The Developmental Paradigms of Consciousness

Note: The content of this article has been adapted from my books, The Organic Masculine and Primal Drives.

Here is a bold claim: humans develop along a universal staircase with distinct steps. This is true for individuals as well as for societies. Each of us begins life in total immersion with our environment and progressively individuate and complexify. Each human culture has emerged from an archaic past to similarly develop toward richer capacity and articulation. The self-worldview (who I understand myself to be in the world) is the kernal of human consciousness that is undergoing this evolutionary journey. As we look across disciplines (psychology, sociology, spirituality, philosophy, economics, etc…), we find distinct steps that all humans and all societies progress through. I call these steps, paradigms of consciousness, and these will be the focus of our exploration today.

Briefly, what I am proposing is that the psychology of the mature human being is an unfolding, emergent, oscillating, spiraling process marked by progressive subordination of older, lower-order behavior systems to newer, higher-order systems as [humanity]’s existential problems change.

—Clare Graves¹

Before you dig into this article, you may want to read my Friendly Primer on Integral Theory and my article on the Evolving Kosmos. Here are the paradigms of consciousness that I’ll be covering: archaic, magic/tribal, mythic/traditional, mental/modern, plural/postmodern, integral, and high integral.

Figure 1. Paradigms of consciousness

Because integral theory looks at paradigms across many traditions and schools of thought, the rainbow-color scheme was introduced to reference developmental levels in a system-neutral language. The upward arrow indicates the hierarchical progression of these paradigms. We’ll begin at the bottom of this ladder and work our way up. I’ll be translating them through the Big Three categories of integrals AQAL matrix: individual interior, collective interior, and exterior.

Figure 2. Integral’s Big Three

The Archaic Paradigm

Figure 3. The archaic paradigm in the big three

At the most basic level of human consciousness lies the archaic paradigm, marking both the dawn of our species and the beginning of every human newborn. Within this stage, the experience in the psyche’s “I” space (UL) is of total immersion into the environment. There is only the most basic separation of an interior “I” that is distinct from the phenomenal world. The newborn is immersed in the world of the mother. Here, humans utilize basic sensorimotor and physiological operations, addressing primary needs like hunger, sleep, and fear.

Figure 4. The archaic psyche in relation with the world

The self and the world codevelop and must be understood together. At archaic, I illustrate the life-world as a solid circle (fig. 4). The circle is the archetypal symbol for wholeness, and the anima mundi of the archaic world is a unified whole. As we shall see, not every paradigm experiences the wholeness of the world. While the world is whole, the self at this level is not well-defined, and so I’ve illustrated it as a dotted-line cloud at the center. Again, as we progress through the paradigms, we’ll observe an evolution of the self-system at the center of the life-world.

The cultural “we” space (LL) is that of early humans, where basic impulses enact the most primordial morality, culture, and values. The corresponding social system or “its” space (LR) is a survival clan—a unit bound by the necessity of collective subsistence. The techno-economic mode of this social system is hunting and gathering.

In this stage of development, I experience primal unity with the environment and a rudimentary communal existence. This paradigm forms the foundation from which all subsequent paradigms of human consciousness and social structures evolve.

The Magic/Tribal Paradigm

Figure 5. The magic/tribal paradigm in the big three

The magic/tribal paradigm focuses on safety, security, and survival in a magical world. For individuals at this stage (UL), the world operates through superstition and animism. Internal fantasies, imagery, and thoughts blend in a surreal way with external reality. The world itself is full of symbols and omens. Natural objects are imbued with spirits or totems, and human intentions are frequently projected or anthropomorphized onto the world. Carl Jung referred to this experience as participation mystique, meaning the individual psyche and the external world co-participate in a mystical way, as examples: “There is a storm because the spirits are mad”; “If I stick a pin in this doll, it will curse that person”; and “The flower is blooming because I am in love.”²

Figure 6. Magic/tribal psyche in relation with the world.

Young children at the beginning of this stage are governed by their impulses. Here, I define my self-boundary through simple words like “No” and “Mine,” allowing me to situate my first-person identity in the world in the most basic way. Later in this stage, I will categorize my experience in simple dichotomies like good/bad or fun/boring. My behavior is geared toward protecting my fragile and newly emerging self in response to a world where I perceive social cues and boundaries as arbitrary consequences of the will of those in power.

Culturally, this paradigm is rooted in tribal consciousness (LL), where each person in the group belongs because they recognize (and are recognized by) everyone else in the group.³ In Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, the morality of this level spans two steps and is broadly known as pre-conventional. The first moral phase is the punishment and obedience orientation. Here, an act is considered good or bad to the extent it is either rewarded or punished.⁴ The group’s powerholders, which may include gods, ancestors, spirits, and tribal leaders, make moral determinations. Those in power decide what is right and wrong, and morality means adherence to these dictates.

Kohlberg’s next moral step is self-interest orientation, in which morality is determined by what is fair: “Two for you and two for me”; and “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” In this scenario, I view life as a zero-sum game, so my actions aim to maximize the good stuff for myself. I view others as tools or obstacles to the satisfaction of my own needs, and I use reciprocity to further my own self-interests.

Socially, the tribe emerges as a cohesive collective unit, both through cultural affiliations (LL) and the behaviors and roles that create a structured social system (LR). The tribal social unit is held together through kinship and family bonds. One is generally either born into this group or marries in. As a social unit, the tribe is able to organize for hunting and horticulture (small-scale gardens and crops), divide roles (shaman, warrior, chief…), propagate an oral tradition, and compete with other tribes for territory and resources.

The magic/tribal paradigm describes a phase of human development where the interplay between individual impulses, communal bonds, and the mystical perceptions of the world are the cornerstone of consciousness and social organization. This stage shepherds the beginnings of the agentic self, morality, and society.

The Mythic/Traditional Paradigm

Figure 7. Mythic/traditional paradigm in the big three

The mythic/traditional paradigm focuses on the integration of social structure, authority, and rules. Individuals at this stage are characterized by the mythic self or the heroic self (UL). Here, I am the chosen hero/ine on a path toward salvation or glory. My actions are defined by concrete rules (thou shalt not kill), and I see people within their roles (a father’s duty is to provide for the family). My identity at this stage is deeply fused with—or more accurately con-fused with—the identity of the group, fostering strong loyalty and adherence to collective norms. This stage is also called conformist because my behavior is driven by pleasing, caretaking, upholding appearances, and following group expectations.⁵ I am concerned with who I “should” be and what actions I “should” be taking. I obey rules and experience shame or guilt when I break the rules. Because my self-other boundaries are still not clearly defined, my relationships tend to be codependent or needy.

This developmental stage shepherds a more complex understanding of self and relationships. I am able to recognize my own personhood (first person perspective) as well as the personhood of others (second person perspective). Instead of treating others as tools or barriers to my desires, as in the magic paradigm, I now understand social cues and interact with others as people just like me.

Figure 8. Mythic/traditional psyche in relation with the world

Culturally, this paradigm is anchored in traditionalism (LL), with morality and customs being handed down by central authorities including family, organized religion, ethnicity, and politics. Kohlberg assigns two moral developmental steps to this level. The first is the interpersonal conformity orientation where “good behavior is that which pleases or helps others and is approved by them.”⁶ The focus here is to be a “good boy or good girl” by adhering to stereotypical images.

The next moral step is called the society-maintaining orientation which follows rules and traditions to maintain the social order: social conservatism. These moral structures are called conventional because they adhere to social norms or conventions. This stage is defined by stark in-group versus out-group dynamics—for example, I am either part of God’s chosen people or I am a heathen. Allegiance to my in-group provides safety from the perceived threat of out-group members.

The social system at this level spans feudalism, empires, and early nations (LR). Historically, the technological advancement of the animal-driven plow allowed for large-scale agriculture, which in turn enabled larger villages, cities, and eventually nations to emerge. In order to organize these larger groups of people, this paradigm established social institutions including a legal system, an economy, and organized religion. These paradigms instill a concrete shared morality to harmonize vast numbers of people into a coherent social system. At this stage, religious myths are taken to be literally true (the Bible, the Koran, The Pure Land Sutra, etc.)—known as mythic literalism. Social structures are often rigid, hierarchical, and authoritarian. This level is the first to include the notorious dominator hierarchies, colonization, and religious fundamentalism.

Advancement into the mythic/traditional paradigm brings online the heroic self who must fight, protect, and establish authority within a mythic world. Traditions and shared morality enable more complex social cohesion and coordination, which co-arise with the first true human civilizations. More adults reside within the mythic/traditional paradigm than any other.⁷ This means that beyond the specific religion, political ideology, or mythology, most humans view themselves and the world through the lenses of myth and tradition.

The Mental/Modern Paradigm

Figure 9. Mental/modern paradigm in the big three

The mental/modern paradigm emerged with the Western Enlightenment Age in Europe. Descartes’ famous “Cogito ergo sum,” I think therefore I am, is the declaration of the fully distinct and autonomous ego. Paradigm by paradigm, the ego has been individuating from its fusion with the exterior world. Archaic consciousness was undifferentiated from the world. In the magic paradigm, the ego was separate but enmeshed with the natural world. In the mythic paradigm, the ego differentiated from nature, but was still fused with the social group. Mental/modern marks the emergence of a truly individual self capable of abstract thought and self-reflection. Now, instead of following concrete rules that are given by a central authority, I am able to follow abstract rules that I can deduce or intuit for myself. Piaget calls this the shift from concrete operations to formal operations. I am interested in reasons, causes, consequences, and goals.

Now I am able to take a third person perspective of myself and others. This means I can reflect on myself from an outside view. I am able to consider my past self and my future self apart from who I am now. In addition to holding the viewpoints of myself and others, I am now able to hold an objectively neutral, third perspective. I also take ideals and human nature into account for how I make sense of relationships.

Figure 10. Mental/modern psyche in relationship with the world

Culturally (LL), the modern worldview recognizes the inherent worth and rights of each human, transcending group affiliations. Following Kohlberg, this level includes two steps of moral development. The first is the social contract orientation to morality, where procedural rules are applied according to agreed-upon standards. Each human should have an input and representation in their system of government. The social contract, at least in theory and intent, makes the state beholden to the interests of the populace. The second step in modern morality is the universal ethical principle orientation, in recognition of moral principles like the Golden Rule and the categorical imperative.

These principles are discernable by every human (who is thinking within this worldview or higher) and applicable to every human. We recognize universal principles including dignity, equality, and freedom. The universalizing perspective is what led to the abolitionist movement, feminism, and representative democracy.

In the social dimension (LR), modernity uses the scientific method to discern a world governed by laws of nature. Modernity sparked the industrial revolution, which in turn gave rise to capitalism and the modern corporation. The “modern” social institutions include modern science, modern medicine, modern law, modern industry, etc. The social structures here, though still hierarchical, tend to be value-creation-focused and therefore meritocratically organized (again, at least in theory and intent). Competition is utilized both to rank members within an organization and between organizations in order to spur productivity and innovation. Modern markets efficiently organize both labor and products. Whereas in the mythic/traditional paradigm, the social system is set up to solve for security through authority, the mental/modern paradigm solves for value-creation through competition.

The mental/modern paradigm thus represents a profound shift in human consciousness and social organization, characterized by the rise of the rational individual within a global economic system. This paradigm has reshaped humanity and the entire planet along with it. Looking across the paradigms, modernity holds the most power and influence in today’s world.

The Plural/Postmodern Paradigm

Figure 11. Plural/Postmodern paradigm in the big three

The plural/postmodern paradigm ushers in a nuanced phase of development for the self (UL). First, I begin to see and think at a systems level. This means I’m able to transcend the mental third-person perspective of a rational outsider and take on a more expansive fourth-person perspective where I perceive the system that every event is embedded within. Unlike the atomistic determinism of the mental/modern paradigm, the systems view takes into account complex, chaotic, emergent properties where individual phenomena cannot be attributed to any component parts or interactions. The system must be understood at a level of complexity that transcends and includes the operations of its parts.

In integral’s AQAL matrix, I am now able to see and appreciate the collective mechanisms of the lower two quadrants! Collective “we” spaces, together with cultural conditioning, group identities, and memes now become apparent. Collective “its” spaces like ecosystems, social networks, and chaotic attractors reveal themselves.

A pivotal realization at this stage is the relative nature of perception and meaning. I begin to recognize that my reality is at least partially dependent on my perspective. In fact, all phenomena are relative to the observer. Different observers perceive different realities and therefore there is no fixed, objective world.

In addition, every observer is inescapably embedded within their societal and cultural contexts—we are inescapably members of systems. This means that whatever meaning I assign to any event is at least partially socially constructed. The discovery that reality is observer-dependent and socially-constructed represents a step beyond the rational analysis of the modern paradigm and ushers in the fuzzy, relative, complex self-worldview of the plural/postmodern paradigm.

Figure 12. Plural/postmodern psyche in relationship with the world

I begin to recognize that my identity is largely constructed by personal, familial, and cultural conditioning. Biases and privileges that were previously invisible to me now come into view. I become aware of my natural tendencies for defensive self-deception and culturally biased distortion. Socialized identity-layers like race, gender, and class begin to peel back from the self. These identities are deconstructed. In this paradigm, I feel a pull inward to find the authentic me, and a strong skepticism of the existing social order.⁸ I begin the process of self-authoring, where I behave and identify according to my internally referenced values.

I also gain an increased capacity for sensitivity. I become sensitive to my emotions, somatic wisdom, and other ways of knowing beyond the conceptual mind. I begin to see my “self” as a plurality of parts that function (or dysfunction) as a system. I have an inner child, protectors, managers, a skeptic, a victim, and so on. This marks a departure from the more unitary self-concept of earlier paradigms. I develop an increased sensitivity toward the needs and desires of my internal parts.

I become sensitive not only to my multifaceted internal landscape, but also gain a heightened awareness of my place within my social and environmental contexts. I see a plurality of socially-constructed selves (racial, gendered, familial, workplace, and so on) and because they were created by culture, they are subject to redefinition or dismantling.

I also become more sensitive to other people, other groups of people, and the environment. I develop more compassion and empathy. This sensitivity brings an increased focus on minority and marginalized groups in society, with a desire to center these outcast voices.

Emerging in the 1960s, postmodern culture (LL) has actively focused on addressing the problems created by the prior two paradigms. Environmental conservation, second and third wave feminisms, racial justice, anti-colonialism, and so on, have been the hallmarks of postmodern culture. With such strong reactions against the existing social structures from prior paradigms, postmodernity often has trouble taking a stand for anything. That said, this stage of development brings the understanding that universal rights are not enough on their own to guarantee justice. More considerations are necessary because: different groups of people have different needs (ex: neurodivergent folks), certain groups face social and cultural disadvantages (any minorities), and certain groups are not able to protect or advocate for their rights (children). So additional measures must be put into place to protect and provide equal opportunities for the full diversity of humans above and beyond universal rights. This level of moral development is not identified by Kohlberg, so I’ll propose the sensitive relativism orientation to morality at this level.

Because postmodern culture is very motivated by sensitivity to the rights, values, and truths of a plurality of groups and individuals, it is prone to moral relativism. Unlike the modern paradigm, which sees one objective truth and one set of universal rights, the postmodern paradigm recognizes that each group and individual has their own subjective truths. All truth is relative to the observer, who is always embedded within a socio-cultural context. This has led to stances like “whatever is true for you goes” or even, “there is no truth.” Although this represents an important step beyond the binary thinking of modernity, moral relativism runs into issues almost immediately. This stance is self-contradictory in that it asserts a universal truth (i.e., everything is relative) which states there are no universal truths.⁹

Looking ahead to the integral paradigm and the four-quadrant model, I see that every holon, phenomenon, thing, or process has (at least) four dimensions: subjective, objective, intersubjective, and interobjective. Thus there are (at least) four truth-claims depending on the dimension being observed or enacted. Different dimensions produce different results. No dimension takes precedence over any of the others—all four quadrants are interrelated and tetra-enact. So from an integral perspective, while there are multiple truths, these truths are indeed definitive based on one’s perspective. In addition, some truths are more inclusive than other truths. Because the paradigms are organized into a developmental holarchy, with each successive level being more inclusive and more holistic, the higher the observer, worldview, and paradigm, the more holistic the truth-claim emerging from that perspective will be.¹⁰

In the social dimension (LR), postmodernity’s information age marks a significant shift from industrial production to a digital-based service economy. We see the emergence of information technology, the internet, and social networks where systems supersede pyramid organizations.

Rather than modernity’s singular broadcast mass media, social networks deliver a plurality of self- generated media content, ushering in the democratization of information. These platforms enable users to create a multiplicity of voices and personas. In the postmodern sciences, chaos and complexity study physical systems, ecology studies systems of organisms, and sociology studies systems of humans.

Postmodernity creates values communities for social organization, which are intentional collectives that are freely chosen based on shared interests and values. These communities emphasize dialogue, nonviolent communication, and consensus-driven decision-making. Conflict resolution happens through mediation and reconciliation (at least ideally). These groups tend to be strongly egalitarian, inclusive, and multicultural. Values communities represent a move towards more democratic and participatory forms of social organization.

A notable aspect of postmodern thought is its critical stance toward hierarchical structures. The postmodern paradigm rightly sees that dominator hierarchies cause suffering and attempts to dismantle them. However, in its anti-ranking, non-marginalizing zeal, this paradigm tends to categorically condemn all hierarchies including developmental hierarchies like the one we are describing right now. Also called growth hierarchies or holarchies, these developmental pathways are found throughout the kosmos for the increase of complexification and wholeness. Each successive level transcends and includes (is supported by and in turn embraces) its junior levels. Postmodernity’s wholesale condemnation of ranking and hierarchies is an unfortunate limitation of this paradigm’s interpretive lens. Needless to say, this distorted view is transcended as we step into the integral paradigm.

Over the past 150 years, philosophers and sociologists have noticed that collectives sometimes behave like individual entities and in other ways are distinct. Drawing on Luhmann’s social autopoeisis thoery, Integral Theory demarcates sociocultural holons as a separate class of entity to describe collectives, cultures, systems, and groups. The relationship between holons and sociocultural holons is a fascinating exploration that I plan to cover in a future article.

The Integral Paradigm

Figure 13. Integral paradigm in the big three

The integral paradigm heralds the emergence of a brand new tier of development. Clare Graves called it a “monumental shift in meaning.” The integral self (UL) perceives an interlocking kosmos of wholeness, both within and without. The scattered, chaotic noise of postmodernity assembles into a multi-dimensional, four-quadrant mandala of life. At integral, I am centered in my holistic self. I am able to own and unify all my diverse internal parts behind one self. This self is a sovereign adult, which is robust enough to hold the paradox of no-self and self.

Figure 14. Integral self-world-system

Integral is the first level where I am able to see all the paradigms of consciousness and recognize that each one forms an essential rung in the developmental ladder. I recognize that every self/worldview/paradigm enacts a reality that is internally valid, and I understand that each level is a necessary foundation for more advanced levels to transcend and include. Integral cognition is known as vision-logic¹¹ or holistic aperspectivalism,¹² and represents the capacity to hold multiple perspectives as equally valid while understanding that more holistic perspectives generate deeper truths. Using the analogy that each level is a rung on the ladder of human development, standing on a higher rung gives a more expansive view of the landscape. The view from each rung is valid, but higher rungs see more.

With an understanding of the developmental holarchy, I become focused on evolution and self-actualization—which is to say, moving up the ladder. Other terms common at this level are self-authorship,¹³ utilizing an internal locus of control,¹⁴ and autonomy.¹⁵ This wholeness and actualization of self brings commitments to healing as well as creating my own meaning in life. I cultivate an expansiveness to explore and be all I can be. This in turn, leads to a desire to support others to be all they can be.

At the integral level, I am able to hold awareness of multiple systems and multiple paradigms, which marks the 5th-person perspective. This metasystemic and metaparadigmatic capacity allows me to integrate and synthesize across many disciplines to create new functional wholes. Integral consciousness is more tolerant of paradox and ambiguity, enabling more expansive creativity to flourish.

Integral consciousness heralds a recognition of the sacred across the self, nature, spiritual traditions, life, and the entire kosmos. Science and religion are no longer mutually incompatible. That perceived conflict is now understood as the clash between the traditional and modern worldviews. Instead, these sources of knowledge and wisdom are synthesized into a more inclusive, holistic reality.

As of 2025, integral cultural and social structures are still in the early stages of formation. We have yet to hit the much-anticipated tipping point where a critical mass of individuals holding the integral frame establish a new collective system. This means that any statements I make about integral structures in the collective are still provisional.

Integral culture promises to be growth and evolution-oriented (LL). Its transdisciplinary, metaparadigmatic approach synthesizes cultural memes into innovative, creative, adaptive commons. Because the integral stage recognizes the validity and value of each worldview, I would expect integral culture to focus on supporting healthy versions of each worldview and creating cultural conveyor-belts—like this very article—to assist the collective process of development.¹⁶ Further expanding upon Kohlberg’s model for morality, I would offer that integral holds a morality of developmental orientation: that which fosters development is moral and good.

At the societal level (LR), integral is predicted to usher in a truly world-centric global governance which recognizes that we all share in a global commons. Issues like climate change and wealth disparity are probably impossible to address without a truly global federalism. However, it cannot be a system staffed primarily by traditional, modern, or postmodern individuals. That would likely lead us into the worst nightmares of totalitarianism. Integral global governance, staffed by integral individuals, would recognize appropriate degrees of sovereignty across a variety of scales, add in safeguards to prevent runaway power grabs, and fundamentally approach politics from a power-with rather than power-over framework. Integral institutions in domains including integral medicine, integral law, integral science, integral religion, and integral education are already forming at smaller scales with promising results.

In terms of praxis, Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory utilizes Integral Methodological Pluralism (IMP), a sophisticated approach utilizing the entirety of the AQAL matrix. IMP recognizes and integrates diverse forms of knowledge production and wisdom traditions.

“Integral,” in that the pluralism is not a mere eclecticism or grab bag of unrelated paradigms, but a meta-paradigm that weaves together its many threads into an integral tapestry, a unity-in-diversity that slights neither the unity nor the diversity. “Methodological,” in that this is a real paradigm or set of actual practices and behavioral injunctions to bring forth an integral territory, not merely a new holistic theory or maps without any territory. And “pluralism” in that there is no one overriding or privileged injunction (other than to be radically all-inclusive).

–Ken Wilber¹⁷

As a system for engaging with reality, IMP positions each type of knowledge production or inquiry within one of the four quadrants. Ken Wilber offers this segmentation of methodologies: Phenomenology and structuralism describe the upper left quadrant of interior individual experience; empiricism and autopoiesis theory describe the upper right quadrant of exterior individual manifestation; hermeneutics and cultural anthropology describe the lower left quadrant of collective interior cultures; and systems theory and social autopoiesis theory describe the lower right quadrant of collective exterior systems (Figure 14).¹⁸

Figure 15. Methodologies positioned within the four quadrants¹⁹

By framing our methods of knowledge production within the AQAL matrix, we can both appreciate the unique insights that each approach is able to generate, and we have a structure to compare and contrast all these diverse areas of study. Within IMP, new modes of inquiry present themselves. For example, I can imagine running an experiment to understand the effects of a prayer circle where I record first-person testimonies of the experiences of individuals in the prayer circle (UL), monitor brainwave states of these individuals (UR), study the cultural meanings across a diversity of prayers used in the circle (LL), and track social and economic indicators as the group progresses over time (LR). Each quadrant has its own form of knowledge production, which can then be correlated across quadrants for a holistic understanding. This represents a new praxis revealing a new paradigm. The integral world is, in turn, co-enacting our integral subjective and intersubjective worldviews. Integral Methodological Pluralism is a big step forward in the human project of knowledge production, offering a framework to index the complexities of the integral world.

The integral paradigm utilizes a holistic view, recognizes life’s sacredness, and synthesizes across diverse perspectives. This represents a massive transformation in individual development, and promises to remake human culture and society. Humanity’s transition to a more interconnected, holistic, and evolutionarily-aware world appears to be the next giant leap in consciousness looming on the horizon. This transition will arrive to the extent that each of us internalizes and participates in the co-creation of integral consciousness.

The High Integral Paradigm

Figure 16. High integral paradigm in the big three

High integral is our final stop on today’s tour of paradigms (though by no means, represents humanity’s final answer). At present, this level includes less than one percent of the adult population in Western countries. While integral is still forming, high integral is only just beginning to emerge. The high integral self (UL) is characterized by deepening compassion. I begin to transcend my personal agendas in favor of aligning myself to the perfect unfolding of life and the kosmos. The recognition of this great perfection brings a profound commitment to action without attachment to outcome. In compassion, I work for the benefit of all beings. In compassion, I respect the perfect unfolding of all beings on their unique paths. This brings a greater embrace of all of life—the good and the bad, the ugly and the beautiful, the joy and the sorrow—fully welcomed with a profound sense of wonder.

Figure 17. High integral psyche in relationship with the world

Eleutheropoiesis is a word I coined to describe the core nature of human consciousness, which is freedom creating. It is our nature to move to ever more creative expressions of freedom. Eleutheria is the Greek term for “liberty” and poiesis means “creation.” Eleutheropoiesis is represented in a number of spiritual traditions. Kabbalah of Jewish mysticism uses the concept of the Great Work of creation whereby the Divine essence densifies into form, which then evolves back toward unity so that “God may behold the face of God.” Dzogchen of Tibetan Buddhism is known as the great perfection, where the suchness of reality is experienced in utter perfection.²⁰ In the mythology of the Kalachakra Tantra, when Shakyamuni Buddha attained enlightenment, he looked out through the eyes of all beings at all times. In this moment of total awareness and infinite compassion, he reimagined the universe in such a way that all beings move as efficiently and directly toward realization while still preserving their individual freedom. In the Kalachakra cosmology, we now inhabit this reimagined, maximally compassionate world. In each case, the nature of reality is understood as self-liberative. This is the essential view of the high integral paradigm: liberation through compassionate abiding.

Kohlberg hypothesized the existence of a morality of cosmic orientation, in which individuals consider morality from the perspective of the kosmos itself. In this stage of moral development the self-protective mechanisms and biases fall away and are replaced by Agape or compassion. In Kohlberg’s words, “Agape has two essential characteristics: first, it is nonexclusive and can be extended to all, including one’s enemies; second, it is gracious and is extended without regard for merit.”²¹ This is the morality of high integral culture and beyond.

High integral’s future in the social dimension will likely build upon the global commons of integral and widen it to embrace all sentient beings, including animals. High integral praxis expands Integral Methodological Pluralism, a task that Ken Wilber has already begun sketching out. Imagine that each of the four quadrants is able to take an inside view and an outside view of that dimension. For instance, the inside of my interior individual experience would be my firsthand account, while the framework for what I’m experiencing might be described by an outside view like psychology. This can be extended to all four quadrants, and in fact, if you return to Figure 15, the top methodology in each quadrant is an inside view and the bottom methodology is an outside view. It’s beyond the scope of this article to cover the details of this next level of complexity of IMP, but suffice to say, more holistic and complex vision-logic enacts more inclusive maps and deeper coordination between each quadrant’s modes of knowledge production.²²

Summary

In summary of our tour of the paradigms of consciousness, I have sketched out seven levels that form a universal pathway for the evolution of consciousness, both in individual humans and for humanity as a whole. Each infant begins at archaic and develops through the levels. Humans as a species began at archaic and have evolved more complexity throughout our history. Each of these levels manifests across the four quadrants (or tetra-enacts). For short, we considered the Big Three of “I,” “we,” and “it/its” across the quadrants for each level. Successive levels include the complexity of prior levels, but transcend the view into creative new expressions of self, culture, and social organization. While I focused on the self, the morality, and the techno-economic modes of each paradigm, these are only three of many distinct lines of development, each of which traverses the same deep features of the paradigms of consciousness. Along the way, I added some additional levels to the Kohlberg moral development model within the integral framework, which are summarized in Figure 18, below.

Figure 18. Expanded moral development model

1. Quoted in Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change, Beck and Cowen.

2. “Lévy Bruhl’s participation mystique is more descriptive of this condition, since it aptly formulates the primordial relation of the primitive to the object. His objects have a dynamic animation, they are charged with soul-stuff or soul-force (and not always possessed of souls, as the animist theory supposes), so that they have a direct psychic effect upon him, producing what is practically a dynamic identification with the object. In certain primitive languages articles of personal use have a gender denoting ‘alive’ (the suffix of animation).” Psychological Types, Jung.

3. It’s important to note that in this context, “tribal culture” applies to a specific developmental level, and not to the vast majority of indigenous cultures in the world today. With the exception of a handful of villages which have not been exposed to globalization, the indigenous cultures of today have continued to evolve through the paradigms and in some cases are at the cutting edge of cultural development.

4. “The physical consequences of action determine its goodness or badness regardless of the human meaning or value of these consequences. Avoidance of punishment and unquestioning deference to power are valued in their own right.” Essays on Moral Development, Kohlberg.

5. “The Conformist stage 3 describes persons with an early adolescent frame of mind. Their self-identity is defined by their relationship to a group. This leads to confused boundaries between oneself and the group (whether family, team or nation). Being part of this larger entity allows one to be protected and share in its power. The price for inclusion is loyalty and obedience.” Ego Development: Nine Levels of Increasing Embrace, Cook-Greuter.

6. “The physical consequences of action determine its goodness or badness regardless of the human meaning or value of these consequences. Avoidance of punishment and unquestioning deference to power are valued in their own right.” Essays on Moral Development, Kohlberg.

7. Essays on Moral Development, Kohlberg.

8. “Individualists distrust conventional wisdom and the hyper-rational tenets of the Conscientious stage. They need to distance themselves from all that went before. In this case, one must reevaluate the self-adopted, yet sanctioned role identities of society and redefine oneself uniquely and independently of them based on one’s own experience and conclusions. When one fully realizes that most prior meaning making was socially and culturally conditioned, scientific certainty and the judgmental frame of mind break down. Moreover, Individualists learn to consciously scrutinize their beliefs in order to test their assumptions or to relish the novel mental freedom such a maneuver allows.” Ego Development: Nine Levels of Increasing Embrace, Cook-Greuter.

9. “In the worst case, postmodern individualists claim with absolute certainty that there is no position from which to judge anything. They do not recognize the inherent self-contradiction in this stance which values or privileges this idea over all others, which of course is a form of judgment and hierarchical ordering of value.” Ego Development: Nine Levels of Increasing Embrace, Cook-Greuter.

10. “No paradigm is ever simply wrong—true but partial, yes—‘Everybody is right.’ But an integral metatheory adds: ‘but right only when addressing the phenomena enacted by the particular paradigm.’ And we were saying that such nonexclusion often discloses an unfoldment that is enfoldment: in any particular developmental stream, successive waves transcend and include their predecessors, and thus each wave is adequate, each succeeding wave is more adequate. We never arrive at a point where we can say: now we have the truth, and all predecessors were inadequate.” Excerpt B, Wilber.

11. “Most researchers have found two to four stages of postformal (vision-logic) cognition. These postformal stages generally move beyond the formal/mechanistic phases (of [Piaget's early formal operational level]) into various stages of relativity, pluralistic systems, and contextualism (early vision-logic), and from there into stages of metasystematic, integrated, unified, dialectical, and holistic thinking (middle to late vision-logic). This gives us a picture of the highest mental domains as being dynamic, developmental, dialectical, integrated.” Integral Psychology: Consciousness, Spirit, Psychology, Therapy, Wilber.

12. “Not to be confused with the Greek ‘a’ or ‘not’, Gebser uses the Latin ‘a’, or ‘multi’ to describe an awareness system that can perceive many perspectives simultaneously. Rather than fighting for ‘one true perspective’ as the only ‘right’ one, the Aperspectival has the capacity to witness the unfolding and synthesis for the unperspectival archaic, magic, and mythic, as well as the rational perspectival worldview.” “The Aperspectival,” Bolognino.

13. “An ideology, an internal identity, a self-authorship that can coordinate, integrate, act upon, or invent values, beliefs, convictions, generalizations, ideals, abstractions, interpersonal loyalties, and intrapersonal states. It is no longer authored by them, it authors them and thereby achieves a personal authority.” In Over Our Heads, Kegan.

14. “The Locus of Control (LOC) construct measures the degree to which people believe that reinforcements (rewards and punishments) from the environment are contingent on their own efforts, actions and personal decisions (internal LOC) on the one hand, versus luck, fate, external circumstance and powerful others (external LOC) on the other.” “Locus of Control,” Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion, Francis.

15. “Autonomous persons consciously commit to actively create a meaningful life for themselves and for others through self-determination and self-actualization within constantly shifting contexts. They posses a relatively strong, autonomous self that is both differentiated and well integrated. This includes the capacity to see and accept paradox and tolerate ambiguity” “Ego Development: A Full-Spectrum Theory Of Vertical Growth And Meaning Making,” Cook-Greuter.

16. “Caring for the spiral as a whole means preserving the evolutionary opportunities for every person, regardless of that person’s place in the sequence of evolution.” Integral Consciousness and the Future of Evolution, McIntosh.

17. Excerpt B, Wilber.

18. Phenomenology: the study of consciousness through direct experience. Structuralism: the analysis of human cognition. Empiricism: the study of physical objects and sense experience. Autopoiesis: the study of the self-organizing processes of living organisms. Hermeneutics: the study of interpreting communication and meaning. Cultural anthropology: the study of human cultures and development. Systems theory: the study of coherent groups of interrelated, interdependent components. Social autopoiesis theory: the study of the self-organizing processes of systems of organisms.

19. Adapted from Excerpt C, Wilber.

20. “The fruition of dzokchen is full realization of the enlightenment within. In practical terms, it involves the ability to rest in the innate state and not depart from it. Far from a state of dullness, lethargy, or apathy—as indeed it might seem from ego’s standpoint—one rests in the natural state, or as the natural state, that is vivid, vibrant, and dynamic. The buddhas rest in the natural state and, as expressions of it, remain in that world, interact with others, teach the dharma, and express their compassion to sentient beings in myriad ways. Yet none of this is done based on conscious intention. It all unfolds as buddha activity that is always unpremeditated, spontaneous, and perfectly apt to the situation. The fruition of dzokchen produces men and women of extraordinary sanctity, compassion, and ability.” Secret of the Vajra World, Ray.

21. Essays on Moral Development.

22. See Ken Wilber’s unpublished Kosmic Karma and Creativity for a full account of IMP and inside/outside perspectives of the quadrants.