Comment on Wilber's note about vision-logic

In his note, KW makes (among others) the following points:

1. An additional line of development (in addition to the about 15 mentioned in various earlier works, e.g. Eye of Spirit, p. 212) is proposed: non-dual development. This line follows the development of states of subject-object union "from prenatal to childhood to adulthood to states of postformal samadhi."

2. The psychic, subtle, causal and non-dual may be regarded as "relatively independent cognitive lines all the way back to the earliest of stages."

3. General competence in vision-logic is required for stable growth into higher levels, but not advanced vision-logic skills. KW specifically points to the ability to take the perspective of all beings as a necessary precondition for really grasping and living the meaning of the bodhisattva vow (to liberate all beings).

4. A basic competence in vision-logic does not necessarily mean that a person establishes a vision-logic self. Systems thinking may be applied to specific fields of knowledge, without really influencing a person's interior.

I'm looking forward to read the forthcoming book from which KW's note was taken, since this excerpt raises as many questions as it answers for me. For example, if the psychic, subtle, causal and non-dual realms are now conceived as lines of development, does it still make sense to regard them as distinct transpersonal structures of consciousness?

Some issues I would like to see further clarified are:

— The distinction of causal and non-dual states of awareness from causal and non-dual structures of consciousness. Most descriptions of transpersonal stages of development focus on the nature of the subject-object experience in meditation or spontaneous peak experiences. However, the stages of cognitive development up to and including vision-logic describe general structures of reasoning that are used in dealing with a variety of problems, such as physical causality, interpersonal relationships, introspection, interpretation of social conditions, etc. I doubt that the the psychic, subtle and causal stages are built upon cognitive stages that have this kind of broad relevance. Non-duality is more promising as a candidate for a post-vision-logic stage of cognitive development, though, as non-duality is a general principle of causality that can possibly be a perspective for meaning-making in most or all fields.

— If the ability of global perspective taking is regarded as a base-line of vision-logic, I'm concerned that the meaning of the concept may be too diluted to connect well with established models of cognitive development (Kegan, Loevinger, and others). KW usually stresses systems thinking as the core ability of vision-logic. However, in order to understand and live according to the bodhisattva vow, I don't think systems thinking is required, only a basic willingness to empathize with any sentient being, and a basic and stable attitude of benevolence. Eradicating the Us-Them distinction and developing a basic feeling of common belongingness doesn't depend on very sophisticated cognitive abilities. It is more a question of emotional maturity and a fluid self-sense. KW might say that real transpersonal development is only possible with a firmly established capacity for perspective taking and systems thinking. This is a legitimate point of view, but I feel it sort of evades some really tricky problems. There is a vast scale of different degrees of perspective taking abilities, from the very simple ability to reflect about how I would feel if I were in the situation of someone else, to a sophisticated understanding of how it is to belong to a very different cultural context, with a very different childhood, personality, experiences, emotional disposition, etc. How much perspective taking ability is necessary for stable development of transpersonal stages? Is it meaningful to talk about transpersonal structures in terms of "stable" or "real" development. If yes, what are the precise criteria of "stable" or "real" transpersonal stages?

— My main point is (I think) that too much focus on transpersonal stages and structures may draw our attention away from the pragmatically extremely important qualities of learning to make use of what KW calls vision-logic abilities. I'd say that from a certain point of view, even highly developed abilities to enter subtle and causal states of awareness at will, even the attainment of more or less permanent living in causal dissolution of the subject-object fracture, may be quite worthless. How so? Because without a well-developed vision-logic which is applied to interpersonal relationships and one's own interior world of instincts, impulses, emotions, scripts, etc., the great potential of the transpersonal stages cannot be realized in more than a minuscule way. I would like to see an in-depth discussion of the pitfalls of neglecting cognitive development (in particular applying metasystematical reasoning to interpersonal relationships and one's own mind as a conditioned system) while concentrating on transpersonal subject-object dissolution. This question is particularly important in terms of political and social developments, such as intergroup and intragroup relationships. It is also important from the point of view of sincere research into the spiritual realms. A spiritual inquiry which is not firmly established in at least a metasystematical frame of mind is seriously limited.

Thomas Jordan