Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:39:46 +0100

To: ken-wilber-l@listserv.azstarnet.com

From: Thomas Jordan <Thomas.Jordan@redcap.econ.gu.se>

Subject: [theory] Re: Intellectualized Rationality

Debby wrote:

>CS, you mention the illiterate enlightened ones. How do you think enlightenment and cognitive development relate? (Priorly, though, what is the effect on cognitive development of illiteracy? I never thought about it before.)

Dear Debby,

Why are you doing this to me . . .

I have not been able to stop thinking about this over the last few months, even though I have a lot of more immediate tasks to work on, and now you practically force me to prematurely nail down some of my half-baked thoughts on this.[ :-) ]

Frankly, I have started to believe KW's linear stage model is misleading in some respects. I know he has been opening up his model lately, in particular in Eye of Spirit, but still the idea is that the transpersonal stages build upon and extend the postconventional. The developmental logic of the whole sequence of stages up to centaur/existential is heavily influenced by the piagetian line of reasoning. This is centered on cognitive development, and assumes that the evolution of the self goes hand in hand with increasingly sophisticated cognitive abilities. I'm sure this is a valid way of depicting development. However, I think that ego-transcendence, and a stable access to "pure awareness," "witness consciousness," and "non-duality" has a quite weak relationship to the higher levels of cognitive development. It is possible, I think, not only to have glimpses of transcendental *states,* but also to transform into a *structure* of consciousness that has a self (or no-self) which is disidentified with the ego, or with any particular form, *without* first having developed trued vision-logic ( e.g. ability to integrate different perspectives). KW sometimes talk about stages of cognitive development beyond vision-logic (prajna, gnosis, savikalpa, nirvikalpa), but he doesn't even hint at how these forms really build upon the quite sophisticated abilities of vision-logic.

The problem is that most models of consciousness development focus on increasingly sophisticated cognitive abilities, whereas the transpersonal stages are not concerned with further sophistication of cognition, but with development of the ability to take cognition as an object of awareness. The *contents* of cognition need not be very sophisticated in order to disidentify from them.

I'm sure *some* level of cognitive development is a necessary prerequisite for making ego-transcendence possible, but I doubt that it is meaningful to regard cognitive development as a defining feature of the transpersonal stages.

My hunch is (I'm very confused about this still) that cognitive development and ego-transcendence can be depicted on an x-axis and an y-axis respectively, yielding a range of possible combinations between them. For example:

Egotranscendence+Mythic-rational cognition A person who has disidentified from ego, through development of a stable witness consciousness (ability to witness own emotions, desires, thoughts without being subjected to them) is no longer helplessly driven by ego-derived needs. This makes it far easier to embody unconditional and universal love, for example (but there is no guarantee: you can become a cynic instead, disidentifying even from compassion . . .). However, such a person would not be able to understand perspectives radically different from their own. Since he/she is not bound to an ego, and hence has no ego-defense needs, there would not be any drive to reject and devalue other perspectives. One possible attitude is then simply and neutrally to state: I don't understand this other perspective. Or people who follow other paths are benevolently regarded as mislead and confused. They have not yet seen the right way. However, there would not be any need for self-aggrandizement, proselytizing, etc.

For such a person accepting basic ignorance and feeling awe at the unfathomable cosmos is not felt as a threat. But this doesn't mean they are necessarily very skilled at developing grounded *knowledge* about the human society or the cosmic All.

I'd be glad to hear other thoughts on this. I'm acutely aware of my own lack of competence in this field (I do grasp cognitive development theory, but I don't claim ego-transcendence), but it seems I can't let it be . . .

Thomas