Gaia: The Integral Pod - Chapel Perspicacious - Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is?

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://pelle.gaia.com — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:01:31 GMT

I have started a new thread about Natural Science Beyond Orange.

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://riversong.gaia.com — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:21:04 GMT

I have just finished reading Stan Grof's book, When the Impossible Happens. I wonder if you have read it Julian. Would you dismiss all or most of it as pre-rational? I also think the issues of synchronicity and non-locality are critical in incorportating anomalous information into this discussion of a transrational world view. Perhaps it is in trying to bring the rational world view(cause and effect, linear causality) with the transrational(not linear) that the confusion and/or skepticism begins to arise. I also have read many comments disparaging the use of quantum physics to begin to explain the view of non-locality, though, admittedly, I have never really understood the problem.

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://pelle.gaia.com — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:45:11 GMT

1) nice reply viz the pre/trans stuff - still don't have any idea how YOU differentiate the two though… i like how your mind works so i want something more specific please.

Well, each line of development can be pre- or transrational, so it's kind of hard to define the whole spectrum of lines....

Transrational cognition is 5-p, this is what allows us to see the depth that 4-p cannot.
V-memes are fairly well described by SD, so that tells us the difference between pre and trans in the values line.

But I haven't actually seen any significant difference of opinion regarding this, at least not since I understood that my experiences (non-locality, etc) are states and not structures. The non-linear stuff I mentioned is still mostly an intuition, and as you might have read elsewhere on this pod I mostly consider intuition to be a state experience as well. If I could explain that intuition any better I would, trust me. In the meantime I am hoping the integral movement allows us to still be mystics and be fascinated over that which is still unknown.

2) what about my comments regarding the predictable self-identification at the highest level after learning about a heirarchical system?

It happens all the time, mostly with people who are into SD. Those who read Ken's latest books understand that there are lots of lines of development, and that concept fosters humility. Even if you have an Integral cognition you can be less integrated than somebody non-Integral.

3) do you agree that many new age people will self-identify as second tier and identify their special intuitions and convictions about say synchronicity, the LOA and pleidian channeled information as cutting-edge turquoise material that mere first tier folks would be too linear to understand?

Most New Age people do not have an Integral cognition. But some do, let's assume that 20% do. If these people, who are green in the values line and teal cognitively, read Wilber or join this pod they might very well assume that they have turquoise values. Even SD was aware of this fallacy some time ago, that green might be mistake itself for turquoise.

Another problem which is just as big, is that truly turquoise people think that green people see and understand what they do. If you're turquoise but haven't read Wilber you can create all kinds of disastrous consequences. It is very difficult not to be "infected" by some of the crap that is out there, especially if you trust the framework of powerful green healers.

So green will see itself as turquoise (if cognition is teal), and turquoise without AQAL will be highly susceptible to weaving some green threads into their otherwise turquoise framework.

4) again how do you tell the difference between your conviction in unproven phenomena and their explanation from the new age regressive green version?

I don't claim to have a solid explanation for what I have experienced. I know I'm not a psychotic, and I am not sensitive to self-hypnosis or wishful thinking, therefore I trust my experience. It is repeatable and predictable. I could give some examples, but I doubt that this would convince you (nor do I feel that you should allow yourself to be convinced if you haven't had the experience yourself).

I believe that many green practitioners have valid experiences, but their framework to explain what's going on is fucked up. Just like we can't kill the valid experiences of Zen monks that were marred by an amber framework, we cannot dismiss the surge of healing modalities that green spirituality has given us. We just need AQAL and our Integral peers to act as antidotes against magical beliefs that healing will cure cancer overnight, and similar BS.

Healing will not solve all your problems. Nor will the Alexander technique. Nor will yoga. Nor will meditation. Nor will therapy. But if we combine all of them, then we have ourselves a useful path to follow. An ILP, using Integral jargon.

Nice conversation this

peace

Pelle

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://julianwalkeryoga.gaia.com — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:30:26 GMT

1) nice reply viz the pre/trans stuff - still don't have any idea how YOU differentiate the two though... i like how your mind works so i want something more specific please.

2) what about my comments regarding the predictable self-identification at the highest level after learning about a heirarchical system?

3) do you agree that many new age people will self-identify as second tier and identify their special intuitions and convictions about say synchronicity, the LOA and pleidian channeled information as cutting-edge turquoise material that mere first tier folks would be too linear to understand?

4) again how do you tell the difference between your conviction in unproven phenomena and their explanation from the new age regressive green version?

regarding the yoga, prana, healing bodywork stuff of mine you cited - i am quite clear of the difference.

my sense is that in the yoga/bodywork/energy healing world most people are rampantly regressive green new age in their conception of what is going on.

the whole way that energy, healing, spirituality etc are believed in is usually very magical and mythic and therefore limited in it's depth, efficacy and groundedness..

also there is usually nothing much going on besides maybe some nice relaxation, tension relief, hypnagogic revery, some stretched and toned bodies and spiritual fantasy.

my work is grounded in a pretty profound experiential space in which a lot happens - both visible to the eye and in terms of accessing deep emotions, creating structual shifts, and experiencing altered states and what grof calls "coex systems."

there is much that is outside of the standard empirical/medical paradigm, but i approach it using the three strands of science and with an agnostic respect for the mystery that will not accept standard spiritual metaphysics or superstition.

nor do i see the experience itself as proof of interpretations through any lens, especially when the interpretations start to get out into very ungrounded territory that requires a lot of a priori premises.

i see that work as being mind-body integration with an emphasis on the psyche and on a powerful physiological response that has a set of phenomena we call by the much misused name "energy" for want of a more accurate term.

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://pelle.gaia.com — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:55:27 GMT

Julian and everyone,

Ok, let me make the implicit theory clear. I have a bad habit of thinking things through in my head and then assuming that everyone knows what I'm talking about.

Non-local healing is a state experience. Holons affecting each other on a subtle or causal level is also a state experience. The we-space can never have a long-term structure as can holons. In other words these things are horizontal, and not vertical on the Wilber-Coombs Lattice. This means that they are available to anyone, regardless of where people are on the spiral with their different lines of development. This fact is the source of the horrible interpretations people will give of non-locality, Law of Attraction, etc etc. You have trashed those all too well yourself Julian, so no need for me to reiterate.

Regarding where people in this pod are developmentally, I would say that an overwhelming majority have an integral cognition. The other lines of development, including the values line, can be almost anywhere. Everyone has a unique integral psychograph and having an integral cognition is no guarantee of high development in the other lines. Everybody here is definitely not a Centaur, in the sense that they have achieved body-mind integration. My guess is that only a small minority has reached that place. I am still not there myself, though it is definitely one of my goals being a dancer.

So the controversy here is not really about how to decide what a pre- vs transrational framework is. We agree on that, and Wilber has given us brilliant tools that we can build on. The controversy here is whether there is for example non-local healing and other state experience in the we-space. It is my conviction that science will take a long time before it can formulate injunctions and experiments to give us some scientific validation. In the meantime I can only say what Wilber says about meditation: try it out yourself, don't take my word for it, find a recognized and accomplished non-local healer, approach it with an open mind and then evaluate your experience yourself. You might not feel inclined to spend time and money on this, but at this point in time it is the only way to investigate the phenomenon.

All best,

Pelle

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://julianwalkeryoga.gaia.com — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:49:24 GMT

sounds like you'd rather not differentiate?

dude you are much too brilliant (cutesy turquoise shadow or no) to take the easy way out.....

by implication i hear that you trust that everyone here is turquoise and you "dont take responsibility for anyone else" - therefore my questions are perhaps inappropriate or beneath your approach to the discussion.......

interesting. who said anything about taking responsibilty? and how on earth could the pod by mere virtue of it's subject matter attract only one wordview? - that hasn't be my experience at all..

what i have found a little disappointing in this great thread has been the tendency to view distinctions between pre and trans as being in the realm of personal insulting judgment instead of that of theoretical and practical exploration of the principles of the fallacy.

give it a go pelle. tell me how you tell the two apart, especially with regard to what you are ascribing to turquoise viz non-linear causality and non-local healing.

imagine someone else is telling you about these things, how would you discern wether this was pre or tans?

i have no idea about you personally, but do you agree that there is something a little insipid about groups of people reading a hierarchical theory and unsurprisingly coming to the conclusion that they inhabit the upper reaches of the spectrum?

i used to see this on the wilber forum all the time - back then the assumption was that everyone there was centaur or higher - regardless of any asessment other than just having chosen to self-identify as such......

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://pelle.gaia.com — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:15:47 GMT

Julian:
just to play a little devil's advocate here - how is that you and your peers have come to the conclusion that you are turquoise?

My peers will have to say whether they think I'm turquoise. What I know myself is that I have no trouble grasping Wilber-V intellectually and intuitively, so that makes me fairly confident that I am turquoise cognitively. Apart from cognition, I make no claim about my turquoise-ness. My general stance on this is that people aren't attracted to this pod if they don't have turquoise cognition.

Julian:
also how do you differentiate this “non-linear order” from the ever-popular narcissistic interpretations of synchronicity, thought created reality, the universe orchestrating your experiences etc?

I don't hold myself responsible for other people's narcissistic interpretations, but I'm well aware that my words can be misinterpreted in many circles.
The general issue here is that green sees no depth so it will easily slide down into prerational belief systems. I feel that the risk of integral people sliding down into prerationality is minor, hence I feel comfortable speculating and sharing non-rational intuitions in this environment.

(And I know that Santa exists, 'cause I seen him lots of times. So there!)

Julian:
i also agree that the overly dominant rational mind that gets split-off form being embodied, from being in touch with emotions, from being intuitive and creative is problematic and often repressive…

I agree as well. That's why I feel we have to allow ourselves to throw out some unfinished intuitions, thoughts and musings to explore other integral areas besides the intellectual framework.

Julian:
hey do either of you recognize the problem with conflating LL SDi language with UL developmental stages, pathology, etc…?

Yeah. SD is one single line of development in the UL, and when people try to use it as an all-encompassing pan-quadrant measure of development it's a theoretical mess. But hey, not everyone can be brilliant ;)

Pelle

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:36:37 GMT

Julian, do you have any thoughts on what new tools, if any, emerge with transrationality?

We've sort of touched on this before, but if transrationality is rationality + , then what is that plus? What is added that rationality did not have, that actually transcends rationality rather than supplementing it or expanding its range of applicability?

With regard to the problem of conflating SDi stages with other markers of development, I agree that there are difficulties here. I agree with Wilber that SD is not as universal and "complete" as some of its proponents say it is. But technically, at least according to Wilber-5, Spiral Dynamics is an UL paradigm, not a LL one. It is a Zone 2 methodology, which places it in the UL.

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://julianwalkeryoga.gaia.com — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:35:45 GMT

i really enjoy how your mind works pelle.

just to play a little devil's advocate here - how is that you and your peers have come to the conclusion that you are turquoise?

also how do you differentiate this "non-linear order" from the ever-popular narcissistic interpretations of synchronicity, thought created reality, the universe orchestrating your experiences etc?

yea balder a i agree, pelle's differentiation of tools from worldspace is a needed one that opens up some space in the conversation.

i also agree that the overly dominant rational mind that gets split-off form being embodied, from being in touch with emotions, from being intuitive and creative is problematic and often repressive...

nice talking with you guys!

hey do either of you recognize the problem with conflating LL SDi language with UL developmental stages, pathology, etc...?

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://julianwalkeryoga.gaia.com — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:54:41 GMT

this is beautifully said pelle.

i find nothing to disagree with - sorry!

it is a little potentially confusing to say "leave behind" the rational worldspace, though i get what you mean.

yes of course we have access to prerational, but it should not be driving the boat, or our ideas and beliefs regarding the ultimate truths of the kosmos, right?

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://pelle.gaia.com — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:23:17 GMT

Balder:
Wilber, Cook-Greuter, and others tie cognitive development, in part, to the unfolding capacity to take increasingly sophisticated perspectives. Would you say that the broad stage we are calling “transrational” is essentially the wedding of rational tools with, say, fifth-person perspective-taking capacity (and beyond)? Or does transrationality involve the emergence and/or refinement of mental capacities that are not dependent on conceptual thought, however complex and refined? Or a combination of the above?

I would say a combination of the above.
5-p together with rational tools is the non-controversial part of a turquoise worldspace. But the more I become grounded in turqoise the more I sense that there is a non-linear order present in addition to the linear and cause/effect world that is usually considered to be "real".
I have no proof of this. I can only speak of my own experience and ask that my turquoise peers share their perspective.

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:48:42 GMT

Although this may or may not be relevant, I wanted to add a thought. When we lose our sight, our other senses often become more refined, and sometimes even previously unrecognized sense modalities seem to stir or become more active. Sight, as a particularly strong sensory capacity, often tends to eclipse some of these other senses. Similarly, when we move into heavy reliance on rational cognition, I wonder if there are modes of awareness and meaning-making that tend to get eclipsed. (I say, "I wonder," but I'm actually pretty confident this is the case.) If we think of prerational cognition only in terms of deficit, I think we may devalue or ignore certain valuable capacities which may actually be more developed in "prerational" peoples. If we think of prerational folks only as "undeveloped children," and use modern children as the primary touchstone for understanding what their world is like, I think we may overlook a refinement and growth that can take place on a certain trajectory that may often get truncated when we push children heavily into rational, cognitive modes of organizing and relating to the world. As I think I mentioned elsewhere, anthropological literature sometimes references communities which appear to operate on very different principles, with a very different worldspace -- a worldspace which is not merely "deficient," inferior to ours in all aspects. Maybe this is obvious and doesn't need to be pointed out, but I just wanted to bring it up since we're talking about pre-rational as rational-minus. I think there may be refined capacities among prerational peoples which we tend not to have access to when we are strongly identified with the rational level (but which may become accessible through cultivation or through growth beyond our identification with the rational worldspace and its tools...though some may remain "alien" to us, no longer tapped by us in our present journey of Knowledge).

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:31:04 GMT

Pelle, thank you for differentiating between the use of rational tools and the so-called "rational(ist) worldview." In our discussion here, I have felt that sometimes Julian is conflating the two -- though obviously not absolutely.

Although this approach is limited and there are other perspectives and dimensions of cognitive development to consider, I wonder if it would be helpful to try to look more closely at the "tools" that become available at different stages. Julian has suggested that rationality is set apart from prerationality by the tools it has available to it -- primarily the tools of inductive logic. Pelle points out that we obviously retain these tools even in the transition to transrational cognition. Does transrational cognition make new tools available too? Are these tools just subtler, more complex permutations of those available at the rational stage, or are they of a different order altogether?

Wilber, Cook-Greuter, and others tie cognitive development, in part, to the unfolding capacity to take increasingly sophisticated perspectives. Would you say that the broad stage we are calling "transrational" is essentially the wedding of rational tools with, say, fifth-person perspective-taking capacity (and beyond)? Or does transrationality involve the emergence and/or refinement of mental capacities that are not dependent on conceptual thought, however complex and refined? Or a combination of the above?

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on these questions.

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://pelle.gaia.com — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:02:05 GMT

Julian:
this is confusing for those who insist on using SD to talk about personal development and then apply the worldview relativist stance to stages of personal development and end up saying that prerational is still intact and available whenever we need it and shouldn't be “amputated” etc…… this seems silly to me because we never “need” to go back to believing in santa - and still being able to crawl doesnt mean running is not a more effective way to get around the track - if you have the choice.

I believe prerational stuff is still useful to society. Like I've said previously it is needed for children as they move up the cognitive line. It is also useful for adults, for example Jungian psychology with rich prerational mythological archetypes. The subpersonalities of the self/ego can be easier to understand using prerational archetypes.
None of this means that we lose our rational grasp of everyday life, it just mean that we are using prerational concepts as tools even if we are no longer run by prerational worldviews.

transrational is rational plus in that it adds a whole extra dimension to rationality, but it does not correct incorrect perceptions of cause and efect, logic etc…

I still believe it's very important to differentiate between rational tools and the rational worldspace. The rational worldspace is a very constricted and limited space to be in, where 3-p cognition is all you have and where logical positivism rules the day. It is a space where consciousness is no more than a quaint epiphenomenon of the biological brain, and where the love you feel for your daugher is just another combination of neurons firing. In this worldspace everything non-rational is prerational, and the serious work of spiritual teachers is ridiculed. This includes the work you do Julian, such as yoga, energetics, tantra, etc etc. The hardcore medical community would say that you are hallucinating - teaching and believing in things that have not been scientifically validated - so be careful who you defend and embrace :)

Rational tools are something else all together. These are things we include, when the rational worldspace is transcended and included. Logical reasoning, knowing that being run over by a bus will kill you no matter how many years you've meditated, etc - are things that never go out of fashion. But, and this is a very important but, as we leave the rational worldspace behind we start seeing new things that we could not see before. Green shows us that pure logical positivism is not possible; turquoise adds depth to reality, depth that literally could not be seen before. So now we're using our rational tools in a radically new context, something that rationality itself wasn't capable of.

And this is what you're advocating Julian, right? That we do not abandon our rational tools even if we're no longer stuck in a rational, orange, 3-p worldspace? At least that is what I advocate :-P

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://julianwalkeryoga.gaia.com — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:31:04 GMT

mmm now we're cookin'! :O)

told you i'd be back to stir the pot...

mary:

you are touching on something that i think is hard to understand.

yes on the transcends and includes - all the wya through, BUT:

i think that rational deepens prerational in ways that reveal serious flaws, incorrect perceptions and problems with prerational - so it does not include these at all - it includes the sructures of consciousness it is buidling upon, but radicalt improves upon prerational cognition.

this is confusing for those who insist on using SD to talk about personal development and then apply the worldview relativist stance to stages of personal development and end up saying that prerational is still intact and available whenever we need it and shouldn't be "amputated" etc...... this seems silly to me because we never "need" to go back to believing in santa - and still being able to crawl doesnt mean running is not a more effective way to get around the track - if you have the choice.

so yea prerationa is rational minus - but because the prerational stage is so early it is also seriously pathological if dominant in adults.....

transrational is rational plus in that it adds a whole extra dimension to rationality, but it does not correct incorrect perceptions of cause and efect, logic etc..... it may correct some other limiting rational concepts, but transrational does not reveal that the moon is ater all made of cheese or that jesus really did literaly die and rise again after being born of a virign......it does ot reveal that 2 + 2 is 5 i the way that rational revealed that that santa didn't actualy leave those gifts under the tree..

it does reveal a dimension of psychospiritual experience that appears inherently paradoxical to rationality, but resonates a more complex understanding of truth than ca be contained in dualistic language - however it is quite distinct from prerational ideas/beliefs.

pelle: my only comment is that experience and interpretation are two diferent things and experiences are not proof of anything per se - as amazing or curious as they may be.....least of al a priori metaphysical explanations.

beyond that i agree with what you are saying....

balder: yea that was a nice definition you laid out huh? good stuff - thanks for reminding me!

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://pelle.gaia.com — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:32:30 GMT

Another thought: so far we have only been discussing one side of the pre-transfallacy but as we all know this is a coin that has two sides. Just as we can elevate pre to trans, we can reduce trans to pre. A quote from SES:

The superconscious is reduced to the subconscious, the transpersonal is collapsed to the prepersonal, the emergence of the higher is reinterpreted as an irruption from the lower. All breathe a sigh of relief, and the rational worldspace is not fundamentally shaken (by "the black tide of the mud of occultism!" as Freud so quaintly explained it to Jung).
[emphasis mine]

In other words, according to Ken, transrationalism really does shake the rational worldspace in a fundamental way, and this to me suggests that it is not only rational+.

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://pelle.gaia.com — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:31:32 GMT

Julian:
i get frustrated because i hardly ever meet anyone interested in spirituality who is not elevating preratonal to transrational - it's grinding ubiquity may lead to me over-generalizing at times, but my best intentions to remain open are usually disappointed.

Yes, Julian, it's frustrating. And since you work in the spiritual community you get to face this on a daily basis. You of all people know the damage that magical, wishful thinking will do to people. Honoring rational thinking as an important tool is probably a struggle in your environment.
I, on the other hand, studied and worked for 10 years in a hyper-rational environment where orange science is considered to be the only real reality, so I have seen what hyper-rationalism will do to people. And let me tell you that it is no more pretty than New Age regression.

At the same time I am also confused about your definition of transrationalism as rational+. I was going to write extensively about that but Mary already summed it up above, and Balder reposted his clear and concise definition of transrationality so that lets me off the hook :)
I do believe that you should trust your fellow integralites a bit more. We can see the whole spiral, as can you, so we will never believe in stuff based on pre-rational beliefs. If we believe in something non-rational we have most likely experienced it ourselves, and also have a plausible transrational explanation that can potentially be verified using turquoise injunctions and turquoise science.

Let me also say that I don't believe in paranormal phenomena. Not a single one. But I do believe that there are several natural phenomena that are still unknown to the general population. I believe it's possible to transmit subtle energies as in Reiki healing, I believe this can be done non-locally as well. I do not believe that this is due to some sort of magic but that the current structure of the Kosmos allows for these things to happen.

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://maryw.gaia.com — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:50:43 GMT

Julian wrote: "if transrational is rational +, then it adds to rational without taking anything away, and that is how we know the difference.

prerational is rational -, then, yea?"

Hi Julian --

If transrational is rational +, and if prerational is rational -

would you also say rational is prerational+ ?

I mean, I know you don't view rationality as something that simply "adds to prerationality, without taking anything away." Rationality has discerning abilities that prerationality does not have, and thus does not accept prerational (or any nonrational) claims lock, stock, and barrel. In other words, in my understanding at least, rationality doesn't simply include or "add to" prerationality (if that's all it did then rationality could be seen as prerational+). It also transcends it. Rationality is not just an addition to prerationality.

Similarly, I don't think that transrational is just rational+. If it were, a better term for it might be "suprarational" or "megarational" or (hehe) "doubleplusrational" ... Transrational will include the rational while also reaching beyond it. Thus there are views that can be contained within transrationality but not within rationality. And transrational awareness, it seems to me, challenges and groks some of limitations of rationality in a way that rationality is unable to.

Midnight musings,
Mary

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:54:32 GMT

Hi, Julian,

I personally don't think paranormal powers or abilities are that important, in the scheme of things. I don't think about them often, and they play very little role in my overall interest in spirituality and transformation. I keep bringing them up as examples because I can't really imagine what else you are referring to when you describe contributors to this thread as still ensnared by compelling prerational beliefs. Was there anything else you were noticing or thinking about when you made that comment?

I essentially agree with your preference of option 1 over 2: I think it is rational to be open to the existence of telepathy (for instance), for a number of reasons, but do not think we should place faith in the existence of such things based simply on the authority of tradition or our desires for the world to be more mysterious or magical. In other words, there are a number of reasons we might choose to be open to certain anomalous phenomena which run contrary to the current materialist, secular humanist worldview, some of which may actually be rational or transrational. The openness itself is not the problem, in my view.

About what 99% of the new age community believes: I don't consider myself a new ager.

You mentioned that people on this thread have been resisting making rational distinctions and have not clearly differentiated between prerational and transrational. I thought several of us had. Very early on in this thread I wrote the following:

"Here's my take on "transrational." As Wilber often points out, pre-rational and transrational thinking and awareness are often confused, simply because both are non-rational. But transrational awareness is a non-rational form of cognition which transceds and encompasses rational thinking. Transrational insights, when they are expressed, are often expressed in rational language; Wilber is masterful at this. But of course some traditions may chose enigmatic forms of expression, to reveal the limits of and point past conventional rational thought.

In pre-rational awareness, we may think affectively and by association, rather than through the use of inductive reasoning. The pre-rational worldview may be coherent, but its coherence is on the level of resonance and reflection, meaningful correspondences, affective associations, and so on. This field of "coherence" may appear seamless and holistic, but it is pre-rational.

In transrational awareness, we may return to a holistic sense of things, but our holistic perspective now encompasses rationality and the ability to relate the items of our awareness through complex logical relationships. In transrational awareness, while we can use logic, we can perceive the limitations of our logical constructs, as well as the limits of our pre-rational, affective associations.

My understanding is that at the upper limits of rational awareness, we are capable of seeing and thinking from multiple perspectives at once. We move from a somewhat linear perspective of cause and effect, to more open and decentered forms of reasoning. We may be able to think things through using classical "excluded middle" logic, but we also have access to "included middle" logic (built on models of transcendence and inclusion). I see this as the "vision logic" stage.

In transrational awareness, we can become aware of connections that transcend or run deeper than normal causal chains, but in this case, the perspectives which disclose particular causal chains are seen as subsets of a more encompassing awareness.

I expect my explanation here is not without its flaws, but this is my general understanding at this time."

I expect you are looking for something different than this, or something more specific. Can you spell out more clearly what you're looking for -- and what you're objecting to in what's been shared so far?

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Prerational and Transrational Spirituality: The Difference Is

http://julianwalkeryoga.gaia.com — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 05:53:16 GMT

boo-ya! you got me there balder.

my apologies. seriously, my bad.

i get frustrated because i hardly ever meet anyone interested in spirituality who is not elevating preratonal to transrational - it's grinding ubiquity may lead to me over-generalizing at times, but my best intentions to remain open are usually disappointed.

my point minus the ascerbic implications is this: i have yet to hear distinctions made between pre and trans - only attacks on making rational distinctions and dubious claims about unproven phenomena.

the pre/trans fallacy is important for several resons and i am observing that there seems to be a lot of confusion on this thread about it and unwillingness to make clear statements about how the distinction between the two actually applies.

as to your question - let me try and seperate two things:

1) the possibility of something like telepathy as something that might be verifiable at some point.

2) the belief in telepathy without convincing evidence and the conflation of that with transrational spirituality.

as you might guess i am in favor of one and not in favor of two.

i don't think that paranormal phenomena (much less belief in them) have very much of importance to do with transrational stages of development - there are so many more important (and less vague/faith-based/prone to inflated fantasy) areas of inquiry, practice, growth and healing to focus on. i think that much of the subject is not only a distraction from the actual process of growth to those stages, but also allows for much too much (compelling) prerational fantasy.

this may not be true for you or pelle - but it is the case for 99% of the new age community.

as to your distinction betwen the rational worldview and rationality itself, i think i get yur point - are you saying that one can still be rational about things that do not fit within the confines of "the rational worldview"?

i totally agree - in fact i think that is the beginning of transrational - maintaining a rational attitude as your worldview expands to include aspects of reality that rigid or limited rationality does not see...

but of course we are full circle again because that ratinonal underpinning will perforce be sceptical any interpretation that does not fly.