Joy is not necessarily more or less likely early on in development (development, as for instance, given in Wilber’s writings) or later on in development. Because of common communication of the experiences of frustrations and happiness nearer the center of development, attention is commonly focused there or vice versa (the relationship between attention, experience, and communication of experience is mutual and supportive). Internal experience is inseparable from external experience, or subjectivity is inseparable from objectivity.
We commonly assume that much of midlevel personal development (from around four years old to old age) is focused on external reality, or learning to deal with objectivity and one’s responses to objectivity. This common assumption is supported by our common practices in education and communication. This is a plausible assumption since prerational communication does not deal in midlevel experiences and postrational development does not deal exclusively in midlevel experience. Midlevel communication is most common, and therefore, too often assumed as exclusive–all there is--or as most important. Changes in communication techniques and awareness of communication techniques that occur with postrational development are not generally understood. This general lack of understanding simply marks the common level of development and understanding; it is not a comment that is evaluative of some moral value of this common level.
Because internal and external reality are inseparable, it is false to say that midlevel development focuses mainly on developing objective understanding–what we commonly consider to be the purpose of education. Communicating this false understanding has the effect of ignoring internal and subjective development. Subjective development is not necessarily totally denied, but attention is disproportionately shifted onto beliefs about external reality or objectivity. Midlevel development makes objective understanding explicit while subjective experience and development is merely implied or tucked away–allowing impoverishment of subjective experience by withdrawing explicit social support.
Because this is common custom at this time in our culture, in a general and casual sense, it often feels acceptable to individuals within the culture. Because it is common custom which most significantly affects the action taken by the entire society and representatives of society, the effects show clearly on a social level. Most clearly, prison populations and reliance on prisons, defense spending and economic reliance on defense spending, teen suicide, child poverty, pervasive violence in the media, pervasive fiscal irresponsibility, and environmental devastation are the indicators of disproportionate investment of attention and belief at this time.
When one considers these specific manifestations of cultural values, then a specific awareness or attending to points out the detrimental or unhealthy nature of these particular effects. Correspondingly, on an individual level, when one’s awareness or consideration is not merely casual or vague, then one notices a range of feelings involving a sense of apathy or withdrawal, alienation, lack of integrated purpose, isolation, or feelings of incompetence and misunderstanding in the face of pervasive global issues, and perhaps compassion or connection to the larger society or particular people or issues currently faced by the larger society. (From a less protected socioeconomic standpoint, the particular problems and frustration within one’s own life may demand the majority of one’s attention, but even then or especially then, it is usually recognized that larger social forces significantly influence the situation.)
The spiritualists who have indicted rationality or objective reality as guilty of causing these social and individual problems have presumed (their own views an unrecognized part of) the rational-level inability to move beyond or into the experience and situation in a manner that addresses the problems and adjusts the situation. This presumption arises from an unquestioned sense of overimportance placed on language, illogical thinking, and a lack of subtle understanding. I indict the indicters on all three counts, while the rationalists are only guilty of the first two and the indicters often believe themselves to be innocent.
While the spiritualists correctly mention that problems arise from overemphasizing discursive thinking, they are themselves caught within the problem they diagnose–they believe their own thinking too much. This is not a moral failing but a general, group-level indicator of development to the edge of rational communications but not beyond. It is illogical and subjectively unnecessary to combine feelings of moral condemnation or aboveness with the recognition that an overemphasis on discursive thinking is unhealthy. A common response to this spiritualist conundrum is to suspend both rationality and one’s sense of discrimination along with one’s sense of moral condemnation. This evidences a lack of subtle understanding. Since rationalists do not support the idea of subtle understanding that is developmentally beyond rationalist expertise or objectivist genius, they are not culpable; they are simply limited by their worldview.
The charge of lacking subtle understanding is not an individual charge, neither does it suggest that anyone lacks spiritual realization. It may be quite possible to realize higher developmental abilities or awareness without having a full understanding of those abilities or awareness. I would argue that a full or complete understanding is as yet impossible because we have not witnessed or participated in full social development, although it is possible that individuals have exhausted the spectrum of human development. I take the fact that we have not been able to broadly communicate a comprehensive understanding of human development as evidence that a complete understanding does not yet exist. If a complete understanding that took into account all human potentiality existed, it would have been communicated–recognized as wisdom by many but not all.
Every individual that developed beyond standard group understanding had to deal with the solitude and aloneness that comes with exploring. This has shaped everyone’s understanding of both human nature in general and “spirituality” in particular. Significant disagreement still surrounds whether individual pioneers exist or have existed and what further development might look like if it is actual–more than just a spiritualist dream or passing hallucination. The subjective frustrations experienced by individuals who look to innovate are real and should not be denied. The incomprehensibility or foreignness of “spiritual” communications is also real and should not be denied. This standoff will not be overcome without involving clear, rational thinking, and it will not be sidestepped without further consequences.
Along with rejecting social understanding in order to explore possibilities, developmental pioneers have tended to disproportionately reject normal methods of communications. They necessarily rejected the limits of accepted methods, but they inordinately rejected more than the limits. The central problem is not necessarily unwillingness or selfishness or eccentricity. The central problem may be perspective. An individual’s understanding of development will not fully describe ANY group’s experience. BUT, any genuine experience that is humanly possible may be–if not universally possible–almost universally possible (excepting sexual difference). If so, sharing the experiences in any way will alter how they are understood and also how they are experienced.
The feelings of solitude and aloneness may POSSIBLY diminish if more people experience this development. For this to happen, at least two things are unavoidable. The first is the recognition that more people experiencing anything whatsoever will push the supposed limitations experienced by the forerunners in this area, broadening the array of experiences and enriching the overall understanding. The second necessity is that we learn to distinguish individual agency, determination, and application from unnecessarily detrimental experiences of solitude. This means that it may be impossible to develop certain attributes or types of awareness without experiencing emptiness or feelings of aloneness, but it is possible that aloneness does not need to be incorporated into the general understanding as a dogmatic assertion. It is possible to distinguish feelings or experiences of aloneness from objective necessities. Demanding that the subjective experience adequately represents reality in its totality (objective/subjective) is both irrational and detrimental to an overall understanding. The logical retreat into saying that language cannot convey “higher” truths hides a significant misunderstanding regarding the relationships between language, discursive thinking, individual experience, communication, and group understanding. This logical retreat also expresses the widely recognizable truth that not everything can be said. For an adequate and shared understanding to be reached, this truth must be teased apart from this retreat.
“Group understanding” will alternately be used to represent commonly agreed upon truths and also the sum total of possible experiences of the varied individuals in any group. Just as individuals experience quite a lot that they are not conscious of at a level of discursive thought (autonomic functions, etc.), groups are not “aware” of–do not explicitly agree upon–everything that is experienced by group members.
Even if it were possible to communicate everything that everyone experienced, individual characteristics would still limit individual experiences of each communication and, therefore, limit each individual’s ability to fully understand each communication. In this sense, unconscious experience is richer than we often realize as individuals, and the possibilities of group experience may be richer than any individual realizes as well as richer than any group may explicitly agree on. If we do not consider differences between group experience and ability at the same time that we discuss individual experience and communication of individual experience, we cannot accurately comprehend–individually or collectively–what is occurring. Without a comprehensive understanding, every understanding will be false (as distortion of experienced reality), incomplete (as a less-than even an accurate representation/simplification of the whole), and also distanced or abstracted (not experienced directly). To criticize any of these shortcomings as they tend to be re-cognized in discursive thought and communicated in language without recognizing at least these three problems is to deal in an incomplete and inaccurate understanding. (It should be noted that every understanding is somewhat of an abstraction, and so this “problem” does more to describe or place understanding than to criticize it.)
It might be quite likely that we as humans may be capable of experiencing, even understanding, phenomenal realities beyond the normal scope of habitual communication. Rational scientists insist that this is so. For example, the laws of Newtonian physics may help me observe and understand the movements of planets to some extent, even though I don’t internally or directly experience the movements or the laws. I can cognize the laws and observe the planets. Newtonian physics is not necessarily an argument against quantum physics, although they seem to disagree. Newtonian physics, though somewhat cruder than quantum physics, encouraged the exploration that allowed the discoveries of quantum phenomena. In this sense, quantum physics does not need to be seen as contradicting Newtonian physics, but rather, the understanding gained by applying quantum physics more accurately PLACES the understanding gained by applying Newtonian physics. It is possible, though not necessarily easy, to communicate more accurate understanding, but the methods of communications must keep pace with the development of understanding if the communication is to occur without obvious distortion. Just as it is ridiculous to expect someone to experience Newtonian physics and quantum physics exactly the same, it is ridiculous for developmental pioneers and anyone not as advanced to expect anyone to experience subjective phenomena in exactly the same way as has been understood by prior experience in this field.
So there are notable and respectable differences to be aware of between past experiences, past interpretations, and current experiences and interpretation. To believe otherwise is to deny time, individuality, and also social change (it is not necessary to believe that social change has been progressive or developmental). In the same way that scientists are increasingly aware of limitations of their laws and the likelihood of phenomenal occurrence outside their systems of laws, the same increasing awareness can occur in societies in general concerning communication. The same can occur with developmental pioneers without denying the importance of their individual experiences. If this is not incorporated into the general understanding, it will have the same type of effects against innovation and development that trying to stifle people like Copernicus have had.
From this perspective, I would like to attack and then reconcile two parties in an interesting debate over praxis. This argument may or may not be found interesting by rationalists; I will have other arguments or presentations for them. This argument is against foolish “enlightened” individuals who struggle with communicating their wisdom or realization and also against admittedly unenlightened groups of spiritualists who have not decided how to deal with or interpret the actions of a supposedly–or merely self-proclaimed–“enlightened” leader. In the case that the teacher will not relent concerning advanced development, complete or otherwise, and assuming that the followers recognize that they could certainly learn by following someone wiser or more realized than themselves, I say, “Interrogate the system.”
When the problem is personalized as either the teacher’s idiosyncracy or the groups’ dullness, the problem is seen as inherent. This makes it difficult to understand: a) that the problem can be dealt with, and b) how to actually deal with it. The problem in both cases comes from overzealousness about enlightenment or development and lack of sophistication is understanding and communication. The hypothetical or abstract belief that the problem can be dealt with, in the absence of practical application, may simply sedate everyone involved instead of alerting everyone to something that should be addressed and addressed well.
I begin with the possibility that developed and relatively undeveloped individuals may grasp for themselves the possibility that understanding is possible. This standpoint is largely worthless without application, so I will move directly into application. How does a group of unenlightened individuals deal with the possibility of enlightenment or at least further development? Denial is the simplest answer. It is direct and ideologically complete. If no further expanses exist, it is pointless to pursue any further. So I will only intend to address those who find this denial to be unsatisfactory.
I have given my answer, “Interrogate the system”, and I will explain briefly for those who do not find the implications to be obvious. When considering any teacher or expert, one must consider the expert’s ability to communicate their supposed expertise and to apply their expertise in whatever field to an integrated understanding. If there is no application, then Einstein might be an interesting person, but his ramblings have no more recognizable relevance than those of someone certifiably insane. (My purpose at this point is not to recuperate insane ramblings; that will have to come later.) That which is subjectively experienced by individuals is only recognizably relevant in a social milieu when there is some applied relevance or understanding which a larger group might understand.
Being largely sympathetic or hopeful concerning advanced development, I do not intend to place all responsibility on leaders or followers. I intend to bring proportion to interpretation. An interrogation of the system of communications or education that is offered by the leader does not hold either the group or leader as predominantly responsible. Rather, the point is to depersonalize the issue and retain sensibility, actual experience, and a reasonable amount of objective space. Without understanding and working through the limitations of communicational abilities, neither the group nor the individual can benefit from proclaimed difference.
Concerning the group’s input, denial is the single largest obstacle to understanding the system of teaching or communication–not stubbornness or ignorance. Concerning the frontrunner’s or leader’s input, the largest obstacle may be either the frustration encountered in achieving advancement or inability to communicate in recognizable terms. The frustration may be quite significant and should not be discounted by the group–assuming there is a recognition by the group members that something may be learned or achieved. And although realization may be significant, the forerunner cannot expect to have proclamations of significance to be recognized unless those proclamations are verifiable to some degree.
All this means little more than that development takes attention and intention. Understanding communication may take a systemic approach that has not yet been adequately described as within rationalist limitations or as described by pioneering explorers. When the difficulties are personalized, they confuse progress and point out limitations in the systems of communications. Joy might occur all along the spectrum of development, but communicating development may entail developing communications.
Copyright 2007 Todd Mertz