Christ from Amber to Orange

I wrote the following essay to voice an issue that has concerned me for some time. I apologize for the length, but it was necessary to adequately express my perspective. I welcome your responses.

I have been a fan of Ken Wilber and Integral Theory for about eighteen years. In my life-long quest to make sense of spirituality in general and Christianity in particular, Ken’s work has been especially pivotal. That said, I must share that I see a consistent weakness in much of what claims to be Integral Christianity. There is much there of which I approve and from which I have benefited, but there is an important sense in which I feel it falls short. This is very much a matter of the pre-trans fallacy, as I shall attempt to explain in what follows. This is not a problem simply for Integral Christianity but lies at the heart of the crisis that has beset all of Christianity in the Modern period. It is a crisis that is well on the way to rendering institutional Christianity obsolete and irrelevant for anyone who occupies stages at or above Orange. Integral Theory points the way out of the crisis, but, so far, the pill has proven too bitter for the tradition to swallow.

The problem is that Christianity has not completed the work set before it by Modernity. That work is the differentiation and reintegration of the objective and subjective dimensions of human experience and cognition. For Christianity, as a mythic religion, this work means sorting out the objective and subjective truth and falsity of its history, myths, and theology. Specifically, it means fully acknowledging and accepting the objective truth that its myths are not literally true while embracing the profound meaning they carry.

The matter of my concern is the differentiation of Jesus of Nazareth (the Jesus of objective history) from the Jesus Christ of traditional Christianity (the Jesus of subjective myth). Integral and progressive Christianities today tend to be socially Green, but if you look closer, the Christology is usually Amber. This is Christianity that has avoided the thorough application of critical reason required to truly pass through Orange.

Research into the historical Jesus and the development of early Christianity has progressed slowly in fits and starts over the past few hundred years, but it has progressed. A basic picture of the real Jesus of Nazareth is available today to those who are willing to read the evidence honestly. The picture is necessarily “basic” because the evidence is limited. The primary sources are the New Testament, especially the four canonical gospels, the earliest of which was written at least thirty years after Jesus. These are not historical documents. They are documents with complex and obscure origins that were written and revised for liturgical, devotional, instructional, exaltational, apologetic, theological, political, polemical, and evangelical purposes. Myth was the language of religion in that era, and it seems that the writers of the Christian gospels were deliberate about writing in that language. The gospels are substantially the products of complex processes of myth making. They cannot be taken at face value as historical records of what Jesus actually said and did. Pointers to the historical Jesus are to be found in the oldest layers, but only with careful critical analysis and a tolerance for imprecision.

Such analysis suggests that Jesus must be understood entirely within the context of Jewish messianic prophecy. He was an apocalyptic preacher, interpreter of Torah, and leader of a messianic movement. His goal was to bring about the Kingdom of God prophesied in Jewish scripture. In particular, he seems to have been inspired by the book of Daniel. In what seem to be very old layers of the Jesus tradition, he speaks in the third person of the Son of Man, a mighty angelic figure from Daniel. He expresses the expectation that the Son of Man would soon descend from Heaven with an army of angels to establish God’s rule on Earth. Jesus seems to have believed that he would play a messianic role in this scenario as King of the Jews, which was the title under which the Romans crucified him. Crucifixion was a punishment for slaves and sedition and would not have been applied to someone accused by other Jews of blasphemy or who simply preached a countercultural message of peace, justice, and enlightenment. Those who thought Jesus to be King of the Jews would also have called him Son of God because that was an established title for Israel’s kings, but that did not mean that his Jewish followers saw him as divine.

Jesus seems to have believed that the necessary condition for the advent of the Day of the Lord was for Jews to get the Covenant right between themselves and God, which required getting it right between each other. His preaching of the Torah reflected that concern. It is clear from earlier layers of the gospels that Jesus intended his message for Jews and not for the broader Hellenistic culture of his day.

Jesus made his last trip to the Temple to forcefully challenge the practice instituted by the High Priest of changing money and selling sacrificial animals within the Temple precincts. Those changes helped the sacrificial system run more smoothly, but they also ran counter to prophecy regarding the hoped for Kingdom of God. The last verse of Zechariah says, “And there shall no longer be a trader in the house of the LORD of hosts on that day.” (Zechariah 14:21b RSV) Jesus’ action in the Temple was not a peaceful, street-theater demonstration but a violent attempt to force the Temple authorities to change their policies. The Temple was a potential flashpoint for the Romans, and they had no tolerance for any sort of disturbance there, especially during large festivals like Passover. What Jesus did there threatened to set off a popular uprising, and the Romans crucified Jesus to squelch that threat.

Leaders like Jesus were not so very unusual in that region in the centuries before and after him. What kept his particular movement going after he was crucified was the insistence by some of his followers that they had experienced him as resurrected—again, an idea from Daniel. This allowed them to conflate Jesus with the heavenly figure of the Son of Man and to believe that he would soon return as that Son of Man to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth. This story somehow came to resonate within the broader culture of the day. What Jesus had begun eventually spread, diverged, and evolved from a Jewish messianic movement into a gentile-dominated Christianity of many varieties.

The orthodox Christianity that eventually prevailed turned Jesus into the pre-existent, fully divine Son of God incarnated on Earth to intentionally die for the salvation of humanity. This and most other traditional Christology draws heavily on the Gospel of John, a book of profound spiritual meaning, but one that presents a Jesus of doubtful authenticity when compared to the first three gospels. There is evidence that most of the miracles of Jesus were invented by the gospel writers and that the bodily nature of Jesus’ resurrection was a late development in the gospel traditions. Jesus’s violent actions in the Temple and his belief in the violent advent of the Kingdom call into question the authenticity or intended scope of the anti-violent teachings attributed to him. In other words, the picture of Jesus of Nazareth that most Christians carry in their heads and who many adore is substantially false.

From the Amber perspective of traditional Christianity, such assertions are blasphemous and contrary to the very core of the faith. Amber believes its myths and lives from within them. Supernatural deities who magically fulfill the ego’s desire for endless life make perfect sense to Amber. Not so Orange. Orange rejects the supernatural for critical reason and scientifically discovered patterns of cause and effect. Where Amber sees sin and death as arising from human disobedience, Orange sees competition, conflict, and death as necessary for evolution. But Orange need not dismiss the myth. Orange is capable of seeing a more primitive form of reason at work in myth, a reason based in collective social intelligence and deep intuition. While many who transition to Orange simply leave the myths behind—hence the precipitous decline of mainline Christianity—it is possible to retain the myths, not as objective reality, but as metaphorical expressions of deep truths about reality.

It seems to me that much of the Christianity that calls itself integral or progressive has not fully transitioned through Orange. It acknowledges that most of the Christian narrative is myth, but it is just not willing to fully accept the mythical nature of Christ. It still wants to see the historical Jesus as having accomplished some sort of cosmic breakthrough that made available to the rest of us a new level of consciousness and relationship with God. That is a big part of the myth, and we can’t take Christianity all the way into Orange until we let it be a myth. Jesus was a very human messianic pretender, like all the others, who died miserably for his belief, who did not rise physically from death, and whose followers were quite wrong about his imminent return as the Son of Man. I am sorry if that seems disrespectful, but we cannot enjoy the full, undistorted meaning and power of the myth at rational and transrational levels if we don’t see it honestly.

Yes, Christianity is very much about opening to greater levels of consciousness and realizing our oneness in and with God, but little of that teaching derives directly from Jesus of Nazareth and his ministry, and it has always been true regardless of what Jesus of Nazareth may or may not have done. Myth is a social phenomenon, and it forms in social groups. Jesus’ basic teachings and story were a seed that many others watered and fed. We need to stop seeing Christianity as a supernaturally instituted religion that stands on the person of Jesus as some sort of ascended spiritual master. Instead, we need to see it as a profound myth of timeless meaning that has arisen from and been shaped by the spirit present in all the people involved at every stage of its development. Jesus’ story got the ball rolling, but it has been pushed along by many, many people throughout the history of the tradition. It has bubbled out of the deepest spirit within humanity. In different cultures this bubbling has produced different religions, but they all come from the same deep places by the same general mechanisms. Other religions have their own gods and avatars, and it is easy for Christians to see them as mythical figures; we need to see Christ, Christianity’s avatar, in the same way.

This absolutely does not mean we must delete Christ from Christianity. Christ is central to the tradition. We must simply be more honest about who and what Christ really is. Christ derives from the Greek word for “anointed”, which is also the meaning of messiah . Messianic prophecy expressed the hope of the Jewish people for one or more divinely anointed leaders to deliver them from political repression into peace, freedom, and prosperity under God’s rule in this world . Jesus’ followers thought he was such a leader, but that did not work out as expected, and it was necessary to adjust expectations. Early in the development of Christianity, especially with the letters of Paul and the Johannine literature (the gospel and letters of John and the book of Revelation), the risen Christ came also to be seen as a mystical state of relationship with God that Jesus’ followers could enter into. Christ took on a collective dimension, as though the followers of the Way recognized that the Christ-ness they projected onto Jesus was something they too participated in. The Church, the collective of all followers of Christ, came to be spoken of as the body of Christ. Christ also came to be identified with the Logos of Greek philosophy. As such, Christ came to be seen as the divine source and essence of Creation and a person of the Trinity. These mythical dimensions of Christ are powerful and deeply meaningful. It is unnecessary and counterproductive to continue to project this mythical meaning fully back onto the very human Jesus of Nazareth in ways that historical scholarship cannot support.

To be sure, the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ, that “he” is fully human and fully God, is essential to Christianity. Jesus of Nazareth is the human on whom the full humanity of Christ has traditionally been anchored. But, if we read the Synoptic Gospels honestly, Jesus did not understand himself to be God in any special way. The dual nature of Christ emerges in the myth, and, in the myth, Jesus is all of us and all of Creation. The deep meaning of this is that God is incarnate, not just in Jesus, but in all of us and in the whole Cosmos. Jesus was the human from whose story the idea of Christ emerged into the culture of the West. What is necessary for fully Integral Christianity is to decenter Christ from Jesus as some sort of external savior and recenter Christ as the cosmic dimension of consciousness/spirit in which all of us, including Jesus, participate. It is that cosmic dimension of consciousness/spirit that is both the ultimate source and the true meaning of Christianity.

Hello John,
What comes to mind for me is that I think many people have a 2nd person intimate relationship with Jesus (I-Thou). I think many Christians (Integral Christians too) practice a deity mysticism and if/when they enter subtle states of consciousness, they may experience, in ways they can’t renounce, an energy or presence that appears to them to be Jesus, or that they call Jesus, or that they wonder that it may be Jesus. This would be hard stuff to give up.

So while you may be right about the historical scholarship pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth (I don’t have an adequate background or knowledge about this), I’m not sure it would matter to most Christians. I think of a passage from the Bhagavad Gita, in which Krishna speaks about the four kinds of people who “are good and love me”: the person of sorrows, the seeker of knowledge, the seeker of something they treasure, and the person of vision. Perhaps seeking spiritual knowledge and vision are rarer traits in humanity than seeking the alleviation of sorrows and seeking treasures (such as that 2nd person intimate relationship in subtle states)?

LaWanna, I understand what you are saying, and you have hit the nail on the head. I do not question the experience. I question labeling it “Jesus”. I could label it “Christ” in the broad sense I explain in my essay, or “spirit”, or “God”, or in any number of other ways, but I don’t think it’s specifically Jesus. This is a change I have made in my own Christian journey, and it felt like important growth to me. My own spirituality has become apophatic, which finds “God” in the darkness and silence beyond all concepts and forms. This is not a spirituality of interceding entities like Jesus or saints, but one of direct experience. I came to realize that when I prayed to Jesus I was really praying to my internalized projection of Jesus as well as to spirit within me and to God as transcendent all at the same time. Recognizing my Jesus projection to be an mental construction taken from my cultural milieu has felt important to my passage through Orange, has helped untangle my theology, and has deepened my spiritual practice.

The proper second-person identity of God, as expressed in the great commandment that the historical Jesus undoubtedly taught, is not the mythical Jesus but our neighbor, whom we are to love as our self.

All of this will matter only to Christians who realize that growth in awareness and understanding of God requires commitment to truth. The choice to stay at Amber is always available.

1 Like

Your writing here is both clear and beautiful. It also raises certain questions for me.

While I agree that we can and do tend to project and project onto deities, saints, etc., do you think deities can also have, apart from the way we imagine them, an independent existence in the very subtle realms of the universe, and in our own very subtle states of consciousness; that is, do you think they exist as actual elemental entities or beings, not just in our own psyches (as archetypes), but in the universe? From my own experiences, I tend to think so (which doesn’t eliminate the fact they are also, “spirit within me and God as transcendent all at the same time.”)

Would you characterize this as the causal state of consciousness/causal realms? That is what I think of with the phrasing of finding “God in the darkness and silence beyond all concepts and forms.” (My orientation is to the states of consciousness as described by Eastern traditions and which Ken Wilber has often spoken of )

GREAT QUESTIONS! I wish I had definite answers, but I don’t. I often wonder about these exact things in much the same way.

I see the question of spiritual entities to be a question about the middle ground. In the foreground, individual human spirit/consciousness seems to be very body-dependent: alter the brain and consciousness is altered. In the background, God as transcendent is where universal spirit/consciousness arises from the emptiness of the One. But is there a middle ground where individual consciousness can persist and function independent of a physical body? Lot’s of possibilities! For sure, we humans deceive ourselves quite a lot on this topic, but I have no definite criteria to entirely rule out survival of consciousness after death or the existence of other discarnate spiritual entities (angels, deities). In fact, I have had experiences that keep me quite open to the possibility. On the other hand, I can see how all that could be artifacts of individual and collective psychology. Some occult systems would place all of that on the Astral Plane, a realm arising from human consciousness that is mostly illusory but also actual as a projection of collective human consciousness. It is the plane of dreams, so I guess that would equate it with Integral’s subtle consciousness.

I think my “apophatic” experience of “God” may correspond to the causal state, or maybe the nondual state, or maybe both. Ken seems to distinguish between the two, and I must confess that I am not clear about the difference. I experience God as the emptiness/one from which all things arise. I think the Christian Trinity is a mythic representation of that arising. I experience a deep identity with that emptiness/one. In this regard, I find much resonance between my own experience and the teachings of Meister Eckhart.

The obvious question to me on all this is this: “Is Christianity worth the effort to make it ‘work’ in a post-postmodern or 2nd tier community?”
As a practical matter, I just don’t see that Christianity as a religion can be reformed to be a major “religion for tomorrow.”
Christianity as it is appeals mostly to a population that is in Amber, and this population is very unlikely to reflect upon itself and less likely to accept reformation from an outsider. This demographic group is also in the midst of rejecting Green implementations of Christianity, with increasing threats of violence against the Green Christian Community. Amber religious organizations are expelling Green pastors, with full pressure from their congregations.

And Green Christianity leaves a lot to be desired. It’s a kind of bury your head in the sand and hope kind of practice as I observe it, and toss in a random bunch of ad hoc cultural appropriation from pre-Christian faiths without actually understanding those things. They randomly mix in Native American, Hindu or whatever other practices are trending at the time along with a healthy portion of modern pseudo-psychology.
None of this is “wrong”. I get that it’s a method for people to makes sense of things where they are at and work towards improving their spirituality and life.

I usually think it would be easier and safer to just make new religions rather than changing old ones. Old religious structures are violently resistant to reformation.

It’s completely possible to “teach” willing people to pass through Amber to Orange to Green to 2nd Tier and beyond - and impossible to change people who are not willing. A new religion could be the vehicle for this, but Christianity I have serious doubts about for all the reasons discussed above.

One important aspect of Judaism that Christianity never learned is that there are at least two different “laws”, or ways of living the Gospel. There is the gospel for the masses and then there is the gospel for the select few. This second gospel was hidden in secrecy, which has led to Christianity completely mixing up the meanings of Jewish religious texts like the Torah.
I think this separation is important, though. Some populations are ready for one type of gospel and some populations are not. I think a religion of tomorrow would have to consider this and present differently to different populations.
As for knowing God,

Hi John, your “not clear about the difference” statement reminded me of Wilber in the book “One Taste” speaking about both the causal and the non-dual having in common that the person experiences a “relentless ordinariness.” He also made associations in that book, relating the subtle state to the saint and “peaceful radiance,” and the causal to the sage and “stony equanimity,” and the nondual to the siddha and “limitless humor.” The non-dual realization/state, he said, often starts with either a sense of boredom or flippancy, a sense of “having seen it all.” I remember this because prior to my own experience(s) of non-duality, I had been journaling about a sense of “no more mysteries unfolding, maybe I’m done, maybe I’ve experienced (spiritually) all there is to experience…” Fooled again, of course :slightly_smiling_face:.

Thanks for the reference to Meister Eckhart. I had/have only a passing familiarity with him, and in doing a little research online, came across a statement that Meister Eckhart ranked “disinterest” higher than love as (paraphrasing) “love compels him to move closer to God while disinterest (dispassion, detachment) brings God closer to man.” This seems a wise statement and seems to point to the difference, perhaps, beween the subtle (e.g. saints and their ecstasies) and the causal (sages and their equanimity), if we use those characteristics (saint, sage) for a moment. Do you see it this way?

I also did a little research on the Christian Trinity. There are actually sects of Christianity (mostly fundamentalist/evangelical) that do not support this, as the word ‘trinity,’ they say, appears nowhere in the Bible. And there is also, of course, as you know, plenty of Christian push-back against rationalism’s frame of Christianity as highly mythic. There is a theory discussed within Christianity, called “mythical theory,” that speaks to rationalism’s “attempt to destroy the sacred character of Scripture by considering its contents as myths similar in their nature and origin to those of ancient mythology.” ( As you say, the choice to stay at Amber is always available, and while some people are undoubtedly moving on, others are digging in, so it seems.

[quote=“John_Speers, post:5, topic:38045”]
But is there a middle ground where individual consciousness can persist and function independent of a physical body?

I again look at this question through the lens of the states of consciousness as put forth in various Eastern philosophies/traditions. Each state of consciousness has a body that accompanies it, so a physical body for the gross/physical consciousness, a subtle body for the subtle state, and a causal body for the causal state. Each body has both mass and energy. So a subtle consciousness has a body that is capable of both presence (in the universe) and movement. So one way of viewing the situation where people have spontaneous, involuntary out-of-body experiences, such as during acute trauma or illness, and report they “were looking down on their own body,” is that it was the subtle body/consciousness doing the traveling and the looking down. Of course, some people do engage in astral projection or out-of-body experiences or soul flight (shamanic term) voluntarily, intentionally.

A book by Eben Alexander called “Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife” is an example of a near-death experience that is pretty convincing, although there are others. He was in a coma for a week due to a rare illness, a bacterial meningitis, with his brain severely damaged, too damaged to be dreaming or hallucinating or reacting to any drug treatment, and long-story short, despite his having been aligned with the reductive materialism of science at the time, came back from his coma-journey convinced of the primacy of consciousness and the independence of consciousness from the physical brain. After the coma, he had no language or memories, but fully recovered within 8 weeks, with no Western medical explanation for his “miraculous” recovery (he should have died, according to medical experts). He attributed his recovery to healing he received while out-of-body.

So while I do agree that we have to stay aware of the role of individual psychology and illusion and self-deception, and projection, and delusion, and all the rest, I think there are many good reasons we should start weighting consciousness as independent of the physical brain. Of course, it’s hard to get good scientific evidence of this, but I think we’re moving more in that direction, of trying to.

I have had the same thought. But where does one start? I ask that knowing very little of what Ken and other integral thinkers have said in the past decade about the future of religion.

From the integral perspective, if religion is to function as a conveyor belt of psychosocial-spiritual development, might there be a benefit in starting with a tradition rooted in earlier stages of ones culture and growing it forward? I honestly don’t know. I see Christianity to be the predominant religious mythology of western culture, and I don’t think western culture has yet fully unpacked the important meaning those myths hold.

The problem for Christianity is that most of the people open to change have given up on the church and moved on. Popular Christianity is definitely sliding backward. What’s needed is to move Christianity away from being an identity movement, which is the shallowest form of religion, and promote it as a path of spiritual growth. Much easier said than done.

What exactly are you referring to here?

There are definitely major strands of Christian tradition that interpret scripture on multiple levels.

I just finished reading Meister Eckhart: Mystic as Theologian by Robert Forman. He finds three stages in Eckhart’s teachings. The first is ecstasies. Eckhart acknowledges that these happen, but he does not see such experiences as necessary. This definitely corresponds to subtle. Next is the Birth of the Son of God in the soul. At this stage one experiences oneself to be one with God. This is probably causal. Third is Breakthrough, when all things are experienced to be one with God and the self. This would seem to correspond to nondual. The last two stages are permanent states of awareness whereas ecstasies are temporary experiences. This makes a lot of sense to me and fits my experience.

LaWanna, I read this book shortly after it first came out. I remain unconvinced. It’s interesting and inspiring, but I don’t find solid proof there. Visions, near-death experiences, out-of-body experiences, astral projections, other ecstatic experiences, memories of past lives, etc., are all a little “slippery” in my experience. They can be of value, but it’s really hard to know what’s really going on with them. I remain open to the possibilities, but I’m not placing any bets.

I think the danger here is to risk making yet another cult and analyze where other new religions went wrong. Generally this has to do with power and assigning some kind of inherent power to one group that is then used to exploit another group. Having said that, the basic place to begin is with understanding WHY people join religions. What basic needs do the seekers believe they will get when they join these religions. There are two aspects to this - the conscious and the subconscious (often in shadow). These desires and shadows are mapped out in Integral on Amber, Orange, Green, etc.
For example, while many New Age Christians may consciously state that they want “oneness” or something similar, subconsciously they don’t really and probably live in a gated community to keep undesirables distinctly separate. There is a Hindu method to remove this subconscious blockage, but it is difficult. It’s a bad idea to reveal this method to a seeker until they are ready to receive it, but if they are ready then it will reduce their feeling of separation from some humans. Basically it involved only eating what food you can beg for for 42 days, and being grateful for anything you receive. Do this for 42 days and you will see the homeless from a whole different perspective, lol.
That’s just an example that I do think the path toward Teal then Indigo has to be presented differently depending on where that person and their surrounding culture is at the time.

As an interesting aside to this, I actually do like to receive Scientology junk mail. I look at it as kind of masterful in attracting Orange into a transformative path. They then set up an appointment to fix some kind of issue you have in your life. Unfortunately right after that the bait and switch goes completely off the rails and that’s the limit of what I would ever be involved in Scientology. But they are masterful in attracting Orange.

So a religion of tomorrow would offer something to each level that will give an immediate solution to a problem they are probably facing due to being at that level, but instead of an exploitative bait and switch, funnel them into some real progress. The reason most religions cannot do this and instead exploit their memberships is because the organization and power structures within the church foster a certain level and ignoring the inherent problems that go with that level, shadows just grow deeper and more dangerous. Back to Scientology, it’s organizational structure is purely Orange and thus can never foster anything above that and when that dirty little secret is crushed by brutal Orange over 75 years you get a horrific Orange church that is driven to achieve more and more wealth and bureaucratic power at the expense of all else.

I’m not by any means an authority on this, but for example Kaballah teachings were secret until the 1990’s. According to what I learned in a basic course at the time was that the Torah was written in a code. I never advanced far enough to actually go deep into those teachings, though.
There is mention in the Bible and discussion in Christianity about a Priest called Melchizedek, who blessed Abraham and was superior to Abraham and also Levi. So we get a hint that there were two separate “gospels”, a lower taught by Abraham and a higher that Melchizedek did not teach to anyone, but it was kind of in the background. Christianity kind of understands this and there are discussions about it and assign Jesus as a teacher of this higher gospel, but since it was secret Christians had really no clue what the details of it were except through the teachings of Jesus.
As a mater of perspective, this article makes sense to me in a Yogic perspective by seeing Jesus as a “Guru”. The Guru has knowledge that he cannot share with those who are not ready to receive it, but also has means to elevate those who are not ready through their devotion to him / her. It makes me think that Christianity is mostly just a form of Devotional Yoga (Bhakti). Devote yourself to a Guru (in this case Jesus) and you will advance spiritually until you are ready for the next step. Unfortunately Christianity doesn’t have a next step that I know of.

One example of this “knowledge” that was esoteric until the 1990’s and unknown to early Christians is the explanation of the intentional separation of humans from God and the inevitable return of all humans to God, and all the implications this brings up. This is also symbolized in the Tree of Life, which made it’s way into other formerly esoteric traditions like the Freemasons, Red Dawn, etc but was never a part of mainstream Christian Teachings.

Yes. From my orientation, like siddhis, they are not to be avoided, but neither are they of ultimate importance.

I think John if you and I were face-to-face, we might have a wonderfully deep and perhaps mutually enlightening conversation about these things and the subtle state/realm (and the very subtle aspects of the causal state) in general. But alas, this doesn’t seem the appropriate forum for that kind of conversation, and besides, it’s a little off-topic from the thread you started here, so I’ll let it rest.