Integral Homework

The following is the final I was issued for my PSY292 class. Originally classified in the Mesa Community College catalog as the "Psychology of Altered States of Consciousness," it was re-vamped by Professor Wesley Feuquay to cover principally Ken Wilber's Integral Framework. As far as i know, it was one of very few such undergraduate classes in the nation. Prior to enrolling in the class, I had been studying Wilber's (and Aurobindo's) work for a little over two years, and I had also had Prof. Feuquay for PSY101. When I first heard speak of "gross, sublte, causal, and nondual states of consciousness" in the very first class, I recognized immediately our mutual interest in Wilber's work. It soon became a custom for and he and I to stay after class and discuss all things Integral. Eventually, one student stayed after to listen in to our discussion, then another, and another; and soon, we had sometimes four or five students staying after for an hour to listen to and join in on our discussions. Out that experience, Prof. Feuquay decided to start a class covering the basic Integral Framework. Spring, 2007 was the first semester for this class, and it was a smashing success by all accounts. The comaraderie that emerged in that class was unlike anything I've witnessed anywhere else on the college campus. Many of the individuals who took this class originally enrolled out of admiration for Prof. Feuquay and his teaching style and did not have any previous interest in, or even an inkling of, Ken Wilber's work (or any kind of spiritual interest, for that matter). The transformation I was witnessed in many of these individuals was truly amazing. Prof. Feuquay had placed strong emphasis on contemplative practice and Integral Life Practice. His final included several essay questions. The following is my own entry:


1. In your own words, describe how you would go about introducing Integral Theory to a friend or relative? What areas would you emphasize, what areas would you omit?

     I’d probably first begin with the concept of holons, explaining the progression of complexity from quarks to atoms to molecules to cells to organs to organisms to families of organisms to societies of organisms, for example; and I’d place particular emphasis on the holarchical nature of the progression: each higher level of emergence embraces and enfolds its junior, transcending and including (so that each level is simultaneously a whole in itself [which contains the parts below it comprising its being] as well as a part that is transcended, included, and embraced by levels of emergence higher than its own). This progression plays itself out ultimately as a sequential movement through the Great Chain of Being: Matter, Body, Mind, Soul, Spirit (which is actually the ground from which all else rises). The lower or more fundamental the holon (in this case, matter), the wider its span (which, being heteracrhical or relational, is the feminine aspect of emergence). The more complex a holon is (i.e., the greater the number of lower level holons that are enfolded within it and constitute its being), the greater is its depth (which, being hierarchical and agentic, is the masculine aspect of emergence).

     Secondly, I’d speak of the four quadrants that each holon possesses: objective individual, subjective individual, subjective collective, and objective collective. I’d be sure to give examples of each, probably using the person I was speaking to as a perfect example: “You are a perfect example of a holon: you live in an individual body that can be measured and tested by science. We can take an EEG scan of your brain, take samples of the prevalent neurochemicals present within your brain during various moods and states; we can monitor your heart rate and even see what’s going on in your brain while you’re experiencing a particularly disturbing dream (via MRI, for example). All of these examples involve scientifically measurable data regarding the individual, and all these examples illustrate the Upper Right Quadrant. They all deal with objectively verifiable information and observations regarding the exterior individual.

     “However, what science cannot presently do is accurately measure you’re interior experience of a particularly disturbing dream. It can tell you which parts of your brain light up, but it cannot measure the emotional, subjective, interior experience of that dream, which is what philosophy (along with its offshoots, phenomenology and epistemology) has attempted to do. Interestingly, science has often regarded philosophy as “unscientific,” lacking in empirical, “irrefutable” evidence, whereas philosophy has often regarded science as rigid and limited in its scope. In fact, modern psychology is often embarrassed by its “philosophical” past (e.g., the work of Freud, Jung, and Rogers) and insists on being taken seriously as a “hard,” empirical science.

     “What science can’t do, however, is deny that you do indeed have interior, subjective experiences that are difficult if impossible to measure. We can measure your endorphins, but we can’t measure your joy. We can measure your oxytocin, but we can’t measure the bond you feel with your husband. These are subjective, interior experiences, none of which can be accurately measured scientifically. Why is that? It is so because life is more than scientifically measurable exteriors. In fact, every observable, testable, measurable, and empirical “fact” is virtually always experienced and interpreted subjectively within the individual. This is what Integral Theory refers to as the Upper Left Quadrant, the individual interior. Integral theory tries to honor the individual exterior which science acknowledges, as well as the individual interior which philosophy acknowledges.

     “Yet we know that you don’t live in isolation. You live in a particular ecology, a physical environment. There’s a specific socio-economic system that you live in. The Information Age, the highway system, and the U.S. governmental information network are all parts of the exterior, collective environment in which you live. Integral Theory refers to this aspect of a holon as the Lower Right Quadrant because, just like the Upper Right Quadrant, it deals with measurable exteriors. However, whereas the Upper Quadrants deal with the individual, the Lower Quadrants deal with the collective aspects of a holon.

     “And, just as with the Individual aspects of a holon, not all of the collective aspects of a holon can be scientifically measured or spoken of in objective terms. The Collective aspect of a holon, in other words, also possesses a subjective interior. We refer to this as the Lower Left Quadrant, the Cultural aspect. For example, we can take a picture of the U.S. Constitution (LR), but we can’t take a picture of the sense of pride and gratefulness you experience as you recall the historical struggle humanity went through to give this great document expression. We can’t measure the influence that this cultural phenomenon has had upon you and all human beings collectively. It’s very much an interior, subjective reality, but a reality nonetheless. Likewise, we can take a picture of the Bible, but we can’t take a picture of the inward experience a particular moral precept that has held particular sway over your experience of the world (as a consequence of this historical cultural phenomenon). Hence, Integral theory attempts to hold a “space” for every aspect of a holon, and thus attempts to honor the best of every of field of knowledge and endeavor known to man.”

     I could and definitely would go on further into Levels, Lines, States, and Types, if I felt that the particular individual with whom I was conversing was open and ready for it. In fact, I have done so. Generally, I explain that development in the UL, according to research in developmental psychology (as well as teachings from various wisdom traditions and sages), seems to unfold in stages. I’d then mention various stage models, including Spiral Dynamics and Piaget’s cognitive model. I’d probably also emphasize the importance of being aware of such levels, as each level brings with it an almost entirely different experience of the world (or, more likely, an entirely different world altogether). Thus, if the world’s so-called problems are to be solved, such resolution will necessitate the evolution of consciousness itself.

     I’d also mention Lines, being sure to tie them in with Levels. Each line represents an intelligence that, for the most part, develops both linearly and vertically through the various stages, with each intelligence developing more or less independently. But since the collective conglomeration of the intelligences make up the experienced “self,” the overall growth and development of the “self” may be experienced in anything but a sequential, linear progression through the stages. I’d also mention that the concept of “cross training” between various developmental lines seems to be an important notion for future development. For example, we have often experienced an issue where no matter how much we knew “right” from “wrong,” and no matter how guilty we felt after doing the “wrong” thing, we’ve continued to do it over and over. No amount of training in the moral line of development alone is able to get us past this sticking point. However, research indicates that cross-training in the intrapersonal line, the meditative states line, the concern line, the affective line, the interpersonal line, and the cognitive line (as well as the moral line) can and does often afford a breakthrough in previously obstinate dysfunctional behaviors.

     States underlie much of everyday life. Right now we’re more than likely in a Beta brainwave pattern, roughly at 13Hz or so. Integral theory refers to this as gross waking consciousness, as do some of the wisdom traditions. This state of consciousness is often our mode of relating to the physical world, and is often regarded as the “normal,” “only,” or “best” state to be in by much of society. However, the brain is constantly producing varying degrees of different brainwave patterns, each associated with a particular state of consciousness.

     When we dream, our brainwave pattern (UR) is predominantly in the Theta range, bringing with it an interior experience (UL) of subtle phenomena, weightlessness, a certain degree of transcendence of time and space (e.g., we can travel great distances and experience incredibly long storylines in relatively short periods of time), and a sense of visionary experience. We can actually enter into such a state while awake, through meditation and brainwave entrainment, for example. Such state-training in Theta has been proven to markedly improve accelerated learning, visualization, and emotional wellbeing, among many other reported benefits. Interestingly, the Upanishads speak of the “dreaming self,” which Aurobindo equates with the innermost, “psychic being” or “soul,” which he claims is the part of the soul that is conscious of its oneness with the All and which has retained the all wisdom gained from all of the lifetimes of birth and re-birth. He also claimed that one must first consistently contact the innermost being before working with the unconscious. As such, training in the theta range (or “subtle” states of consciousness) seems to make such a consistent contact with the innermost being possible. Also noteworthy is the fact that shamanic journeying—which often speaks in terms of changing one’s “dream” of the universe—is often associated with this state of consciousness.

     When we reach deep, dreamless sleep, the brain is producing a predominantly Delta brainwave pattern. Our experience of the deep sleep state is one of extinction and formless expanse. Again, it is possible to experience such states while wide awake, and training in the capacity to do so produces many benefits, such as profound states of meditation, increased threshold for stress, marked improvements in cognitive performance and emotional wellbeing, and the gradual disappearance of various dysfunctional behaviors. Integral theory refers to this as a “causal” state of consciousness. Again, the Upanishads speak of the “sleep self,” which it describes in terms of the Self, our highest being. Some teachers within the Vedic tradition claim that our deepest ingrained, habitual behavior patterns (referred to in the Vedic tradition as “sanskaras”) lie within the deep sleep state. If this is the case, it may explain why advanced training in the Delta brainwave pattern (especially via brainwave entrainment) seems to be so successful in aiding individuals in penetrating into the causal issues that give rise to many habitually dysfunctional behavior patterns.

     In addition, the deep hemispheric synchronization that results from such prolonged training seems to contribute to an increase unifying of seemingly disparate information into a coherent whole. The result is an interior experience of increased wholeness and completeness. Some research has suggested that lateralization (i.e., the phenomenon of one brain hemisphere dominating over the other) is predominant in most of humanity. C. Maxwell, however, discovered that exceptional individuals—yogis, monks, visionary artists and thinkers—exhibited a high degree of hemispheric synchronization, as well as unique brainwave signature, what Cade referred to as the “awakened mind” brainwave pattern, a significant balance between the delta, theta, alpha, and beta brainwave patterns. Cade believed this balance represented an open communication between the conscious mind, the personal unconscious, and even the collective unconscious.

     Types deal with modes of relating, mainly communal versus, agentic, feminine versus masculine, relational versus individualistic. Understanding types can be important, due to certain misunderstandings that often arise. One such misunderstanding stems from Carol Gilligan’s work. Just about a week ago a friend mentioned to me that he believed women were more spiritual than men, precisely because they were less individualistic and more relational than men. He referred to Gilligan’s work to back up his theory. Being familiar with Gilligan’s work, I pointed out that she stated that women, like men, also develop through specific stages: from selfish to care to universal care. He was surprised. What I didn’t share with him was that though men and women both develop roughly through the same stages, they move through the stages differently: women tend move through the stages while being faced toward the earth, arms outstretched, while men tend to move through the stages with their eyes firmly set on heaven.

2. Please share which part or topic of the course has touched you on the deepest level. How has it changed you?

     I was particularly moved by the portion of the course that covered the Shadow. Although I’ve been aware of the concept for some time, and even felt I was fairly in touch with my Shadow, I became even more aware of it. In fact, it seems as though I’m becoming more and more aware of it every day. I am aware that every time I am emoting over a particular person or thing, I am more than likely projecting a disowned aspect of my own being. I seem to be catching myself in the act of projecting more and more, and I believe that my inner commitment to do so has heightened greatly.

     I recently wrote a series of papers for my ENG102 class that in part deal with the shadow projections of the main characters of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. While it was interesting to discover just how realistically Shelley portrayed the shadow projections of Victor Frankenstein and his daemon (who, in fact, is actually Frankenstein’s shadow), I found it even more interesting to witness the shadow play that was conspiring between my ENG102 professor and I. Without going into a lot of details, both she and I were projecting unwanted aspects of ourselves onto the other—in almost exactly the same manner as that which conspires between Frankenstein and his monster in Shelley’s novel. It was uncanny to see the similarity between what I was writing about, what I had learned in your class, and what I was experiencing in my relationship with my ENG102 professor.

     My awareness of the reality of the Shadow concept had (and has) become so pronounced and undeniable, that it was hard to ignore the Shadow any longer. As a consequence, and after many times catching myself complaining about her, I consistently came back to what I was refusing to see about myself in the matter. I eventually realized that the motive force behind my inflexible intolerance of her supposed “perfectionism” was in fact my own disowned perfectionism. I was obsessing over the possibility of earning a “B” in her class and having a “disgraceful” 3.9 GPA. So I sincerely apologized to her, mentioning the insight I’d had, while still remaining open to the possibility that it might indeed be in the highest interest of all that I eventually make a report of her often inflexible and exacerbating attitudes toward her class. Interestingly, there seemed to be a major shift in the manner in which now address one another.

3. How has your relationships with other people changed?

• When I become aware of feeling afraid that another person doesn’t like me, I catch myself more often and realize that I’m feeling this way precisely because I’m not loving the other person. I then simply embrace the person in my heart and attempt to love and accept them as fully and unconditionally as possible. Whenever I do this consistently, things seem to change.

• Generally, I now try to be aware of how I am holding the other person in my heart as I converse with them I try to see and feel my own innermost essence within the other person.

• More than ever, I am aware that deeply loving others and embracing them within my heart is a crucial part of my Integral Life Practice.

• I am also more aware how often I am consistently avoiding intimacy or attempting to avoid it. I’m seeing more how my fear of intimacy impacts others and shapes reality.

• I’m becoming more aware of a desire to embrace others in mutuality: relationship as spiritual practice.

• I am also becoming more and more aware of the need to link all of my desires with the greater good. In other words, I’m seeing that my aspiration to be a great psychologist, teacher, and researcher needs and really wants to be more deeply enmeshed in relationship to the highest good of all. I want to want to do my best for the wellbeing of others. In other words, there seems to be a purification of desire wanting to take place within me, so that my actions and pursuits become less self-involved and more motivated by genuine, heartfelt love.

4. Provide a brief example of how your capacity to take new and greater perspectives has increased.


• More than ever, there seems to be a burning desire to embrace higher and higher levels of perspective, to see the all-embracing truth of things.

• When sharing my perspective with others, there is a marked decrease in worrying whether or not the other person will agree with my views; the pronounced feeling of needing to defend my worldview has lessened significantly. In fact, I find it interesting that I tend to worry less when someone has blatantly misunderstood something I have said. I’m not sure if it’s some sort of stupidity on my part or some kind of “holy indifference.”

• There is also an increased openness to the view of others, to really and truly take the perspective of others, to experience the world from another’s point of view.

• I find that I am more open and willing to question my assumptions about things. I am able to neutralize any resistance I might otherwise have to entertaining another worldview that doesn’t seem “integral,” for example.

5. In what ways has your day-to-day experience of reality changed?

• There is a pronounced need to fully “download” the Integral Framework into my understanding.

• There is a consistent questioning of how life in its various aspects fits into the AQAL model.

• There is a pronounced awareness of Context (LL/LR), whereas my experience of reality was at one time more soley tied to the Upper Quadrants.


I am more convinced than ever that individuals and societies can indeed develop to higher levels of complexity, regardless of what "consensus reality" says (i.e., that "people are essentially self-centered and can't really change in any significant way).