EVOLUTIONARY, SPIRITUAL CONCEPTIONS OF LIFE

SRI AUROBINDO, TEILHARD DE CHARDIN AND KEN WILBER

IN COMPARISON

Final paper for an individual

Advanced Course in Integral Philosophy,

Sri Aurobindo Darshana -

The University of Tomorrow

Online Programme

SACAR

(Sri Aurobindo Centre for Advanced Research)

Pondicherry, India

With Ananda Reddy, Ph.D.

Michael Leicht

Zurich, October 2006

Contents:

Contents 2

Theories of Evolution 4

Spiritual Evolution 7

Theories of Existence 10

Idealism and Theories of Causality 12

Ken Wilbers Integral Vision A Holarchy 15

The Pattern that Connects the Web of Life 18

The Depths of the Divine 19

Wilbers Synthesis of Stages of Moral Development. 21

To Close with Wilber Wilber and Aurobindo in Comparison 22

Kant, Aurobindo and In Between 23

Critique of Superstitious Illuminations (Continued) and Alternatives 25

The Big Picture The Evolutionary Process according to Sri Aurobindo and Teilhard de Chardin 27

Sri Aurobindo - Basic Tenets 28

Some Important Differences 33

An Alternative View of Holism and Integral Thinking - Elmar Holenstein 37

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Basic Tenets 38

A Critical Assesment of Teilhard de Chardins and Sri Aurobindos Theories of Evolution 40

Literature 42

Perhaps the greatest and the most universal of the problems which have infrigued the mind of man are those which deal with his own place in the world in which he lives. The greatest, vastest, and most difficult of all cosmic problems is that of the origin and development of the world the question of creation, in a word (Reddy, 2004: 28). Central for a present-day cosmogony is the theory of evolution. The special stress of this paper lies on theories of evolution, which are spiritual, too. Like this, they distinguish themselves from standard evolutionary theories, which are materialistic and mostly mechanistic, and seen from an integral perspective reductionistic and thus have lost the spiritual candle.

But what is important, too, is that we keep some rules of thumb in mind about intercultural communication. This since our three heroes of evolution come from different cultures (East and West) and are imbedded in different religions (Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity). Most important for a modern enlightenment philosophical approach in this matter is the agnosticism rule. Of course, it sounds a little bit like a contradiction: the aim of this paper is to try to shed some light on the question of origin (and destiny) of this world. But ultimately, we think, it is best to stay with methodological agnosticism. This approach to truth, aiming for it, but knowing that man does never find absolute truth, has become the master approach in philosophy (i.e. love of wisdom - philosophy in contrast to theosophy knowledge about God). We stress this so explicitly at the beginning, since all three have not done that! Those following the Eastern approach (Aurobindo and Wilber) think that they have direct mystical revelations about ultimate truth. And Teilhard is to closed in his limited Christian framework. But I keep with them nevertheless, since they are originators of important impulses in thinking evolution spiritually. But let the mystery of this world be a mystery. If the following thoughts can stimulate thinking and show some light into the right direction, that would be already more then can be expected.

There are mysteries that remain mysteries in all cultures and across cultures, transculturally. Of course, proofs of indeterminacy or undecidability can be based on false presuppositions and thus deceive. Still, one must be prepared for the fact that a satisfactory answer to Leibnizs question (Principes de la nature et de la grce, 1714, 7/8) will not be found in any culture: Why is there something and not nothing? The same holds of Lockes question as to how it is possible that bare incognitative matter should produce a thinking intelligent being (Holenstein, 2003).

Theories of Evolution

The world evolution comes from Latin evolvere, which means to process and to develop. Evolution is based on three requirements. (1) A replicable information complex, which must be able to reproduce its-self - the medium. (2) A copy-process which does not work totally correct/ or has as aim directly a reshuffling of the merging information (e.g. heterosexuality). There is variation generated along with the duplication process. (3) There is selection. Not every new unit will have the change to reproduce its-self once more. (1) to (3) is leading to adaptation and higher development. In philosophy, the development of the universe and of consciousness through time is referred to as evolution, too.

The modern evolutionary synthesis (often referred to simply as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis, neo-Darwinian synthesis or neo-Darwinism), generally denotes the integration of Charles Darwins theory of the evolution of species by natural selection (the mechanism of evolution), with Gregor Mendels theory of genetics as the basis for biological inheritance (the unit of evolution), together with random genetic mutation as the source of variation, and mathematical population genetics (Wkipedia, en/de, Evolution, Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, Evolution (philosophy)).

The theory of evolution has become the central organising principle of modern biology.

Because of its potential implications for the origins of humankind, evolutionary theory has been at the centre of many social and religious controversies since its inception. But by spiritual in connection with evolution we mean, that evolution theory does not erase the claim for life being divine. But there are some views according to which evolution theory makes a divine origin of life obsolete. Thus, first a look at these:

(1) The theory of evolution makes as such other stories about the genesis of life redundant. The most prominent example is the Genesis Story of Adam and Eve of the Abrahamitic religions. Where it was supposed that a god-power has created earth, plants, animals and men. And this story of creation was later written down, together with the incident of the Fall, in the book of Genesis of the Bible. The Bible text is assumed to be a correct account of gods work as a creator. Thus, this school of thought is called creationists.

(2) In the simplistic manner variation, based on mutation and selection, leading to adaptation is seen as completely random. Science and the modern mind seem to claim that the universe just occurs. There is nothing behind it. It is all ultimately accidental or random. It just is, it just happens oops (Reynodls, 2004: 222). There is no divine power anymore behind the evolutionary process and no teleology left. There is no fitness for a purpose anymore.

(3) Only mechanistical selection is left. This is the standard modern, secular so called scientific theory of evolution.

(4) The believe in god is an illusion. This because the promise of eternal bliss can be seen as being only an evolutionary advantage for a thoughtful, doubting man. This is the advanced atheistic evolutionary theory with two subtypes the cultural and the genetic one.

We want to go into more detail in the following concerning proposition (3). The first question in this evolutionary theory about god is, whether the concept of god is only a cultural product? In that case proposition (3) is the result of cultural evolution. Or if proposition (3) is based on some spiritual experiences, which have their basis in the genes. Thus the theory would be at the same time cultural and genetic.

This theory is based on the assumption that man is able to conceive god. For that, he must have first of all the cognitive capacities to think about god. In the following we will assume that this capacty is not only based on some general cognitive capacities of the brain. We assume rather that there could be even some genes responsible for our possibility to think about god. Genes function in making possible certain states of consciousness, which build the basis for spiritual experiences. In this extended theory spirituality would not only be something you learn from your cultural environment. No, it is assumed that there are some god genes which build the basis for spirituality. We will follow this assumption, because spirituality means that you can get some higher, mystical experiences, which are quiet different from everyday experiences. But by saying this, we dont mean the great mystical experiences of the Eastern Hindu or Buddhist traditions, which lead you far beyond what a conventional brain normally can conceive. Also by claiming a spiritual approach, we will never forget, that all states of the brain have their neuronal correlative. Thus, no Buddha-enlightenment or for our paper important: no Aurobindo-enlightenment is possible.

Important for this approach of god genes is the distinction of spirituality from religiosity. Religiosity is related with certain imaginations (images of god, dogmas, histories of salvation, etc.) and practices (prayers and rituals). Religiosity is something, which is conveyed culturally in all its richness. Spirituality on the other hand, is something, which has to do with feeling related to the bigger whole. Spirituality has a b genetic component. However religious spirituality can be enhanced, like moral virtues, through practice. We can rise in faith - to believe, to love and to hope. We have most likely a genetic predisposition for spiritual faith. This faith is formed through individual experiences and cultural environment. The genes act in influencing the different states of consciousness, which build the basis for spiritual experiences. It is important to distinguish the question Why do we believe in god? from the question Is there a god at all?. How thoughts and emotions are generated in the brain is something science can research. But science can not tell whether these convictions are true or not? Spirituality is ultimately a question of believe, not of genetics! (Gehirn und Geist, 2005:?).

The advanced atheistic evolutionary theory is something, which is at the moment hotly debated in Western academic circles. Most prominent are people like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. I dont want to go into too much detail here. Just one more elaborated sociobiological theory might be quoted here. It is the one of Richard Dawkins from his famous book The Selfish Gene (Lw, 1998: 129/130). How did the concept of God develop? Once the idea of a higher or highest being appeared to early man. This being can have totally different attributes, since it is a random product. [But dont forget the innate moral sense, like Dawkins is doing in the following!] God can be benevolent or cruel, omniscient or cheatable, mild or envious, etc. In the struggle for existence there is a premium for certain attributes of god. There will be more brave men, defending their families and villages, if faith is promising the brave warrior, with the sword in his breast, an eternal heaven. On the other hand there will be more cowardliness if there is the prospect of a cruel god of the dead. This is the reason why step by step, from battle to battle, the believe in eternity and rewarding and punishing gods is gaining, leading ultimately to Christianity. (Sorry, I dont know Hinduism not good enough to develop this pattern at the example of it, too. But it reminds me to the famous battle in the Bhagavad Gita, where Krishna is instructing Arjuna. And it doesnt surprise me that the message to battle, too, is kept in Hindu religion. Even though Gandhi sees in the Gita a spiritual battle; see below.) Dawkings conclusion is: earlier it was said that God has created man, later it was said man has created god. But in sociobiological thinking the truth is that none has created anything. It is just left over something.

Spiritual Evolution

Next we will try a fresh look and think about philosophical theories of spiritual evolution. Trying to leave the camp of materialistic reductionism and nihilism. Evolution is not a mechanical movement without any purpose. It is a movement towards a goal. If evolution means merely the adaptation of the organism to a rigid physical universe, then there can be no talk of any moral or social evolution. (Reddy, 2004: 153/154). When science can not explain the how of the evolutionary process, it calls all growth and evolution of new forms accidental. And when spirituality explains the why, it calls all evolution as conscious evolution. It is the involved spirit that makes sense to the evolutionary process. And it is spirit which makes evolution meaningful and not accidental (Reddy, 2006a). The realm of consciousness in the long run necessarily becomes manifest in the material world, indeed creates the material world in its own image. Consciousness is cause and not effect, and can develop autonomously from the material world. (Fukuyama, 1989: 6).

Our starting point will be the assumption of a spiritual sense. This in analogy to the famous moral sense of the Scottish Enlightenment; or following Ananda Reddys (2006a) description: It is the innate sense of the Infinite that is in mans soul that is behind all religious seekings for the higher and the beyond. [The] emergence of the Divine in the creature must be that high-uplifted goal and that supreme significance. (Aurobindo, 1920/1990: 280). The presence of god-genes and a spiritual sense should be seen first of all as a positive sign and not as a deceptive illusion. And these god-genes can be seen as being responsible for our predisposition of spirituality. But we can increase this spirituality, too, through training (like muscles). A spiritual sense might be understood as a hint that the normally so quiet nature is talking to us. A spiritual sense has developed most likely during the process of evolution to get a better understanding of the world we live in, like sight helps us to orient in our environment. An indication for the spiritual-sense-theory is the essential identity of all great religions. A famous topic of Ramakrishna. Man could most likely never experience something as senseless if he had not the certainty that life is not meaningless. Thus unto you, you have created us. And impatience is our heart, until it will find calmness in you. Augustine, Confessions, first page (my translation from a German edition, 1989: 33).

Having ruled out the reductionist camp of evolution theories, we will now look at more spiritual ones. A very prominent try is Alfred Whitehead. He sees reality not as mechanistic. Biology means more becoming, the principle of creativity.

His goal is a rationalisation of mystics. That does not mean to explain away, rather to introduce new linguistic characterisations, which are rationally ordered (Hffe, 2001: 289). Who knows how new is emerging, gets a feeling for the surprise of becoming out of nothing. The evolutionary process gets a deep-dimension. The emergence of new is the creative trace of god. It is less about why new is developing the explained way. It is more about the weight of the emergence of new. It opens up a room for believe in, that the natural process of creation of new gives hope for a transient human being (Weder, 2006: 31).

But the only stress on creativity leaves me dissatisfied. And rationalised mystics is missing the emotional part, which is so important for the spiritual-sense-theory. I think there is much left to learn from the heroes of spiritual evolution, i.e. Sri Aurobindo, Teilhard de Chardin and Ken Wilber. Each of them is complementing the others. Aurobindo writes from a Hindu perspective with an all-consciousness Brahman at the base. For Ken Wilber the Buddhist emptiness is at the core. And Teilhard writes from a Christian perspective, with the stress on the Jesus figure. But to get the best of all, I am convinced, it is necessary to reinterpret them all. Taking just one of them literally, leads astray. Aurobindo and Wilber have unbelievable mystic visions. And Teilhard has a quirk with Jesus. I know, there is no possibility in this realm to get secure knowledge. The best we can get, is good speculative philosophy. And for this reason they are all good inspirational material! So lets start with the deconstucting and reconstructing.

Spiritual evolution is the idea that nature and human beings and/or human culture evolve along patterns or ascend in accordance with certain potentials, pre-determined or not. Theories of spiritual evolution are very diverse. They can be holistic, holding that higher realities emerge from and are not reducible to the lower, idealist, holding that reality is primarily mental or spiritual, or nondual, holding that there is no ultimate distinction between mental and physical reality. All of them can be considered to be teleological to a greater or lesser degree. Just not to forget, we will at this place remind to the simple fact that spiritualisation is also a material process. More wealth allows for more education and for more creative liberties.

With spiritual evolution goes often the idea of progression and development of the individual along, either after death or through successive reincarnations. Often ideas of a cyclical cosmos go along with spiritual evolution. There is the concept of progressive deterioration of the universe, sometimes also of the Fall.

But which might be balanced by a corresponding ascent to more spiritual stages and a return to paradisical conditions. Common is also the concept of emanation. Creation proceeds as an outpouring or even a transformation in the original Absolute or Godhead. Then higher levels of Enlightenment or God-realisation lead to a progressive evolution towards Godhead. The common theme is the evolution or the transcendence of the human or collective planetary consciousness in a higher state. In New Age it is a New Heaven and a new Earth and a divinisation of man. Humanity is on the verge of undergoing a change in consciousness (Wikipedia, Spiritual evolution, 3.6.06).

Theories of Existence

According to Aurobindo there are three types of theories of existence: (1) the supracosmic, (2) the supraterrestrial, and (3) the cosmic-terrestrial theory. (I have change the order and switched the content of the two theories: the cosmic-terrestrial theory with the supraterrestrial theory. So I will present you at place (2) the supraterrestrial theory instead of the cosmic-terrestrial theory. But on the level of content I present you the description for the cosmic-terrestrial theory instead of the supraterrestrial theory. You will better understand the reasons for this, when you are going to read the explanations in more details.)

(1) The supracosmic theory of existence: The reality is beyond our universe, whether it is real or illusory. The Western philosophers term it the Absolute, the Ultimate, beyond which you cannot conceive anything, which you cannot describe, either, much less grasp it. This reality is beyond the universe. All else is not real. We are not related to the supracosmic. One striking result of this movement of conviction of things here of unreality and the assertion of the sole reality beyond, was the doctrine of Buddhism, leading to self-extinction. As you know, Buddha came to say that there is no creator, there is no beginning. Each individual is a product of a movement which starts with desire. One desire leads to another. And this continuity of desire leads to an illusion of permanence. Cut out the root of desire, the movement comes to a stop and on day you find things extinguished. In this whole operation the individual loses his significance. This is the supracosmic theory.

(2) The supraterrestrial theory of existence: Oposed to the supracosmic theory is the supraterrestrial theory. It is about earth-based creation. The supraterrestrial theory holds that the reality is here. All else is imagination, speculation, to find a way of escape from the challenges and the problems of life. The ideal is in making most of life.

And in-between between the theory that the reality is elsewhere and the opposite theory that the reality is here is the cosmic-terrestrial theory.

(3) The cosmic-terrestrial theory of existence: To start with, this material cosmic creation is true, but there are other worlds, more permanent and eternal in their duration and it is they that form the link between the reality above and the reality here. There is also the claim of immortality of the soul. Death is not the end. Man dies, but he does not cease to exist. He lives in other worlds. His soul continues its life on other planes. And the true home of man is beyond. This world is a preparatory stage, the destination is there.

Earth-life is meant to qualify yourself for a berth in heaven. From this point of view, the earth-life is an episode. Some philosophers say it is a deviation. A soul comes to birth here because it has deviated from the law (cf. e.g. eating the forbidden fruit in Christianity). Another view is that this whole creation is a Lila of Divine Being. It is a sport of God. Whether he likes the sufferings, pains and the groans of his creatures is another matter.

All of us have origin in the supracosmic reality - the Brahman. But we are also part of the cosmic and the terrestrial. The journey of life is not concluded in one birth. Earth cannot be perfect unless the heavenly dimension is added to it. But also Heaven itself is not perfect without the earth. There is a constant interaction from both ends, from there to here and from here to there. Sachchidananda (Existence, Consciousness and Bliss) is the highest formulation of the Absolute when it moves into manifestation. And also all the self-revelation: we come to know because something reveals itself. In our egoism we pride ourselves on our intellect, but we can know, we can see, we can feel only that which reveals itself (Pandit, 2000: 16-28)

Idealism and Theories of Causality

Spiritual development includes the aim to achieve a closer connection to God and remove illusions or false ideas at the sensory, feeling and thinking aspect of a person. The Plato cave analogy (book VII of The Republic) is one of the best examples of what spiritual development can entail. It is the story about men who first see only the shadows of things, but which manage - with difficulties - to turn around and to see things as they are in sunlight. Other conceptualisations see spirituality as a two-stroke process: the upward-stroke is inner growth in the physical reality around oneself as a result of the inward change and the downward stroke that is manifesting improvements, changing oneself as one changes his relationship with the external universe. One reason for such change might be the realisation that all is oneself (Wikipedia, Spirituality).

Hindu idealism is a precursor of western idealism and the philosophical opposite of materialism. To remember, by German idealism we understand the philosophies of Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer. Hindu idealism is the basis of most religions of India and the far east. The debate about the true nature of the world typically boils down to materialism or idealism? Idealism espouses the view that consciousness, which at its root emanates from god, is the essence or meaning of the phenomenal reality. Idealism is superior to materialism in explaining the creation because whereas the mind is able to judge matter, matter is unable to judge the mind (Wikipedia, Hindu idealism). In Sri Aurobindos philosophy, and in the approach of all spiritual philosophies of the evolution of conscious life, it is the consciousness that is prior and the form comes later. That is where we differ from the western philosophy of evolution and also of existentialism (Lxistence prcde essence, Existence is preceding essence., Sartre). To put it simply, the coat is cut according to the wearer, the wearer is not cut according to the coat (Pandit, 2000:49). Materialism treats consciousness as a by-product of material existence, which has no purpose other than what we imbue the life with. For materialists, there is no continuum of existence or conscious experience beyond this life, and certainly no god. Morality becomes a matter of subjective reasoning.

Idealism sees on the other hand that the existence has a purpose that transcends any particular life. Even if each expressed living entity holds itself to be unique, it is an expression of an immortal soul on an evolutionary journey towards the God-consciousness. The driving force of evolution is the desire for love and the pain of separation from Gods love.

The most evolved form of consciousness on this planet, is a reflection of the God-consciousness. (So there is some support for the Christian believe, that man is built according to the image of god). The more developed the soul, the more clearly reflected the consciousness. For this reason, the moral judgement and wisdom of actions for any person will depend on their spiritual development, their god-realisation. Through spiritual practices and righteous conduct, the development of the reflected consciousness is believed to be accelerated towards unity with the infinite love of the God-consciousness. In Hindu idealism, as in most religious thought, the attunement to the divine is seen to reconnect the moral judgement with a higher law. (Wikipedia, Hindu idealism).

Theories of causality are so important, since they are junctions in the creation of new. Decisive for Aurobindos theory is ancient Indian theory of Samkhya pre-existent effect theory (Sat Karya-vada). (For Aurobindo is the spirit unfolding in evolution). It states that everything that emerges must pre-exist in the cause. Lw (1998: 137) terms this type of causality reductionist since the new can be totally infered from the old. This is akin to the Aristotelian theory of causation that advocates actualisation of potentiality, which is built on an internal perfecting principle. That which realises or makes actual what is otherwise merely potential. A form-giving cause is a specific forming immaterial entity e.g. entelchy, lan vital, super mind, etc. And a final, but very important aspect of Samkhys theory of pre-existing cause is, that nothing can really be created from or destroyed into nothingness. All evolution is simply the transformation of primal nature form one form to another (Reddy, 2006b, Wikipedia, Samkhya). The other extreme is, that ultimately there is nothing inherent. There is only emptiness. This is the Buddhist version. We want to clarify this statement at the following example of a seedling. The seedling has grown out of a seed. We can realise that the seedling can not be grown out of causes which are like it (problem of change of being). Neither can it be grown out of causes which are inherently different from it (problem of change of becoming). Nor can it have been caused by causes which are both, or which are none without causes. Something non-existent can not be cause. And something that can exist inherently out of its own powers does not need to be generated by causes. If you analyse things like this, you understand the reason why becoming can not be understood (Dalai Lama, 1992). This is the Buddhist problem of emptiness of becoming. Humes critique is something in between. It can be seen as another reason why we have wrong conceptions of reality.

The causal succession of two things is only appearing to us, as if there would be something causally reacting. But in reality we are not able to say if there is a necessary cause-effect relation between two things? Causality can also be seen as being only a habit. Finally, there is the possibility that in each case of causality there is new creation a b form of theism (Lw, 1998: 142). This type of causality would be involved in emergent development. But to sum up we will point at a (partial) reversal of causality: teleology. Teleology is about why things develop towards the realisation of ends internal to their own nature. Where as causality is a push-factor, teleology is a pull-factor. And somehow they complement each other, too.

Ken Wilbers Integral Vision A Holarchy

Wilber alludes that there is something else going on behind the happenstance drama. It is a deeper or higher or wider pattern or order or intelligence, at least the possibility of a deeper order. What becomes a pradox in Wilbers work, is his ultimate Buddhist stance of Emptiness. What more does he tell than the modern atheist project? Atheism normally goes along with agnosticism. Modern reductionism, Wilber maintains, has not only lost the Light and the Height; but more frightening, we have lost the Mystery and the Deep, the Emptiness and the Abyss.

Wilbers goal is an overall, new integral vision, a new synthesis of these various holarchies the sciences, value judgements, and the great wisdom traditions (cf. Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution, 1995). Therefor he is first distinguishing all three Great Realms of evolution: the physioshere (matter, material, physical, cosmic); the bioshpere (life, biologcial, biosocial); and the noosphere (mind, psychological, historical, sociocultural). These nested domains are seen as one continuous and interrelated manifestation of Spirit, one Great Chain of Being, that reaches from matter to life to mind to soul to spirit.

Wilber suggests that in order to get rid of the problem of hierarchy we should use instead Koestlers more holistic term holarchy (rooted in the ancient Greek word holos or wholeness; But we should also not forget Leibnizs Monade which has many similarities with a holon). In fact, hierarchy and wholeness are two names for the same thing, and if you destroy one, you destroy the other. In other words, holarchy actually reflects a natural hierarchy. A heterarchy, on the other hand, is the horizontal arrangement of holons existing within a given level of any hierarchical pattern. In brief: within each level, heterarchy; between each level, hierarchy. So far Wilber. But it looks to me as if holarchy would better go together with hetearchy. Hetearchy is about mutual dependence. There are no higher levels without the lower ones. And lower level can give birth to higher levels!

A holarchy itself is composed of holons (another Koesterian term) meaning whole/parts, which Wilber uses to mean that which, being a whole in one context, is simultaneously a part in another. But he is stressing that holons are something different from things or processes. The whole, in other words, is more than the sum of its parts. An important point Wilber always emphasizes is the fact that these hierarchical networks necessarily unfold in a sequential or stage-like fashion. In other words, growth occurs in stages, and stages, of course, are ranked in both a logical and chronological order.

The more holistic pattern appear later in development, because they have to await the emergence of the parts that they will then integrate or unify. The value of the concept of higher is that it adds something extra relative to the previous (and less encompassing) stage. Indeed, the only way to get to holism is via a holarchy (Reynolds, 2004: 223-225, 227). One important limitation of Wilbers conception of holon is his neglect of the process-character of the world. He only stipulates a development towards the higher. Aurobindo, in contrast, gives with his involution-evolution-approach a much more dynamic picture. And the spiritual part behind evolution is in Aurobindos conception much ber present. Comparable with this long-term dynamic approach is only Teilhard de Chardins conception. But more on that later.

Wilber argues that the within of things, the interiority of individual holons, is in essence the same as consciousness. The without of things is form. The within of things is depth, the without is surface. But all surfaces are surfaces of depth, which means, all forms are forms of consciousness. The greater the depth of evolution, the greater the degree of consciousness. Importantly, he notes that it really doesnt matter how far down you wish to push consciousness, since the lowest or most primitive holons have the least depth, the least consciousness, yet, (in agreement with Whi) even they posses a form of prehension. Having made the distinction between interiority and exteriority, he points out that interior holons have nothing to do with size or spatial extension, but instead each new and emergent interior holon transcends but includes, and thus operates upon, the information presented by its junior holons, and thus it fashions something novel in the ongoing cognitive or interior stream. Wilber is expressing, in other words, Teilhard de Chardins law of complexity and consciousness, which in essence means Depth = Consciousness or, again, greater depth, greater interiority, greater consciousness (Reynolds, 2004: 235). But the same is true for the vedantic approach of Aurobindo. He does not only emphasises that all reality is consciousness, but he goes further and says that the measure of reality of anything is determined by the nature of consciousness that is revealed in it. The higher the position of anything on the scale of reality, the deeper and more unified is the consciousness that is revealed in it (Reddy, 2004: 146/147).

Wilber has developed the four quadrant approach to define the inside and the outside of a holon, in both its individual and collectively forms. The upper left quadrant covers the inner-individual aspect of human consciousness, as studied by developmental psychology, in both its conventional and contemplative forms. The upper right quadrant covers the outer-individual aspects of human consciousness, as studied by neurology and cognitive science. The lower left quadrant covers the inner-collective aspects of human consciousness, as studied by the sciences of culture: cultural psychology and anthropology.

The lower right quadrant covers the outer-collective aspects of human consciousness, as studied by sociology. One way to make sense of the four quadrants model is to see the upper left quadrant as primary, and the other three quadrants as the various ways individual human consciousness is conditioned, by the material brain, cultural influences and social structures. A more radical view is to see the four quadrants as the four ways in which universal spirit is expressed simultaneously. All of the quadrants mutually interact with each other. A given stage of individual development (e.g. abstract mind) will be reflected in a stage o neurological development (e.g. the neocortex), a stage of cultural development (e.g. rationalisation) and a stage of societal development (e.g. industrialisation). Each quadrant consists of nine levels/stages. Combining quadrants with levels gives the all quadrants, all levels approach of Wilbers Integral philosophy (Integralworld, Core Concepts: The Four Quadrants).

The Pattern that Connects the Web of Life

1. Reality as a whole is not composed of things or processes, but of holons (wholes that are part of other wholes).

2. Holons display four fundamental capacities:

a) self-preservation (or agency);

b) self-adaptation (or communion);

c) self-transcendence or self-transformation (or Eros);

Here is the original post:
GRIN - Evolutionary, spiritual conceptions of life - Sri ...