Can the three Tiers of stage development be equated with the three basic states?


I am wondering if the three Tiers of stage development can be seen as the three basic states, of consciousness, gross, subtle, causal.
The first Tier stages are characterised by the indentification with their perspective, i.e. there is little self-reflection, there is limited integration of the self, it is unable to yet to see itself. The “Integral” stages are the stages of the “authentic self” where conditioning is let go of and the freedom to choose how I am emerges. Is this the “subtle” state? The stages after “Integral” are those concerned with letting the ego go, it makes sense to me that these are the “casual”, “turiya” and “turiyatita” states.
I understand that states can be visited from any stage, this question concerns how we can permanently embody of “higher” states of being and the developmental sequence involved.


I think its a very plausible Idea. In general I think its interesting to be able to reconstruct the entire model with either types or stages. (I wrote in a reply to another post a way to re-build the model with the male/femal types which nevertheless not incongruent with your point)

I do believe that the entire evolution of consciousness is the interplay between these three states.

I also believe that economics shape a lot the relationship mother have with their children which in turn affect their potential connection to the three states.


Ken says that the states are independent of stages. Perhaps tiers though have a likelihood that a “state-stage” (a phrase I’ve heard ken say {as opposed to a momentary state}) has been normalized. Pure conjecture though.


Thanks Kensho for reply.
It is clear to me that our basic state, or the ground of our day to day being, changes as we move hrough the stages, or levels of consciousness. This does not mean that our state is not constantly fluctuating, which of course it obviously is, but our base level is different at each stage and especially at each “Tier”. I wish Ken clarify this point.


Yes, but the distinction between state-stages in the Wilber IV period (turiya, turiyatita, etc.) and structure-stages of the Wilber V period (Overmind, Supermind, etc.) is important.


Don’t know what you mean David by that statement or how it relates to my question?


That’s the Wilber-Combs lattice, which essentially says that yes states are independent of stages, and that high states can be had at any stage.
I think the tiers are a bit arbitrary, and these are just my opinions, but the idea of stages is quite interesting.
In some sense a stage is IQ, but it’s a more all encompassing IQ, where, a state is like a brain-configuration. It’s running on delta or beta or gamma etc.
I think it would seem to be that at higher IQ, the brain is configured differently, and perhaps it is. I actually am not totally convinced that they ARE separate, state and understanding, but, we know that individuals have and live from very high states, but interpret the world from a very low stage. So I think it is good to keep in mind that brain configuration (state) does not mean “good” or “intelligent” or “beautiful”. It might add to these domains, it might subtract from them. Exactly what kind of concrete benefits various states DO give is understudied.
Regardless, the idea of tiers I think is a bit arbitrary where one would place them. We seem to center the idea of stages around perspectives, and then anchor those perspectives in self, world, and kosmos. Perhaps there’s one that we are missing, galactic. Or many more. But, I don’t believe that the brain goes through a total configuration change at a new tier. I mean it probably does change the higher one goes, but in the same way that a state from gross to subtle to causal does? I don’t think so.
Just my opinions. Curious what others think as well.