The 4.2 Autological-Violet Stage

An Investigation in its Scope and Nature through Developmental Psychology and an Archeology of Spirit

General Considerations before Reading

The 4.2 Autological-Violet Stage – The Self-Differentiating Divine Intuitive Mind

The following stage description might be overwhelmingly complex however, it is no artificial creating of complexity but only representative of the respective complexity mind has reached at this stage. It is the consequence of integrating purely abstract observation with the self-description people at this altitude offer of their body, life, and mind, within their growing awareness of the absolute.

It is an attempt to resolve the paradox of map and territory that lies therein that an abstract description, through its seeming simplicity, can give us the feeling of understanding, but factually leaves us merely blind through superficiality. Simultaneously, remarks and quotes of the territory, through their individuality and the longing for transfer of abstraction, might easily give us the feeling of incomprehensibility – though the only way to understand and later apply the abstractions correctly.

Therefore consider the aspect of territory that is delivered through numerous quotes, too, as a transmission. Even if mental understanding seems unobtainable, each quote will suck you into the mind of someone at this stage. This can deeply reshape your inner understanding of development and nurture the very connection to this stage within yourself – without mental comprehension.

My attempt here, of course, might misrepresent some of the thinkers I mention, please forgive me.

Too, you might for better understanding consider to read the introduction into The Model of Homeostatic Hierarchical Integration through Communicative Action as well as The Farther Reaches of Human Development, where foundational considerations about these later stages in relation to other models are elucidated; since this essay draws on the description of the earlier stage, you might read the 3.4 Discoursive-Stageand the 4.1 Consensus-Aware Stage, too.

An Experimental Archeological Investigation into

The 4.2 Autological-Violet Stage – The Self-Differentiating Divine Intuitive Mind

Wilber

Angerer Aurobindo 1920

The Gradations of the Supermind

Aurobindo 1940

The Ascent towards Supermind

Aurobindo 1950

The Supramental Manifestation upon Earth

Turquoise

3.4 Discoursive Intuitive Mind Higher Mind
Indigo 4.1 Consensus-Aware Divine Reason as luminous Supermind Illumined Mind
Violet 4.2 Autological Supermind as Ishwara Intuitive Mind
Ultra-Violet 4.3 Cosmotheantric Overmind
Supermind
Clear Light 4.4 Co-Gnostic

Supermind

The Self-Differentiating Divine

Terri O`Fallon (2010a, p.68), in the Evolution of the Human Soul, writes that after the Illumined Mind a “Dark Night of the Self arises: a crashing clarity, seeing the causal ego, and the discovery of the illusion of the distinction-making, perspective-taking mind itself, the mind that all along has constructed this gross, subtle, and causal self”. This would mean that the respective being, essence, and ideas of the overall organizing principle of a spirit that is self-generating theses layers of self, world, and cultures is consciously recognizing its habituation to a past mode of differentiation while starting to objectivity the self-thematization of its own gross perceptual 4.1 Consensus-Aware stage. However, the Model of Homeostatic Hierarchical Integration does not put another awakening or dark night at this transition from the Illumined to the Intuitive Mind, but only the replacement of the homeostatic function of differentiation, as it arose with the 3.2 Conscientious-Orange Altitude, through a higher spiritualized iteration. It is now superseded by what Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1993, p.178) in his Lectures on the philosophy of Religion described as the God that is “consciousness itself, distinguishing itself in itself, and being consciousness as this distinguishing itself in itself”. Accordingly, when the legacy of the mental differentiation vanishes a new negative transformation and inversion of the identical transformation appears simultaneously. This time, as a product of Fourthness, the Layer of Spirit and absolute Truth. Therefore, it is no longer Aristotle’s difference or Plato`s dialectical reasoning as it appeared in the mental sphere, rather an in and out of itself self-differentiating consciousness which is sometimes referred to as god or the divine “as consciousness that gives itself as object for what we call the side of consciousness” (ibid. p.178).

Despite lacking the characteristic of a Dark Night, like each stage, the 4.2 Autological comes with its new challenges. Niklas Luhmann (1988, p.29) illustrates them in his essay on Recognition as Construction as a conversion, which “leads Epistemology towards the radically constructivist thesis, that recognition is only possible, if and because systems operationally close themselves on all levels of differentiating and designation and by this become indifferent against that which than is excluded as environment”. The self here recognizes itself outside of the identity of the 4.1 Consensus-Aware Observer and, as Hegel (1993, p.178) pinpoints, thus we no longer have one moment of fourthness but “already two moments [of spirit], consciousness and absolute being”. Ken Wilber (2018, p.225), too, describes this inner division, when he states that “the meta-mind works primarily with cognition of feeling-awareness, which is capable of focusing on the timeless now for certain stretches, while also capable of tracking long reaches of historical, or evolutionary, time”, where this reaching out is due to a meta aspect, that accompanies the feeling-awareness – so, again, at this layer, we step out of the processual “here and now” perspective of the a prior of time that is typical for each first stage within a layer. By this we open up to space that is able as self-sense to apprehend the temporal stream of phenomena one was identical with at the earlier 4.1 Consensus-Aware Stage and bring them into coherent stories. Using O`Fallon (2020, p.22) being self-expressive of this stage within her article on States and STAGES: Waking up Developmentally one can see four dimensions of time, space, the phenomena within time and the self that is space expressed in her autological idea of awakening, which “can occur any time after one has experienced the necessary developmental forms of concrete phenomena, space, self, and time. However, full awakening”, so she continues “would include the interpenetration of all possible vantage points along with all the developmental stages that have thus far evolved in humanity” (ibid. p.22). According to Wilber (2018, p.225) this form of awakening at this stage as “being able to embrace, or ‘include,’ these previous levels in its feeling-awareness […] going  all the way back to the big bang” seems to be due to the combination of phenomena and self where these previous levels are hold in one`s “feeling awareness, As if the erotic process of transcend and include has gone on for so long that both the ‘transcend’ part [, which is the inverse transformation of each second stage, the agentic sense of self and space,] seen in the ‘meta’ aspect, and the ‘include’ part [, which is the identical transformation of each first stage, the adaptative sense of phenomenal being and time,] seen in the ‘feeling’, or ‘immediate touch,’ aspect, have both become nearly superhuman”.

Luhmann in embracing this split within fourthness, that between self and phenomena as well as time and space, sounds almost like Hegel, when he says that recognition then becomes theological, even if only in the sense of using mysticism metaphorically to grasp the new complexity; namely, he states, “objects, though in their being unrecognizable, are created as ‘contraction’ of god and therefore as distinguishable, as the manner in which god makes himself visible in its invisibility” (Luhmann 1988, p.19). Thus, as much as “truth,” for him, is “finally unrecognizable, it exists for humans in the accordance of their distinction with being objects” (ibid. p.19) – a immediate oneness through feeling or envisioning as awareness itself. Luhmann (2018, p.1135) positions that within this perspective, though it is differentiation, there is basically only oneness, but this unity, “the world, the society is as condition of the possibility to differentiate identical for each observer – and not identical, insofar that depending on the distinction from which one proceeds, oneness gets divided differently and thus becomes a unique […] masking and unfolding of the paradox of unity”, that is a constant process of self-differentiation, self-division, self-fragmentation, and thus self-complexification of society or the divine through observers – a process which he called autological.

Self-Absorption or Intimate Generativity

However, as much as Luhmann envisions conscious discernment and thus taking on the role of god as necessary, since the ceasing of self-description and self-observation would mean that we “as recognizing systems, would constantly dissolve into our environment and recognition would be made impossible” (Luhmann 1988, p.29), there is a second side to this stage, too. While Luhmann (1988, p.24) insists on the necessity of “projecting differences into a world that knows no distinctions” one, too, at this stage can try to escape this and head towards that which is “apart from and always prior to the egoically ‘self’-projected idea and pattern of ‘difference’”, so Adi Da Samraj (2019, p.188) in Not-Two is Peace – a perspective wherefrom “the world is a seamless whole, intrinsically characterized by a universal state and pattern of prior unity” (ibid. p.188). For Adi Da (2019, p.190) at the 4.2 Autological Stage the goal is the attainment of “Zero-point” consciousness through an education that “is the intensive and constant whole bodily or total psycho-physical life-process of intrinsically, always priorly, tacitly, and constantly ‘locating’ and knowing intrinsic egolessness at the root of attention itself and of awareness itself and on that constant, tacit basis constantly or always presently apprehending the self-evident prior unity of the world and of even all that arises to attention itself” (ibid. p.190).

Though, for Adi Da (2019, p.224), at this stage, no bliss or peace can be derived from “any continuation of the pattern of oppositions”, but only from prior unity, one might rather see this in light of an iteration of Eric Erikson’s (1982, p.67) extreme of self-absorption at the 3.2 Conscientious Orange altitude – the antithesis to healthy generativity that “encompasses procreativity, productivity, and creativity, and thus the generation of new beings as well as of new products and new ideas, including a kind of self-generation concerned with further identity development”. Factually, Ken Wilber (2018, p.376) in the Religion of Tomorrow sates that at this Violet Meta-Mind altitude people, if tending towards the heavenly side of the stage might end up in a “total rejection of conventional culture and virtually all one`s conventional relationships, which may be connected with a drive to vocally, vehemently, and outspokenly criticize present-day culture […] [as well as] withdrawn, distanced, pathologically detached ‘witnessing’ shorn of affects or feelings entirely”; again, this is reminding of what O`Fallon (2020, p.30) might ascribe to the 6.5 Illumined Stage that sometimes “confuses witnessing as a location with non-dual awakening”.

Therefore, it is not surprising, that, though one might think that O`Fallon (2010) reflected on her own growth into the Intuitive Mind, i.e., the 4.2 Autological Stage, and the disappearance of the distinction making mind, she, in her later writing, basically writes constantly about differences again. In her article The Senses: Demystifying Awakening she respectively writes that “the senses will be defined as any channel through which distinctions are made, from prehension (concrete matter), to sensation (subtle life) to awareness (mind)” (O`Fallon 2013, p.2). For her “the three worlds of matter, the animal and plant world, and the human world of mind, would not exist as we know them” (ibid. p.2) if we had not our capacity for “the discernment of distinctions […] [through which] perspectives arise all along this continuum” (ibid. p.2) – so, one might say she projects the self-differentiation that Hegel or Luhmann projected on God into the Senses. Likewise, Aurobindo (1918a, p.81) in his autological phase references the ability for discernment and its necessity and inherent bliss, when he brings onto paper that “if we ask why this creation of opposites, this nescience and ignorance with all its untoward results, we answer that this arises necessarily from the power of the impulse of differentiation to go to its utmost extremes, the consequent will in spirit to realize them and its capacity of absorbed concentration in what it does and creates in itself”. He continues that there seems to be “a delight of self-limitation with all infinity behind, of self-forgetfulness with all self-discovery in front, of struggle and labor with all self-conquest above; Division gives the joy of union” (ibid. p.81). Maybe Erikson (1982, p.69) would say, that we don`t need to fall into a violet form of pseudospeciation at this stage, “that is, the conviction that another type or group of persons are, by nature, history, or divine will, a species different from one`s own – and dangerous to mankind itself”. Much more, we must sustain intimacy. This means to be cautious of automatically moving from differences and the wholes they generate towards a sense of resentment, antagonism, or hostility rather encompass oppositions bestowed with spirit`s own ability for reconciliation. By this we might become a movement that then descends into and magnifies the splendor of the early layers of firstness, secondness, and thirdness within their newly gained transparency; and in there would be likewise an ascend towards truth and completion within their fourth – the “higher perfection”, so Aurobindo (1918a, p.80), that man can attain “by increasing in himself the power and nature of the supermind, by growing into the gnosis he is able to govern entirely and transmute the mental, vital, and physical by the spiritual being”.

Henceforth, despite Adi Da Samraj`s (2019, p.269f) representation, that “only ‘Perfect Knowledge’ of the Intrinsically egoless, Indivisible, Acausal, Transcendental Spiritual, and Self- Evidently Divine Self-Nature, Self-Condition, and Self-State of Reality Itself Is the Free and all-and-All-Liberating Truth of all-and-All” – the end of all distinctions and differences, including any sense of uniqueness and thus chance for intimacy – can bring us peace, Aurobindo (1918b, p.752) writes in the summary and conclusion of The Ideal of Human Unity that there is a real diversity within that brings bliss: “A spiritual oneness which would create a psychological oneness not dependent upon any intellectual or outward uniformity and compel a oneness of life not bound up with its mechanical means of unification, but ready always to enrich its secure unity by a free inner variation and a freely varied outer self-expression, this would be the basis for a higher type of human existence”. Similarly, Wilber (1997) even if sometimes tending more towards the absolute and zero-point side of this stage, marks in The Eye of Spirit the outcome of the active, second quarter phase within this stage not only as zero point awareness, but sees a “variety of superordinary forms” (Wilber 1997, p.297) and unique expressions of an enlightened state, that at this stage resides as the natural wakeful condition: as “you rest in primordial awareness, that awareness begins to saturate your being, and from the stream of consciousness a new destiny is resurrected” (ibid. p.296) – more explicitly “your entire bodymind will regenerate, resurrect, and reorganized itself around intrinsic Spirit, and you will arise, as from the dead, to a […] new duty in consciousness” (ibid. p.296) that might embody a multitude of different and specific traits generally ascribed to enlightenment.

The View from Above

More reflexively stated, the cognition at the 4.2 Autological Stage “can perform all the action of reason—including the function of logical intelligence, which is to work out the right relation of things and the right relation of idea with idea – but by its own superior process and with steps that do not fail or falter”, so Aurobindo (2005, p.984) in The Life Divine. “It takes up also and transforms into its own substance not only the mind of thought, but the heart and life and the sense and physical consciousness” (ibid. p.984), so he continues and adds in The Synthesis of Yoga, that this higher version of the intellect can be called intuitive reason as it „includes luminous insight and discrimination [that] can do the work of the reason with a higher power, a swifter action, a greater and spontaneous certitude” (Aurobindo 2006, p.477) and becomes. However, as he continuous the though process at this stage “is not an entirely separative difference and does not bring an excluding idea of the thing observed as completely not self, as in the mental seeing of an external object” (ibid. p.857) but “there is always a basic feeling of oneness with the thing known, for without this oneness there can be no supramental knowledge. The knower carrying the object in his universalized self of consciousness as a thing held before his station of witness vision includes it in his own wider being” (ibid. p.857). As already mentioned, Wilber (2018, p.226) here most probably locates his Violet Meta-Mind, that includes differentiation as exactly this “feeling-awareness of ‘felt Wholes’” that Aurobindo describes – “where thinking proceeds immediate felt Whole by immediate felt Whole by immediate felt Whole, delivering up, at any moment of direct attention, the particular ‘Wholeness’ being discerned at the point in the scan” (ibid. p.226). This formulation seems reminiscent of Hegel’s (2011, §555) conception of truth at the 4.2 Autological Stage where “the subjective consciousness of the absolute spirit is essentially and intrinsically a process, the immediate and substantial unity of which is the belief in the witness of the spirit as the certainty of objective truth. Belief, at once this immediate unity and containing it as a reciprocal dependence of these different terms” namely, the witnessing spirit and the certainty of objective truth, “has in devotion passed over into the process of superseding the contrast till it becomes spiritual liberation, the process of authenticating that first certainty by this intermediation, and of gaining its concrete determination, that is to say reconciliation, the actuality of the spirit” (ibid. §555).

The Paradox of Oneness/Difference

However, with this divine or all-too-human ability to distinguish within unity, to have a sense of the wholeness and unity of a thing with oneself, comes the paradox that within the undivided and undistinguished sense of oneness, the most diverse differentiations and sensations of the whole can be accessible to the different and most diverse observers. For Luhmann (2000, p.384), this means, first, to consciously hold “the constitutive difference of the self-observable system from the unmarked space”, the space of a different observer and the dimensions of unity, which are not attributed to the actual identity established as one’s own, “from which it must exclude itself in order to designate itself and to be able to distinguish between self-reference and foreign reference”; second, to understand “the special problem of the inclusion of the systems in what is happening for them on the one hand outside, on the other hand inside”, the performed functions of perception, differentiation, communication, and consciousness – the body, life, and mind within the absolute or adaptation, differentiation, and integration within the own self-thematization that arise differently within different autological experiences. Aurobindo (2006, p.857) expresses this when he says, “there is set up between the knower and the object of knowledge, as a result of this fundamental unity, a stream or bridge of conscious connection and as a consequence a contact or active union enabling one to see, feel, sense supramentally what is to be known in the object or about it”. Wilber (2018, p.378) might point to the failure of solving the difficulties and setting up a bridge when he says that the viewpoint at this stage “infused with a truly higher and wider meta-mental awareness that has access to truly higher and wider truths, but truths that are seen and prehended through broken, dysfunctional, and regressive processes”; by this a type of “fractured visionary prophecy” (ibid. p.377) arises which means “that the individual presents solutions that require every single man, women, and child on the face of the planet to learn the solutions that this individual presents” (ibid. p.377).

When looking at the iterative nature of development this difficulty is that of a new collaborative play as it is repeated at this violet level. But this time the collaboration happens neither through circular reactions nor through roles in the sandbox or careers in organizations, but rather between referenced senses of wholeness or distinctions within the essence of oneness that are synchronized, symmetrically arranged. In specific, this means that we begin to form unities, wholes, or paradoxes out of two different subjects or opposites – self-reference and other-reference, for example. By this one aspect is subordinate to the other and hold through our transcended 4.1 Consensus-Aware “feeling-awareness”, while the other, which subordinates, represents our genuine idea of what self or the divine oneness within a specific spatiotemporal movement of 4.2 Autological differentiation is. However, the sense of subordination at this stage, as we are now settled within spirit, is markedly decreased compared to that of the earlier layers: where the 1.2 Differentiating Stage had basically not even the recognition of a separate identity within an object that could have been subordinated, the 2.2 Opportunistic Stage had a clear sense of agency and difference that might had taken advantage over others, while the 3.2 Conscientious Stage saw the world through the lens of integration by means of meaning and thus subordinated both self and other under higher principles and paradigms. The 4.2 Autological Stage now basically subordinates through the form of equation and the sense of subordination is so subtle that it can sometimes be hardly perceived however, the “quintessence of self-description, the secret of its alchemy, is the unobservability of its own operation”, so Luhmann (2002, p.322) and therefore one can use his words to accentuate that at this stage “self-description refers to the code of a specific system, that is, to that distinction by which the system identifies itself and can assign operations according to belonging/not belonging” (ibid. p.322) – a formation of ideology that is completely invisible and undiscernible to the person at this stage, as it resides deeply within the structure of their witnessing spirit.

The First Half Autological Action

We can see this type of unfolding oneness, wholeness, or paradox in Wilber`s (1995, p.524) transition into autological writing in Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, when he witnesses the historical conflict of ascenders and descenders and muses, in the final lines of the book, about a collapse of both sides by stating that “there we stand now, at rationality, poised on the edge of trans-rational perception, a scientia visionis that is bringing here and there, but ever and ever more clearly, to all sorts of people in all sorts of places, powerful glimmers of a true Descent of the all-pervading World Soul” – evolution and involution meet each other however, evolution is expressed as reaching up to that trans-rational perception, thus earlier is still subordinate. However, this first quarter perspective is largely passive or mindful of the interplay between two sides of a oneness, wholeness, or paradox whereas the second quarter becomes more agentic and goal oriented with its differentiating movement. A mode of discerning wholeness that Wilber (1998, p.14) exemplifies in The Marriage of Sense and Soul when he attempts to integrate religion and science, when he reflects that “the essence of premodernity is the Great Chain of Being, and the essence of modernity is the differentiation of the value spheres of art, morals, and science. Thus, in order to integrate religion and science, we need to integrate the Great Chain with the differentiations of modernity”. As much as this unfolding of wholeness might remind of and be mistaken for the paradoxical reason of the 3.4 Discoursive Stage there is a difference to the degree of experience, that on can sense when Wilber (1998, pp.213f) finalizes the book with saying “that there are two enlightenments and two freedoms and when we join both political freedom joined with spiritual freedom, time joined with the timeless, space joined with infinity, well will come finally to rest, finally to peace, finally to a home that structures care into the Kosmos and compassion into the world, that touches each and every soul with grace and goodness and goodwill, and lights each being with a glory that never fades of falters”. The fact that the later autological stage now truly lives within the absolute and thus expresses the unity of oppositions from a different sense of oneness, the whole here are less dependent on stretching one’s mind than the paradoxical logic at the earlier stage, but leave a sense of wonder that replaces the early rational nature; there is no resolution purely in thought, but the consciousness itself becomes self-harmonizing and self-reconciling in its endeavor, it moves into a stillness which is permeated with informing visions and a self-energizing production of virtue as movement. John Kesler (2013, p.9) , from approximately this second quarter of the 4.2 Stage as well, in an Introduction to Integral Polarity Practice, describes the circular movement between still-points, that are the resolution of opposition, where “the virtues of becoming and doing arising out of each still point create a healthy and ethical context and spiritually sourced engagement for the functioning of the related polar energy and to a considerable extent define the quality of one’s presence and engagement in the moment. In another sense”, he says, and continues himself with the unfoldment of a unity between two poles, it is “the still point [that] represents the ascending evolutionary essence of an energy, and the virtues relate to the descended or involutionary engaged non-egoic, passionate and com-passionate manifestation of that energy and consciousness” (ibid. p.9).

Terri O`Fallon (2010b) in The Collapse of the Wilber Combs Matrix likewise unfolds a unity between seeming oppositions namely states and stages. However more interesting for us is the explications of the question of collaborative play she raises when she ponders “It might be that this is the incredible space of each person’s gross, subtle, causal and non-dual states, stages, floors, and worlds, as they intersect with others who are at different gross, subtle causal and non-dual states, stages floors and worlds, with these intersecting spaces evoking evolution in each other” – along with this, i.e. with the shifting of quantity and quality of an awareness and the in-formation contained in it, there is a conscious exchange of states from self to self at this level; one passes on aspects of the 4.1 Consensus-Aware Stage to others as identity possibilities for their absolute while one tries to hold categories or standardized processes of consciousness formation at the 4.2 Autological Stage. Like Wilber already depicted within the quote from The Marriage of Sense and Soul this naturally includes a unification of poles within firstness e.g., “time joined with the timeless”, within secondness e.g., “space joined with infinity”, and thirdness e.g., “political freedom joined with spiritual freedom”, to achieve the respective identity differentiated. Terri O`Fallon (2015, p.8) in her Three Pillars of Spiritual Awakening therefore recognizes this novel awakening when she summarizes that “it seems that each non-dual tradition has a primary focus on a particular set of […] three primordial polar pairs, bringing them into non-duality but none of them seems to clearly recognize the possibilities of Awakening and realization that might be derived from practices that bring all three primordial poles […] into a triadic non-duality for a full awakening” – namely the first, second, and third this time es “interior and exterior, insides and outsides, and the individual and collective” (ibid. p.8). When this unification is exemplified between two identities, we have to assume again the autological mind`s recognition that other observers are generating their own observations and thus “a number of people in a society form in realty in much higher, in ideality however in much smaller measure a oneness than table, chairs, sofa, carpet and mirror form the furnishing of a room or river, meadow, trees, house are a landscape or on a painting a picture”, so the German sociologist Georg Simmel in his Sociology, where he attempts to answer the question how society is possible. Only through the introduction of difference into unity, and a sense of separation that is uphold, such a thing as the movement from one ego and one side of a pole of body, life, and mind towards and into unity with the body, life, and mind of alter or another pole can occur within the mysterious workings of the fourth, even if this distinction might operate merely in the background and not determine or affect one`s unbroken sense of unity-consciousness. The invisibility of distinction so Simmel (2018, p. 53) is again a theological and mystical metaphor, as we found it within Luhmann`s writing, when he says that unities, e.g., “societies are buildings out of beings which can stand on both sides of it, inside and outside, […] by which society creates maybe the most conscious, at least the most general expression of an archetypical form of life: that the individual soul can never stand within a relationship while simultaneously being on the outside of it, that it is never put into a regime, which it is not opposed to at the same time”, and this seeming fact is analogical to the religious man, who “feels completely embraced by the divine being, as if it were just a pulsation of the life divine, its own substance is unreservedly, even in mystical undifferentiated-ness given into the absolute. However, to give this being-molten-into any meaning after all, it has somehow to sustain its separateness […]. The oneness is in its meaning de-pendent on the otherness of god” (ibid. p. 53).

This standing on the outside at this stage, that Simmel thematizes, while being in the inside at the same time upholds the subordinationistic mechanism of the negative transformation. Only when the integrative function of the 4.3 Cosmotheantric or Overmind Stage comes into play “the predominance of the centralizing [and subordinating] ego-sense is entirely subordinated [itself], lost in largeness of being and finally abolished”, so Aurobindo (2005, p.985). When this third within fourthness is established one easily can shift between the autological meta-mind of self and others and experience a dynamic interplay of hierarchy that lives within and gives rise to a “wide cosmic perception and feeling of a boundless universal self and movement” (ibid. p.985) that replaces our individual ideas of oneness or unity and the unfoldment of wholeness and paradox so that “many motions that were formerly ego-centric may still continue, but they occur as currents or ripples in the cosmic wideness” (ibid. p.985). However, before this higher iteration of the 1.3 Experimenting flow with the sensual world, the 2.3 Rule-Oriented timeless flow within a tribes counting-out-rhymes, and the 3.3 Integrative timeless, boundless or eternal and infinite flow derived from an archeological, genealogical, and hermeneutic process that easily becomes an ocean of fractals within awareness opens up into that timeless, boundless, and relationless cosmic experience, where time as eternity, space as infinity, and consciousness as all-unity start to appear as the diffusion and dispersion of body, life, and mind and their respective beings, essences, and ideas as the transformations of a cosmic perception, agency, and ideation which is the vast interplay of a certain moment`s total extend, we have to stick to our own autological process of observing observations and their respective identities. Specifically, this means, when using Simmel`s (2018, p.48) words, that others are “torn out of the complete uniqueness of a personality”, and we form an image of them by transference, projection, or so-called transmission within our feeling-awareness that alienates itself from our spirit towards others, “which is not identical with their reality, but is nevertheless not a general type, but rather the image which they would show if they were, so to speak, entirely the itself of this image, if they realized, for better or for worse, the ideal possibility which is in every man” (ibid. pp.48f) – a specific state which we have defined as this ideal and at this violet altitude might impose on each and every identity. It might appear from a more distanced perspective, so Simmel (2018, p.61), that “the individual nothing other than a vessel in which previously existing elements mix in varying degrees” while the wholeness that comes to them from the outside “gives, as a fundamental category, to the consciousness of the individual the form that designates it a social element” (ibid. p.61). Only at the next stage we move into a conscious experience where we are set up in a way to recognize that “we human beings, as other natural systems, receive and decode the cosmic hologram. [That] in the internal perspective we are elements in the flow of sensations that constitutes our consciousness, while in the perspective of the external observer we are in-formed clusters of vibration” like Ervin Laszlo (2017, p.65) expresses in a seemingly first Quarter 4.3 Cosmotheantric perspective. A new third then “the intelligence of the cosmos, acts on, ‘in-forms,’ our universe as a beyond-spacetime [and beyond the first and second of fourthness] hologram. It in-forms the clusters of vibration that are the matter-like entities of the universe through the laws of nature, and it in-forms the clusters that appear as the universe’s mind-like entities through the consciousness associated with the complex clusters we call living beings” (ibid. p.65).

Managing Patterns of Fourthness

But now back to the essence of the quoted Simmel: when we consider him and his idea of man interacting with ideal categories, Adi DA Samraj`s (2009, p.1164) words from The Aletheon that “the apparent ‘experiential’ circumstance of human life is a ‘cause and effect’-driven field of universally self-originating and self-organizing patterns” ring true as descriptive for the autological violet altitude, and “therefore, human destiny can – and, indeed, should – be a process of responsible participation in right pattern management” (ibid. p.1164). Next to the unfolding of wholeness across oppositions throughout the series of body, life, and mind, by means of manipulating or tuning into the identity aspect of spirit, the recognition of seeming universal patterns is one of the hallmarks of this stage as well. An impressive example is John Kesler`s (2014) Integral Polarity Practice where the “patterns for working with any polarity are identical, these same patterns can be applied to the endless polarities we experience in life in addition to the primary developmental polarities – in the process of waking up, growing up and becoming more integrated and effective in the world” (Nowland 2020, p.459). Most prominent however, at the Intuitive Mind stage is the shift from mainly thinking about triplicities towards thinking about quadruplicities. The view turns away from seeing a genuine trinity of body, life, and mind, which started at the second stage of thirdness, e.g., expressed in the 3.2 Conscientious Christian worldview of the church fathers, and turns towards the invention of genuine quadruplicities. As Hegel (2010, p.746) writes in The Science of Logic there is a recognition that dialectics as thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, in its “abstract form, may also be taken to be a quadruplicity”. Differently said, the “three great domains – the Big Three – are especially the domains of empirical science, morality, and art” become the four Quadrants within Wilber`s (1995, p.390) Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, while Aurobindo (2005, p.281) writes in The Sevenfold Chord of Being about the fourth name without which “infinite Existence, Consciousness and Bliss need not throw themselves out into apparent being at all or, doing so, it would not be cosmic being, but simply an infinity of figures without fixed order or relation”; it is only through Supermind, this fourth term “of the divine Gnosis [that], fixes determined relations, develops the result out of the seed, rolls out the mighty rhythms of cosmic Law and views and governs the worlds as their immortal and infinite Seer and Ruler” (ibid. p.281) – which can be roughly considered as the lower left quadrant or the interior of systems right besides and above the integrative function of thirdness. Another example would be Ervin Laszlo when he shifts from the trinity of sub-organic, organic, and supra-organic in his 4.1 Consensus-Aware Systemsview of the World “where the human being is a module in the multilevel structure that arose on earth as a result of nature`s penchant for building up in one place what it takes down in another” (Laszlo 2002, p. 60) to the search for the integral science that would unify our understanding [of the quadruplicity] of “Quantum, Cosmos, Life, and Consciousness” (Laszlo 2003, p.4) in his The Connectivity Hypothesis. However, as signifying this complexification from genuine thirdness to genuine fourthness presented here is, it, too and again, makes it easy to mistake the 3.4 Discoursive Stage for this later stage, since both have paradox and quadruplicity in common, and especially the second half of the developmentally earlier stage becomes quite reflective of fourthness within the layer of mind and meaningful ideas; the early 3.4 Discoursive Stage as well as the late 3.3 Integrative Stage in dealing and objectifying genuine thirdness, correspondingly, can be easily mistaken for the 4.1 Consensus-Aware person since all three focus on body, life, and mind with an implicit fourth – however, the earlier late teal and early turquoise altitude person tends to use the self-thematization of thirdness and expresses a triadic grammar of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis – plus reflecting predominantly on time/eternity/timelessness and space/infinity/boundlessness, firstness and secondness, from a transcendental apperception – while the later indigo altitude person tends to use the identical transformation of spirit, thus expressing quadruplicate grammar including an observer; this observers then is apprehensive of modifications of two sides of a unity through difference as well as reflections within a new temporality that might be timeless or eternal including the ability to objectify all three time, space, and consciousness with their respective full and empty expressions throughout the twelve stages within firstness, secondness, and thirdness.

Again, these quadruplicate patterns, as the “self-description of society”, hence unity, as Luhmann (2018, p.1138) calls his quadruplicate scheme in The Society of Society, might here be most easily understood by seeing them through the analogy of theology or mysticisms. Wilber (1995, p.522), for example, asks, again the four quadrants whether we can see “that Spirit always manifests in all four quadrants equally? Is not Spirit here and now in all its radiant glory, eternally present as every I and every We and every It?” while Ervin Laszlo (2004, p.163) in Science and the Akashic Field gives expression to “a vision that is imaginative but not imaginary: the feeling-portrait of the universe that is now emerging at the frontiers of the sciences” – which again includes the idea of everything being nothing but the divine: “The cosmic proto-consciousness that endowed the primeval plenum [before the big bang] with its universe-creative potentials becomes a fully articulated cosmic consciousness – it becomes, and thenceforth eternally is, the self-realized mind of God” (ibid. p.167). It is therefore not surprising that Wilber (2018) in retrospect classifies this stage as drenched with deity mysticism. Consequently, he describes that “we find a union/communion/identity with Divine forms […] and tends to the ‘imaginal’ or ‘visionary’ as related to divine forms of felt Wholeness, moment to moment along with an ‘awareness of awareness” (Wilber 2018, p.227) when we enter into the violet Meta-Mind.

Second Half Visions from the Good

Within the conceptual framework of the Model of Homeostatic Hierarchical Integration as well, we find each second stage of a tier as well as the stages of secondness – from 2.1 Impulse-Aware Magenta-Red to 2.4 Conformist Amber – defined as the subtle, dreamlike, deity directed mystical state, before the third stages succeed our fantasies by the bliss and insight that is characteristic for the dreamless sleep state; a transcendental function of the overall mystery that gives all the meaning inherent within the connection of dream and object-world. Specifically, this means, that at this stage not only the aspect of awareness might be deified but also thought takes on a visionary character, that on the one hand is an expression of “light [that] is unmixed and therefore entirely and purely veridical, and its rays are not separated but connected or massed together in a play of waves of what might almost be called in the Sanskrit poetic figure a sea or mass of ‘stable lightnings’”, as Aurobindo (2005, p.983) describes the source of reasoning here as much as it is on the other hand communicated in the thoughtform of “networks of ‘ascended beings’” as Wilber (2018, p.379) calls them, which “are, in reality, the ascended aspects (meta-mental) of one`s own being and awareness, being viewed mythically and thus as ontologically real and separate individual beings” (ibid. p.379). It seems that especially the second half of this stage opens up to what we could call a third naivete. It is like what Paul Ricoeur (1967, p.348) in The Symbolism of Evil called a second one, “a creative interpretation of meaning, faithful to the impulsion, to the gift of meaning from the symbol, and faithful also to the philosopher’s oath to seek understanding” that comes from an “an awareness of myth as myth” (ibid. p.350). The witness or self of spirit becomes apprehensive of its own secondness, which means the spacelike nature within which the active process of drawing and combining differences or the stepping away from it appeared. One reconnects to an iteration of the impartial observer that becomes conscious of one’s habit of unfolding wholeness and stands within the almost imperceivable ambiguity between both sides, while again as Plato (1968, 508e) wrote in The Republic reconnecting to an iteration of “what provides the truth to the things known and gives the power to the one who knows, [which] is the idea of the good”, falls into place. It is as if the boundaries of the space weaken and become permeable to the play of truth that shines forth in brightest slight blue light and open the possibility for other observers to transfuse aspects of their own 4.2 Autological Stage or State to appear within that spirit of other – the form of thought takes on a magical touch where visions proceed from visions recombining into new forms that sprung from body, life, and mind of self and other, interrupted by bodyless moments where other dimensions and worlds communicate through one`s mind; the “unmarked space” gives birth to all that while the impartial observer holds the tension of that multiplicity of possibilities to resolve the interplay of self-reference and the references and thoughtforms of other – the function of this place “is simply to link knowledge with knowledge, to discover and utilize harmonies and arrangement and relations, to organize the movement of the supramental knowledge”, so Aurobindo (2006, p.861). When the Idea of the Good at this stage becomes true in the second half the “necessity of this stream or this bridge of connection”, that was necessary in the first half “ceases when the fundamental oneness becomes a complete active oneness”, so Aurobindo (2006, p.857). “A concentration, directing or dwelling of the consciousness” (ibid. p.858) takes over and “the luminous consciousness of the object and its contents becomes more spontaneous, normal, facile” (ibid. p.858).

Hegel (1895, p.165) in his Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion within the first half of the stage directly refers to Plato, when he says, “man learns nothing he remembers; the truth is something which man originally carries in himself”; there is “Spirit [that] bears witness to Spirit; […] a religious feeling” (ibid. p.165) and this “self-revelation in the Spirit […] is seen to be immediacy indeed, like all knowledge, but immediacy which likewise contains mediation in itself” (ibid. p.165) – there is a distinction quite present within spirit, whereas in the movement to the second half the relationship to that source of immediate knowledge becomes foregrounded, the relation to the good in and as itself. Namely, he starts to refer to a “sympathy, […], that the spirit, the mind pronounces it: ‘Yes, this is the truth’ – that sympathy is such an immediate certainty, which can be as firm for one man as thinking is for another; [it is] something so immediate, that it is precisely for this reason an established, given, positive, that just this immediacy is the form of the positive, not produced by the concept” (Hegel 1993, p.184). Likewise, Aurobindo (1920, p.6) in The Gradations of Supermind describes the experience in this second half as free of recollection or remembrance: the “the nature of a bright memory of some truth, a recognition of a secret of the self’s knowledge” that dominated earlier has been dissolved into a state of consciousness where “the one thing that is always and constantly present, that which one has grown to and in which one lives always, is infinite being and all that is seen, felt, known, existed in as only substance of the one being; it is infinite consciousness and all that is conscious and acts and moves is seen, felt, received, known, lived in as self-experience and energy of the one being; it is infinite Ananda and all that feels and is felt is seen and felt and known, received and lived in as forms of the one Ananda” (1920, p.14). The immediacy of experience and a sense of oneness with the divine aspect of spirit that actively transforms body, life, and mind, through the interplay of the 4.1 Consensus-Aware identical transformation and the own 4.2 Autological negative transformation moves “into a highest harmony with the high infinite and universal life of the spirit” – that which Plato (1968, 509 b) “not only provides what is seen with the power of being seen, but also with generation, growth, and nourishment although it itself isn’t generation”: the pure light and sun.

Too, in the second half of this stage an understanding gradually emerges of how these later stages are present all the way down the trajectory and how their influence proceeds. As Simmel (1913, p.V) writes in a book about Goethe that is meant to elucidate the spiritual meaning of this great poet’s life; by this he means “the relationship of Goethe’s way of being and expressions to the great categories of art and intellect, of practice and metaphysics, of nature and soul – and the developments these categories underwent through him”. He then shows by example of him how “the deep rooting of man’s individual reality in the cosmic and ideal” can be, so that “one only has to follow the impulse, the process of one`s subjective life growing out of oneself, in order to achieve the objectively right and deep, the artistically perfect, the ethically required; and [this unity might be] so comprehensive […] that all the self-control, self-education, and resignation required to bring about a result belongs to the very character and rhythm of one`s immediate, subjective life” (ibid. p224), that is connected to that truth that shines at the 4.2 Autological Stage and above. Like Luhmann (2002, p.77) writes in The Religion of Society with a center of gravity right there: “It comes to a re-entry of a code into a code to unveil and veil the difference between transcendence and immanence at the same time”. Immanence is viewed under its aspects of transcendence, “whereas immanence stands for the positive value of, for the value of compatibility of psychological and communicative operations, and transcendence is in the place of the negative value, wherefrom everything that happens can be seen as contingent” (ibid. p.77). Still, as pointed to before by example of Adi Da, there is a slight conflict of transcendent and immanent truth of heavenly and earthly orientation at this stage; some, like Hegel, might tend towards the immanent side e.g., when he writes that the transcendent needs for compatibility “the heart and feeling that directly feels the truth of religion which is not the heart and feeling of an animal, but of the thinking man, which is therefore a thinking heart and thinking feeling, and what is of religion in this heart and feeling is a thinking of this heart feeling” (Hegel 1993, p.184); while others opposingly, like Wilber (1999, p.370) in his movement towards the second half, which is described in his diary style book One Taste, might tend to the transcendent where “in the simple feeling of Being, worlds are born and die – they live and dance and sing a while and melt back into oblivion, and nothing ever really happens here, in the simple world of One Taste”. It is another depiction of the good at the third quarter of this stage that this time makes anything contingent and so “a thousand forms will come and go, a million worlds will rise and fall, a billion souls will love and laugh and languish fast and die, and One Taste alone will embrace them all” (ibid. p.370).

Navigating Dogmatic Tendencies

Basically, when we enter into that late 4.2 Autological Violet stage there seem to be two dominant options open to precede: like at the 3.2 Conscientious Stage we can start to self-thematize our modes of differentiation which slowly will give birth to a catechism, pointing the good student at how he or she errs in defining the right way to carve out the series of body, life, and mind with its unified oppositions out of the great mystery by means of the spirit, or we gradually open up to the experience of the “Good” and its dissolution an turn cosmic consciousness into a stage. Later perspective, like Ervin Laszlo (2008, p.182) in Quantum Shift in the Global Brain shows, begins in entering this second half and turning “our brain to enter into adaptive resonance with the hologram of other things and other people [which] means moving beyond today’s ego-bound and sense organ–limited consciousness to a wider transpersonal consciousness”, and then slowly move away from this individual trans-personalization of our consciousness into a collective state of supercoherence, a new mod of integration. There we are no longer only our witness spirit, that embraces the incoming forms of others as its own play or monologue, though open to others, but a complete dissolution of the divinely-made boundaries, to become investigated by “a deeper dimension beyond space and time […] [where] the connection, coherence, and coevolution we observe in the manifest world are [recognized as being] coded in the integral domain of that deeper dimension” (Laszlo 2014, p.7), that we become. A self-integrative function which is a field that “is universal and transmits information in the distributed mode of holograms, and the waves of the field are scalars that propagate quasi-instantly in space and do not attenuate in time, the transfer of information produces instant or quasi-instant interaction within and among quanta and quanta-based systems throughout the observable regions of space and time” (ibid. p.15) the becomes our new self. Too, Aurobindo (2006, p.858) in a chapter on the Supramental Thought Process describes three variations of this technique “the knower may project himself in consciousness on the object, feel his cognition in contact or enveloping or penetrating it and there, as it were in the object itself, become aware of what he has to know. Or he may by the contact become aware of that which is in it or belongs to it, as for example the thought or feeling of another, coming from it and entering into himself where he stands in his station of the witness. Or he may simply know in himself by a sort of supramental cognition in his own witness station without any such projection or entrance”. These variations of projection, introjection, or descending intimacy, then add to themselves a revelation of the third option, where the witness relaxes all its active or passive attempts to force its own sight and thought into the other or integrate the sight and thought, rather relaxes the witness into a field that then becomes the play of self-disclosure of other with the curiosity of spirit in self that blossoms the knowledge to become identity, and selfless, but the relationless play of forms as they ascend throughout body, life, and mind towards spirit too the gradually descend into their new modifications from spirit grown truth into the meaning, essence, and being of the separative spirit born flowers of humanity. Ken Wilber (2006a, p.12) in Excerpt B: The Many Ways we Touch formulates this meta-paradigmatic experience of the early 4.3 Cosmotheantric Ultra-Violet Overmind as “as a practice [that] enacts a new domain upon the individually-enacted paradigmatic domains, such that their individually-enacted phenomena overlap, their brought-forth horizons merge to some degree, and there is enacted upon the enacted phenomena – and accordingly there is brought forth, illumined, and most fundamentally disclosed – a new territory or domain of integral relationships”.

When we, on this path or instead of it, tend towards building a new dogma, we will focus more on the integration of falsehood, as it might appear in setting up the series of body, life, and mind – a movement that inherently seems to go against or moves away from the later cosmic consciousness with its pluralistic-integrative touch however, in its breakdown and shortcomings it will finally be the same recognition of multiplicity and diversity that are the engine to unfold and sustain the cosmic grooves that might appear to us as universals. Besides Wilber (2000, p.194) in Integral Psychology showing the errors of premodernity, modernity, and postmodernity to then present his dogma of “spirit-in-action differentiated itself into modes of the good and the true and the beautiful, as it continued its evolutionary play. And it is now the same spirit-in-action, starting to become collectively conscious of itself, that has initiated an era of integral embrace as it slowly binds together the fragments of a world that has forgotten how to care”, Adi Da (2019, p.268) in Not-Two is Peace proposes three principles which “comprise the right and true basis (and the right and true measure) for the correct (and, inevitably, intellectually liberating) evaluation of any and all possible propositions of philosophical import made (now, or in the future, or in any time)”. They include firstness as indivisibility, secondness as unity and non-difference, as well as thirdness being an “apparent individual psycho-physical entity [that] is Inherently non-separate from the world-unity” (ibid. p.267). Aurobindo (1921) likewise in his last Arya Journal issue and Towards the Supramental Time Vision where the errors of firstness as time within the mind that becomes confused or lost, when connecting with a timeless, can be overcome by the supramental consciousness “that is founded upon the supreme consciousness of the timeless Infinite, but has too the secret of the deployment of the infinite Energy in time” (Aurobindo 1921, p.290); too, the secondness as agency  within mind can be overcomes, that is by the “true mind which is the universal within us” (bid. p.292) either by “when the individual mind goes more and more inward and is always consciously or subconsciously near and sensitive to the touches of the universal mentality in which all is contained, received, capable of being made manifest, or […] when we live in the consciousness of universal mind with the personal mentality only as a projection, a marking board or a communicating switch on the surface” (ibid. p.292f); finally, to let go of any seeking one has to reach a “full openness to any and every communication from the supramental ranges” (ibid. p.293), so that the mental aspects of thirdness and the ordinary workings of one`s mind move into “a boundless light […] with a free capacity of illimitable extension of knowledge subject only to such limitations as are self-imposed for its own purposes and at its own will by the spirit” (ibid. p.293). In a letter after he wrote this last chapter on The Synthesis of Yoga Aurobindo (1972, p.182) confessed in a letter that he has “become confirmed in a perception which […] [he] had always, less clearly and dynamically then, but which has now become more and more evident to […] [him], that the true basis of work and life is the spiritual, that is to say, a new consciousness to be developed only by Yoga”. Another more recent example is given by O`Fallon (2020, p.29) when she describes developmental confusions across three tier “that seem to arise at the beginning of each developmental level and are resolved by the end of that level in order to achieve a mature developmental state stage that can turn those aspects back on themselves”. She therein defines in a mature fourth Quarter 4.2 Autological phrase seemingly already moving into self-relativization towards defining unity in a sequential but interpenetrative manner when she writes that “once you achieve an understanding of a full self, you can begin to see its formlessness/emptiness” and therefore “if you cannot apprehend a sense of the emptiness of objects until you have the capacity to identify objects; if you cannot apprehend the emptiness of self until you have a self; if you cannot apprehend an experience of the boundlessness of space until you first have a sense of boundaries/space; and if you cannot apprehend an experience of the timeless until you experience time, then it would seem that you must have a developmental experience of objects, self, the bounded, and time before you can transcend them into the understanding of formlessness/emptiness” (ibid. p.24). It seems to be a new resemblance of unification of two subjects like the Christian 3.2 Conscientious unification in the Chalcedon Confession given by the Church Fathers (451, p.1) more than 1500 years earlier, where “one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably” was imagined as well as that “the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ” (ibid. p.1). Wilber (2002, p.452), too, in his catechetical book Boomeritis: A Novel that Will Set You Free offers such a fourth quarter unification where one is resting as the infinite Witness of all the worlds that arise. An empty, dark, vast formless, yet intrinsically alive, infinitely wise, radiating a luminosity too subtle to see or even feel, an infinite release on the other side of terror, a radical freedom beyond the shores of pain, a bliss beyond bliss that cannot be felt and a light beyond light that cannot even be seen”.

However, these concepts are as any earlier stage determined to fail. Basically, as they have no own integrative function as it would arise from spirit but the still rely on the 3.3 Integrative`s Stage mechanisms for communion and collectivity. Like O`Fallon (2020, p.36) points out at the end of this 4.2 Autological Stage “in order to support a clear understanding, a set of definitions is required, and thus the next stage of this theory building is to define the words and concepts of ‘states, stages, and awakening/unification’ It is also important to note the trajectory of how states mature and grow and the areas they have in common with stages: phenomena, self, space, and time” – which means that unity works by interpretations and hermeneutics that generate better mental and meaningful definition. Too, Wilber (2001, p.36) in his A Theory of Everything can provide nothing but to say that “we need an integral vision, and we need an integral practice. The integral vision helps provide us with insight, and thus helps us overcome dissonance and face toward our own deeper and wider opening. And integral practice anchors all of these factors in a concrete manner, so that they do not remain merely abstract ideas and vague notions”, which is nothing but the autonomous self-actualization used to anchor and integrate higher stage insights. Aurobindo (2005, p.300) here speaks of the Overmind Maya, that anything before the cosmotheantric integrative experience naturally passes “from the cosmic Truth into the cosmic Ignorance”. The self-discerning god that we might experience at the autological stages is dependent on and descends down to a place, where “Mind separated acts as if it were an independent principle, and each mental being, each basic mental idea, power, force stands similarly on its separate self; if it communicates or combines with or contacts others, it is not with the catholic universality of the Overmind movement, on a basis of underlying oneness, but as independent units joining to form a separate constructed whole. It is by this movement that” (ibid. p.300).

Realizing the 4.3 Cosmotheantric Stage

Sri Aurobindo (2005 p.294) in Supermind, Mind and the Overmind Maya points toward a new mode if integration and form of autonomy and self-actualization, which can be completely acknowledged at the 4.3 Cosmotheantric Stage for the first time, when he inter alia writes that “in the Overmind each of these three conditions [– of body, life, and mind – ] could be a separate action or basis of action and have its own principle of development and consequences and yet each keep the power to combine with the others in a more composite harmony”. Cosmotheantric exactly means this ability of the self-incarnated cosmos within ourselves, to bring together and interweave our three earlier layers of consciousness and the play of contradictions, which we have carved out of the nothing whatsoever, the great mystery, the invisibility of the prior unity without any differences and distinctions, and the “Overmind thus gives to the One Existence-Consciousness-Bliss the character of a teaming of infinite possibilities which can be developed into a multitude of worlds or thrown together into one world in which the endlessly variable outcome of their play is the determinant of the creation, of its process, its course and its consequence” (ibid. p.295) – a new integration; each previous stage from the 3.3 Integrative on, that is, that of the autonomous man, tends to compare based on prioritized proceedings and interpretations of what unity of oppositions is more valuable than another. Accordingly, ideology arises that stretches along the spectrum of consciousness all the way up to the 4.2 Autological Stage, where it attempts to chisel the All-Unity in the infinity and eternity of the cosmic rainstorm into a single idea of “God Consciousness” within the earlier trinity of body, life, and mind, as the one and only true consciousness. A totalization, which causes a fragmentation and disintegrating of consciousness in-itself by the misguided for-itself-ness as self-delusion-autology of a tiny drop as the truth of each and anyone. This is a resemblance of the 3.2 Conscientious` tendency, which is that of the orange achiever altitude, to use 2.3 Rule-Oriented reasoning, hence concrete-operations both for consensus and comparison (e.g., governance through rules or concrete incentives like money, intelligence as derived from concrete visible behavior, organizations controlled through concrete operating numbers like process time and return on invest).

When finally moving into the 4.3 Overmind or Ultra-Violet altitude new forms of actualization arise and new modes of integration. Through recognizing a new mode of intersubjectivity, we start to recognize, as Simmel (1922, p.94) states in his Views of Life: our ideas become truth when “in a relativistic process the objective form and truth, norm and absoluteness, independent of the subjective truth, rises above the subjective psychological event”, which he calls “the tragedy of the spirit: that life is often sore at the formations which it has set out of certainty as rigidly objective, does not find access to them, does not meet the demands which it develops into their form from his own subjectivity form” (ibid. pp.94f) – and these truths are not single ones but the “Overmind in its descent reaches a line which divides the cosmic Truth from the cosmic Ignorance; it is the line at which it becomes possible for Consciousness-Force, emphasizing the separateness of each independent movement created by Overmind and hiding or darkening their unity, to divide Mind by an exclusive concentration from the overmental source” (Aurobindo 2005, p.300) which is an interplay of all divine self-differentiating moments on planet earth, an ongoing process within every human being irrespective of their stage, but an expression of the ever presence of enlightenment and cosmic consciousness without an realization of it whatsoever. Wilber (2006b, p.210) accordingly speaks of that subjectivity that turned into objectivity in another version within the Ultra-Violet altitude, of insides and outsides hold together by a third, which is a new form of spirit, that “finds itself exploding in its own superabundance, unfolding in its own evolutionary plenitude, a riotous development that is loving envelopment, an evolution of Spirit that spins off Kosmic memories of its own yesterday while laying down Kosmic habits as the foundation of its own tomorrow (don’t You remember?), so that with a Kosmic conveyor belt – a great and grand and glorious Spiritual elevator – religion has found its place in the modern and postmodern world”.

So, once we leave behind the 4.2 Autological and differentiating phase of spirit and fourthness our heartbeat that is a manifestation along its trajectory of body, life, and mind as it interplays from spirit born integration to spirit born integration is the heartbeat of all that “comprehends life as such, which constantly transcends the border towards its beyond and in this transcending has its own essence, the attempt to find the definition of life in general in this transcending, to hold on to the closedness of its form of individuality, but only so that it is broken through in a continuous process. Life finds its essence, its process in being more-life and more-than-life” as Simmel (1922, p.26) would say while Aurobindo (1972, pp.15f) joins in that it is The Mother which embraces life through itself, making everything one and the same heartbeat and flow, and “a time will come when you feel more and more that you are the instrument and not the worker. For first by the force of your devotion your contact with the Divine Mother will become so intimate that at all times you will have only to concentrate and to put everything into her hands to have her present guidance, her direct command or impulse, the sure indication of the thing to be done and the way to do it and the result. And afterwards you will realize that the divine Shakti not only inspires and guides, but initiates and carries out your works; all your movements are originated by her, all your powers are hers, mind, life and body are conscious and joyful instruments of her action, means for her play, molds for her manifestation in the physical universe. There can be no more happy condition than this union and dependence; for this step carries you back beyond the borderline from the life of stress and suffering in the ignorance into the truth of your spiritual being, into its deep peace and its intense Ananda”.

Resources

  • Aurobindo, S. (1918a). The Life Divine XLIX. The Metaphysical Basis of the Divine Life. Arya, 5(2), pp.65-81. Retrieved from https://www.aurobindo.ru/workings/sa/arya_05/5-02.djvu
  • Aurobindo, S. (1918b). The ideal of human Unity XXXV. Summary and Conclusion. Arya, 4(12), pp.744-752. Retrieved from https://www.aurobindo.ru/workings/sa/arya_04/4-12.djvu
  • Aurobindo, S. (1920). The Synthesis of Yoga LXIX. The Gradations of the Supermind. Arya, 7(1), pp.1-17. Retrieved from https://www.aurobindo.ru/workings/sa/arya_07/7-01.djvu
  • Aurobindo, S. (1972). Light to Superlight. Calcutta: Sri Krishna Prosad Ghosh from Prabartak Publishers.
  • Aurobindo, S. (1972). The Mother with Letters on the Mother and Translations of Prayers and Meditations. Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram.
  • Aurobindo, S. (2005). The life Divine. Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust.
  • Aurobindo, S. (2006). The Synthesis of Yoga. Pondicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust.
  • Church Fathers (451). Chalcedonian Creed. Retrieved from http://www.grbc.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/The-Chalcedon-Confession.pdf
  • Erikson, E. (1982). The life cycle completed: a review. London: W.W. Norton & Company.
  • Hegel, G. W. F. (1895). Lectures on the philosophy of religion, together with a work on the proofs of the existence of God (E. B. Speirs, & J. B. Sanderson, Trans.). London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., ltd.
  • Hegel, G. W. F. (1993). Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion [Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion]. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.
  • Hegel, G. W. F. (2010). The Science of Logic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hegel, G. W. F. (2011). Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften [Encyclopedia of philosophical Sciences]. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.
  • Kesler, J. (2014). Introduction to Integral Polarity Practice: An Awareness and Life Practice. Salt Lake City, UT: The IPP Institute.
  • Laszlo, E. (2002). The Systems View of the World. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.
  • Laszlo, E. (2003). The Connectivity Hypothesis: Foundations of an Integral Science of Quantum, Cosmos, Life, and Consciousness. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Laszlo, E. (2004). Science and the Akashic field: an integral theory of everything. Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions.
  • Laszlo, E. (2008). Quantum Shift in the Global Brain: How the New Scientific Reality Can Change Us and Our World. Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions/Bear & Company.
  • Laszlo, E. (2014). The Self-Actualizing Cosmos: The Akasha Revolution in Science and Human Consciousness. Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions/Bear & Company.
  • Laszlo, E. (2017). The Intelligence of the Cosmos. Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions.
  • Luhmann, N. (1988). Erkenntnis als Konstruktion [Recognition as Construction]. Salenstein: Benteli.
  • Luhmann, N. (2000). Organisation und Entscheidung [Organization and Decision]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
  • Luhmann, N. (2002). Die Religion der Gesellschaft [The Religion of Society]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
  • Luhmann, N. (2002b). Die Politik der Gesellschaft [The Politics of Society]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
  • Luhmann, N. (2018). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft 2 [Theory of Society 2]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
  • Nowland, T. (2020). Exploring Integral Polarity Practice, in relationship with the STAGES Matrix. Integral Review, 16(1), pp.457-468. Retrieved from https://integral-review.org/tag/integral-polarity-practice/
  • O`Fallon, T. (2010a). The Evolution of the Human Soul. Masters Thesis, Lorian Center for Incarnational, Masters in Spiritual Direction. Retrieved from http://www.terriofallon.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/08/The-Evolution-Of-The-Human-Soul-10.pdf
  • O`Fallon, T. (2010b). The Collapse of the Wilber Combs Matrix. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5aea2537372b9684ef1d1dc8/t/5eea844580b9c715ed7b6b95/1592427592865/statestagesofallon.pdf
  • O`Fallon, T. (2013). The Senses: Demystifying Awakening. Retrieved from https://www.terriofallon.com/the-senses-demystifying-awakening/
  • O`Fallon, T. (2015). The Three Pillars of Awakening. Retrieved from http://www.terriofallon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-three-pillars-of-Awakening-6.pdf
  • O`Fallon, T. (2020). States and STAGES: Waking up Developmentally. Integral Review, 16(1), pp.13-38. Retrieved from https://integral-review.org/backissue/vol-16-no-1-april-2020/
  • Plato (1968). The Republic (A. Bloom, trans.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
  • Ricoeur, P. (1967). The Symbolism of Evil. New York: Harper & Row.
  • Samraj, A. D. (2009). The Aletheon. Middletown, CA: Dawn Horse Press.
  • Samraj, A. D. (2019). Not-Two is Peace. Chicago: The Adi Da Foundation Press.
  • Simmel, G. (1913). Goethe. Verlag von Klinkhart & Biermann.
  • Simmel, G. (1922). Lebensanschauung: vier metaphysische Kapitel [Views of Life]. München: Duncker.
  • Simmel, G. (2018). Soziologie – Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung [Sociology]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
  • Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. New York, NY: Random House, Inc.
  • Wilber, K. (1997). The eye of spirit: an integral vision for a world gone slightly mad. Boston: Shambhala.
  • Wilber, K. (1998). The marriage of sense and soul: integrating science and religion. New York, NY: Random House, Inc.
  • Wilber, K. (1999). One taste: the journals of Ken Wilber. Boston: Shambhala.
  • Wilber, K. (2000). Integral psychology: consciousness, spirit, psychology, therapy. Boston: Shambhala.
  • Wilber, K. (2001). A Theory of Everything. Boston: Shambhala.
  • Wilber, K. (2002). Boomeritis: a novel that will set you free. Boston: Shambhala.
  • Wilber, K. (2006a). Excerpt B: The Many Ways We Touch – Three Principles Helpful for Any Integrative Approach. Retrieved from http://www.kenwilber.com/Writings/PDF/ExcerptB_KOSMOS_2003.pdf
  • Wilber, K. (2006b). Integral Spirituality: a startling new role for religion in the modern and postmodern world. Boston: Shambhala.
  • Wilber, K. (2018). The Religion of Tomorrow. Boulder, CA: Shambhala.