“Looking under the bed”
Phil, I checked out the Fred Kofman link you posted earlier. Two aphorisms popped into my brain, both from the “Cowboy Zen” file:
“You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.”
“Why go the extra mile for the man walking in the other direction?”
So Fred is talking to a crowd ready to drink and walking in the same direction. I remember Wilber saying, “knowledge advances one funeral at a time.”
Now I’m done (maybe)
I haven’t heard of the Cowboy Zen file. What’s that one?
Haha, yes I’ll tend to go less than the extra mile. Hence the need for low cost tools 
There’s definitely a part of everyone that’s heading in the same direction though!
“Cowboy Zen” is just something I invented. I like the term, in fact, maybe that could be a prototype candidate for your “low cost tool” box, as it kind of mashes together two disparate tribes in a benign sort of way, yes?
As to, " …a part of everyone that’s heading in the same direction …"
I have to think it’s on each of us individually, according to our individual capacities, to decide how to address directly that “part” in others, while remaining cognizant of how traumatized, or somnambulistic, or vindictive, etc. people can be.
I’ve lately wondered if Jesus (or what we’ve heard about him) would have walked back his martyrdom in retrospect, knowing how weirdly the event would be spun over time by those “not knowing what they do.”
Ah right, I searched Cowboy Zen and found a cowboy doing yoga classes 
Yeah, that reminds me of another chap going by the “Blue Collar Buddha”.
That’s an interesting thought about Jesus. I guess there isn’t really a choice when you’re authentically following your “Dharma”, but if he had prior knowledge of the outcomes I’m sure that would have affected his path somehow. Perhaps less keen to spread his message. Here’s a quote from Rumi: “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I’ll meet you there.” I think we just live our Dharma and how other people respond is their business.
Hi Phil.
I think there’s lots of room for speculation over what went on back then. For example, I have to wonder if Jesus would have said “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” … since he presumably knew the score from the get-go. Just calling into question the veracity of that single supposed quote, can kind of bring the whole biblical house down …
But tying your Rumi quote to your original post leads me to think you want to be optimistic about pushing interpersonal boundaries, and I think it’s a good and timely point of discussion.
In a recent dialogue between pundits Ezra Klein and Ta-Nehisi Coates, Coates says, “love can get you shot.”, and Klein asks, “how then shall we live?”
So, here’s to living our individual “Dharmas,” however tightly woven into “how other people respond.” A salient question for me is something like “do I want to be the cause of other peoples’ hate, or fear, regret or remorse?” This, along the lines of their “not knowing what they do.”
Thanks Phil, for this exchange and original post, personally catalytic.
Hi Sidra,
A lot of room indeed! That quote does suggest he had some expectation of being looked after a separate God. I’m not very knowledgeable about biblical stuff. Is that a sort of contradiction you’re noting there? Not quite sure what you mean by bringing the biblical house down.
Yeah, I probably am optimistic!
Picking your battles (specific time in the link):
Thanks, Sidra. Same here.
Phil,
Thanks for the Sam Harris Link. I’m not a fan, but occasionally lean into his stuff (a little too two-dimensional for me) as a reality check. The last time I listened to him, I came away with the sense that he was arguing for his own limitations and then imposing them on the Universe … but that was then and this is now, and people do grow (sometimes). And again, as my mentor used to say, “something for everyone.”
Biblical stuff: Not a fan of that either, as it seems so sadly representative of what Roger Walsh calls, “collective arrested development” in humanity’s spiritual growth. And yes, to your question on the contradiction. Further, if biblical authors (John, in this case) appear to be quoting Jesus directly, and it comes off as a contradiction, it then opens the door (for me) to question everything of the red-letter content (everything attributed to Jesus), which to me, is the meat of the whole grueling text.
The Sam Harris link: Is there a particular point other than the relevance of developing skillful means when one picks one’s battles? I enjoyed listening to the entirety of the podcast, and am reminded why I’m not particularly a fan. For me, Sam carries the ball a good distance, and then seems to forget to remind himself, “… to be skeptical about his own opinions …” (1:27:00)
Hey Sidra,
I definitely disagree with Sam on a few things. He especially comes across a bit strong on the “no free will” debate. But I listen to his podcast regularly and get a lot of interesting info out of those discussions. With the video link, it was only that little bit about “choosing your battles” that I picked up on and thought back to our conversation. I haven’t actually watched any more past that point. The two chaps interviewing him have been popping up in my YouTube feed a bit. Are there any particular opinions of Sam’s that you’re not a fan of?
I’m really removed from the whole Christian thing, but I’m a big fan of Father Thomas Keating!
Ditto on Sam’s “no free will” take. In the link (1:29:14) Sam says, **“all of our own problems are of our own making …” and as such, can only be addressed by either, “passivity, persuasion, or force.” self-contradictory, if Sam leads with a “no free will” premise.
Elsewhere, my “opinion” of Sam’s opinions is that he conflates pre-rational with trans-rational, still hammering on the strawman of traditional Christian mythology (makes for good press, though). My “opinion” is that Sam has decided the chapter on atheism is the end of the book …
Christianity: Too unwieldy, cumbersome, and (ironically) vitriolic for this simple brain.
Yeah it’s a surprising performative contradiction. I think it comes back to him holding a fundamentally materialist world view, that atoms are only behaving in accordance with the physical laws of the universe. That things only progress in a linear, cause and effect way. I’d argue against that by suggesting the physical universe can be influenced by non-physical, pure subject. The atoms of our brains are dancing to the tune of both their physical context and the recognition of pure, empty suchness, or I am-ness. Utterly free, utterly creative at that deepest level. Often going against the flow of physical cause and effect. Before, during and after his cause and effect, that I am-ness already is, and we have the capacity, with true intellectual humility, moral courage, and integrity, to recognise it operating within us, as us. Getting a bit poetic there! More of my inner pep talk than anything.
He’s deeply into meditation though. It just seems like he leans to that 3rd person perspective in his interpretations heavily.
Hi Phil, Works for me. And I have to say I’ve taken some good stuff from Sam over the years. I love the freedom to cobble together “high-water” thoughts from … everywhere.
As to, “…deeply into meditation …” Whilst “sitting” this morning, there was this sense of amusement about the word, “meditation,” and how it seems to carry some elevated heft to it (inscrutable, exotic, bells and whistles go here). I don’t like the word, preferring instead something like, “just sitting,” as in “let’s see what’s up.”
When I hear people drop how many hours they’ve spent on their cushion, as something worthy of a merit badge, I think of a Volkswagen on the Indianapolis Speedway- it may have done 10,000 laps but, top-in, it’s still a Volkswagen … but hey, that’s just me.
This thread has lead us some distance away from how different levels see God. Has the topic run its course? I still feel it’s a case-by-case matter and a biggie here for me has to do with power-as-God, which you mentioned in your "Red Warrior " context.
I’m thinking maybe power is subject to becoming “God” at all levels. In the realm of interpersonal exchange, power and what one does with it seems to always be on the table, unconsciously, tacitly, insidiously , etc.
How to not pick up the power when it sits there on the table, freely offered (Lord of the Rings stuff)
seems investigation-worthy … maybe before heading off for the market place …
To comment eventually I am late on this, this is my pov.
Purple: God is nothing but energy, eventually Vitality, energy and shamansim only seen as god
Red: God is almighty hence, Omnipotence often has been entry term I saw for me and others, if I experience anything like a power trip, kriyas etc.
Blue: God is ultimate authority, God as mythical figure, the absolute eventually
Orange: God doesn’t exist, Enlightenment does, god is not an authority or mystical figure, I am god and can experience it!
Green: God is part of the universe and you can experience it (Awareness/Consciouness, Infinite)
Teal: God is the universe! Flow sees the subtle emnance of the “structure of god, but has not had a experience how god constructs the construct of god”. The map is not the territory, the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon.
Turqouise: God is nature/ocean life & the construction of life hence death (Awareness/Consciouness, Infinity) Buddah-Nature eventually, Kosmos generally transcending the notion of time seems to me to be pervasive at this stage, and fits with the teal+ awareness of time itself as “strand of god” experienced as this flex-flow of stages, seeing them all, and being “solipsitically” stuck in them.
Might be a bit simplistic and not one word, I never heard someone say: Ayin / Ayin Soph , the supreme idenity, buddah nature etc. if someone is not aware of integral, or at least the polythesitic interpreation of god is possible and they all point to the same thing, to various degrees.
It sort of gives rise to the issue of vocabulary and being construct-aware and worldviews, for e.g yellow or early vision logic would not have a spiritual practice to engage with the spiritual intelligence and experience of god necceesarily, but might have reference experiences, but should be able to translate.
World, Nature etc. are also good pointers but I find it difficult to distinguish if I can sense I am or someone else comes from a turqouise perspective I get the how I experienced it, but if it’s a green perspective it feels very partial as if it’s limited to that field, and does not span the microcosmos and marcocosmos.
idk I’d be required to read more, Green post-modernism imo does not truly care, the worldview is fundamentally stuck in a lack of reference experiences to pull them out of the power battle of my view is more right than your view and one-upmanship. It’s often the appeal to turqouise itself not yellow as yellow seems rigid, information elitist, and to cold to interact with, but they do not dislike it, since the culture wars, it’s only the holistic ideals that count for everyone included ironically at turqouise, but idk how to view it.
For e.g. I read some notions about Horus and Jesus having identicaly mythical stories being born by a virgin etc. Horus predating it, but that does not diminish them as being pointers to some value, virtue
Idk just one word would be rough, as I notice my understanding is also more principle based on reading and my experiences have been all over the place, but eventually the perspective is good.
TLDR:
Beige = Sensorimotor God
Purple = Energy God
Red = Power God
Blue = Authorian God
Orange = Science/Logic God
Green = Human God
Yellow = Meta-Aware Cosmic God (if aware of any of it and not seeing as reflective rule ?)
Turqouise = Entire Cosmos Galaxy is God, Kosmology!!!
Idk I watched some videos I find it’s missing the kosmology spectrum ironically in the micro-details of the world, as it has become so “big” or big picture with a.i and human language
For the idea with Power generally speaking I like Ken’s course on Power I did years ago, and it’s only prone to the level of competence with word or perception and knowledge/intelligence.
I hold power, hence I am in an I version of a worldview and expressing it via opening up (multiple intelligences)
I use we terms, hence I am in a dialogical powerbind with how many heads I can keep in perspective in order to engage in the collective experience of the morphic ressonance of the stages of development or power in that case as everyone experiences that pull differently.
I do my best to use transcendent power, hence lead the conversation/dialoug/engagement to a natural conclusion based on where it “spirals into” up or down horizontal depth or vertical depth of multiple spiral rungs, transmitting the convergence of the different rungs of experiences into an understandable non-judgemental conclusion, sort of self-explanatory. Or just even using silence in the right moment or stating I don’t know to disambiguate power at play at any given stage. This has worked quiet well for me.
At least that is my bind, for e.g when I explain something or ask for something, it takes me a while to find a thread that fits the occasion at hand and I use words that the listener understands for his or her development, at times words are not even needed as everyone has experienced that.
I did some beginner listening stuff with Shinzen and mindfulness, that sort of touches the core of during a meditation retreat and the interaction was very interesting to give sort of a live example of the undercurrent of spirit at play.
We’re supposed to listen to someones story and restate it using our understanding for some deeper listening practice (I don’t recall the exact term) I listend to the story of the women I was paired with, and she told me about her son etc. and a bike ride and her joinign etc. and I gave my UL experience of her in my own word power yes it was actually called word power I recall now, and did my best to include all 4 quadrants into the experiences as concise and holstically as possible, while clearly having some limits in language as my first language is German, and it clearly shows the limits also of value/worldview development in a society/globe, a more eloquent aware speaker can give the listerner more pointers for awareness etc…
In the end she was quiet satisfied and super elated actually she was so involved energetically in her story, I had to move to witness/awareness as much as possible, as I could not contain more, and if she tried to do it in my way, of my story I don’t recall what I said, but I was also most likely quiet self-critical, she was not very able to engage in the perspective play, as it could’ve been quiet simple, as unironically during the retreat the silence and quietness itself is nuturing enough… But yeah that was sort of a ying and yang problem 
.
But yeah idk I find it difficult as I moved a bit into this new age stuff, and I see more subtle problems than solutions of perspective or the issue of transhumanism etc. I don’t get some stuff about atoms/quarks quantum science and god, that I read from Wilber, but it’s all in the books.
Indras-Net might also be a good term for Turqouise but the actual experience, not the cognitive recollection of a state or experience … but if it evokes notions there should be partial Truth
Also the word Truth, seems to be pushed again towards Orange and not Blue/Redish but idk this is my experience.
Way to long as a post don’t take it to seriously I find it difficult currently to write about this, as I noticed more gaps in my perception of this, than I yearn to feed as I am letting more and more go, and even of the experience and attachment of the idea of Truth, as I’ve experienced more corruptions of it, and it’s rare to find someone who is “pure enough” to engage into the whole spectrum of speaking about this and having the experience of it and can relate to it.
Anyhow this might be a good perspective to capture most of the thread, but it’s not very well written or puts a good light on anything 
@once3800 Thanks for your response. Some interesting things to think about there and I think your terms line up pretty well with what I have in mind for the first tier levels.
Maybe the second tier “Name” is the full set of first tier ones. And third tier, transrational, is I-am-ness (or any other genuine pointer) itself, not spoken, but recognised without symbol.
Thanks again.
Yes, second tier is aware of the pointers, and the subjectivity of it and can use the terms more flexible, and sees a similar truth, but I find in textbook yellow people they are not as engaged with spirit, and in more turqouise people or late vision logic/late teal instead of early teal, the person is more able to engage with spirit and has some spiritual practice and awareness of it, but might still lack the experience to use the line of spiritual intelligence properly.
I don’t exactly recall, but somewhere in an integral episode or talk they spoke about the differentiation of spiritual experience and intelligence IIRC, the more experience the better you’re able to experience god, but the intelligence itself is the capability of speaking about god without having the experience.
There is this distinction between the two, you can know god at non-dual suchness, but speak about it in stage blue ethnocentric form, through praying to the god in the sky I achieved this non-dual divinity, which would be the spiritual intelligence expressing the term, so it’s about experiene v.s knowledge in that case.
At the sametime you can, also experience god at non-dual suchness and realize and speak about it in non-dual terms from multiple spiritual traditions, religons or simply the intelligence of ones own worldview for e.g. how the turiya-tita, ayn soph, the supreme identity etc. impacted you, you can have such an experience and only also be able to express it in a spiritual intelligence at teal+ as you might miss even the vocabulary etc. This is how I understood the distinction here.
But, yes third-tier as I know is a permanent realization and the proper worldview is integrated (not spiritual intelligence) as a structure-stage permanent shift, similar to how T1 to T2 shift happens, it’s a breakthrough in perception and being, state experiences are neccessary, but not sufficient to move to T3, but there are so many teachers currently in this day and age present that go beyond this, it’s relatively easy to get support the effort is more the integration of the worldview, and knowing the proper structure where a lot of integrals body of knowledge/thought helps, as well as setting up a structure and internal values that fit the growth.
For example I do my own value assesments at least once a year to see how they shifted, and how they shifted based on how my worldview, meditation practice, emotions, skillset etc. changed, a hallmark imo of stage orange spiritual seekers is they make meditation and mindfulness a goal, not part of their existence, where I feel the breakthrough from yellow to turqouise happens personally, or middle vision logic to late vision logic, as early vision logic in Integral Psychology IIRC is at post-modern, and also an integralist has a larger view of world history and it’s unfoldment. I see it in odd pockets for example, but I am also fairly young, and I see more of the problems of being between Zoomers and Gen-Y generation, as many are imo peaking in some advanced stages, and a lot are regressing and I am sort of in the middle of it.
I find it more difficult, as besides a few integralist can’t really grasp the problems that are present there as well as the interest of the people and a lot of older folks, look from a younger perspective stuck in blue/orange survival and meritocracy, as well as signal that emotionally that this is the name of the game, I don’t think this is very good, I heard some different concepts about competence recently, but the appeal to intellecualism, is as much an ism as the post-modernism, it’s constantly regressing.
It’s less about left v.s right, then about having a proper worldview imo, I see this especially how difficult that is in Germany, but idk the core issue I feel not even for the issue of god, but simply human development there is no core understanding for competence, and older people seem to value only expertise and if I contemplate how contextual hierachies with younger people work it’s way more flexible, exhausting, dynamic and not as performative, and the core issue is the envy and arrogance of exellence culture I find recently, and performance then the regress into umberness anyhow this is enough I hope this is insightful.
This contemplation is also interesting, I find it valueable to contemplate questions with ChatGPT in case I don’t have access to someone who has more experience from integral, as well as bullshit detector, this might give a better overview, I give my best to capture also my own thoughts.
You’ve essentially captured what Gebser and Wilber both mean by aperspectival awareness in one paragraph. Let’s refine and deepen it slightly to highlight the nuances behind what you just said.
1. Seeing all perspectives as present and transparentThe aperspectival consciousness doesn’t merely collect perspectives; it recognizes that every perspective is already part of the ever-present field of awareness.
It’s transparent to perspectives — meaning that perspectives appear within it, not as it.
Gebser called this “diaphaneity” — the world becomes diaphanous, translucent to the origin (Spirit).
2. Not being stuck = fluidity and freedom of standpointAt earlier stages, consciousness identifies with perspectives:
Aperspectival transcends that.
You can inhabit any of them when useful, and then release them.
You don’t lose the capacity for perspective; you gain the freedom to move among them effortlessly.
The ego uses perspectives instead of being used by them.
Or: Aperspectival = “transparent to perspectives” → you can take many viewpoints without being trapped in any one. Like Green’s equal god, for example we’re all equal so god in us is equal for instance something like this could happen.
For e.g. someone at Green might think about God or using capital T Truth analogously, as everyones Truth of all relgions are equal! Why are you fighting about it, and even if they are partialy right for instance the person would be unaware that some descriptions of consciouness at different levels of T3 experiences or layers of God, have different terms and describe different things and people have different experiences and grow differentely through all these layers depending on practice.
The best example is a Vipasana practice stops at causal white light experienes or state experiences it does not fully go into non-dual if you follow a traditional Vipassana practice that does not account for that dimension, but a zen practice will give full access to the non-dual experience as it’s tailored for that type of experience to happen, so you can be a Vipasana practicinor and never experiences non-dual suchness as a state experience ever, but ironically something like Ketamin or Psychedelics can give create a non-dual experiemce-
To speak very simply about this, you different tools create different results as a spiritual practice, ROT describe the general states and dysfunctions, I don’t know the exact details out of memory and I look up the books when I am making progress or I am super confused I had my first white light experience a couple of times last year or two years ago, and became more interested in Jung like some I read from here had also this type of trajectory, but my practice also includes non-dual notions of Rinzai Zen & Vipassana from Shinzen, and he steadily updates his practices so do the practionars.
I guess some breathing practices also could be similar to this if that makes sense or different types of prayers repeatedly, I only did some minor Yogas, a bit of Kriya Yoga and various meditation techniques I am mainly sticking with anything from Shinzen, Zen & eventually some yoga if my energy body allows for it, I have the most issues with sporadic stuff where I could only work with Shinzens techniques as they are very versatile for handling issues, and I can expand with my own knowledge/intelligence about the subjects. For e.g I can’t really do breathing practices they work very well for me, but I have to much energy and it moves to sporadically and causes kriyas/samskaras unvoluntary movements and past impression most likely also stored in muscle tissues, cells etc. In the west it could be fair to say I am releasing karma, Sadghuru and other teachers also speak about this.
Generally the book ROT from Ken Wilber goes in depth of descriptions of God at all levels with dysfunctions, it’s by far the best book and a must-read imo for anyone doing a spiritual path and being open to different practice even just talking about it.
I still like Green very much in fact I miss the healthy versions of it.