep Listening there are social and “intrasocial“ influences, dependent on whether an exterior or interior other is being disowned at the moment. Integral Deep Listening does not give conflict the central role in psychological dysfunction that psychoanalysis does. Conflict is one of three positions of the developmental dialectic and is necessary for development; there is nothing inherently dysfunctional about intrapsychic conflict. Lack of conflict, for instance, the validation of cultural and social delusions, can be and often is far more dysfunctional than intrapsychic conflict.

Dreams are Regressive

For Freud, dreams are defenses to keep libidinal, primal urges beneath conscious awareness. Consequently, content needs to be disguised symbolically. Dreams are secretive attempts to hide truth from dreamers, creating an assumption of internal conflict that does not exist if dream elements are not assumed to be symbolic. Integral Deep Listening does not assume that dreams are regressive, only that dreamer perceptions and reactions to dreams, both while dreaming and later while awake, tend to be regressive. Dreams are indeed regressive in the perception of most dreamers, most of the time, with the exception of those deemed “spiritual.” For example, when a dreamer sees a monster they tend to react with fear, which is a primal, regressive response. If dramatic events are occurring dreamers tend to put themselves in the Drama Triangle, under the assumption they really are being victimized or persecuted. Instead of asking questions, they simply trust their assumptions. This typically occurs because waking identity misperceives the intentions of dream images, as you can easily verify yourself by conducting your own interviews on your own dreams. This trust in the assumptions of a waking consciousness that perceives dream events as a dream self creates the division of dreams into “true,” “real,” “healing,” and “spiritual” dreams and the vast majority, which are taken to be regressions into confusion, irrationality, victimization, and fear. However, IDL interviewing persuasively demonstrates that this view does not reflect either the intentions or the perspectives of the vast majority of interviewed dream characters.

Dreams are Symbolic

Freud considered dreams symbolic. Following ancient historical precedent, Freud saw dream images as symbols that require interpretation. A symbol, by definition, stands for something else. Symbols, therefore, are projections of waking assumptions. The purpose of interpretation is to find out what that something else is. You dream of a bird; interpretation says the bird symbolizes something else, a desire to fly, for freedom, a fear you are “bird-brained…”

Because Integral Deep Listening is rooted in a phenomenological perspective, it suspends the assumption that a dream character or event is symbolic. The sources of this approach can be traced not only to Husserl, Wundt, Medard Boss, and the existentialist philosophers Heidigger, Kierkegaard, and Sartre, but also to the Socratic dialectical method of elenchus, in which questioning is given priority over pronouncements of truth.

IDL does not assume a dream character like a bird represents anything else. Instead it suspends such assumptions in favor of asking the image, “…what aspect of this person do you represent or most closely personify?” The image is free to say that it is not an aspect of the person and does not represent or personify anything. Generally, however, images consider themselves to be autonomous first and representational second. The bird will generally say, among other things, that it represents this or that aspect of the dreamer, and its interpretations are generally found to be more accurate and appropriate than those of other interpreters. Integral Deep Listening encourages interpretations, but first and foremost by interviewed emerging potentials. It also emphasizes what a dream character itself says it symbolizes rather than what someone who wasn’t in the dream may think. For example, the bird might say, “I represent your thoughts in meditation and the way you see them flying wherever they want.” The autonomy and independence of interviewed characters is first respected and listened to, and any interpretations are secondary to that singular beingness of the bird.

Who is Best Qualified to Interpret Your Experience?

Most approaches to dreamwork use the dreamer or some dream interpreting source, such as an authoritative book on dreaming or someone who specializes in dream interpretation, such as a Freudian analyst. Sometimes groups get together and everyone chips in their interpretations, with the dreamer left to choose those ideas that best “fit” for them. This is reminiscent of going into a clothing store and trying on things that your friends or the salesperson think would look good on you until you find something you like. The result is that you may come away with something that is perfect, or you may come away with something that fits and looks good on you, but doesn’t stand up over time. It goes out of fashion. Similarly, when you take such an approach to understanding a dream, you are likely to arrive at an interpretation of your dream that “fits” and that you like, yet is not helpful, is misguided, or plain dangerous. For instance, what if you interpret a dream to indicate that someone is your soul mate, you marry them, and it turns into a disaster? Are you going to trust your dreams in the future? Are you going to trust dream interpretation? Most of the time dream interpretation is not so disastrous, only insipid and inconclusive, rather like reading your astrology forecast for the day. You can generally pick out something that fits, but how do you know if the information is in the planetary alignments or merely in the mind of the astrologer? Who can you trust?

To the extent that life is like a dream, this is a question not simply about dreaming, but about experience in general. Who is best qualified to interpret your experience? As children, you learned that authority figures are best qualified, that you should trust them, because they have been alive a lot longer and have specialized knowledge that you lack. This is not so different from trusting your dreams to a dream interpreter. The results are similar. Some of the advice that you get fits and is useful; you take it, make it your own, and that’s who you grow into. You became the person your parents named; you behave either in congruence or reaction to the way they treated you; you take on the language, beliefs, and preferences of those who raised you and the particular culture in which you grew up. Important adults “interpreted” your life for you and you became those interpretations. You became their dream, or you became the product of the combined dreams of a number of people; or you rebelled against their interpretations and became a reactionary dream. In both cases, isn’t your life largely an out-picturing of your particular culture’s dream?

This is not to ignore genetic contributions or to say that is all you are. You are much more than the internalized interpretations of your family and culture. For example, when you internalize the interpretations of others you combine them in unique ways to create interpretations that are partially theirs, partially your own. The common conceit is for you and I to think our identity and our interpretations are our own. Are they?

Most people ignore or actively fight against the realization that their current identity is largely not their own, but rather an internalization of those of their family and culture. The idea that our names, language, and preferences, as well as our beliefs are the result of the parents we were born to and have little to do with “us” threatens our autonomy and independence. While we are certainly more than our names, social identity, language, the patterns of our thinking, emotions and preferences, do they not make up most of who we are and most of what we identify with as self? Doesn’t that mean that most of who we think we are is someone else’s dream? Doesn’t that mean that most of our lives are likely to be an expression of one or another accepted and appropriate dream theme within our culture?

If this is so, what does it say about our autonomy and independence? What does it imply about where we need to look to find ourselves and how to go about doing so? Most people deprive themselves of growth by not confronting this central issue. Instead, they generate metaphysical belief systems to reassure them that they were “meant” to be who they are. They may call it predestination, destiny, reincarnation, soul choice, God’s will, or something else; it boils down to an unwillingness to recognize that their life is essentially the out-picturing of someone else’s cultural dream; it only has to do with them so much as they internalized those values.

Integral Deep Listening assumes that just as beings from other dimensions did not create your nighttime dreams, that you can learn to dream your own life instead of living out the cultural script that you internalized and called your own. You automatically, habitually over-rely on both the interpretations of others for meaning in your life and on your own interpretations, which are largely the internalized interpretations of others. If you look closely at your thoughts, feelings, and preferences you can usually trace their origins to the thoughts, feelings, and preferences of others; you will discover that your “conscience” is internalized “shoulds” and wants, and that “intuition,” “God’s will,” “spirit,” and your “inner voice” are other names for the internalized dreams of others.

How would you know if this were true or not? Wouldn’t you first have to have a method by which you could differentiate a culturally-induced dream from your own? Most people answer with the classical adolescent response to this dilemma: “I know I am independent, autonomous, thinking my own thoughts, feeling my own feelings, and listening to my intuition, because my parents and teachers disagree with me.” But observation of typical expressions of adolescent “independence,” such as smoking, drinking, drugs, sex, dress, tattoos, music, and choice of friends, reveals opposition that simply proclaims the reality of their dependency upon those cultural dreams that they are reacting to. Could you not be doing some version of the same thing?

Consider the possibility that you are probably far too reliant upon both the interpretations of others and your own internalized cultural scripting for interpreting both your night-time dreams and the meaning and direction of your life. Neither external nor internalized authority likely represent the perspectives and interpretations of your own inner compass. Both provide helpful and necessary objectivity and perspectives about your dreams and about your life that you have not considered, but these should be viewed as their ideas, not the dream’s ideas. Therefore, the thoughts, feelings, preferences and perspectives both of others and that you have yourself, are less likely than your inner compass to know what a dream means or what the dream of your life “means.” Similarly, you may have your own ideas about the meaning of a dream, but you did not create it. We know this, because if you did, you would know what it meant, wouldn’t you? If you cannot trust others or yourself to know the meaning of a dream, who or what can be a trustworthy source of information about it?

This leads to a second assumption Integral Deep Listening makes about interpreting your dreams and your life. The characters, places, and objects in your waking experience represent perspectives on your life that are authentic, just as do the characters in your night-time dreams, in that they are indigenous to the dream itself. They are in a better position to interpret your experience than are you or anyone else. This is because they are primarily an expression of the consciousness that created the dream, and are only secondarily an expression of the interpretations of both others and your internalized scripted, cultural identity. This is a major reason why Integral Deep Listening encourages you to interview both the characters in your dreams and the personifications of the life issues that matter most to you. This is how you escape from the interpretation echo-chamber of your culture and its values that you have internalized. This is how you access intepretations by perspectives that are authentic, yet not rooted in the culture of your birth.

Dreams Depict Psychological Defenses

Dreams demonstrate for Freud not only repression but regression, projection, avoidance, compensation, denial, suppression, displacement, identification, undoing, intellectualization, rationalization, reaction formation, resistance, and sublimation. These are processes generated by waking identity based on its fears. When you switch your perspective from that of a scared, defensive, vulnerable self to that of this or that emerging potential that is none of these things, such as the corpse in the previous example, it becomes obvious that defense mechanisms are not intrinsic to dreams but are a function of some ways of looking at dreams, but not others. Defense mechanisms are problems of waking identity that are projected onto dreams; they are not intrinsic to the vast majority of dream characters. This claim can and should be tested by readers through work with their own dreams and those of others.

Dreams Can be Interpreted by Trained Psychotherapists

People like to be parented and people need to be parented. However, as people become more mature and reach psychological adolescence, they often begin to resent parent figures, who they see alternately as prying rescuers and interfering persecutors. As people become psychologically mature and spiritually available, they don’t want people interpreting their experiences. They want to be surrounded by people who help them to awaken to their own inner compass. Traditional therapy can foster dependency in many ways. Teaching clients to expect and depend on the interpretations of the therapist instead of teaching them how to access and test their own interpretations is one way of doing so.

Dreams Reveal Repressed Motivations

While the Id, as the driver of desire, need, and energy expenditures by the ego, is considered by psychoanalysis the major source of motivating forces and conflicts in patients, Integral Deep Listening does not frame life issues or therapeutic dilemmas in terms of the conscious or unconscious or emphasize defense mechanisms. This is because these structures are not the preferred frameworks of most interviewed emerging potentials, even when they are aware of them, for instance, in the interviews of trained psychoanalysts. If you do one or more IDL interviews on dreams or life issues of one or several psychoanalysts what you will find is that motivations are not clear because they are repressed, but because they are given a lower priority. Other motivations are presumed to be more important than relatively unrecognized or underappreciated emerging ones.

Dreams Depict Psychological Defenses

While Integral Deep Listening recognizes the reality of psychological defenses, it does not typically frame the motivations, either of waking identity or of interviewed emerging potentials, in terms of them, although one certainly could. It is not the job of an Integral Deep Listening practitioner to conclude that an interviewed subject is repressing, projecting, introjecting, rationalizing, intellectualizing, or sublimating. Such labels are projections that put students in a spot, in that such conclusions are difficult to deny, and therefore tend to be disempowering. Your experience is defined by my interpretation of it. Defense mechanisms are difficult to deny because they are by definition unconscious. If you agree with an interpretation, you are also accepting my framing of your problem and its solution. It may make good sense to you, but what does my framing have to do with the interpretations of interviewed emerging potentials or your own inner compass? In Integral Deep Listening, your experience is defined not by your interviewer, but by the interpretations of the various emerging potentials that are interviewed. These are then checked against the interpretations of external sources of objectivity, such as thetherapist, and your own common sense.

Reducing Transference

In a therapy context, transference refers to redirection of a patient’s feelings for a significant person to the therapist. Transference is often manifested as an erotic attraction towards a therapist, but can be seen in many other forms such as rage, hatred, mistrust, parentification, extreme dependence, or even placing the therapist in a god-like or guru status. When Freud initially encountered transference in his therapy with patients, he thought he was encountering patient resistance, as he recognized the phenomenon when a patient refused to participate in a session of free association. But what he learned was that the analysis of the transference was actually the work that needed to be done: “the transference, which, whether affectionate or hostile, seemed in every case to constitute the greatest threat to the treatment, becomes its best tool”.[9] The focus in psychodynamic psychotherapy is, in large part, the therapist and patient recognizing the transference relationship and exploring the relationship’s meaning. Since the transference between patient and therapist happens on an unconscious level, psychodynamic therapists who are largely concerned with a patient’s unconscious material use the transference to reveal unresolved conflicts patients have with childhood figures.

Transference is defined as unconscious, which brings up the interesting question of how therapists and patients who are trained to look for transference and counter-transference might still do them, Is something that looks like transference, like the statement, “You remind me of my father,” be transference, when this is clearly a conscious relationship? The answer would be “no.”

The reduction of transference was considered by Freud to be central to the work of psychoanalysis.

Freud emphasized transference, or the projection of characteristics and qualities by the patient onto the therapist, and counter-transference, or the projection of characteristics and qualities by the therapist onto the patient. This is how he described transference: “The patient is not satisfied with regarding the analyst in the light of reality as a helper and adviser who, moreover, is remunerated for the trouble he takes and who would himself be content with some such role as that of a guide on a difficult mountain climb. On the contrary, the patient sees in him the return, the reincarnation, of some important figure out of his childhood or past, and consequently transfers on to him feelings and reactions which undoubtedly applied to this prototype. This fact of transference soon proves to be a factor of undreamt-of importance, on the one hand an instrument of irreplaceable value and on the other hand a source of serious dangers. This transference is ambivalent: it comprises positive (affectionate) as well as negative (hostile) attitudes towards the analyst, who as a rule is put in the place of one or other of the patient’s parents, his father or mother.”

Both transference and counter-transference are major issues to this day for psychoanalysis and some forms of psychodynamic psychotherapy. This is because this model of therapy sets up a parent-child reparenting model, in which many of the resistances, projections, displacements, and other defense mechanisms in operation in the relationship between the patient and his parents (and parent surrogates) are surfaced by therapy. Here is Freud’s explanation for how that occurs: “So long as (transference) is positive it serves us admirably. It alters the whole analytic situation; it pushes to one side the patient’s rational aim of becoming healthy and free from his ailments. Instead of it there emerges the aim of pleasing the analyst and of winning his applause and love. It becomes the true motive force of the patient’s collaboration; his weak ego becomes strong; under its influence he achieves things that would ordinarily be beyond his power; he leaves off his symptoms and seems apparently to have recovered – merely for the sake of the analyst. The analyst may shamefacedly admit to himself that he set out on a difficult undertaking without any suspicion of the extraordinary powers that would be at his command.
 Moreover, the relation of transference brings with it two further advantages. If the patient puts the analyst in the place of his father (or mother), he is also giving him the power which his super-ego exercises over his ego, since his parents were, as we know, the origin of his super-ego.
[…] Another advantage of transference, too, is that in it the patient produces before us with plastic clarity an important part of his life-story, of which he would otherwise have probably given us only an insufficient account. He acts it before us, as it were, instead of reporting it to us.”

Transference is an important concept for psychoanalysis because of its intrinsic parent-child relationship. Because the patient expects parenting and the therapist is inevitably in the role of therapist, he inevitably projects his good/bad parent expectations and interpretations onto the therapist, causing many opportunities for treatment, confusion, and delusion. Transference is minimized in Integral Deep Listening due to a relative lack of interpretation by the therapist, and a constant redirection of patient expectations of parenting onto their own interviewed emerging potentials.

Freud believed transference is unavoidable. IDL would agree that projection, misperception, and interpretations are unavoidable, but some methods reduce it more than others. The skill with which the therapist deals with these has a great impact on the success of therapy. Integral Deep Listening addresses these concerns by minimizing the traditional parent/child relationship between healer and patient. This is done by minimizing interpretations and direction by the therapist and maximizing interpretations and direction by interviewed emerging potentials.

Reducing Countertransference

Countertransference is a therapist’s emotional entanglement with a patient. Understanding countertransference allows a therapist to understand what responses patients are attempting to elicit in them. For example, a therapist who is sexually attracted to a patient must consider whether countertransference is involved and if so to look at how the patient might be eliciting this attraction. Once any countertransference aspect has been identified, the therapist can ask the patient what his or her feelings are toward the therapist, and can explore how those feelings relate to unconscious motivations, desires, or fears. Countertransference implies that the therapist is requiring additional training analysis to overcome these tendencies.

To reduce countertransference it is important for a therapist to be aware of what benefits he is wanting or expecting out of the relationship. In addition to financial gain, he is likely to want compliance, or submission to the recommendations that he or she makes. The implication is a tacit agreement that, “I am the doctor/ healer/parent surrogate/authority figure/teacher; you must obey me if you are to get well/learn/grow.”

Psychological language can easily be used as a method of control and intimidation in therapy. For example, if you say someone is using a defense mechanism, such as repression or denial, they are in a lose-lose situation. If they say they are not, it is proof of the defense mechanism or some other defense mechanism in operation. If they say they are, then they validate that you are the one capable of therapeutic interpretations; they are not. Either way, the client is disempowered. This is not a trifling matter. The entire sordid process of implanting false memories which are then used to attack others and validate a life script, has risen to the level of legal suits and jail time.

Psychodynamic psychotherapy assumes that countertransference is unavoidable, because it includes tasks like the assessment of patient history, making an accurate diagnosis, and prescibing treatment. All these tasks involve making interpretations, and interpretations are therapist projections and, as such, are instances of counter-transference. Integral Deep Listening assumes that what we see in others are the aspects of ourselves that they represent or personify; we are always shadow boxing with our own projected assumptions and meanings, whether in our waking or dream state. The solution to this is not to stop interpreting, which is impossible, but to base our interpretations primarily on the interpretations of those that know us best – our interviewed emerging potentials. None of their interpretations are perfect; they are themselves forms of transference. However, when you interview a number of them it is possible to arrive at a consensual framework, worldview, or interpretation that is both powerful and that resonates in a deep and valid way with the core of who you are. Integral Deep Listening practitioners are taught to pose their interpretations in the form of questions directed to interviewed emerging potentials. The result is that the practitioner gets to express their own opinions about the resistances and needs of their client, but to do so to another authority figure, as well as to the client. The result is that interviewers quickly learn that their interpretations are often challenged in ways that clients usually do not challenge therapists. This both educates the interviewer about authentic intrinsic perspectives and the limitations of their own assumptions. This also answers the double-bind of the client, since defense mechanisms are unconscious. Because the interpretations are directed to interviewed emerging potentials, which mostly operate out of awareness, they can claim to be better authorities on the internal workings of the student than the interpreter.

Turning Catharsis Into Permanent Stage Development

Psychoanalysis often is designed to provoke a catharsis or deep emotional expression and purging, on the assumption that the reincorporation of suppressed, denied, or disowned feelings from childhood trauma is an important and fundamental goal of the therapeutic process. Catharsis is access to states of heightened emotion, a flooding of insight, or recognition and release of the roots of conflict. All of these involve changes in state, not stage, meaning that while they can be profoundly transformational and impressive, they are rarely permanent. The general strategy is to provide patients with sufficient cathartic experiences of enough intensity to keep them coming back for more, in the hope, shared by both therapist and client, that enough state catharsis will generate lasting stage development.

Is this a realistic expectation? Most psychological studies do not support that conclusion. The reason is probably because of the amount of time that a person spends in their ongoing mental, emotional, and interpersonal cultures. After catharsis they soon regress back into the inertia of that ongoing reality. In addition, the nature of perception in dreams is driven by waking identity, which uses its habitual scripting to deal with dream situations. This reinforces the ongoing, habitual cultures out of awareness, meaning that even therapeutic immersion, such as in in-patient settings is soon undone.

While Integral Deep Listening interviews involve catharis, in that the perceptual frame of reference of this or that interviewed dream character or personification of a life issue is more or less a different state, it emphasizes relatively permanent stage development over relatively temporary changes of state. It is not that there is a problem with catharsis and insight or that it does not have its uses; it is that an Integral Deep Listening interview is not primarily for the purpose of evoking and then interpreting state changes, emotional identifications, or insights. Instead, the emphasis is on incorporating the state of an interviewed emerging potential into ongoing waking awareness as a perceptual broadening and form of waking up into a higher order of lucidity. One important way of doing this is by taking their recommendations seriously enough to test them in one’s waking life.

Sometimes interviews do provoke catharsis; when they do, the interviewer responds differently, based on what type of catharsis that occurs. If there is a clear and strong shift in awareness while in role, this is normally taken as an indication of strong role identification and the interview continues without interruptions. This demonstrates the priority of role identification over insight while stopping and interpreting the insight through discussion with waking identity makes it the center of the process rather than the interviewed emerging potential. If the cathartic reaction is tearful, the interviewer keeps the interviewed subject in role, asking the character, “____(the name of the client/student/patient) is tearing up. What is going on with them now?” What this does is keep the process from collapsing back to the stuck emotional reality of the student and instead keeps them in the relatively expanded and detached witnessing perspective of this or that interviewed emerging potential.

What Explains the Continuing Popularity of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy?

As a practicing psychotherapist who was trained with the psychodynamic model and who uses some of its assumptions with students of Integral Deep Listening, it is important to recognize its many strengths. Most of these boil down to its effectiveness in satisfying the expectations students, patients, and clients. If that is the case, then the effectiveness of psychodynamics is mostly about the cultural expectations and level of development of its patients. Most people know that they need authority figures, be they doctors, therapists, priests, gurus, or teachers. The flip side of this proposition, generally ignored, is that most doctors, therapists, priests, gurus, and teachers need patients, clients, or students to validate their own world view and self-worth. Patients provide income, status, professional experience, and self-justification. Therefore, it is important to note that therapists need patients as much as patients need therapists. In fact, patients provide many therapeutic functions for therapists and doctors, most of which are unacknowledged and none of which are compensated. Patients and clients pay doctors and therapists for their services; doctors and therapists do not pay patients and clients for theirs. It is a barter arrangement: “I will give you treatment and you will give me money.” This is only one example of the unequal relationship within most healing models.

This inequality is obviously very popular. It can only last as long as the patient, clients, or student perceives the teacher as having more of some desired skill, knowledge, or characteristic than they do. It breaks down when a client either loses that desire, gains a similar competency, or finds someone that they value more.

The centrality of the self means that the needs, emotions, priorities, expectations, and desires of the client are the center of attention. The more needy that a person is, the more effective such a focus is likely to be. Therefore, the more that a person outgrows their identification with their needs, the less likely they are to search for someone to help them fulfill them. This is one reason why psychotherapy never developed outside the reach of Western culture and worldview. Either people are pre-rational and invested in some mythological belief system for their therapy and salvation, or they are so focused on making a living that they have little time or energy to devote to developing objectivity in self-awareness.

When any methodology gains adherents, placebo alone produces a 33{be93f16b5d2e768a85ea81ebc8356f268811d3908838ae6233aa33d012b25ec9} positive result. This means that there are people who provide testimonies to the success of the approach. Once it becomes established, practitioners form professional associations whose major purpose is to validate their work so that it gains adherents, respectability, and referrals. All of this has nothing to do with efficacy and everything to do with vested interests promoting placebo benefits. Genuine efficacy is based on empirical, falsifiable studies that are duplicatible by peers in the field.[/leezen_vc_section_title][leezen_vc_section_title heading_type=”h3″ title=”Metaphysics and Phenomenology” title_transform=”capitalize” title_weight=”600″ alignment=”left” title_size=”20px”]The metaphysical nature of belief is relatively easy to spot in other religions, “mythologies,” and other people, but much less easy to objectify within ourselves and our own belief systems. Those therapists who have been brought up to practice within a conceptual context of the unconscious, psyche, transference, counter-transference, psychic structures, psychic energy, and other basic aspects of the psychodynamic model, have a very hard time seeing any of these as metaphysical constructs, just as a theist can’t fathom “God” as a metaphysical construct.

Some psychodynamic assumptions, like the unconscious and subconscious, are metaphysically based. This means that they are mental abstractions that attempt to explain experience. Examples of other common metaphysical abstractions, found in religion and philosophy, are “God,” “soul,” “spirit,” and Plato’s Forms. While mental abstractions are not only helpful but, as Kant showed, essential, they need to be recognized for what they are if they are not to have an undue influence on decisions in therapy. For example, the idea of the unconscious implies that aspects of identity are out of awareness or lack awareness, or consciousness. This assumes that awareness and consciousness is centered in waking identity, yet it is clear that what is termed unconscious is conscious, in that it demonstrates intention and capability to act in meaningful ways that are yet disowned by waking identity. Examples range from breaking a diet to dissociation.

Waking identity, called the ego in psychodynamic therapies, becomes the center of reality, and its support and evolution becomes the central task of psychotherapy. Many therapists would ask, “So what?” “Isn’t that correct?” The reason why making waking awareness, or waking identity, the center of consciousness, and therefore reality, is a problem is that it is psychological geocentrism, one of several legitimate and useful perspectives. The self is the natural focus of development into mid-personal levels. Beyond that, the sense of self thins, expands, and becomes increasingly capable of taking the perspectives of others, as indicated by measurements of improved altruism and empathy. Eventually, the “self” becomes increasingly multi-perspectival, while retaining psychological geocentrism as a practical tool for work in the world. The difference is that ego is no longer who you are, who or what defines your identity. Integral Deep Listening finds a multiperspectival framework more effective because it both includes, yet transcends the traditional self-centered approach of psychodynamics. It is much closer to the way the world looks from the perspective of life, which does not identify with any one perspective.

As a result of this important difference in emphasis, Integral Deep Listening helps to evolve self-identity beyond “ego” into more flexible, adaptable, varied, and mature ways of looking at the world. When the assumption of psychological geocentrism is suspended, much of the descriptive language derived from psychodynamics loses its functional foundation. Terms like the “unconscious,” the “subconscious,” the “psyche,” and “psychic energy,” are seen to imply a model of consciousness that not only explains internal conflict, but sustains them by supposing a model of the self in which they are intrinsic. The idea of the centrality of humanity to creation follows from the experience that the sun, moon, planets, and stars circle around the earth and around human observers. However, when these bodies are no longer understood to circle around the earth, the idea of the centrality of humanity to creation becomes a marooned metaphysical abstraction, a cultural throwback and a psychological transitional object.

Integral Deep Listening does not recommend that metaphysical terminology assumed by psychodynamics not be used so much as be suspended in favor of listening to the terminology and conceptualizations used by interviewed emerging potentials. When a number of emerging potentials are interviewed, a consensus language that expresses shared perspectives that more closely approximate that of one’s own inner compass is discovered. The idea is then for the therapist to use that innate language and consensus perspective with that particular individual, because it is innate rather than imposed. While psychodynamic therapists may provide superior framings, conceptualizations, perspectives, and terminology, how is this known unless the therapist first suspends his or her assumptions and considers the appropriateness of the consensus perspective of interviewed emerging potentials?

This involves suspending temporarily the psychodynamic model in favor of listening to the perspective of interviewed emerging potentials. Whatever model you use to help others, it is an interpretation. Integral Deep Listening has a place for therapist interpretations; it comes after listening to the interpretations of one or more emerging potentials and then listening to the students’ interpretations of what they have heard. This therapeutic model gives precedence to discovering the priorities of the student’s inner compass by listening to the interpretations of interviewed emerging potentials. The interpretations of the student are next given priority. The interpretations of the teacher or therapist, along with other external sources of advice, come next.

Is the concept of “inner compass” itself a metaphysical construct? Yes. Integral Deep Listening uses it as a place-holder for continually evolving and expanding processes, rather than as an ontological identity. There is no such “thing” as an “inner compass,” only a shifting center of gravity, organization, and life. It is a metaphysical construct in the way that they eye of a hurricane is a metaphysical construct. Does the eye of a hurricane exist or not? Is it a “thing?” Most would agree that it is a process that embodies a perspective, but this does not make it a “thing.” Its “thingness” is only created by language and its differentiation from the surrounding winds. Without these two elements the eye of a hurricane does not exist. Similarly, the notion of “inner compass” does not exist without language and its differentiation from other perspectives. Therefore, while it is a metaphysical construct, it lacks the ontological character of “self” or “soul.”

How Psychodynamic psychotherapies can benefit from Integral Deep Listening

IDL views healing as the province of life, not the self. The self is the beneficiary of health when it moves into harmony with life. It does so as it aligns with the priorities of one’s inner compass. Therefore, instead of therapy centered on the interpretations of therapists, or therapy centered on the patient and their interpretations, IDL encourages therapy that is first centered on the interpretations and recommendations of interviewed emerging potentials and then on the interpretations of the student and then on the interpretations of the therapist.

Moving away from a “self” centered model of treatment to a life-centered model is a profoundly transformational way of understanding growth and healing. A second way IDL can benefit psychodynamic therapies is by shifting therapist role definition from healing interpreter to facilitating teacher. The facilitation is done in conducting interviews and facilitating the application of their recommendations. The teaching is in teaching tools for the minimization of self-filtering, including the Drama Triangle, cognitive distortions, and meditation.

[1] Kohlberg, Maslow, Jung, and others do indeed recognize post-rational developmental stages, but these confuse states and stages and pre-personal belief with trans-rational experience.

[2] For example, the terms “adolescent” and “adolescence” did not exist until the early 1900’s because it was only with the movement from an agrarian to an industrial-based society that the phenomena of extended puberty and education created an intermediate period resulting in a cultural differentiation between childhood and adulthood. Similarly, syndromes now widely accepted as bona-fide psychological disorders, such as Attention Deficit Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder were probably rendered largely invisible by a life of physical labor starting at a young age.

[3] Hoiberg, D. (Senior Editor) (2002). Helmholtz, Hermann von  (biography). Encyclopedia Britannica Deluxe Edition, CD-ROM.

[4] Ritvo, L. (1990). Darwin’s influence on Freud. New Haven: Yale University Press.

[5] Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “The Life and Theory of Sigmund Freud”

Psychoanalysis as it is taught and practiced today is a very broad-based methodology that differs in important respects from the type of psychoanalysis that Freud taught.  Modern practitioners have the benefit of over a century of subsequent development to integrate the state of contemporary knowledge into Freud’s monumental contributions.

What is a basic difference in the approach to dreams of psychoanalysis and IDL? Freud considered dreams symbolic. IDL, on the other hand, is phenomenological, which means that it suspends as many assumptions as possible, including the assumption that a dream character or event is symbolic. The sources of this approach can be traced not only to Husserl, Wundt, Medard Boss, and the existentialist philosophers Heidigger, Kierkegaard, and Sartre, but to the Socratic dialectical method of elenchus. It therefore does not emphasize the symbolic nature of experience, although it utilizes that perspective as a secondary, supportive resource.

How do psychoanalysis and IDL view interpretation of dreams? The same can be said of interpretation. Freud believed dreams can be interpreted by psychoanalytically trained psychotherapists. Freud’s interpretations are easily shown to be arbitrary projections that reveal more about the interpreter, his or her beliefs and culture, than about dreams themselves. IDL sees interpretation as inevitable and unavoidable, but invites the interpretations of interviewed emerging potentials and gives those interpretations priority because of two factors. The first is their relative objectivity, since they personify perspectives that often prove to be in significant ways autonomous. The second is that because they are enmeshed in the dream or life issue at hand, their perspective has a relevance that far surpasses that of either the client or the therapist. This does not mean that the views of clients or therapists are not to be taken into account. Indeed, in IDL dream interviewing, the associations/interpretations of the client are always collected. Subsequent to the interview the therapist is encouraged to make their own interpretations, generally as follow-up questions addressed to the interviewed emerging potential.

Who makes the best interpreters of dreams? IDL finds that trained therapists are often the most problematic students, because they have to unlearn years of training in history taking, diagnosis, and interpretation in order to learn to be practitioners of deep listening. While these skills are considered valuable by IDL, they are secondary to listening to the interviewed perspective. This means learning a phenomenological approach, including the ability to suspend one’ assumptions, is essential to Integral Deep Listening.

Are dreams regressive? Freud considered dreams to be regressive. Regression is a defense  mechanism. Freud developed most of his theory of defense mechanisms based on his observation of dreams. Most defense mechanisms Freud found in dreams are projections by Freud of his waking mind onto dreams; they are not intrinsic to the dream state. IDL also considers dreams to be regressive, under normal circumstances. But in distinction from Freud, this is not because of anything intrinsic about the dream state, but because your dreaming self, that sense of who you are while you are dreaming, tends to use early problem solving and early emotional preferences and reactions until new, improved adaptational strategies are learned and applied to perception while dreaming.

Do dreams reveal repressed motivations? Freud believed dreams reveal repressed motivations, such as sexual desires. While in relationship to waking, most of what dreams deal with is ignored, discounted, or dismissed, IDL does not find anything repressed or repressing about dreams themselves. A much simpler, effective formulation is to assess our willingness to listen to whatever is wanting to be heard in a dream or involving a life issue. It is not wanting to be heard because it is repressed; it is wanting to be heard because, like you and I, it wants to be heard, respected, acknowledged, and listened to.

Are dreams an expression of unconscious conflict? Freud saw dreaming as an expression of unconscious conflict. IDL does not rely on the concept of “unconscious,” finding it neither necessary nor useful. For Freud, unconscious influences need to be understood and neutralized. For IDL there are social and “intrasocial“ influences, dependent on whether an exterior or interior other is being disowned at the moment. IDL does not give conflict the central role in psychological dysfunction that psychoanalysis does. Conflict is one of three positions of the developmental dialectic and is necessary for development; there is nothing inherently dysfunctional about intrapsychic conflict. Lack of conflict, for instance, the validation of cultural and social delusions, can be and often is far more dysfunctional than intrapsychic conflict.

Does IDL use free association? The major treatment strategy of psychoanalysis is “free association,” leading to interpretations by the analyst of whatever associations he or she deems important. IDL does not use free association. It uses highly structured questioning and resists the urge to provide interpretations to the responses to these questions.

How important is it to focus on the childhood sources of current problems? Freudian psychoanalysis also emphasizes psychic archaeology, or uncovering the “roots” of dysfunction in early childhood, in the belief that first awareness and then emotional catharsis will allow the development of a healthy “ego.” IDL may or may not deal with early childhood; content is directed largely by the dream character interviewed or the life issue addressed. However, in general, IDL does not focus on the past or future; it focuses on the experience of emerging potentials in the here and now and what needs to be done to make their presence more real, vital, and effective in daily life to more effectively address the real life concerns of the patient.

How important is transference? Freud emphasized the concept of transference, or the projection of characteristics and qualities by the patient onto the therapist, and counter-transference, or the projection of characteristics and qualities by the therapist onto the patient. In either case, both are often thought of as the repetition in the present of childhood relationships, such as that with one’s parent, onto someone in the present. IDL addresses these concerns by minimizing the traditional parent/child relationship between healer and patient. It does so by minimizing interpretations and direction by the therapist and maximizing interpretations and direction by interviewed emerging potentials.

Does IDL use the concept of “resistance?” “Resistance” plays a big role in Freudian psychoanalysis. The idea is that the self, called the “ego,” fights the impulses of the id or the conscience of the superego. This concept makes conflict central to Freud’s understanding of both therapy and dysfunction. Much of therapy, then, is about uncovering the sources of resistance and neutralizing them, generally through catharsis and proper interpretation. IDL recognizes the importance of resistance but sees it as an expression of an organism’s need to maintain stability, even if dysfunctional. It does not see resistance as a problem to be eliminated, but something to be listened to, understood, respected, and taken seriously. Therefore, IDL will often ask clients to describe their resistance, name the associated feelings, give those feelings colors, surround themselves with those feelings, and watch the color or colors condense into some object, animal, or person which is then interviewed. The assumption is that a personification of the resistance itself is much more likely to provide helpful recommendations for addressing it than either the patient or the therapist.

Why doesn’t IDL use Freud’s structure of Id, Ego and Superego? Psychoanalysis relies on a tripartite psychic structure of id, ego, and superconscious. IDL does not use these concepts, nor does it break the psyche into three parts. Instead, it assumes that your experience entails who you think you are right now, which IDL calls your “waking identity.” You are free to define yourself as narrowly or as inclusively as you desire, and indeed, how you do so is a mark of your level of development. Anything that is not part of your sense of self is considered to be a non-interviewed emerging potential which is best assumed to function as a wake-up call. Wake-up calls are to be listened to so that they can be incorporated into a more inclusive, integrated, stable, and healthy sense of who you are. Doing so keeps dream wake-up calls from getting louder, first manifesting as nightmares and then, if not heard, externalizing as waking nightmares of various types: accidents, physical health problems,  or relationship issues.

Does IDL use the concepts of transference and counter-transference?  Psychology makes the mistake of assuming that because professional diagnosis works in medicine that it will work in talking therapy. dBecause the problem is by definition unconscious, it is unknown and unknowable by the client except by another, to whom it is conscious and who has the expertise to deal with various defenses to it becoming conscious to the client. The client is thereby placed in a disempowering child-parent relationship, dependent upon the interpretations of expert external sources of objectivity called therapists. Even if this role is successfully internalized, there is no reason to believe that the results are in harmony with the priorities of one’s life compass.

IDL addresses these issues by encouraging the support of expert external sources of objectivity who act primarily in support of internal sources of objectivity. These expert external interpretations either defer to or work to support the interpretations of internal sources of objectivity – interviewed emerging potentials, particularly those which score higher than the client/student in one or more of the six core qualities of confidence, empathy, wisdom, acceptance, inner peace, and witnessing. The goal is to make the client dependent on their own life compass, not on a therapist, healer or dream interpreter. In such a model issues of transference and counter-transference are minimized because the therapist/teacher is not the primary source of interpretation; interviewed emerging potentials are. When resistances arise they are interviewed so that interpretations and solutions come primarily from interviewed emerging potentials, not the therapist or subject. The therapist consistently defers to the collective wisdom of internal sources of objectivity because they recognize that such perspectives know the client/student better than the therapist possibly can and because they innately represent possibilities and potentials that are both more creative and more to the heart of the life issue of the moment.

During the interviewing process, in contrast to most therapy, the focus is not placed on the interviewer-subject relationship, but on listening to what the interviewed emerging potential has to say. The major considerations during the interviewing process are, “Is the subject in role?” “How can I help them to become more thoroughly in role, yet remaining present, aware, observant and witnessing?” Emphasis is placed on the suspension of assumptions, expectations and interpretations in order to practice deep listening to the interviewed character. Consequently, interpretations that occur are primarily made by the emerging potential. While interpretations by the interviewed and the interviewer are unavoidable, they are addressed later, in deference to what the emerging potential has to say. This structure reduces opportunities for both transference and countertransference in IDL.

The question then might arise, “Is there transference or counter-transference between the subject and the element that is being interviewed?” From the perspective of IDL, this is a ridiculous question. One could always read such possibilities in; one could argue that just because the focus of the interview is between the subject and the interviewed element, that does not mean that transference or counter-transference are not happening. What would be the source and intent of such arguments? Clearly it would be to maintain interpretive, projective control in the interpretations of the therapist by presenting an irrefutable possibility. But IDL is not about staying in control, nor is waking up contingent on the interviewer maintaining the final say regarding interpretations or what is projection and what is not. For IDL all this is disrespectful to the interviewed emerging potential and disempowering to the subject of the interview.

Outside of the interviews themselves, during the creation of action plans or the teaching of concepts such as the Drama Triangle, scripting, cognitive distortions, and meditative techniques, the focus of IDL is on teaching rather than therapeutic dialogue. Consequently, the focus is on information relevant to finding measurable solutions to specific, ongoing life concerns rather than a delving into childhood traumas or deep emotional resistances. Therefore, to the extent that transference and countertransference arise, they are more likely to be benign and not interfere with learning and practicing IDL, just as occurs in other teaching situations.

Does IDL focus on building ego strength? Psychoanalysis focuses on building “ego strength.” The assumption is that the ego is rational and will act in the best interest of growth if strengthened. The problem with this approach, from the perspective of IDL, is that waking identity is generally best assumed to be asleep, dreaming, delusional, largely pre-rational, and acting in its own limited and misinformed interpretations of its own best interests, rather than in the interest of any larger sense of self.  This relationship remains in place regardless of how “healthy” or “integrated” your sense of self becomes.

The most basic difference of Freudian psychoanalysis with IDL is Freud’s emphasis on cure as a return to “normalcy,” meaning appropriate “ego strength” for a particular age or, at best, Freud’s level of development. There is no awareness whatsoever of the possibility that “normalcy” is a culturally-determined state which is seen by successive generations and with the objectivity of time, as itself dysfunctional. Rather than attempting to return patients to a mythical state of “normalcy,” IDL teaches clients to access, listen to, and become one with the priorities of their inner compass. “Normalcy” is defined by IDL as a state of acting on the priorities of your inner compass, and has nothing to do with the norms of society or the expectations of waking identity for health or happiness.

Why doesn’t IDL use the scientifically accepted medical model of treatment? Because Freud was a physician, he wanted psychology to have the standing of chemistry, physics, and other “hard” sciences. Therefore, his model attempts to imitate the medical model by collecting a history, generating a diagnosis, and prescribing treatment. IDL does not rely on collecting a history because the practitioner is not making a diagnosis. The client already knows their history, as does whatever emerging potential is interviewed. That interviewed emerging potential makes its diagnosis and prescribes treatment. The job of the practitioner is to make sure the client allows it to speak and be heard, and to create an accountability structure so that the diagnosis and prescribed treatment can be tested in the laboratory of the patient’s daily life. Do their symptoms of PTSD diminish or not? Does their anxiety or depression decrease or not? Do their nightmares lessen in frequency and intensity or not?

The empiricism of IDL is based on evaluation by peers in the methodology, similar to the mastery of vocational competencies or meditation. Its criteria for validation are public and repeatable, which are basic criteria for any empirical methodology.[/leezen_vc_section_title][leezen_vc_section_title heading_type=”h3″ title=”Defense mechanisms” title_transform=”capitalize” title_weight=”600″ alignment=”left” title_size=”20px”]Unconscious strategies for avoiding or reducing threatening feelings, such as fear and anxiety, defense mechanisms are the most lasting and important contribution of Freudian thought to psychology. According to Freud, defense mechanisms protect us from being consciously aware of a thought or feeling which we cannot tolerate. The defense only allows the unconscious thought or feeling to be expressed indirectly in a disguised form. They allow negative feelings to be lessened without an alteration of the situation that is producing them, often by distorting the reality of that situation in some way. While they can help in coping with stress, they pose a danger because the reduction of stress can be so appealing that the defenses are maintained and become habitual. They can also be harmful if they become a person’s primary mode of responding to problems. In children, excessive dependence on defense mechanisms may produce social isolation and distortion of reality and hamper the ability to engage in and learn from new experiences.

Defenses may hide any of a variety of thoughts or feelings: anger, fear, sadness, depression, greed, envy, competitiveness, love, passion, admiration, criticalness, dependency, selfishness, grandiosity, helplessness.

Defense mechanisms include denial, repression, suppression, projection, displacement, reaction formation, regression, fixation, identification, introjection, rationalization, isolation, sublimation, compensation, and humor.

Denial and repression both distort reality by keeping things hidden from consciousness. In the case of denial, an unpleasant reality is ignored, and a realistic interpretation of potentially threatening events is replaced by a benign but inaccurate one.

Let’s say you are angry with a professor because he is very critical of you. Here’s how the various defenses might hide and/or transform that anger:

You completely reject the thought or feeling: “I’m not angry with him!”

Denial:

Nightmares: “It’s only a dream.”
Dreams: “It’s just day residue.”
Dreaming: “S/he’s a dreamer.”

Either feelings or events (or both) may be denied. In very young children, a degree of denial is normal. One way of coping with the relative powerlessness of childhood is for young children to sometimes act as if they can change reality by refusing to acknowledge it, thereby ascribing magical powers to their thoughts and wishes. For example, a child who is told that her parents are divorcing may deny that it is happening or deny that she is upset about it. Denial has been shown to be effective in reducing the arousal caused by a threatening situation. In life-threatening or other extreme situations, denial can temporarily be useful in helping people cope, but in the long term painful feelings and events must be acknowledged in order to avoid further psychological and emotional problems. Related to denial is avoidance, which involves avoiding situations that are expected to elicit unwanted emotions and impulses.

Most people avoid both their dreams and serious dreamwork.

In repression, painful feelings are conscious initially and then forgotten. However, they are stored in the unconscious, from which, under certain circumstances, they can be retrieved (a phenomenon Freud called “the return of the repressed”).

PTSD dreams;
Forgotten but repeated nightmares.

Repression can range from momentary memory lapses to forgetting the details of a catastrophic event, such as a murder or an earthquake. Complete amnesia can even occur in cases where a person has experienced something very painful. The Oedipus complex by which Sigmund Freud explained the acquisition of gender identity relies on a child’s repression of incestuous desires toward the parent of the opposite sex and feelings of rivalry toward the parent of the same sex. Other situations may also occasion the repression of hostile feelings toward a loved one (especially a parent). Possibly the most extreme is child abuse, the memory of which may remain repressed long into adulthood, sometimes being deliberately retrieved in therapy through hypnosis and other techniques.

A third defense mechanism, related to denial and repression, is suppression, by which unpleasant feelings are suppressed through a conscious decision not to think about them. Suppression differs from repression and denial in that the undesirable feelings are available but deliberately ignored (unlike repression and denial, where the person is completely unaware of these feelings). Suppression generally works by replacing unpleasant thoughts with others that do not produce stress. This may be done instinctively, or it may be done deliberately in a therapeutic context.

You are vaguely aware of the thought or feeling, but try to hide it: “I’m going to try to be nice to him.”

Non-recall of dreams.

Cognitive behavior therapy in particular makes use of this technique to help people combat negative thought patterns that produce maladaptive emotions and behavior. For example, a child may be instructed to block feelings of fear by thinking about a pleasant experience, such as a party, an academic achievement, or a victory in a sporting event. Suppression is considered one of the more mature and healthy defense mechanisms.

Projection and displacement allow a person to acknowledge anxiety-producing feelings but transfer them to either another source or another object.

In projection, the undesirable feelings are attributed to another person or persons. An angry person believes others are angry at her; a person who is critical of others believes they are critical of him. Very young children are especially prone to projection because of their egocentric orientation, which blurs the boundary between themselves and others, making it easier to also blur the distinction between their feelings and those of others.

You think someone else has your thought or feeling: “That professor hates me.” “That student hates the prof.”

Dream group members are the bad guys; I am the helpless victim.

Displacement is a defense by which an impulse perceived as dangerous is displaced, either through redirection toward a different object or replacement by another impulse. In the first type, known as object displacement, anger or another emotion is initially felt toward a person against whom it is unsafe to express it (in children, for example, toward a parent).

You redirect your feelings to another target: “I hate that secretary.”

I am afraid I am not in control of my life; I will displace my fear onto my dreams, because not being in control of my dreams is not as big a threat.

Displacement functions as a means by which the impulse can still be expressed-allowing a catharsis of the original emotion-but toward a safer target, such as a sibling, peer, or even a toy. In the second type of displacement, known as drive displacement, the object of the emotion remains the same but the emotion itself is replaced by a less threatening one.

My dreams threaten me but I experience myself as angry at them for disrupting my sleep.

Reaction formation, another defense mechanism, involves behavior that is diametrically opposed to the impulses or feelings that one is repressing.

You turn the feeling into its opposite: “I think he’s really great!”

For example, a parent who is repressing feelings of resentment or rejection toward a child may overcompensate by appearing to be lavishly generous and solicitous of the child’s welfare. In this type of situation, the child generally senses the true hostility underlying the parent’s behavior. A child who is being toilet trained may show an exaggerated sense of fastidiousness to counter conflicts over controlling elimination. The Freudian stage of sexual latency in middle childhood is yet another example of reaction formation: in order to repress their sexual feelings, children at this age evince a strong sense of indifference or even hostility toward the opposite sex. Sometimes a distinction is drawn between feelings that are diametrically opposed to a repressed impulse and the actual behavior that expresses them, with the former called reaction formation and the latter referred to as undoing.

Undoing: You try to reverse or undo your feeling by DOING something that indicates the opposite feeling. It may be an “apology” for the feeling you find unacceptable within yourself: “I think I’ll give that professor an apple.”

I am afraid of what I will learn about myself if I go to a therapist, so I study to become a therapist.

I am afraid of my dreams so I pretend that I am not by talking a good game.

Two defense mechanisms-regression and fixation -are associated with developmental disturbances in children. In regression, a child, confronted with a situation that produces conflict, anxiety, or frustration, reverts to the behavior of an earlier stage of development, such as thumb-sucking or bed-wetting, in an attempt to regain the lost sense of safety that characterized the earlier period.

You revert to an old, usually immature behavior to ventilate your feeling: “Let’s shoot spitballs at people!”

Melt-down to tantrums & blaming when stressed.

In fixation, the child doesn’t lose any previously gained developmental ground but refuses to move ahead because developmental progress has come to be associated with anxiety in some way.

It is safer to not look at my dreams. Dream Yoga is too anxiety provoking.

Identification, which is basic to human development and an essential part of the learning process, can also serve as a defense mechanism. Taking on the characteristics of someone else can enable a person to engage in impulses or behavior that she sees as forbidden to her but acceptable for the person with whom she is identifying.

“I will imagine I am the murderer in this dream so that I can be violent and abusive.”

Another motive for identification is a fear of losing the person with whom one identifies.

“If I become more like my teacher he’ll give me a good grade.”

One particularly well-known variety of identification is identification with the aggressor, where someone who is victimized in some way takes on the traits of the victimizer to combat feelings of powerlessness. This type of projection occurs when a child who is abused by his parents abuses others in turn. In some cases, however, this type of projection may occur in response to aggression that is imagined rather than real and create a self-perpetuating cycle by actually eliciting in others the aggression that was only imaginary initially.

In introjection, which is related to identification, only a particular aspect of someone else’s personality is internalized.
(perfectionism, dependency, addiction, etc.)

Rationalization, another type of defense mechanism, is an attempt to deny one’s true motives (to oneself or others) by using a reason (or rationale) that is more logical or socially acceptable than one’s own impulses. Typical rationalizations include such statements as “I don’t care if I wasn’t chosen for the team; I didn’t really want to play soccer anyway” and “I couldn’t get my homework done because I had too many other things to do.” Adolescents, caught between their own unruly impulses and adult expectations that seem unreasonable, are especially prone to rationalizing their behavior. Their advanced cognitive development makes many adolescents adept at this strategy.

“It doesn’t matter that I don’t recall my dreams. They aren’t important anyway.”

“It doesn’t matter that I don’t understand my dreams. They’re meaningless anyway.”

You come up with various explanations to justify the situation (while denying your feelings): “He’s so critical because he’s trying to help us do our best.”

Intellectualization: A type of rationalization, only more intellectualized: “This situation reminds me of how Nietzsche said that anger is ontological despair.”

Like rationalization, isolation is a rather complicated defense. It involves compartmentalizing one’s experience so that an event becomes separated from the feelings that accompanied it, allowing it to be consciously available without the threat of painful feelings. Isolation can take on aspects of a dissociative disorder, with children separating parts of their lives to the point that they think of themselves as more than one person (for example, a good child and a bad one who only appears under certain circumstances). By compartmentalizing they can be relieved of feeling responsible for the actions of the “bad child.”

Isolation of affect: You “think” the feeling but don’t really feel it: “I guess I’m angry with him, sort of.”

Sublimation, one of the healthiest defense mechanisms, involves rechanneling the energy connected with an unacceptable impulse into one that is more socially acceptable. In this way, inappropriate sexual or aggressive impulses can be released in sports, creative pursuits, or other activities. Undesired feelings can also be sublimated into altruistic impulses, from which one may derive the vicarious pleasure of helping others. Other defense mechanisms generally viewed in a positive light include compensation -devoting unusual efforts to achievement in order to overcome feelings of inferiority-and the use of humor as a coping device.

You redirect the feeling into a socially productive activity: “I’m going to write a poem about anger.”

We must know our limits and never stop trying to exceed them[/leezen_vc_section_title][leezen_vc_section_title heading_type=”h3″ title=”Defense Mechanisms” title_transform=”capitalize” title_weight=”600″ alignment=”left” title_size=”20px”]A number of phenomena are used to aid in the maintenance of repression. These are termed Ego Defense Mechanisms (the terms “Mental Mechanisms” and “Defense Mechanisms” are essentially synonymous with this).

The primary functions of these mechanisms are:

1 to minimize anxiety

2 to protect the ego

3 to maintain repression

Repression is useful to the individual since:

1 it prevents discomfort

2 it leads to some economy of time and effort

Ego Defense Mechanisms include:

Acting Out:

The individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by actions rather than reflections or feelings. This definition is broader than the original concept of the acting out of transference feelings or wishes during psychotherapy and is intended to include behavior arising both within and outside the transference relationship. Defensive acting out is not synonymous with “bad behavior” because it requires evidence that the behavior is related to emotional conflicts.

Affiliation:

The individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by turning to others for help or support. This involves sharing problems with others but does not imply trying to make someone else responsible for them.

Aim inhibition:

Placing a limitation upon instinctual demands; accepting partial or modified fulfillment of desires. Examples: (1) a person is conscious of sexual desire but if finding it frustrating, “decides” that all that is really wanted in the relationship is companionship. (2) a student who originally wanted to be a physician decides to become a physician’s assistant.

Aim inhibition, like the other mechanisms, is neither healthful nor pathological, desirable nor undesirable, in itself. It may be better to have half a loaf than no bread, but an unnecessary aim inhibition may rob one of otherwise attainable satisfactions.

Note that the first example could include the mechanism of displacement, and the second, rationalization. Up to a point, mutual idealization can make for a happy relationship; however, unrealistic expectations of another person based upon this mechanism can lead to serious disappointment.

Altruism:

The individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by dedication to meeting the needs of others. Unlike the self-sacrifice sometimes characteristic of reaction formation, the individual receives gratification either vicariously or from the response of others.

Anticipation:

The individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by experiencing emotional reactions in advance of, or anticipating consequences of, possible future events and considering realistic, alternative responses or solutions.

Autistic Fantasy:

The individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by excessive daydreaming as a substitute for human relationships, more effective action, or problem solving.

Avoidance:

A defense mechanism consisting of refusal to encounter situations, objects, or activities because they represent unconscious sexual or aggressive impulses and/or punishment for those impulses; avoidance, according to the dynamic theory, is a major defense mechanism in phobias.

Compensation:

Encountering failure or frustration in some sphere of activity, one overemphasizes another. The term is also applied to the process of over-correcting for a handicap or limitation. Examples: (1) a physically unattractive adolescent becomes an expert dancer. (2) a youth with residual muscle damage from poliomyelitis becomes an athlete. (3) Demosthenes.

Conversion:

Conflicts are presented by physical symptoms involving portions of the body innervated by sensory or motor nerves. This mechanism and somatization are the only ones that are always pathological. Examples: a man’s arm becomes paralyzed after impulses to strike another (2) regular heavy drinking limited to weekends; (3) long periods of sobriety interspersed with binges of daily heavy drinking lasting for weeks or months.

Deflection:

Also detected when the individual is in group therapy and consists of redirecting attention to another group member.

Denial:

Failing to recognize obvious implications or consequences of a thought, act, or situation. Examples: (1) a person having an extramarital affair gives no thought to the possibility of pregnancy. (2) persons living near a volcano disregard the dangers involved. (3) a disabled person plans to return to former activities without planning a realistic program of rehabilitation.

Devaluation:

The individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by attributing exaggerated negative qualities to self or others.

Displacement:

A change in the object by which an instinctual drive is to be satisfied; shifting the emotional component from one object or idea to another. Examples: (1) a woman is abandoned by her fiance’; she quickly finds another man about whom she develops the same feelings; (2) a salesman is angered by his superior but suppresses his anger; later, on return to his home, he punishes one of his children for misbehavior that would usually be tolerated or ignored.

Displacements are often quite satisfactory and workable mechanisms; if one cannot have steak, it is comforting to like hamburger equally well. As the March Hare observed, “I like what I have is the same as I have what I like.” However, the example of displaced anger illustrates a situation which, if often repeated, could cause serious complications in the person’s life. Conscious acceptance of a substitute with full recognition that it is a substitute for something one wants is an analog of displacement.

Dissociation:

Splitting-off a group of thoughts or activities from the main portion of consciousness; compartmentalization. Example: a politician works vigorously for integrity in government, but at the same time engages in a business venture involving a conflict of interest without being consciously hypocritical and seeing no connection between the two activities.

Some dissociation is helpful in keeping one portion of one’s life from interfering with another (e.g., not bringing problems home from the office). However, dissociation is responsible for some symptoms of mental illness; it occurs in “hysteria” (certain somatoform and dissociative disorders) and schizophrenia, The dissociation of hysteria involves a large segment of the consciousness while that in schizophrenia is of numerous small portions. The apparent splitting of affect from content often noted in schizophrenia is usually spoken of as dissociation of affect, though isolation might be a better term.

Fixation:

The cessation of the process of development of the personality at a stage short of complete and uniform mature independence is known as fixation.

Help-Rejecting Complaining:

The individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by complaining or making repetitious requests for help that disguise covert feelings or hostility or reproach toward others, which are then expressed by rejecting the suggestions, advice, or help that others offer. The complaints or requests may involve physical or psychological symptoms or life problems.

Humor:

The individual deals with emotional conflict or external stressors by emphasizing the amusing or ironic aspects of the conflict or stressors.

Idealization:

Overestimation of the desirable qualities and underestimation of the limitations of a desired object. Examples: (1) a lover speaks in glowing terms of the beauty and intelligence of an average-looking woman who is not very bright. (2) a purchaser, having finally decided between two items, expounds upon the advantages of the one chosen.

Identification:

Similar to introjection, but of less intensity and completeness. The unconscious modeling of one’s self upon another person. One may also identify with values and attitudes of a group. Examples: (1) without being aware that he is copying his teacher, a resident physician assumes a similar mode of dress and manner with patients. (2) a school girl wants her mother to buy her the same kind of shoes her classmates are wearing; she angrily rejects the idea that she is trying to be like the other girls and insists that the shoes are truly the best available and are the style she has always wanted. Conscious analogs of identification are intentional imitation of others and volitional efforts to conform to a group.

Incorporation:

The assimilation of the object into one’s own ego and/or superego. This is one of the earliest mechanisms utilized. The parent becomes almost literally a part of the child. Parental values, preferences, and attitudes are acquired.

Intellectualization:

The individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by the excessive use of abstract thinking or the making of generalizations to control or minimize disturbing feelings.

Introjection:

The process of assimilation of the picture of an object (as the individual conceives the object to be). For example, when a person becomes depressed due to the loss of a loved one, his feelings are directed to the mental image he possesses of the loved one.

Isolation:

The splitting-off of the emotional components from a thought. Example: a medical student dissects a cadaver without being disturbed by thoughts of death. Isolation may be temporary (affect postponement). Example: a bank teller appears calm and cool while frustrating a robbery but afterward is tearful and tremulous.

The mechanism of isolation is commonly over utilized by obsessive compulsives.

Omnipotence:

The individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by feeling or acting as if he or she possesses special powers or abilities and is superior to others.

Passive Aggression:

The individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by indirectly and unassertively expressing aggression toward others. There is a facade of overt compliance masking covert resistance, resentment, or hostility. Passive aggression often occurs in response to demands for independent action or performance or the lack of gratification of dependent wishes but may be adaptive for individuals in subordinate positions who have no other way to express assertiveness more avertly.

Projection:

Attributing one’s thoughts or impulses to another person. In common use, this is limited to unacceptable or undesirable impulses. Examples: (1) a man, unable to accept that he has competitive or hostile feelings about an acquaintance, says, “He doesn’t like me.” (2) a woman, denying to herself that she has sexual feelings about a co-worker, accuses him, without basis, of flirt and described him as a “wolf.”

This defense mechanism is commonly over utilized by the paranoid.

A broader definition of projection includes certain operations that allow for empathy and understanding of others. Recognition that another person is lonely or sad may be based not upon having seen other examples of loneliness or sadness and learning the outward manifestations but upon having experienced the feelings and recognizing automatically that another person’s situation would evoke them. [projective identification]

Projective Identification:

As in projection, the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by falsely attributing to another his or her own unacceptable feelings, impulses, or thoughts. Unlike simple projection, the individual does not fully disavow what is projected. Instead, the individual remains aware of his or her own affects or impulses but mis-attributes them as justifiable reactions to the other person. Not infrequently, the individual induces the very feelings in others that were first mistakenly believed to be there, making it difficult to clarify who did what to whom first. [projection]

Rationalization:

Offering a socially acceptable and apparently more or less logical explanation for an act or decision actually produced by unconscious impulses. The person rationalizing is not intentionally inventing a story to fool someone else, but instead is misleading self as well as the listener. Examples: (1) a man buys a new car, having convinced himself that his older car won’t make it through the winter. (2) a woman with a closet full of dresses buys a new one because she doesn’t have anything to wear.

Reaction Formation:

Going to the opposite extreme; overcompensation for unacceptable impulses.Examples: (1) a man violently dislikes an employee; without being aware of doing so, he “bends overbackwards” to not criticize the employee and gives him special privileges and advances. (2) a person with strong antisocial impulses leads a crusade against vice. (3) a married woman who is disturbed by feeling attracted to one of her husband’s friends treats him rudely.

Intentional efforts to compensate for conscious dislikes and prejudices are sometimes analogous to this mechanism.

Regression:

By another anxiety-evading mechanism known as regression, the personality may suffer a loss of some of the development already attained and may revert to a lower level of adaptation and expression.

Repression:

The involuntary exclusion of a painful or conflictual thought, impulse, or memory from awareness. This is the primary ego defense mechanism; others reinforce it.

Resistance:

This defense mechanism produces a deep-seated opposition to the bringing of repressed (unconscious) data to awareness. Through its operation, the individual seeks to avoid memories or insights which would arouse anxiety.

Restitution:

The mechanism of relieving the mind of a load of guilt by making up or reparation (paying up with interest).

Self-Assertion:

The individual deals with emotional conflict or stressors by expressing his or her feelings and thoughts directly in a way that is not coercive or manipulative.

Somatization:

Conflicts are represented by physical symptoms involving parts of the body innervated by the sympathetic and parasympathetic system. Example: a highly competitive and aggressive person, whose life situation requires that such behavior be restricted, develops hypertension.

Splitting:

This term is widely used today to explain the coexistence within the ego of contradictory states, representative of self and others, as well as attitudes to self and others; other individuals or the self is perceived as “All good or all bad.

Sublimation:

Attenuating the force of an instinctual drive by using the energy in other, usually constructive activities. This definition implies acceptance of the Libido Theory; the examples do not require it. Sublimation is often combined with other mechanisms, among them aim inhibition, displacement, and symbolization. Examples: (1) a man who is dissatisfied with his sex life but who has not stepped out on his wife becomes very busy repairing his house while his wife is out of town. Thus, he has no time for social activities. (2) a woman is forced to undertake a restrictive diet; she becomes interested in painting and does a number of still life pictures, most of which include fruit.

The conscious use of work or hobbies to divert one’s thoughts from a problem or from a rejected wish is an analog of this. Sublimation is often a desirable mechanism. However, the consequences may, in addition to preventing instinctual satisfaction, interfere with the person’s life in other ways if disproportionate time, money, or effort is used in the activity.

Substitution:

Through this defense mechanism, the individual secures alternative or substitutive gratification comparable to those that would have been employed had frustration not occurred.

Suppression:

Usually fisted as an ego defense mechanism but actually the conscious analog of repression; intentional exclusion of material from consciousness. At times, suppression may lead to subsequent repression. Examples: (1) a young man at work finds that he is letting thoughts about a date that evening interfere with his duties; he decides not to think about plans for the evening until he leaves work. (2) a student goes on vacation worried that she may be failing; she decides not to spoil her holiday by thinking of school. (3) a woman makes an embarrassing faux pas at a party; she makes an effort to forget all about it.

In the first example, suppression was probably a desirable mechanism since it permitted concentration on work and deferred dealing with plans for the evening until a more appropriate time. In the second instance, suppression would have been undesirable if failing work could have been corrected during vacation or if a realistic appraisal of probable consequences of the school situation would have permitted battery planning.

Symbolization:

An object or act represents a complex group of objects and acts, some of which may be conflictual or unacceptable to the ego; objects or acts stand for a repressed desire. Examples: (1) a soldier, when asked why he volunteered, he said, “To defend the flag.” He rejects as irrelevant a question about the purpose of the war. (2) a boy asks for a girl’s hand (in marriage).

As in the second illustration, symbolization is often combined with displacement. it is one of the mechanisms usually involved in phobias. [avoidance] [displacement]

Undoing:

An act or communication which partially negates a previous one. Examples: (1) two close friends have a violent argument; when they next meet, each act as if the disagreement had never occurred. (2) when asked to recommend a friend for a job, a man makes derogatory comments which prevent the friend’s getting the position; a few days later, the man drops in to see his friend and brings him a small gift.

In a conscious analog of this, Napoleon made it a practice after reprimanding any officer to find some words of praise to say at their next meeting.