Changes

[[Image:lighterstill.jpg]]

[[Image:lighterstill.jpg]]

[[Image:Celtic Cross-7.jpg|right|frame|]]

[[Image:Celtic Cross-7.jpg|right|frame|]]

==Introduction==

==INTRODUCTION==

Twenty-two years ago I stumbled upon a life changing book.  It was “[[Stages of Faith]]” by [[James Fowler]].  Fowler taught a form of developmental [[psychology]] to seminary students at [[Emory University]]’s [[Candler School of Theology]].  His vision was to train future pastors to recognize that any given congregation will include a variety of people with differing faith-structures.  The idea was to equip the church to accommodate as well as challenge each type of faith.  Fowler’s academic work is based on meticulously categorized interviews with thousands of people, each describing his or her own spiritual journey, and answering specific survey questions.  The result is that Fowler identifies six distinct stages of faith that are universally applicable, as it turns out, to any faith tradition.   

Twenty-two years ago I stumbled upon a life changing book.  It was “[[Stages of Faith]]” by [[James Fowler]].  Fowler taught a form of developmental [[psychology]] to seminary students at [[Emory University]]’s [[Candler School of Theology]].  His vision was to train future pastors to recognize that any given congregation will include a variety of people with differing faith-structures.  The idea was to equip the church to accommodate as well as challenge each type of faith.  Fowler’s academic work is based on meticulously categorized interviews with thousands of people, each describing his or her own spiritual journey, and answering specific survey questions.  The result is that Fowler identifies six distinct stages of faith that are universally applicable, as it turns out, to any faith tradition.   

THE FOUR QUADRANTS

'''THE FOUR QUADRANTS'''

Individual Interior | Individual Exterior

Individual Interior | Individual Exterior

One way to look at this chart is in terms of the classic subject/object problem.  On the left hand side you see subjectivity.  Individual subjectivity  is on the top left and collective subjectivity on the bottom left.  The right hand side represents objectivity.  Individual objectivity is on top right and collective objectivity on bottom right.  In Wilberian shorthand these are referred to as :

One way to look at this chart is in terms of the classic subject/object problem.  On the left hand side you see subjectivity.  Individual subjectivity  is on the top left and collective subjectivity on the bottom left.  The right hand side represents objectivity.  Individual objectivity is on top right and collective objectivity on bottom right.  In Wilberian shorthand these are referred to as :

UL (upper left)

'''UL''' (upper left)

UR (upper right)

 

LL (lower left)

'''UR''' (upper right)

LR (lower right)

 

'''LL''' (lower left)

 

'''LR''' (lower right)

 

Let’s take several tours through the AQAL by way of illustration.  Imagine a visit to the US capitol building.  Here's how one might experience it:

Let’s take several tours through the AQAL by way of illustration.  Imagine a visit to the US capitol building.  Here's how one might experience it:

UL — I feel awed by a sense of history.

UL — I feel awed by a sense of history.

UR — It's swelteringly hot, and the glare off this white marble is giving me a headache.

UR — It's swelteringly hot, and the glare off this white marble is giving me a headache.

LL — Society believes in representative government.

LL — Society believes in representative government.

LR — This building is Greco-Roman style.  It's not only an architectural expression of representative democracy, but a shelter filled with actual representatives.

LR — This building is Greco-Roman style.  It's not only an architectural expression of representative democracy, but a shelter filled with actual representatives.

Now let's go shop for groceries at Wal-Mart:

Now let's go shop for groceries at Wal-Mart:

UL — I'm hungry. I need food.  I hate Wal-Mart but I like their prices.

UL — I'm hungry. I need food.  I hate Wal-Mart but I like their prices.

UR — The 150 pound organism known as "I" is using muscle contraction to self-propel through this eclectic landscape of edible substances.

UR — The 150 pound organism known as "I" is using muscle contraction to self-propel through this eclectic landscape of edible substances.

LL — Our society believes in specialization and division of labor.  Thus instead of each having our own farm, we consolidate our food gathering efforts.  This brings economy of scale and affordability

 

LL — Our society believes in specialization and division of labor.  Thus instead of each having our own farm, we consolidate our food gathering efforts.  This brings economy of scale and affordability.

 

LR — This large building was built cheaply (to support economy of scale).  It holds a ton of stuff under one roof (supporting the ideal of consolidation).

LR — This large building was built cheaply (to support economy of scale).  It holds a ton of stuff under one roof (supporting the ideal of consolidation).

Next let's go fishing:

Next let's go fishing:

UL — I’m happy to be doing my favorite activity.  Life seems worthwhile and satisfying.

UL — I’m happy to be doing my favorite activity.  Life seems worthwhile and satisfying.

UR — The sun is warm but flies are irritating me.

UR — The sun is warm but flies are irritating me.

LL — The love of fishing and the skills it requires are both socially transmitted.  My Grandpa taught me to fish, and his grandpa taught him.

LL — The love of fishing and the skills it requires are both socially transmitted.  My Grandpa taught me to fish, and his grandpa taught him.

LR — This rod and reel have a very precise feel and they were made in Taiwan.  Many people working together must have had the idea that research and engineering would pay off if it resulted in products that enhance the sport of fishing.

LR — This rod and reel have a very precise feel and they were made in Taiwan.  Many people working together must have had the idea that research and engineering would pay off if it resulted in products that enhance the sport of fishing.

I’m sure you get the idea now, but so what?  Well, the important thing to note for the moment is that no subjective state stands alone.  Every subjective state (UL) coexists within three other interdependent dimensions, two of which are quite objective. This has tremendous implications for, say, Christian contemplative prayer or Buddhist meditation which are  typically regarded as involving only interior states of consciousness.  But every inner spiritual state includes an outer "state of body" (UR) as well as a set of guiding concepts (LL) that come largely from the influence of others (LR) including teachers, churches, priests, parents, books, friends, TV, and society at large.

I’m sure you get the idea now, but so what?  Well, the important thing to note for the moment is that no subjective state stands alone.  Every subjective state (UL) coexists within three other interdependent dimensions, two of which are quite objective. This has tremendous implications for, say, Christian contemplative prayer or Buddhist meditation which are  typically regarded as involving only interior states of consciousness.  But every inner spiritual state includes an outer "state of body" (UR) as well as a set of guiding concepts (LL) that come largely from the influence of others (LR) including teachers, churches, priests, parents, books, friends, TV, and society at large.

HISTORY OF THE QUADRANTS

'''HISTORY OF THE QUADRANTS'''

The Premodern paradigm

The Premodern paradigm

Wilber describes at some length how the four quadrants evolved through the history of culture.  Back in premodern, or prerational times, all four quadrants were undifferentiated.  In other words, there was a magical thinking that inner beliefs directly influenced outer manifestations.  For example, I may believe that I can cause you pain by sticking pins in a doll.  Or I may pray for rain and when it finally does rain I see the prayer and the rain as cause and effect.  Alchemists believed that lead could become gold so they kept experimenting, expecting gold to appear.  Premodern thinking did not end in modern times—it persists everywhere.  To give a familiar example, many Protestant Christians believe that inner faith is given directly from God and is accompanied by a corresponding external object—the Bible—which also comes directly from the mind of God.  The Bible is thus literally the Word of God and once internalized, can be invoked to produce God’s miracle-working power.  I have known more than a few people who believed that Bible quotes can be used much like spells and incantations to manipulate reality and change circumstances, not unlike a voodoo doll!

Wilber describes at some length how the four quadrants evolved through the history of culture.  Back in premodern, or prerational times, all four quadrants were undifferentiated.  In other words, there was a magical thinking that inner beliefs directly influenced outer manifestations.  For example, I may believe that I can cause you pain by sticking pins in a doll.  Or I may pray for rain and when it finally does rain I see the prayer and the rain as cause and effect.  Alchemists believed that lead could become gold so they kept experimenting, expecting gold to appear.  Premodern thinking did not end in modern times—it persists everywhere.  To give a familiar example, many Protestant Christians believe that inner faith is given directly from God and is accompanied by a corresponding external object—the Bible—which also comes directly from the mind of God.  The Bible is thus literally the Word of God and once internalized, can be invoked to produce God’s miracle-working power.  I have known more than a few people who believed that Bible quotes can be used much like spells and incantations to manipulate reality and change circumstances, not unlike a voodoo doll!

The Modern Paradigm

The Modern Paradigm

The Enlightenment and the scientific revolution led to modern times with a powerful new way of understanding the right hand side (the objective side) of reality, the result being that the entire left hand side (subjective) became demoted, unreal, or unimportant at best.  One example is modern medical practice.  When you are sick the doctor is not concerned with your inner consciousness but rather with the mechanics and chemistry of your body (UR).  He or she likely does not even want to talk to you other than possibly to ask where it hurts.  Typically you will be given a pill which is a chemical designed to alter your body chemistry.  This is a radical right-hand approach to reality which assumes that the LH side is immaterial to the cause and cure of your symptoms.  A right-hand approach to religion can be seen in studies where researchers have gone to prayer meetings and connected electrodes to participants’ brains (UR).  They discovered that certain brain waves (UR) activate during prayer (UL) and that endorphins (UR) are released in the brain (UR), thus creating the feeling of having a religious experience (UL). They conclude therefore that nothing is happening except chemistry (UR).  So the modern paradigm involves promoting the right hand side to the status of being verifiably real, while the left hand side is merely delusional in terms of knowing any real truth.   

The Enlightenment and the scientific revolution led to modern times with a powerful new way of understanding the right hand side (the objective side) of reality, the result being that the entire left hand side (subjective) became demoted, unreal, or unimportant at best.  One example is modern medical practice.  When you are sick the doctor is not concerned with your inner consciousness but rather with the mechanics and chemistry of your body (UR).  He or she likely does not even want to talk to you other than possibly to ask where it hurts.  Typically you will be given a pill which is a chemical designed to alter your body chemistry.  This is a radical right-hand approach to reality which assumes that the LH side is immaterial to the cause and cure of your symptoms.  A right-hand approach to religion can be seen in studies where researchers have gone to prayer meetings and connected electrodes to participants’ brains (UR).  They discovered that certain brain waves (UR) activate during prayer (UL) and that endorphins (UR) are released in the brain (UR), thus creating the feeling of having a religious experience (UL). They conclude therefore that nothing is happening except chemistry (UR).  So the modern paradigm involves promoting the right hand side to the status of being verifiably real, while the left hand side is merely delusional in terms of knowing any real truth.   

The Postmodern Paradigm

The Postmodern Paradigm

Next came postmodernism which was basically a reaction against the radical objectivity of modernism.  It insisted that subjectivity is really at the heart of knowing.  Subjectivity, however, proved to be a subversive foundation for knowledge because if anything it tended to debunk any kind of certainty.  In the hands of postmodernism subjectivity became a two-edged sword, cutting both right and left, even carrying the potential seeds of its own self-destruction.  On the RH side postmodernism challenged the foundations of science itself, which it saw as a series of subjective mental models, expressed in relativistic language, and ever subject to revision.  Science may have successfully manipulated nature but it delivered no truth.  While science never experienced a crisis of self-doubt because of this line of reasoning, it certainly demonstrated that subjectivity is an important component of any kind of knowing, even scientific knowing.   

Next came postmodernism which was basically a reaction against the radical objectivity of modernism.  It insisted that subjectivity is really at the heart of knowing.  Subjectivity, however, proved to be a subversive foundation for knowledge because if anything it tended to debunk any kind of certainty.  In the hands of postmodernism subjectivity became a two-edged sword, cutting both right and left, even carrying the potential seeds of its own self-destruction.  On the RH side postmodernism challenged the foundations of science itself, which it saw as a series of subjective mental models, expressed in relativistic language, and ever subject to revision.  Science may have successfully manipulated nature but it delivered no truth.  While science never experienced a crisis of self-doubt because of this line of reasoning, it certainly demonstrated that subjectivity is an important component of any kind of knowing, even scientific knowing.   

Let’s stop and summarize this cultural history of the quadrants:

Let’s stop and summarize this cultural history of the quadrants:

PREMODERN:  LH & RH are together (undifferentiated)  

'''PREMODERN:'''   LH & RH are together (undifferentiated)  

MODERNISM:    LH & RH are differentiated  

'''MODERNISM:'''   LH & RH are differentiated  

POSTMODERNISM:  UL is differentiated from LL  

'''POSTMODERNISM:'''   UL is differentiated from LL  

Wilber’s solution is:

Wilber’s solution is:

INTEGRAL PHILOSOPHY: all quadrants differentiated but reintegrated

'''INTEGRAL PHILOSOPHY:''' all quadrants differentiated but reintegrated

Wilber’s whole purpose is to create an “integral philosophy“ and now we are equipped to see what that is.  In spite of all the pain involved, Wilber is quite happy that all these quadrants have become dissociated.  We are far more conscious of the terms and conditions of reality.  And now the job of integral philosophy is simply to “reintegrate,” that is, put the quadrants back together but in such a way that we are no longer naïve about how they fit together.  We do this not by simply reattaching them but rather by spanning all quadrants in our work of consciousness and, of course, by ceasing to confuse them with one another.

Wilber’s whole purpose is to create an “integral philosophy“ and now we are equipped to see what that is.  In spite of all the pain involved, Wilber is quite happy that all these quadrants have become dissociated.  We are far more conscious of the terms and conditions of reality.  And now the job of integral philosophy is simply to “reintegrate,” that is, put the quadrants back together but in such a way that we are no longer naïve about how they fit together.  We do this not by simply reattaching them but rather by spanning all quadrants in our work of consciousness and, of course, by ceasing to confuse them with one another.

CRITICAL WILBER CONCEPT:  Here’s one way to consider reintegration between RH and LH:  in the previous example of monitoring subjects’ brains with electrodes during prayer, Wilber would say there is reality happening in every quadrant.  He holds that mind is real, and therefore some sort of genuine growth, change, or expansion of consciousness is happening in the context of prayer.  At the same time he also asserts that the body is real and so endorphins are indeed more active during prayer, and are possibly even the sole cause of our devout feelings of inner peace.  It’s simply built into reality that everything is a two sided coin (actually a four-sided coin!) and therefore it doesn’t really matter if scientists find dopamine or even pink elephants in the brain; neither constitutes evidence that consciousness isn’t real* or isn’t growing in the context of prayer.  Dopamine, serotonin, or other brain chemicals do not negate spiritual growth.  However, if we remain unaware (or in denial) of the reality of both RH & LH sides of our experience,  then we are forced to choose in a false dualism.  One choice is to hold the infantile prerational and prescientific view that our prayer caused our inner religious experience (sometimes leveraged into a proof that God exists).  The other choice is to accept the modern critical (RH) view that we live in a colorless, flat, and demystified world in which we are just a collection of neuron-charged chemicals that generate an illusion of free will (sometimes leveraged into a proof that God does not exist).  Wilber, by contrast, would maintain that Spirit is the ground of all being, and that includes brain chemicals as well as consciousness.  We could say that the inner experience and the corresponding body processes taken together constitute a “spirit-event.”

'''CRITICAL WILBER CONCEPT:'''   Here’s one way to consider reintegration between RH and LH:  in the previous example of monitoring subjects’ brains with electrodes during prayer, Wilber would say there is reality happening in every quadrant.  He holds that mind is real, and therefore some sort of genuine growth, change, or expansion of consciousness is happening in the context of prayer.  At the same time he also asserts that the body is real and so endorphins are indeed more active during prayer, and are possibly even the sole cause of our devout feelings of inner peace.  It’s simply built into reality that everything is a two sided coin (actually a four-sided coin!) and therefore it doesn’t really matter if scientists find dopamine or even pink elephants in the brain; neither constitutes evidence that consciousness isn’t real* or isn’t growing in the context of prayer.  Dopamine, serotonin, or other brain chemicals do not negate spiritual growth.  However, if we remain unaware (or in denial) of the reality of both RH & LH sides of our experience,  then we are forced to choose in a false dualism.  One choice is to hold the infantile prerational and prescientific view that our prayer caused our inner religious experience (sometimes leveraged into a proof that God exists).  The other choice is to accept the modern critical (RH) view that we live in a colorless, flat, and demystified world in which we are just a collection of neuron-charged chemicals that generate an illusion of free will (sometimes leveraged into a proof that God does not exist).  Wilber, by contrast, would maintain that Spirit is the ground of all being, and that includes brain chemicals as well as consciousness.  We could say that the inner experience and the corresponding body processes taken together constitute a “spirit-event.”

*[You may ask, what critic would suggest consciousness is not real?  I refer you to Edward Wilson, a Harvard biologist who argues that everything can be explained in terms of its smallest components.  Wilson says consciousness is simply the particle physics that ultimately underlie the molecules, cells, and neurons of the brain.  Consciousness is essentially a quantum field following natural laws, therefore it has no free will, it just generates the illusion of one.  Wilson claims we don’t know enough yet to explain the physics, but soon we will.  This begs the question…..who is this “we” that will soon understand how the illusion of consciousness is generated?  A quantum field that learns how to comprehend itself….isn’t that called….self-transcendence?!  It‘s hard to see how that‘s not the same thing as “real” consciousness.  We‘re obviously in the realm of semantics here].

*[You may ask, what critic would suggest consciousness is not real?  I refer you to Edward Wilson, a Harvard biologist who argues that everything can be explained in terms of its smallest components.  Wilson says consciousness is simply the particle physics that ultimately underlie the molecules, cells, and neurons of the brain.  Consciousness is essentially a quantum field following natural laws, therefore it has no free will, it just generates the illusion of one.  Wilson claims we don’t know enough yet to explain the physics, but soon we will.  This begs the question…..who is this “we” that will soon understand how the illusion of consciousness is generated?  A quantum field that learns how to comprehend itself….isn’t that called….self-transcendence?!  It‘s hard to see how that‘s not the same thing as “real” consciousness.  We‘re obviously in the realm of semantics here].

Now let’s have a number of observers comment on the prayer group:

Now let’s have a number of observers comment on the prayer group:

Father Luigi:  “Those people are experiencing the peace of God that passes all understanding.”

'''Father Luigi:''' “Those people are experiencing the peace of God that passes all understanding.”

Dr. Moreau:  “Those people are entering altered brain states.  Quick, get the EEG monitor!”

'''Dr. Moreau:''' “Those people are entering altered brain states.  Quick, get the EEG monitor!”

Sigmund Freud:  “Those infantile people are trying to return to the womb.”

'''Sigmund Freud:''' “Those infantile people are trying to return to the womb.”

Carl Jung:  “No Sigmund, those people are purposely embracing their inner infant and thus coming into contact with Original Spirit.”

'''Carl Jung:''' “No Sigmund, those people are purposely embracing their inner infant and thus coming into contact with Original Spirit.”

Emile Durkheim:  “Those people are interpreting their experience through the language of Western medieval contemplative literature.  They are having an experience to be sure, but their understanding of that experience is purely a social construction.  It could readily be interpreted through other social language.  Any possible language about this experience is necessarily fiction including the interpretations of my colleagues, Freud, Jung, etc.”

'''Emile Durkheim:''' “Those people are interpreting their experience through the language of Western medieval contemplative literature.  They are having an experience to be sure, but their understanding of that experience is purely a social construction.  It could readily be interpreted through other social language.  Any possible language about this experience is necessarily fiction including the interpretations of my colleagues, Freud, Jung, etc.”

Margaret Mead:  “Those people are practicing a 13th century Euro-Catholic ritual.  They seek to center themselves in the spiritual world by moving from a profane space to a sacred space.”

'''Margaret Mead:''' “Those people are practicing a 13th century Euro-Catholic ritual.  They seek to center themselves in the spiritual world by moving from a profane space to a sacred space.”

Michel Foucault:  “These people are programming their experience by bringing a preselected interpretation to the event.”

'''Michel Foucault:''' “These people are programming their experience by bringing a preselected interpretation to the event.”

The second key concept is stages.  A stage is essentially a paradigm.  It is a well established mode of being through which we interpret reality.  The time we spend in a given stage is typically measured in years.  Over time stages eventually collapse into a new stage.  This collapse is a slow process but may appear sudden when the final shift occurs, or it may not be consciously noticed at all.  Two (or more) stages will often overlap for a period of time before the new stage becomes fully established.   

The second key concept is stages.  A stage is essentially a paradigm.  It is a well established mode of being through which we interpret reality.  The time we spend in a given stage is typically measured in years.  Over time stages eventually collapse into a new stage.  This collapse is a slow process but may appear sudden when the final shift occurs, or it may not be consciously noticed at all.  Two (or more) stages will often overlap for a period of time before the new stage becomes fully established.   

THE STAGES OF FAITH

'''THE STAGES OF FAITH'''

 

I already mentioned that Wilber, like Fowler, is a faith-stage theorist.  But Wilber deals with stages in a much broader and more generalized way.  He draws heavily on many specialties within the field of developmental psychology, including Fowler‘s work.  Over the last hundred years there has been a lot of psychological research devoted to the stages of human development. The interesting thing about this research which is coming from many different places and many different angles, is that it all has in common the view that human development unfolds in distinct stages, and these stages occur in a set and predictable order, just as we mentioned with Fowler.  The number of named stages, and the labels assigned them may differ, but in general all follow one scheme which can be simplified to three phases:  egocentric to ethnocentric to world-centric  (it’s all about me, it’s all about my group, it’s all about all of us).  Of course, there can be many identified and named stages in between, but this is the general directional flow—away from ego and toward global identity.  As we said earlier, it is entirely possible to fail to ever grow beyond a given stage.  However, assuming one is progressing, it is impossible to skip around in these stages because each one is necessarily built on the foundation of the previous stage.  So the order of progression never changes.   

I already mentioned that Wilber, like Fowler, is a faith-stage theorist.  But Wilber deals with stages in a much broader and more generalized way.  He draws heavily on many specialties within the field of developmental psychology, including Fowler‘s work.  Over the last hundred years there has been a lot of psychological research devoted to the stages of human development. The interesting thing about this research which is coming from many different places and many different angles, is that it all has in common the view that human development unfolds in distinct stages, and these stages occur in a set and predictable order, just as we mentioned with Fowler.  The number of named stages, and the labels assigned them may differ, but in general all follow one scheme which can be simplified to three phases:  egocentric to ethnocentric to world-centric  (it’s all about me, it’s all about my group, it’s all about all of us).  Of course, there can be many identified and named stages in between, but this is the general directional flow—away from ego and toward global identity.  As we said earlier, it is entirely possible to fail to ever grow beyond a given stage.  However, assuming one is progressing, it is impossible to skip around in these stages because each one is necessarily built on the foundation of the previous stage.  So the order of progression never changes.   

While Fowler provides a chart of six stages of faith, Wilber offers a chart of seven stages that we could more accurately call the “stages of spiritual consciousness.”  For the most part the two charts line up in a comparable manner.  The extra stage in the Wilber scheme is a relatively recent development which I will explain later.  For now I will lay out the stages and do so using Fowler’s scheme.  I use Fowler’s stages because I presume most readers will readily identify with that model.  I present them in the order in which they unfold in a life, going from lowest to highest.   

While Fowler provides a chart of six stages of faith, Wilber offers a chart of seven stages that we could more accurately call the “stages of spiritual consciousness.”  For the most part the two charts line up in a comparable manner.  The extra stage in the Wilber scheme is a relatively recent development which I will explain later.  For now I will lay out the stages and do so using Fowler’s scheme.  I use Fowler’s stages because I presume most readers will readily identify with that model.  I present them in the order in which they unfold in a life, going from lowest to highest.   

1.  Intuitive/Projective Faith —  This is basically a 3 year old’s imaginative and magical thinking.  It sometimes involves the idea that thoughts projected onto the world will cause things to happen, good or bad, depending on the thoughts.  Some elements can persist into adulthood.

'''1.  Intuitive/Projective Faith ''' —  This is basically a 3 year old’s imaginative and magical thinking.  It sometimes involves the idea that thoughts projected onto the world will cause things to happen, good or bad, depending on the thoughts.  Some elements can persist into adulthood.

2.  Mythic/Literal Faith — This is generally a 6 year old child’s understanding of the family’s faith; religious symbols are assigned quite literal meaning.  Again, some elements can persist into adulthood.

'''2.  Mythic/Literal Faith''' — This is generally a 6 year old child’s understanding of the family’s faith; religious symbols are assigned quite literal meaning.  Again, some elements can persist into adulthood.

3.  Conventional Faith — One typically joins an institutional religion and accepts its definition of reality.  Both institution and individual have replaced many literal understandings from the earlier stage with symbolic ones.

'''3.  Conventional Faith''' — One typically joins an institutional religion and accepts its definition of reality.  Both institution and individual have replaced many literal understandings from the earlier stage with symbolic ones.

4.  Individualizing Faith — This is the process of ejecting a socially derived faith and the corresponding process of constructing  a more authentic self-defined faith.  One may or may not abandon institutional membership.  (Note: if one fails to complete the self-constructed faith project, he/she never really completes this stage and typically snaps back to the third stage and finds permanent equilibrium there as an adult).

'''4.  Individualizing Faith''' — This is the process of ejecting a socially derived faith and the corresponding process of constructing  a more authentic self-defined faith.  One may or may not abandon institutional membership.  (Note: if one fails to complete the self-constructed faith project, he/she never really completes this stage and typically snaps back to the third stage and finds permanent equilibrium there as an adult).

5.  Conjunctive Faith - This is the recognition that every truth seems to have an equally true opposite.  Everything in life involves holding both sides of a paradox in balance, a process which one has more or less mastered.  One’s religion as well as it’s detractors somehow both ring true.  One may return to an institutional faith after quitting one in stage four, but does so on a new level (and most often in a new institution) and begins to understand most dogma as metaphor for one side of the paradox.

'''5.  Conjunctive Faith''' - This is the recognition that every truth seems to have an equally true opposite.  Everything in life involves holding both sides of a paradox in balance, a process which one has more or less mastered.  One’s religion as well as it’s detractors somehow both ring true.  One may return to an institutional faith after quitting one in stage four, but does so on a new level (and most often in a new institution) and begins to understand most dogma as metaphor for one side of the paradox.

6.  Universalizing Faith — This is a stage where all the opposites and paradoxes of the fifth stage come together in an intuitively grasped grand unity in which one feels absorbed by something bigger.  Fowler maintains that this stage is very rare, and includes those people who completely lose ego-self (and sometimes their lives through martyrdom) in a larger cause, concept, or mystical union with God, or “oneness with the universe.”

'''6.  Universalizing Faith''' — This is a stage where all the opposites and paradoxes of the fifth stage come together in an intuitively grasped grand unity in which one feels absorbed by something bigger.  Fowler maintains that this stage is very rare, and includes those people who completely lose ego-self (and sometimes their lives through martyrdom) in a larger cause, concept, or mystical union with God, or “oneness with the universe.”

[Readers at Fowler’s second and third stages will interpret the later stages as the process of loss of faith.  But it should be emphatically stated that in Fowler’s model these stages actually represent upward growth into full and appropriate adult faith].

[Readers at Fowler’s second and third stages will interpret the later stages as the process of loss of faith.  But it should be emphatically stated that in Fowler’s model these stages actually represent upward growth into full and appropriate adult faith].

STAGES  AND  STAGNATION

'''STAGES  AND  STAGNATION'''

I was in my early thirties when I discovered that I was practically a poster child for Fowler’s fifth (Conjunctive) stage of faith.  The discovery that I was not lost but could be identified and located on a map was accompanied by a symphony of feelings; relief,  liberation, empowerment, but also isolation and absence of community.  It seemed that everyone I knew and still kept up with from school days had also arrived in this stage, and along the way I met many others who told the story of a similar journey.  But If one spends enough years in the fifth stage a strange thing begins to happen.  What starts out as liberation begins to feel like stagnation.  The spirit longs for something else.  Interestingly, many fifth stage people I know have eventually become…Buddhists!  I know some that are merely curious, others that are dabblers, a few that are joiners, and at least one monastic postulate.  Another acquaintance is into no-brand mystical cosmic consciousness.  There is an explosion of interest in various Eastern wisdom traditions among a whole range of middle-aged Americans.  You can walk into any bookstore and find a myriad of books on Eastern religions and spiritual techniques.  Every trendy neighborhood offers meditation classes.  In general, there is a strong trend among fifth stage individuals to abandon their religious upbringing and turn to some other form of spirituality, and Buddhism seems to be the path of choice.

I was in my early thirties when I discovered that I was practically a poster child for Fowler’s fifth (Conjunctive) stage of faith.  The discovery that I was not lost but could be identified and located on a map was accompanied by a symphony of feelings; relief,  liberation, empowerment, but also isolation and absence of community.  It seemed that everyone I knew and still kept up with from school days had also arrived in this stage, and along the way I met many others who told the story of a similar journey.  But If one spends enough years in the fifth stage a strange thing begins to happen.  What starts out as liberation begins to feel like stagnation.  The spirit longs for something else.  Interestingly, many fifth stage people I know have eventually become…Buddhists!  I know some that are merely curious, others that are dabblers, a few that are joiners, and at least one monastic postulate.  Another acquaintance is into no-brand mystical cosmic consciousness.  There is an explosion of interest in various Eastern wisdom traditions among a whole range of middle-aged Americans.  You can walk into any bookstore and find a myriad of books on Eastern religions and spiritual techniques.  Every trendy neighborhood offers meditation classes.  In general, there is a strong trend among fifth stage individuals to abandon their religious upbringing and turn to some other form of spirituality, and Buddhism seems to be the path of choice.

WILBER AND THE TWO TIERS

'''WILBER AND THE TWO TIERS'''

When I first began reading Wilber I easily followed the tour through his version of the stages but came to a roadblock at the point where he expounded his version of the fifth stage, a condition he characterized as the “green” or “pluralistic” stage.  My main issue was that Wilber’s green stage did not describe me as well as Fowler‘s conjunctive stage.  Beyond the fifth stage Wilber spoke of a “second tier” of transcendent stages.  This higher tier of stages sounded very much like a compound version of Fowler’s sixth stage.  On the plus side, Wilber had much more of an “open door policy” on enlightenment than did Fowler.  Wilber seemed to be saying that anyone with discipline and practice and awareness of the issues could enter the sixth stage, which he labeled “transpersonal” (implying that the ego-self becomes absorbed into something bigger).  I also liked Wilber’s seeming interchangeability as he spoke the language of esoteric Christianity as easily as the language of Buddhism.  With Wilber, Buddhism seemed more a way of talking about the real subject—consciousness growth—and not so much an official prerequisite for attainment.  He did, however, prescribe Buddhist meditation techniques as a consciousness building exercise for the transpersonal stages.  After digesting Wilber for a few years I continued to be stuck.  Wilber left me stranded in his green stage where I didn‘t quite belong and Fowler left me skeptical about the power of Wilber’s meditation as a way forward.   

When I first began reading Wilber I easily followed the tour through his version of the stages but came to a roadblock at the point where he expounded his version of the fifth stage, a condition he characterized as the “green” or “pluralistic” stage.  My main issue was that Wilber’s green stage did not describe me as well as Fowler‘s conjunctive stage.  Beyond the fifth stage Wilber spoke of a “second tier” of transcendent stages.  This higher tier of stages sounded very much like a compound version of Fowler’s sixth stage.  On the plus side, Wilber had much more of an “open door policy” on enlightenment than did Fowler.  Wilber seemed to be saying that anyone with discipline and practice and awareness of the issues could enter the sixth stage, which he labeled “transpersonal” (implying that the ego-self becomes absorbed into something bigger).  I also liked Wilber’s seeming interchangeability as he spoke the language of esoteric Christianity as easily as the language of Buddhism.  With Wilber, Buddhism seemed more a way of talking about the real subject—consciousness growth—and not so much an official prerequisite for attainment.  He did, however, prescribe Buddhist meditation techniques as a consciousness building exercise for the transpersonal stages.  After digesting Wilber for a few years I continued to be stuck.  Wilber left me stranded in his green stage where I didn‘t quite belong and Fowler left me skeptical about the power of Wilber’s meditation as a way forward.   

Wilber, drawing on Buddhism, identifies four distinct transpersonal states that one may seek and experience through various meditation techniques.  Because these four states advance in a natural progression, Wilber’s original scheme was to identify each one as its own stage and claim that together these stages form the “second tier” of consciousness.  But Wilber now recognizes that the mistake was to identify these states as stages.  They are simply states of consciousness and therefore they are available to anyone who is conscious, at any stage.  So Wilber’s second tier has now evaporated, or at least its original manifestation.  And by implication, Fowler’s sixth stage also necessarily disappears, does it not?  If mystical union is a state, it cannot be a stage of faith.  So now the question is, what exactly is the next stage?  What comes after pluralistic/green/conjunctive, the stage where so many of us have been stuck?   

Wilber, drawing on Buddhism, identifies four distinct transpersonal states that one may seek and experience through various meditation techniques.  Because these four states advance in a natural progression, Wilber’s original scheme was to identify each one as its own stage and claim that together these stages form the “second tier” of consciousness.  But Wilber now recognizes that the mistake was to identify these states as stages.  They are simply states of consciousness and therefore they are available to anyone who is conscious, at any stage.  So Wilber’s second tier has now evaporated, or at least its original manifestation.  And by implication, Fowler’s sixth stage also necessarily disappears, does it not?  If mystical union is a state, it cannot be a stage of faith.  So now the question is, what exactly is the next stage?  What comes after pluralistic/green/conjunctive, the stage where so many of us have been stuck?   

STATES OF PATHOLOGY

'''STATES OF PATHOLOGY'''

The answer for many, of course, has been simply to move from stages to states.  Stage five people are breaking out of stuckness by jumping off the cliff edge of stage five into the bottomless abyss of Buddhist meditative states.  But the problem with this is that  you cannot be stageless.  These people are just carrying the fifth stage with them into Buddhist meditation.  Recall AQAL which says that every inner state (UL) has a corresponding socially constructed explanation (LL) and corresponding infrastructure of support (LR).  Applying this to our cliff jumpers we see that one of the ordinary inner states for their fifth stage is a feeling of not-belonging.  This means, for example, we may not belong with either democrats or republicans because both are right and both are wrong.  Or we may not belong with either theists or atheists because both are right and both are wrong.  And along with the feeling (UL) of non-belonging we have socially constructed explanations (LL).  One such explanation is French existentialism which tells us we are “alienated.”  Another such explanation is, of course, the theories of Fowler who tells us its hard to truly belong to one thing when we believe the truth of its opposite.  When fifth stage people “jump off the cliff” and start practicing Buddhist meditation they may suddenly find themselves experiencing a state of “oneness with everything” and yet they continue to carry the (LL) baggage of the fifth stage.  If that baggage happens to be dominated by feelings of alienation in a particular individual, then that becomes the interpretive paradigm for the experience of oneness.  “Wow, in meditation I feel oneness with all as opposed to my usual oneness with nothing in the mundane world!“  The success of the meditation thus has the effect of reinforcing the mistakes of the underlying paradigm, resulting in a vicious circle of non-growth.  Wilber sees this condition as another form of spiritual pathology.   

The answer for many, of course, has been simply to move from stages to states.  Stage five people are breaking out of stuckness by jumping off the cliff edge of stage five into the bottomless abyss of Buddhist meditative states.  But the problem with this is that  you cannot be stageless.  These people are just carrying the fifth stage with them into Buddhist meditation.  Recall AQAL which says that every inner state (UL) has a corresponding socially constructed explanation (LL) and corresponding infrastructure of support (LR).  Applying this to our cliff jumpers we see that one of the ordinary inner states for their fifth stage is a feeling of not-belonging.  This means, for example, we may not belong with either democrats or republicans because both are right and both are wrong.  Or we may not belong with either theists or atheists because both are right and both are wrong.  And along with the feeling (UL) of non-belonging we have socially constructed explanations (LL).  One such explanation is French existentialism which tells us we are “alienated.”  Another such explanation is, of course, the theories of Fowler who tells us its hard to truly belong to one thing when we believe the truth of its opposite.  When fifth stage people “jump off the cliff” and start practicing Buddhist meditation they may suddenly find themselves experiencing a state of “oneness with everything” and yet they continue to carry the (LL) baggage of the fifth stage.  If that baggage happens to be dominated by feelings of alienation in a particular individual, then that becomes the interpretive paradigm for the experience of oneness.  “Wow, in meditation I feel oneness with all as opposed to my usual oneness with nothing in the mundane world!“  The success of the meditation thus has the effect of reinforcing the mistakes of the underlying paradigm, resulting in a vicious circle of non-growth.  Wilber sees this condition as another form of spiritual pathology.   

PARADIGM, PLEASE (The Real Sixth Stage)

'''PARADIGM, PLEASE (The Real Sixth Stage)'''

Wilber’s new breakthrough says that the sixth stage as originally conceived (as four “second tier” stages) is simply missing a paradigm.  People are seeking transpersonal states and because they have no sixth stage paradigm they are bringing with them the only paradigm they have, which is the wrong one, and so their meditation is working only to reinforce their old paradigm; their old stage.  Many meditation teachers including authentic ones from, say, Tibet, would challenge Wilber at this point, saying that the whole point of meditation is to dump paradigms and concepts and seek emptiness instead.  This is a watershed issue, and a point where Wilber departs from much of standard Eastern consciousness training.  He agrees that emptiness is indeed a desirable meditative state to be attained but maintains that it is impossible not to interpret any and all states, including emptiness!  UL may be empty, but LL cannot be.   

Wilber’s new breakthrough says that the sixth stage as originally conceived (as four “second tier” stages) is simply missing a paradigm.  People are seeking transpersonal states and because they have no sixth stage paradigm they are bringing with them the only paradigm they have, which is the wrong one, and so their meditation is working only to reinforce their old paradigm; their old stage.  Many meditation teachers including authentic ones from, say, Tibet, would challenge Wilber at this point, saying that the whole point of meditation is to dump paradigms and concepts and seek emptiness instead.  This is a watershed issue, and a point where Wilber departs from much of standard Eastern consciousness training.  He agrees that emptiness is indeed a desirable meditative state to be attained but maintains that it is impossible not to interpret any and all states, including emptiness!  UL may be empty, but LL cannot be.   

THE SEVENTH STAGE

'''THE SEVENTH STAGE'''

In a bit of unfinished business, where does this leave Fowler?  Do we dismiss his sixth stage as being only a state?  To answer that we need to introduce Wilber’s next (and final) stage:  the Super Integral stage.  It now seems apparent to me that Fowler’s sixth stage closely matches Wilber’s seventh stage.  It is a stage where the (UL) inner experience of transpersonal states has reinforced the (LL) integral paradigm to the point that the paradigm is now reinforcing the inner experience.  Let’s look at it another way—if we recall the earlier discussion that states are not stages, then we can now consider that the distinction between states and stages begins to dissolve at this level and the transpersonal states actually begin to move into the stage.  They become part of the “well established mode of being through which we interpret reality.”  Whereas in the sixth stage you know that all is One, in the seventh stage you more or less live it, as an ongoing habit of being.  This description seems to fit the rare inhabitants of Fowler’s sixth stage.  We could thus make a case that Fowler has it right but is missing a stage.  He jumps to the all-consuming existential stage of unity, but he skips the simple paradigmatic stage of unity.   

In a bit of unfinished business, where does this leave Fowler?  Do we dismiss his sixth stage as being only a state?  To answer that we need to introduce Wilber’s next (and final) stage:  the Super Integral stage.  It now seems apparent to me that Fowler’s sixth stage closely matches Wilber’s seventh stage.  It is a stage where the (UL) inner experience of transpersonal states has reinforced the (LL) integral paradigm to the point that the paradigm is now reinforcing the inner experience.  Let’s look at it another way—if we recall the earlier discussion that states are not stages, then we can now consider that the distinction between states and stages begins to dissolve at this level and the transpersonal states actually begin to move into the stage.  They become part of the “well established mode of being through which we interpret reality.”  Whereas in the sixth stage you know that all is One, in the seventh stage you more or less live it, as an ongoing habit of being.  This description seems to fit the rare inhabitants of Fowler’s sixth stage.  We could thus make a case that Fowler has it right but is missing a stage.  He jumps to the all-consuming existential stage of unity, but he skips the simple paradigmatic stage of unity.   

==CONCLUSION==

==CONCLUSION==

If we could distill this whole discussion into a single principle it would be:  The value of states increases in direct proportion to advancement through the stages.  A lot of American Buddhism has the cart before the horse—it is seeking the instant gratification of states instead of the long-term investment of stages.  It has often consisted of little more than the idea that meditation leads to mystical experiences that will result in "enlightenment."  But mystical states can be just another yuppie achievement in this context.  Transpersonal states of mind are to be thought of as neither an achievement nor an attainment.  They are a tool that, when combined with right thinking, will help us dump achievement, dump attainment, and dump ego.  The idea that "meditation causes enlightenment" is a classic example of prerational magical thinking.  While Wilber promotes Buddhism, seemingly because of its advantage of having a more straightforward spiritual language than other religious options, he also clearly argues that the mystical states of mind often popularly associated with Buddhism have little value unless they occur in an advanced stage of faith and that is something that can occur within (or without) any religion.  His message to us is simple:  "Grow up!" meaning grow though the stages of faith.  That's where our spirituality should be focused—right thinking; right interpretation; right paradigm.  If "enlightenment" itself has any meaning, then we saw it in the seventh stage:  the right paradigm combined with the right [sustainable] state of mind.

If we could distill this whole discussion into a single principle it would be:  '''The value of states increases in direct proportion to advancement through the stages.'''   A lot of American Buddhism has the cart before the horse—it is seeking the instant gratification of states instead of the long-term investment of stages.  It has often consisted of little more than the idea that meditation leads to mystical experiences that will result in "enlightenment."  But mystical states can be just another yuppie achievement in this context.  Transpersonal states of mind are to be thought of as neither an achievement nor an attainment.  They are a tool that, when combined with right thinking, will help us dump achievement, dump attainment, and dump ego.  The idea that "meditation causes enlightenment" is a classic example of prerational magical thinking.  While Wilber promotes Buddhism, seemingly because of its advantage of having a more straightforward spiritual language than other religious options, he also clearly argues that the mystical states of mind often popularly associated with Buddhism have little value unless they occur in an advanced stage of faith and that is something that can occur within (or without) any religion.  His message to us is simple:  "Grow up!" meaning grow though the stages of faith.  That's where our spirituality should be focused—right thinking; right interpretation; right paradigm.  If "enlightenment" itself has any meaning, then we saw it in the seventh stage:  the right paradigm combined with the right [sustainable] state of mind.

A Final Question:  Is Wilber “elitist”?

'''A Final Question:  Is Wilber “elitist”?'''

If you have read this far it has likely occurred to you to wonder how some of the great spiritual luminaries from centuries past—St. John-of-the-Cross, for example—could be considered spiritually advanced when they utterly lacked the clarifying power that according to Wilber came only in the wake of modernism and postmodernism.  Is it true that only those of us on this side of history have any hope of being spiritually awakened?  In a sense, yes, Wilber is elitist concerning this question.  He would say that we are indeed at a spiritual advantage today.  Not that St. John, Jesus, or Siddhartha did not represent pinnacles of spiritual genius by any standards.  But their spirituality derived primarily from a direct ability to attain and sustain states of mystical union, or non-dual consciousness, as opposed to an ascent through the vertical stages as we have discussed.  Disadvantaged?—yes, but still more enlightened than most people will ever be.   

If you have read this far it has likely occurred to you to wonder how some of the great spiritual luminaries from centuries past—St. John-of-the-Cross, for example—could be considered spiritually advanced when they utterly lacked the clarifying power that according to Wilber came only in the wake of modernism and postmodernism.  Is it true that only those of us on this side of history have any hope of being spiritually awakened?  In a sense, yes, Wilber is elitist concerning this question.  He would say that we are indeed at a spiritual advantage today.  Not that St. John, Jesus, or Siddhartha did not represent pinnacles of spiritual genius by any standards.  But their spirituality derived primarily from a direct ability to attain and sustain states of mystical union, or non-dual consciousness, as opposed to an ascent through the vertical stages as we have discussed.  Disadvantaged?—yes, but still more enlightened than most people will ever be.