So I’m probably going to highly misrepresent Ken in some of this, but its the limited I understand at this point from what I’ve read of Integral Spirituality.
What I derived from AQAL years ago, is there is a subjective human/conscious experience “I” and a objective/external phenomenon “It”. Now this made a lot of sense before I had what I would call a spiritual awakening. But, since this point and a lot of revelations that happened after, I really don’t know if I understand what he’s talking about.
Sticking with the terminology in this question (I dont generally use it anymore) what is a “It” without the “I” interpreting/so called subjectivity? Isn’t the I and IT inseparable within the logic of this theory (again I don’t hold it true to begin with)? For the most part from what I’ve gathered and observed at one point in my life, isn’t a “I” (consciousness, 6 senses, body, nervous system, and what ever you want to attribute to what creates experiencing) responsible for the so called “objective”. Like what is cold/hot without the “I”, what is a up or a down without the “I”. What is the in or out of ones “self” without the sense of an I in relation to the phenomenon (I may of jumped out of what aqal is talking about with this last one)?
Edit: Expanding on the above paragraph. I believe “objectivity” is an idea that is generally accepted by humans to mean as “seeing something as it is”, from the “outside” of it. The humans/system’s “subjectivity” in this case determines from its standpoint what it calls a “outside observed” phenomenon. This “Objectivity” is not something inherent floating out “there” but is a point of reference in relation to a so called “something else” (in this case the so called humans subjectivity). Also this “subjectivity” believes itself to be many sorts of things and has a variety of ways of labeling and ways of interpreting.
What ever is “seen” as “objective” takes place within subjectivity, so one could argue that nothing is ever really “seen”, but a filtration of subjectivity (and yes many different life forms would have a potential infinite types of subjectivity revealing a facet/aspect of experience or what humans generally call objectivity). Ie, a bats objectivity theoretically of something is a world of sonar, and a octopus a combination of colors and tactileness.
One could then postulate that there is possible error/bias in the nature of subjectivity, which would then leave perhaps a inherent “not knowning” or “unknown” to the nature of reality/experience/objectivity that is often taken for granted as a human or perhaps any life form?
A little more about what this awakening has revealed is that there just “is” and this “is” falls within human terminologies as Infinity, God, Self, Emptiness, and many more. All models, all explanations are just this “is”. All subjectivity, all perspectives, all possibilities, all laws, all duality, are just this “is”.
So is kens intent with AQAL a particular explanation of how consciousness is from the perspective of an I/ego, along with how it develops? Or is it trying to explain “reality” itself? Or a combination?