Reality, Consciousness and Psychospiritual Transformation
By Dana Gaynor Ph.D. © 2001
Abstract:
The study of spiritual transformation inevitably leads us to reconsider our experience of the nature of reality, consciousness and ultimately existence as a whole. Reflected in altered states of consciousness, models of a universal ground from which we all emerge and accounts of the paranormal there is much to consider. In this article I will take a very broad look at common factors across a wide variety of disciplines and traditions that are directly associated with our notions of spiritual transformation. We'll see, in overview format, that it is possible to extrapolate a parsimonious meta-model of existence that co-describes consciousness and reality as dualistic orientations or interpretations of a single universal process. This meta-model can be considered holarchic in nature because it expresses a whole process, complete in itself, and at the same time comprised of an embedded hierarchy of interdependent processes. It is literally a complex dynamical system in which all aspects are necessarily interrelated. An interesting aspect of this model is that it utilizes "interrelationship" as the fundamental unit for dynamically modeling both reality and individual consciousness. Finally, we'll consider the notion of psychospiritual transformation from this perspective.
Introduction: What is Reality?
Typically we think of the term reality as referencing the true nature of existence. A variety of disciplines have developed that offer alternative means to explore this topic. They include (among many others) philosophy, physics, astrophysics, metaphysics, psychology, chaos theory and the mystical schools of our great spiritual traditions. Each of them provides a different perspective, context and method for understanding and discovering this nature. At the same time, comparison of models rendered by these various perspectives suggests a common universal process demonstrating a number of common characteristics (Gaynor, 2001). The two scientific models below suggest that existence is a self-directed transformation process occurring within a vacuum or state of nothingness. Emerging first as a potentially aware energetic field/state of what is essentially light energy, this active state is thought to excite or self-organize into the hierarchical system of increasingly complex forms that make up our universe and create interrelational existence. The resulting complex dynamical process forms a holarchy, or hierarchical process of processes, expressing increasingly differentiated interrelationships. These expressions of interrelational potential include subatomic, atomic, molecular, organismic geologic, planetary, galactic and cosmic systems.
Operational models of existence:
Quantum field theory - In quantum field theory, all manifestations of existence are thought to occur within a non relational quantum vacuum (Hawking, 1997; Zohar, 1994). It is a universal space but it's not considered empty. Within it, a field-like sea of boson energy is thought to flicker on and off. Excitations of this field are thought to produce the increasingly complex states or thresholds of existence, what Bertalanffy (1968) termed "a universal hierarchy of systems", in each moment. The quantum model is dualistic suggesting that this hierarchy exists as two aspects; wave and particle. Through phase entanglement wave aspects of embedded systems are thought to merge producing ever-larger waves of ever-larger systems. At the same time consciousness appears to continuously collapse waves into particle aspects which in turn self-organize in increasingly complex forms or interrelationships. In this way the process of existence expresses a holarchy of dynamic interrelationships (subprocesses) beginning and ending in the nothingness of the vacuum.
To clarify, in the quantum model reality exists as pure energetic potential from instant to instant. It is a field of infinite virtual possibility through its wave aspects and thought to collapse into the particle reality each of us experiences in the moment. Many quantum physicists have suggested that volition and cognition may be associated with collapsing virtual possibility into a single actuality. Heisenberg (1989) noted that the observer effects the event. Shroedinger (1935) developed his now famous wave equation to describe this collapsing-the-wave function. John Von Neumann (1955) visualized the process of wave collapse as broken into small steps creating a chain of events and demonstrated that the collapsing of the wave could occur anywhere between the event and consciousness. That said, he did, however, feel forced to theorize that consciousness was the site of the occurrence because it is the only link in the chain that was unique in that it was not mere molecules in motion. With this kind of reasoning one can not rule out the possibility that every transformation of the field expresses at least the potential for some form of volitional collapse. Logically therefore, self-similar forms of volition would be expected to exist implicitly at all orders of magnitude. As the process starts in and ultimately returns to the nothingness of the quantum vacuum, it is entirely self-directed. The trouble with the quantum model is that its dualistic treatment of reality is not parsimonious. Further its fundamental duality has little in common with actual experience.
Stochastic electrodynamics (SED):
In response to the complex quantum models of inertia, Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff (1994) developed a dynamical systems model that defines the nature of reality in terms of energetic momentums and interactions producing all forms of interrelational existence dynamically . Their model also begins in the universal vacuum but focuses on a self-organizing energy field referred to as the zero-point field (ZPF); a uniform and isotropic sea of photonic radiation that spans the entire universe equally. The ZPF thus provides a universal frame of reference. In this model we can think of inertia as a Lorenze-type force (detectable only during acceleration and deceleration) created by motion through the ZPF. They show that when an electromagnetically interacting particle is accelerated through the ZPF, a force is exerted on the charge that is proportional to acceleration but acting in the opposite direction. Using Einstein’s general theory of relativity (inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent) we can apply this orientation to both gravity and inertia. The parsimonious conclusion would be that apparent mass is simply an illusion created by a charge interacting with the ZPF. Reality is dynamic holarchy of interdependent energetic processes within a uniform energetic medium in this model. Because the ZPF is photonic energy, it is a Bose-Einstein condensate; thus implying that it is highly unified. Because it is self-organizing it suggests the possibility of volition. Once again volition cannot be ruled out of the interactions in this purely energetic model of reality.
Figure 1.
Comparison of Quantum and SED models
Quantum physics and stochastic electrodynamics offer models of reality that implicitly describe it as a self-directed process occurring within an "infinite" void or vacuum. Within this state of nothingness, a curious thing is unanimously thought to occur. What is essentially light energy, is believed to continually excite or flicker into being producing a field of virtual possibility through which the increasingly complex thresholds of cosmic differentiation and complexity self-organize. The process ranges from the smallest subatomic particles, through atoms, molecules, compounds, cells, organisms, and so on up to planetary and cosmic systems. At each threshold, increased differentiation is evidenced by more complex forms of interrelationship and expressed potential. It is very import to note that because science can not tell us why, within a void or vacuum, there should be any spontaneous flickering excitation at all or why this should produce increasingly complex groupings of matter and/or energy, we have to allow for the possibility that the process reflects a basic form of universal volition. If we can't rule it out, science requires us to consider it. We can therefore suggest that volition is at least potentially implicit in all forms of existence at a fundamental level.
The Mystical Models
The mystical or mystery schools of our great spiritual traditions provide models of consciousness and the nature of reality that integrate the notion of spiritual transformation. While honoring the unique beliefs and orientations of these great traditions, each model of existence describes an aware dynamical transformation process operating within a void. In all of these process models, reality emerges from nothingness in increasingly complex thresholds of interrelationship producing our ever-changing universe. This universal process underlies all mystical traditions. It begins with the a priori assumption of an implicit universal form of awareness or volition. Being is seen as emerging from nothingness through the emanation of an aware energetic state. In most cases this energetic state is referred to as a pure light. In all cases it is understood to be volitional and therefore self-directing. This self-directing process is understood to create existence by differentiating into increasingly complex forms and processes ultimately producing one's individual consciousness (below).
For the Kabbalist, En-Sof is the incomprehensible nothingness within which Kether, the purest light, the completely undifferentiated potential for all existence emerges. The emanation that begins as Kether projects itself through nine subsequent transformations producing increasingly complex interactions of it own light. These transformations manifest as four increasingly complex patterns of interrelationship described as worlds or states of existence (Sholem, 1995; Ponce, 1995; Yudelove, 1999). Ultimately this process produces and is discerned by individual consciousness in this the fourth world/state of existence. For the Advaita Vedanta Hindu, Brahman is the pure nothingness from which Isvara or the aware active potential for all existence effulges or shines forth. From Isvara, emerge three coexisting universal forces or principles of existence referred to as the Trimurti. They include Brahma, the divine principle of creation; Vishnu, the divine principle of preservation; and Siva, the divine principle of destruction. They represent increasingly complex principles of being and it is their complex interactions that produce increasingly complex worlds or states of existence in Hindu mythology as superimpositions on and within Brahman (Maharshi, 1997; Radha, 1978). The process is ultimately experienced by consciousness releasing the "illusion" of separateness.
For the Gnostic, the Root is the ineffable nothingness within which the Pleroma (The Light of Truth) a field of pure potential for form is thought to emanate and from which is thought to emerge seven successive descending thresholds of being. Each threshold, called a Syzygy, emerges from the last as a pair of complimentary but potentially antagonistic principles or planes of being. These principles, defining states of being, are referred to separately as aeons but in pairs of opposites as duads with each subsequent pair expressing increasingly complex potentials. Each has a personality often associated with it as well. This differentiation process is by some accounts thought to produce as many as 365 aeons, with individual consciousness the result of their interactions (Blavatsky, 1988; Hall, 1926; Larsen, 1977, Robinson, 1990). For the Vajrayana Buddhist, Sunyata is the great void within which three bodies or states of existence emerge. The Dharmakaya, a state of pure light and infinite potential emanates, it is considered the first cosmic state or body and through it a second state or body self-organizes, referred to as the Sambhogakaya. It is more complex having a composite nature. Within it, a number of increasingly complex states or planes of being have form. It contains what we could characterize as all the knowable manifestations of the spiritual pervasiveness of the absolute. Ultimately, a three tiered hierarchy of increasingly complex or differentiated states of existence emerge each from within Sunyata and are called with the Trikaya or three bodies (Wilber, 1996; Lauf, 1977; Evans-Wentz, 1968). Individual consciousness is considered a by-product of this process.
There are a variety of orientations to cosmogony in Christian Mysticism. In early models, reality is understood to emerge from a state of nothingness referred to as the Abyssal Sea. The latter is the unseen God, equivalent to En-Sof in the Kabbalah or The Root in Gnosticism. From this Sea of nothingness, a field/state of pure light emanates. This is the Father of the new testament, a state of universal mind represented by pure light. In this mystic tradition, universal mind in recognizing itself produces universal spirit which is creative agency, a feminine concept referred to in some forms of Gnostism as Sofia and in Christian Mysticism as the Holy Spirit. The Son, the energetic word, was thought to emerge from the Father and Holy Spirit as an expression of masculine and feminine principles. Universal Thought differentiates through energy and manifests as words (energetic vibrations) that are ultimately dynamic patterns of interrelationship. From the first three states of being, seven planes of existence are thought to emerge as successive thresholds of increasing complexity. These are the spirit realms, planes or dimensions producing the various states of being including angels and archons . From their dynamic interactions material existence comes into being (Blavatsky, 1888, 1988; Lewis, 1937, 1965; Larson, 1977; de Purucker, 1945, 1949).
We see another similar type of cosmogenic orientation depicted by Hopi tradition. For the Hopi, The mind of Taiowa is the pure nothingness from which Sotuknang or the potential for all existence emerged. From Sotuknang, the Spider Woman i.e. creative agency came forth and together they co-created the Four increasingly complex Worlds of Hopi mythology. Through this creation process all existence is thought to be brought into being (Novak, 1994; Waters, 1963). Our world and level of consciousness is represented by the fourth world of this model. We can in fact trace this common fundamental model of cosmogenic process through many other traditions and back to the ancient Egyptians. For the ancient Egyptian, Tum refers to the pure nothingness from which Atum-Kephrer-Ra, the pure light of all existence as undifferentiated potential shines forth producing the Neters, referring to increasingly complex principles, potentials for existence and material correspondences (Budge, 1967; de Lubicz, 1977; Naydler, 1996). In all models this emanation process produces a hierarchy of increasingly complex systems ultimately yielding individual human consciousness.
Figure 2.
Comparison of spiritual models showing associated names and states of complexity.
Perennial tradition > Volitional Void > Pure Potential > Increasing Complexity > Material World
Christian Mysticism Abysal Sea God the Father The Trinity Individual Consciousness
Pattern 1.
Cosmic Differentiation:
Existence emerges within and in relationship with a state of nothingness, first as a potentially aware field/state of pure energetic potential then as a self-organizing holarchy of increasingly complex forms or interrelationships, ultimately producing individual consciousness.
Operationally describing individual consciousness
Whether it's the research on feeling states of Combs, Winkler & Daley (1994); the vision and consciousness modeling of Crick & Koch (1994) or Hardcastle (1996); the consciousness modeling of Damasio (1994), Llinas (1990) or Penrose (1989); the research on cognitive systems of Demetriou, Efklides, & Platsidou (1993); the studies of behavior by Duke (1994); the physiology of perception by Freeman (1991); the mood and behavior research of Guess & Sailor, 1993; the research on memory by Botinni (1988) or Parodi, Ridella & Zunino (1990); the research on behavioral genetics of Thelan, 1990; the work on vision by Vandervert (1990); and the models of olafaction by Yao & Freeman (1990) among many others; current scientific research into the nature of individual consciousness describe it implicitly as a complex dynamical system derived from the interaction of a variety of self-referential brain/mind processes. These processes internalize, store, integrate, and manipulate patterns of interrelationship representing one's experience. Each pattern represents one's experience through one's relationship with the world. Taken broadly, such patterns may be considered one's object relations because each pattern, by its self-referencing nature, represents one's experiences as subject/object relationships. We can suggest that as each pattern represents a self-referential relationship that defines an aspect of self-identity. Kohut's self psychology (1977) taken to its logical conclusions implicitly suggests this very thing. Erikson(1950, 1960, 1968), Mahler(1968), Piaget (1951, 1954, 1985), among others offer models of cognitive development which suggest that the fundamental imperative of this developmental process is to internalize and manipulate increasingly complex self-referential interrelational potentials producing a dynamic yet absolute context that co-describes self and universe in the moment.
Research like that mentioned above broadly suggests that the developmental imperative of the brain/mind is to internalize and dynamically create contexts and meanings from increasingly complex self-referential patterns of sense and cognitive data. These studies demonstrate the existence a ground state of consciousness appearing as background state of random neural firings. This chaotic state functions as an aware field-like environment within which all firing patterns stand out and are recognized. It becomes an absolute frame of reference so to speak. To Hardcastle (1996) this very random yet aware field offers a possible solution to the problem of how our separate sense data bind to form consciousness. I would agree adding that it represents the existence of a base field of unfocused awareness. In this environment, cognition structures subjective reality in-the-moment by interrelating internalized self-referential patterns, thereby creating contexts and dynamically structuring a frame of reference within the absolute frame of the field.
Individual consciousness appears to emerge as a product of the self-directed cosmic differentiation process. As such it is a by-product of the universal process that begins in the great void. Scientists typically associate consciousness with the complex biophysical and bioenergetic systems of the body/brain and the more subtle interactions of cognitive and emotional processes. If we look closely at research on the operations of consciousness listed above, we find that a common meta-model for its operation emerges. Individual consciousness operates as an aware or volitional bioenergetic field/state within which a holarchy of complex relationships representing our experiences are dynamically integrated into contextual frames of reference. We derive our meanings from these frames that represent the world around us by its relationships to us in-the-moment and over a lifetime. It is a process that clearly yet uniquely reiterates the greater process of existence as we have described it above. Both operate within the same void as fields of potential in which holarchies of interrelationships dynamically self-organize in the moment. At the same time individual consciousness is a product of the greater process of existence. In complexity theory, a process that reiterates in self-similar ways at multiple orders of magnitude is called a fractal. We can suggest that our model of individual mind/brain consciousness is a fractal of the process of existence because it is spawned from the latter and demonstrates the same fundamental operating pattern at an embedded order of magnitude.
Pattern 2 - Conscious Integration:
Individual consciousness emerges as a product of cosmic differentiation, internalizing and manipulating increasingly complex interrelationships within a biophysical, bioenergetic field of awareness.
Consciousness and Reality are operationally inseparable:
Ultimately we are limited in our knowledge of both consciousness and reality to our self-referential experiences. We have no way of validating objective existence apart from our senses and our subjective frame. Great minds have ruminated on this. Kant (1896) reminds us that noumenal reality (i.e. objective reality) was unknowable. Only phenomenal or subjective reality is knowable. Husserl (1929) wrote that reality was understood only through our consciousness-of-experience; “Ego-cogitum-cogitatum” I (ego) have volition/knowledge of (cogitum) an object (cogitatum). He describes a self-referential process. James (1958, 1902) suggested objective reality was a self-referential picture of something the existence of which we cannot possess. “reality and …experience are one.” As to whether reality exists separately from consciousness, Berkeley (1998) argued we have no more reason to posit the existence of matter than suggest that reality existed entirely as an idea in the mind of god. Merleau-Ponty (1999) believed that humans were typically biased in favor of believing in physical existence. Even Hume (1998) reminded us that we only know what we experience and that is the fundamental premise for empiricism on which our contemporary scientific models are based. For reasons like these modeling consciousness and reality as a single self-referential process at different orders of magnitude makes parsimonious sense.
Pattern 3. Reality and consciousness are co-aspects of a Singular Process
Consciousness and reality are operationally inseparable and, as evidence suggests that individual consciousness is a product of reality’s cosmic differentiation process, we can further suggest that they reflect subject/object polar orientations to a single self-directed process at different orders of magnitude. In mathematics, a complex process that is self-directed and reiterates in self-similar ways at multiple orders of magnitude is called a fractal.
Interrelatedness - the new paradigm:
In the very fundamental ways we have explored, all aspects of existence appear interrelated creating a universal holarchy. The Source Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential describes interrelatedness as "the concept of the universe as a texture of relations between parts which though distinguishable, as they must be to be related, are not merely inseparable but intrinsically interdependent. The existence and character of each is what it is because the rest of the universe, as a whole and in its parts, are what they are. Whole and part are mutually determining and no detail could be other than it is without making some difference, however slight, to all the rest." Using rigorous empiricism, the interrelatedness of all aspects of existence is becoming increasingly obvious. All interrelated aspects of existence when viewed collectively form one great, extremely complex, system and process.
Operationally, our ability to psychologically transform is, in many tangible ways, founded in our awareness of interrelationship. Interrelatedness is implicit in all aspects of psychological development in three ways; a) through the internalizing of increasingly complex relationships and the integrating of these patterns within a dynamic cognitive frame of reference that defines both self and universe; b) through the awareness of the increasingly complex potentials these patterns of relationship express; and c) the release of attachment for patterns expressing lower order potentials through the integration of higher order (more complex) potentials. As the object relations and Self developmental models of Mahler (1968), Kohut (1977), implicitly suggest it is through our fundamental awareness of our interrelationships that we identify and define or construct both self and universe. It is through understanding and integrating increasingly subtle and complex shades of differentiation and potential that we grow psychologically (Erikson, 1960, 1968 ; Piaget, 1985).
In Gaynor (2001) I therefore reworked the construct of Interrelatedness to operationalize one's awareness of interrelationship and interrelational potential. In this model interrelatedness references five phenomenological dimensions; a) awareness of the interrelationships in the world around one (outer world relatedness); b) awareness of the interrelationships within one’s self (inner world relatedness); c) awareness of the interrelationships between one’s self and the world (conscious interconnection); d) awareness of new and alternative potentials for relationship (flexibility); and e) awareness of an implicit order integrating the relationships of which one is aware (high order framing). My current studies of interrelatedness suggest that increases in these dimensions are directly associated with psychospiritual transformation (Gaynor, 1999, ongoing).
Interrelatedness and Psychospiritual Growth
At a meta level, psychospiritual growth can be described as one's coming to awareness of one's relationship with the universal process and its source (Gaynor, 2001). Perennial methodologies for spiritual transformation exist and have long been utilized by spiritual initiates and mystics. Their goals always lead to direct experience of a source state and/or direct experience of an ultimate process. To accomplish this a variety of training methodologies are utilized. Some are very experiential and teach one to be present in the moment, a true witness to the emerging process of existence. Others are mental exercises in deconstructing and/or analyzing reality. Many of the latter utilize cognitive training formats that implicitly expand one's sense of interrelatedness by interrelating all aspects of experience to an ultimate source and/or process (Gaynor, 2001).
Kabbalists' utilizes a cognitive training methodology interrelating all aspects of experience through the Tree-of-Life and ultimately En-Sof. Experientially they strive to be aware of the emanation process in all that is and experience the pure active potential of Kether. Ultimately practitioners experience an aware nondual state. We see a similar orientation with Advaita Vedanta Hinduism cognitively integrating all existence through Isvara or deconstructing all existence as a superimposition on Brahman. Experientially their goal is to surrender the illusion of separateness and consciously experience the nondual universal consciousness of Brahman that is our ultimate nature. For the Taoist all existence is integrated through the Tao and ultimately interrelated back to the pure nothingness of Wu Chi. Experientially Taoists strive to be-the-process. Their goal is to be aware of and allow the process to express itself through them. The Hopi cognitively integrates all existence through a universal process. Like the Kabbalist the Hopi understood this process to have created four successive and increasingly complex worlds derived from a feminine creative force they called the Spider Woman, a Ultimate masculine force, they called Soutaknang and the ultimate the void-like nature of existence they called the mind of Taiowa. Hopi spiritual transformation enables them to better experience themselves as part of this great process. For the Vajrayana Buddhist, one cognitively interrelates all experiences through the Trikaya and the light of Dharmakaya to the ultimate nothingness of Sunyata. Experientially one strives to experience the process of existence in an unattached state of pristine awareness which is basically a pure form of nonrelational awareness. For the Yoruba, one interrelates all experiences through the principles of the Orisha and Ajogan to the pure nothingness of Oludumare. Experientially Yoruba's strive to be aware of their relationship to the natural order and ultimately attain a unative state of consciousness. In all these examples above it is awareness of one's relationship to the total process that is most associated with transformation. This has the effect of directly integrating the entire subjective cognitive frame with the universe as process. Through awareness of one's relationship to the total process, one may glimpse the pure potential from which individual consciousness emerges.
Pattern 4 - Psychospiritual Transformation
Psychospiritual transformation refers to the integration of cognition by directly interrelating all internalized patterns through their common process to their source.
Our mystical traditions teach us that, to spiritually transform, one must surrender attachment for fragmented beliefs and expectations expressing limited potentials in awareness of and identification with; or dissolution of any identification through; the experience of a common source and/or process thereby integrating all potentials. Thus spiritual transformation references the integration of the individual’s phenomenal universe through direct relationship of all form with the ultimate potential from which it emerges. In this light, psychospiritual pathology reflects a fixing of awareness on the separateness of particular patterns of relationship (beliefs or expectations) in effect producing a cognitive loop; one fixes associated aspects of identity to lower order fragmented expressions of interrelational potential, when higher order or more interdependent interrelational potentials have emerged in awareness. To the extent one releases attachment for any particular interrelationship (ie. pattern of relationship) in awareness of a more inclusive interrelationship or potential, one is psychospiritually growing .
Much evidence has emerged suggesting there is a transformation sequence associated with cognitive growth which produces predictable changes to the process of cognition. The sequence takes one from integrating and operating experiences at one threshold of interrelational awareness to integrating and expressing a more complex and therefore higher order potential. Such transitions are typically modeled in at least three phases: system equilibrium or stability, destabilization or disequilibrium resulting from new or anomalous information, and restabilization through contextual integration producing a more complex equilibrium. To clarify, one comes under the influence of new or anomalous experiences demonstrating more subtle and complex forms of relationship which seem to conflict with the relationships that define one's self image and world view thus destabilizing the system. The integration of these higher order relationships expressing more complex potentials reflects growth and is apparent in the restabilization of the frame. Because all internalized relationships are ultimately self-referential, an accompanying expansion of identity now including the more complex potentials is evident. Studies of psychological transition including those by Wolf, O'Connor and Crary (1990), Snyder and Feldman (1977,1984), and Walker and Taylor(1991) demonstrate this clearly. My work (Gaynor, 1999) suggests that this is also true for psychospiritual development for the reasons outlined in the preceding section.
Pattern 5 - Psychospiritual Transition Sequence
Psychospiritual transformation utilizes a three stage transition sequence moving from a psychological condition of equilibrium to the disequilibrium of the system in response to anomalous experiences and finally to a new integrative and therefore higher order state of equilibrium.
By truly associating the total potential for existence with any aspect of experience, that aspect functions as an event horizon into the pure potential of the total process (i.e. a point of access into the total process). Because individual consciousness is a process born of the larger self-directed universal process and represents a more complex order of magnitude; we can, in today's parlance, refer to both as fractals. Each of us, as a transformation of the total process, has the developmental imperative to ultimately experience the total process and its source as pure potential. By increasing our aware of existence as a transformation process emerging from nothingness through expressing increasingly complex potentials, releasing personal attachment for fragmented beliefs and frames of reference in favor of ever inclusive frames, we are spiritually transforming. Because this involves self-similar observations at all orders of magnitude, it is quite literally a fractal awakening.
Summary of Meta-patterns
Cosmic Differentiation:
Interrelational existence emerges from a state of volitional nothingness, first as a field/state of pure energetic potential then as a holarchy of increasingly complex thresholds of interrelationship ultimately producing individual consciousness. The latter reiterates the process by internalizing and representing experienced reality.
Conscious Integration:
Individual consciousness emerges as a by-product of cosmic differentiation, internalizing increasingly complex experiences as self/universe interrelationships within an electroneurochemical field of awareness. Its developmental imperative is to interrelate all experiences through the awareness of their implicit common source and process. This expands conscious awareness by directly interrelating the various aspects and potentials of experience.
Reality and consciousness are co-aspects of a Singular Process
Consciousness and reality are operationally inseparable and as evidence suggests that individual consciousness is a product of reality’s cosmic differentiation process, we can further suggest that they reflect subject/object polar orientations to a single self-directed process at different orders of magnitude. In mathematics, a complex process that is self-directed and self-similar at multiple orders of magnitude is called a fractal.
Psychospiritual Transformation
Psychospiritual transformation produces an integration of cognition by directly interrelating all internalized potentials for relationship through their common process and/or source.
Psychospiritual Transition Sequence
Psychospiritual transformation typically utilizes a three stage transition sequence moving from a psychological state of stability through destabilization of the system from anomalous experiences to restabilization through higher order integration.
References
Abraham,
F., Abraham, R., & Shaw, C. (1990). A visual introduction to dynamical
systems theory for psychology.
Santa Cruz: Aerial Press.
Abraham,
R. (1994). Chaos, Gaia, Eros. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.
Antonovsky,
A. (1993). Complexity, conflict,
chaos, coherence, coercion and
civility. Social Science and Medicine, 37(8), 969-974.
Armstrong,
A. (1989). The Challenges Of Psychic Opening: A Personal Story. In
Spiritual Emergency. (Grof, S & Grof, C. Eds.). New York: G.P.
Putnam’s
Sons.
Awolalu,
O. (1979). Yoruba Beliefs and Sacrificial Rites. White Plains, N.Y.:
Longman Group.
Barton,
S. (1994). Chaos, self-organization, and psychology. American-
Psychologist;
49(1),
5-14.
Berkeley,
G. (1998). “A Treatise concerning the principles of Human
knowledge” (Ed. James Fieser). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Bertalanffy,
L.v. (1968). General Systems Theory. New York: George Braziller.
Bell,
J.S. (1964) On The Einstein-Poldolsky-Rosen Paradox. Physics, 1, 195
Blackburn,
S. (1994). The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Blavatsky, H.P. (1988, 1888). The Secret Doctrine. Pasadena: Theosophical University Press
Bohm,
D. (1992). Thought as a System. New York: Rutledge.
Bohr,
N. (1963). Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. New York: Wiley
Bottini,
S. (1988). An after-Shannon measure of the storage capacity of an
associative
noise-like
coding memory., Biological
Cybernetics, 59, 151-
159.
Bottini,
S. (1988). An after-Shannon measure of the storage capacity of an
associative
noise-like
coding memory., Biological
Cybernetics, 59, 151-
159.
Boulding,
K. E. (1956). Toward a General Theory of Growth. General Systems,
1(a), 66-75.
Brentano,
F. (1874), Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, Translated from,
Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkte. Vol. 1., bk. 2, ch. 1,
D.B.
Terrell.
Budge, E. A. Wallis. (1898, 1967). The Egyptian Book of The Dead. New York: Dover.
Burk,
J., Ornstein, R. (1995). The Axemakers Gift. New York: G.P.
Putnam’s
Capra,
F. (1996). The Web Of Life. New York: Anchor Books.
Clauser, J.F., Shimnoy, A.
(1978). Bells Theorem: Experimental tests and
implications. Reports on Progress in Physics . 41, 1881.
Clifford,
T. (1977). Tibetan Buddhist Medicine And Psychiatry. York Beach:
Samuel Weiser,
Inc.
Crick,
F. (1994). The Astonishing Hypothesis: Search for the Soul.
New York:
Charles
Scribner’s
Sons.
Demetriou,
A., Efklides, A., & Platsidou, M. (1993).
The architecture and
dynamics of
developing
mind: Experiential structuralism as a frame for
unifying cognitive developmental
theories. Monographs of the
Society
For Research In Child Development,
234(58).
de
Lubicz,
R. A. S. (1985). The Egyptian Miracle.
Rochester: Inner Traditions
International.
Dennett,
D. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
de Purucker. G. (1945). Studies in Occult Philosophy. Pasadena: Theosophical Press.
Deutsch,
E. (1969). Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction. Honolulu:
East-West Center Press.
Duke,
M. P. (1994) Chaos theory and psychology: Seven Propositions. Genetic,
Social, and General Psychology
Monographs,
120(3), 267-286.
Einstein,
A. Lorentz, H.A., Weyl, H., Minkowski, H. (1923). The Principle of
Relativity.
New
York: Dover Publications.
Einstein,
A., Podolsky, B., Rosen, N. (1935). Can Quantum-Mechanical
Description of
Physical
Reality be considered Complete? Physical
Review.
47, 777.
Erikson,
E. H. (1960). Childhood and Society. New York: W.W. Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, Youth, and Crisis. New York: W.W. Norton.
Evans-Wentz,
W.Y. (1968) The Tibetan Book of the Dead. London: Oxford
University
Press.
Evans-Wentz,
W.Y. (1978). Tibetan Yoga and Secret Doctrines. New York:
Oxford University Press
Feigenbaum,
M. J. (1981). Universal behavior of Nonlinear
Systems. Los
Alamos Science, 1, 4-27.
Flanagan,
O. (1992). Consciousness Reconsidered. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Frager,
R. & Fadiman, J. (1984). Personality and Personal Growth. New York:
HarperCollinsPublishers.
Freeman,
W. (1991). The physiology of perception. Scientific American,
February,
264(2),
78-85.
Freud,
S. (1959). The Standard edition of the complete psychological works of
Sigmund Freud.
(J. Strachey Ed. and Trans.) Vol. 20. London: Hogarth.
Gleick,
J. (1987). Chaos: Making A New Science. New York: Penguin Group.
Gilligan,
C. (1982). In a Different Voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Golan,
N. (1983). Passing Through Transitions. New York: The Free Press.
Guess,
D, Seigal-Causey, E., Roberts, S., Rues, J., Thompson, B., & Seigel-
Causey,
D., (1990). Assessment and analysis of behavior state and
related
variables among student with profoundly
handicapped conditions.
Journal
of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 211-
230.
Guess,
D. & Carr, E. (1991). Emergence and maintenance of stereotype and self
injury. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96, 299-319.
Guess,
D., Seigal-Causey, E., Roberts, S., Rues, J., (1992). An investigation of
interactions between behavior state conditions and environmental event
among children and youth with profound and multiple disabilities.
U.S.
Dept.
of
Ed., National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
(Project No.
H133G00078).
Guess,
D.; Sailor, Wayne, (1993). Chaos
theory and the study of Human
behavior: Implications for special education and developmental
disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 16-34.
Hall,
M. (1988). The Secret Teachings of All Ages. Los Angeles: The
Philosophical Research Society, Inc.
Haisch,
B., Rueda, A. Puthoff, H.E. (1994). Beyond E=MC2.
Sciences.
November/December.
Hardcastle,
V. G. (1996). How We Get There From Here: Dissolution of the
Binding
Problem.
The Journal of Mind and Behavior. 17,3
p. 251-266.
Hawking, S. (1997). Stephan Hawking's Universe. New York: Basic Books.
Heisenberg,
W. (1958,1989). Physics and Philosophy. New York: Penguin.
Heisenberg,
W. (1971). Physics and Beyond. New York: Harper & Row.
Hull,
C. L. (1943). Principles of Behavior: An Introduction to Behavior Theory.
P.
381-398. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Hume,
D. (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. London. bk 1, pt 1-3 3 ,
Husserl,
E. (1929). Phenomenology, In Encyclopedia Britannica (Solomon, C.,
V.Trans).
James,
W. (1950/1980). The Principles
of psychology. New York: Dover
Publications.
James,
W. (1958/1902). The Varieties of
Religious Experience: Chicago: Mentor
Books.
Jung,
C. G. (1933). Modern Man in Search of Soul. New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World.
Jung,
C. G. (1961). Memories, Dreams, Reflections. New York: Random House.
Jung,
C. G. (1976). The Portable Jung. New York: Penguin Books.
Kalat,
J. W. (1992). Biological Psychology. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole
Publishing
Company.
Kant,
I. (1896). Critique of Pure Reason, (trans. F. Max. Muller), New York:
Macmillan.
Koestler,
A. (1967). The Ghost in the Machine. London: Hutchinson.
Koffka,
K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology. Harcourt, Brace & World Inc.
Kohlberg,
L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral Stages and
the idea of justice. Vol. 1. New York: Harper
& Row.
Kohlberg,
L. (1984). The psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and
Validity of Moral Stages. Essays on Moral Stages. Essays on Moral
Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of self. New York: International University Press.
Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International University Press.
Land,
G. T. L. (1973). Grow Or Die. New York: Random House.
Laszlo,
I. Masulli, R. Artigiani, & V. Csanyi, (Eds.), The evolution of cognitive
maps: New paradigms for the
twenty-first century (pp. 221-236).
Luxembourg, Germany: Gordon
and Breach Publishers. Laszlo, I.
Larson,
M.A. (1977). The Story of Christian Origins.
Tahlequah: Village Press.
Lauf,
D. I. (1977). Secret Doctrines Of The Tibetan Book Of The Dead. Boston:
Shambhala Publications Inc.
Levinson,
D. (1986). A conception of adult development. American Psychologist.
41(1), 3-13.
Levinson,
D., Darrow, C., Klein, E., Levinson, M., McKee, B. The Seasons of a
man’s life. New York: Knopf, 197