• The 3.3 Integratively Thinking Mind

    The Ocean of Reciprocal Totality, which Is the Unity of Agent & Recipient

„After all, what holds for the poet-existence holds also in some measure for every single individual’s life. In other words, the poet does not live poetically by creating a poetic work, for if it does not stand in any conscious and inward relation to him, his life does not have the inner infinity that is an absolute condition for living poetically, but he lives poetically only when he himself is oriented and thus integrated in the age in which he lives, is positively free in the actuality to which he belongs. But anyone can live poetically in this way. But the rare gift, the divine good fortune to be able to let what is poetically experienced take shape and form itself poetically, remains, of course, the enviable fate of the chosen few.” Søren Kierkegaard, The Concept of Irony

The above quote can be seen as the quintessence of the 3.3 Integratively Thinking Mind – an idea of wholeness or totality, symbolized by the idea of Kierkegaard`s poet, is integrating both the differentiative 3.2 Dynamic Mind`s agent and the adaptative 3.1 Externalizing Mind`s recipient into a dynamically moving ocean, i.e., in this case personal inwardness and contemporary exteriority.

It is a stage full of sensibility for compassion and beauty, after the self-justified striving of the Dynamic Mind`s individual and collective agents, and the true birthplace of human, not divinely, love, which means: that pure love and bliss are no longer in the sphere of the mythopoetical, attached to god or the idea of the good, but became characteristic for our very human nature and a source from which we can strive towards the unification of all opposites which is happening by means of our unique expression of the very consciousness that is grounding us in the transcendental creativity that is able to hold both expressions, that of any agent and any recipient, simultaneously.

Localization of the integrative 3.3 Thinking Mind

Up to date there exists no single empirical description that perfectly matches this stage. One might consider it to be embraced in part by Susanne Cook-Greuter`s description of the Unitive stage as well as Terri O`Fallon`s 6.0 Universal stage though much of what appears at this stage better fits into the description of Cook-Greuter`s Construct-Aware and the 5.0 and 5.5 Transpersonal stages as depicted by O`Fallon. Another less empirical attempt to define that stage can be found in Jürgen Habermas` Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, namely, in his description of Moral Stage 6 as concerned about transcending the individual towards discourse and discoursive ethics.

One of the difficulties to define this stage is the rarity of its appearance. Though, it seemingly dominated the intellectual discourse within the 17th and 18th century and was famously expressed in Michel Foucault`s lectures in the 1970s and 1980s, it is still only represented by a small minority likely made up of less than 1% of academically trained population in the west.