The Horns of Integral Pragmatics

What I propose and emphasize by constantly returning to integral pragmatics is the possibility for co-enacting a “new” mode of intimacy with the utterances we make.

The Walls of Jericho

I put the word new in the quotation marks because I believe that this mode is old enough to have seen the first geniuses of both a spoken word and a written word in the history of humankind. I, nevertheless, say “new” because it seems we either lost our connection with this mode or haven’t found it yet. For some reason we tend to distance ourselves from the embodiment of our Logos or Word; and yet we shall always remind ourselves: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

In the alchemical lab of our Imagination the seed of the Word manifests as God’s will and energy. Through becoming one with the Word we re-unite with the miracle of Oneness with the Spirit as it manifests inseparably from reality. The Word uttered always brings aliveness to our being; and instead of looking straight at things we stare into the abyss in front of us and our consciousness embarks on a journey through the realms of the living and the dead, following the footsteps of infinity, swimming in the clouds of timelessness, and reaching out to express as non-locality.

The sacred way of speaking the Word is totally different from the profane way of speaking words. Peter Kingsley explains the difference between “talking about” and “talking from” in the magnificent article “Raven’s Appearance”:

There is the profane way of talking, which is to talk about things. And if you care to notice, you will see that in the modern Western world we always talk about something. There is the word; then there is the point of reference for the word, which is always separate from the word itself. And this, of course, is the basis for nearly all modern linguistics.

But according to people such as Parmenides there is another way of talking. This other way is that instead of talking about, you talk from. If you sense oneness you talk from oneness; and that oneness is communicated through the magic of the word in a way that our minds may find incomprehensible but that, even so, fascinates and endlessly obsesses them. For these people were magicians. The founders of logic and science in the West were sorcerers. They knew what they were doing even if, now, no one knows what they did.

If we intuit the infinite, if we intuit the eternal, if we intuit the timeless, the transcendent, the Divine, we are bound to wake up in the echoing thunder of silence. This silence is the original face of our selfhood; and it quietly floats in our Hearts. The silence explodes with ecstasy, and when it does, the Word manifests. You see, the Word is inseparable from the silence, the Word is connected to the silence, the Word is silence revealed itself.

We can spend years and decades talking about words but unless we talk from the Word we never reach the realm of profound pragmatics. We can infinitely chase our own tail of signifiers and signifieds but no matter what we do unless we open our minds and hearts wide enough to courageously embody the Word, our talking will always remain talking about philosophy instead of being philosophy, talking about poetry instead of being poetry, talking about science instead of being science, talking about art instead of being art. Philosophy is the Love of Wisdom; in its pragmatics it’s the Word uttered itself to itself and echoed in the Hall of sentient Mirrors.

I have always intuitively sensed the appearance of the intimacy with the Word in the writings of Ken Wilber. The striking difference between him and his philosophy and those who talk about Wilber and his philosophy is in the embodiment of the Word—Logos. The seed of this vision of integral pragmatics that I want to convey to you has been sown by a little and seemingly evanescent utterance of profound importance, the utterance delineating Integral Semiotics in Wilber’s Integral Spirituality (pp. 286-287):

James was a genius and a pioneer in so many ways, and the fact that he took states of consciousness as seriously as he did was extraordinary; but monological is monological, and in that instance he merely extended the imperialism of the philosophy of the subject. Fortunately, James’s sheer genius pushes him beyond his own self-imposed limitations. His empiricism is always open to hermeneutics, the representational paradigm is supplemented with Peircean pragmatics, and—above all—his is a soul in which Truth and Goodness and Beauty are still a holy and unbreakable trinity.

But radical empiricism is still empiricism. That is, radical empiricism is radical monologicalism. Stages in zone #2 and the constitutive nature of zone #4 are alien to him. Had he availed himself of more of the work of his contemporary James Mark Baldwin, how different it all might have been. This imperialistic empiricism is the worm in the core of this otherwise extraordinary work.

It’s interesting to note that, in fact, Charles Peirce himself criticized James for exactly this central problem. James and Peirce were lifelong friends, despite their little tiff over James’s appropriation of the term “pragmatism” from Peirce, who coined it. (Peirce subsequently changed the name of his philosophy to “pragmaticism,” which was “a term,” he said, “so ugly as to discourage theft.”) Despite their friendship, Peirce felt James’s approach of “pure empiricism” was deeply flawed. Peirce—who, as noted, is generally regarded as America’s greatest philosophical genius—nailed James with a simple sentence: Perception is semiotic.

I want to pause here for a moment, take a deep breath and state that for the last two years I have been a semiotician to the marrow of my bones. Semiotics is a way to recognize the almost religious reverence for the Word that manifests as a movement of the unmoving, as a birth of the unborn. The entire universe after the Big Bang represents the Word extended through time and space. Now, having said so, I shall continue this magnificent quotation:

In other words, perception is always already an interpretation. At least in part. Failing to see this is the common mistake of naïve phenomenology and naïve empiricism in all their forms. Understanding this also let Peirce point out two further problems, which people simply will not understand if they don’t get the first problem with monological empiricism itself. Namely, it let Peirce say of James, “Of course, he is materialistic to the core.” And further: “He inclines toward Cartesian dualism.” Whenever I mention this to fans of James, they usually express shock, which tells me that they haven’t gotten the postmodern revolution, because otherwise it makes perfect sense. But for those who fail to understand this, James is even seen as somebody who overcame materialism and dualism, whereas he merely embodied their subtler monological forms. Peirce went on to humorously say of James’s implicit materialism that this is so “in a methodological sense, but not religiously, since he does not deny a separable soul nor a future life; for materialism is that form of philosophy which leaves the universe as incomprehensible as it finds it.” What Peirce means is, what monological delivers is incomprehensible; perception itself is actually semiotic.

Now we come closer to the part which is most important to our reasoning. Let’s take a look:

We can also see, further, why James—as well as virtually all meditation and phenomenology—is, as often noted, modernist in essence, and why Peirce was a great postmodernist about a century ahead of his time (who else could see natural laws as natural habits, without falling into magenta magic?). Peirce maintained that all perception is already an interpretation, and interpretation is triadic in structure: it demands a sign, an object (referent), and an interpretant. You can see the similarity with Ferdinand de Saussure, who maintained that the sign is composed of a signifier and signified in a system of interpreted differences. Peirce coined the term “semiotics”; Saussure called what he was doing “semiology.” AQAL has drawn on both of them: there is a sign (signifier plus signified), referent, semantic, syntax, and pragmatics.

Here we have to look at the bottom of the page to find a short footnote with the utterance that forever changed my relation to the Word as it is written or spoken or read or done:

To give a quadratic view: the sign is composed of UR-signifier and UL-signified (and yes, à la postmodernism, there are often huge gaps between them, resulting in deferral of meaning). Integral Theory defines a sign as “any aspect of reality that signifies another, to another.” Signs exist in systems of semantics (LL) and syntax (LR), held together by pragmatics (whose telos is to integrate the 4 quadrants of any semiotic occasion: and all occasions are semiotic, although only higher animals have linguistic forms of semiotics: the 4 quadrants go all the way down, taking semiotics with them). . . .

Ever since I have read this footnote my life has never been the same. As I was reading the words “signs exist in systems of semantics (LL) and syntax (LR), held together by pragmatics (whose telos is to integrate the 4 quadrants of any semiotic occasion . . .)” the subtle tingling in my body and the space of clarity in my mind signified that the treasure is found.

I have expressed elsewhere my point of view that the third tier of development and evolution of consciousness described in the Integral developmental theory is the first truly Pragmatic Tier. In a gesture of connecting the dots I have linked Wilber’s testimony that the AQAL framework itself is a product of the Indigo stage of consciousness (a third-tier stage) with the statement that pragmatics’ telos is to integrate the four quadrants of any semiotic occasion. This means that the true nature of the four quadrants, the true nature of these primordial perspectives reveals itself only as an embodiment of the Word coming through a third-tier structure of consciousness.

Indigo is the first stage of consciousness which in its utterances, the utterances that manifest not just as a verbal-linguistic activity but as a kosmocentric activity, is able to hold the four quadrants in a single gesture of integration. Before that stage, every utterance we make is bound to be a fragmented aspect of a text within text within text within the boundaries of one dimension of consciousness. To understand and grok and grasp the difficult transverbal reality beneath these words I want to extend my philosophical hand so as to reach Vasily Nalimov, a truly unsung hero of our time. Vasily Nalimov understood consciousness as essentially a text reading phenomenon. He intuited very well the power of Logos—the power of the Word—and spoke from the silence and timelessness. The grand narrative of our life is a holarchy of semiotic occasions that forms the scripture with the Holy text breathing within and without.

I emphasize integral pragmatics but my words sometimes are misinterpreted as utterances of an isolated theorizing mind—but I am not a Pharisee and not interested in a book knowledge and in talking about. When I reach the space of clarity through which I can reconnect with integral pragmatics I see that human beings are lost in massive textbooks of their own minds. The dissociation of the words and actions is being established. The intuition of the immediacy of the Spirit-in-action’s tetra-manifestation becomes forsaken. A seed of integral intentionality which has the potentiality to reach a luminous mindbody becomes lost in the swamps of smaller vortexes of karma. The Integral Word instead of being spoken is being stuck at the throat chakra level of incessant mumbling; and the energy never reaches the forehead and the crown chakras (and often lower chakras as well). The micro-orbit is never fully completed. The Beauty fades away. The hopes get broken. Alienation insists. The Word is forgotten. The Man isolates himself in the web of texts he created.

My task is to do my best to bring the message which reveals the possibility for a passionate embodiment of the Word—the Word that has the sound of the Horns of Jericho. It shakes your destiny and frees your throat and liberates your fate. The influx of authentic pragmatics results.

Sepulchral frost

Sepulchral Frost

The gravestone’s coldness dissects streams of wind.

In solitude’s transparency a sepulchral rainfall bursts.

And on the headstone of my last resort

An inscription shines, hidden by withered leafs.

Six feet under the ground: it lies, consumed by worms,

Covered with loose, airy earth, with eyelids eaten away:

My corpse, forsaken organic matter,

That ceased to act as a living embodiment of mind-body unity;

That is simply a rotten mass feasted by Nature,

Out of which my corpse emerged some years ago,

While still being alive, hurrying to live, spurting towards joys

And sorrows of yet another illusion called the life path

Of an isolated personality that grows and develops under the blue sky,

The moon and the stars that shine with an elusive mystery,

The mystery which is so easy to miss in the face of the enchanted

Vibrating web of meanings that we weave as we dwell in our collective dreaming.

In my heart, ever since the moment of my birth, there was this sepulchral frost,

And behind the left shoulder, near my ear, I felt someone’s breathing,

And someone’s whisper pontificated to me that, while being alive,

Somewhere there, very near, right in my Heart

I’ve never been born. And my hour has struck but nothing changed:

All these years were dreamt by me when my body was already enthralled

By this cadaveric freeze. Another day on the planet Earth,

In the Milky Way galaxy, on the outskirts of this universe

Was lived by me. In vain or not in vain, that is the question of no significance

On the back of the monumental triumph of kosmic void

And her unstoppable life, in contrast to which I am only

A weak shimmering of a body shell swept away by a blink of Eternity.

Let the memory of me as of an unnoted sparkle remain

In the great sentient archives of the undying Kosmos.

And one day when the right time comes the good I’ve done here and now

Will grow into a gigantic wave, humongous sea of Goodness

Which will destroy all ignorance and bring eternal peace and joy—

At least for a moment. And I will cry for all the cursed and all the blessed.

April 27, 2010 

(translated from Russian)

Reconnecting with the spiritual roots of the Western civilization

This is it!

Peter Kingsley speaks about the same profound connection with the Ancient Greeks’ vision for our Western civilization that I have been experiencing for the past couple of years. We can call it the ultimate resonance with the intentionality of the Past that created our Now and is a source for forming our future.

I couldn’t avoid the understanding all our Western civilization is really a dream of the great Ancient visionaries, not only of pre-Socratic mystics but also of the great spiritual leaders. I experience profound (trans)personal connection with some of the thinkers from the past and from the present.

The words of Plato and Plotinus speak directly to my Heart. The similar connection I have experienced with the gigantic personalities of Vasily Nalimov, Vladimir Bekhterev, and Fyodor Dostoevsky. If you really think about it, every manifestation from the past has never gone anywhere. The sentience is as alive as ever; and the individual suffering must be released into the freedom of the vast expanse.

It’s not just manifestation of impersonal Unity, it’s also manifestation of quite a (trans)personal intentionality, very unique self-sense of a visionary passion that we must ponder about.

Reconnection with our own cultural roots is a must.

A comment I wrote to my friend JF as a response to this interview:

I can’t believe I found another living person who resonates with the deeper truths about the European spiritual lineage that I discovered this and last year. When I embrace the contemporary world with my awareness, I couldn’t escape the understanding that the entire Judeo-Christian civilization that existed for the last two thousand years was in fact a direct product of the great mystics’ powerful visions and of all-transcending and all-including intentionality of Christ’s personality, which in turn emerged from the background highly influenced by Platonic non-duality, Egyptian mysticism, and Eastern contemplation.

By the way, this vision is almost exactly the vibratory level that Vasily Nalimov referred to in his works, when he spoke about and embodied the profound resonance with the geniuses of the past, the past which is our memory to be re-lived.

And here I wonder how this relates to Russia and the great Eurasian conglomerate of cultures; how this dissociation from the roots contributes to the poor condition of the state and its people; and how the profound meaning can be found in the fact that there’s so much suffering, that so many people, they were so radically sacrificed and put six feet under into the abyss of unbeing, while they’re actually so vital, so alive, and so crying for our help.

I couldn’t stop myself from recalling Alexander Vertinsky’s song: “Я не знаю зачем и кому это нужно, кто послал их на смерть недрожавшей рукой, только так беспощадно, так зло и ненужно окунули их в вечный покой.” [“I don't know what for, or who needed it, who sent them to death with an untrembling hand, but so ruthlessly, so evilly and so needlessly they were put to eternal peace.”] It is not a coincidence that Vasily Nalimov quoted this song in his major works when he wrote about the Karmic tragedy of that peoples in Russia suffered.

Why? What for? What is the ultimate meaning? WHAT WILL JUSTIFY ALL THESE DEATHS, MURDERED CHILDREN, MOTHERS, AND FATHERS, BROKEN HOPES AND UNENDING SUFFERING?

The spectrum of reading

While pondering about books and how to read them I remembered one episode.

On my first or second year at University one professor asked the auditorium whether anybody knew the name of the author of Moby-Dick. He said he’d give the highest grade for the semester to the student who’d say the name. All one hundred something students went silent. I read Moby-Dick and had two impulses: first was to earn an easy grade; second was: meh! I don’t need that kind of charity, passing the semester exam would be piece of cake anyway. Finally, one girl pronounced Herman Melville’s name. For the professor it was an amusement to showcase how stupid and ignorant the younger generation of students were.

The meaning of Melville’s multifaceted book unfolds greater and greater with each year of my recalling its oceans and passions. But to return to the question that originated this memory: I really don’t know what would be the wisest way to read books that stream into my life incessantly. Should I take notes, highlight phrases and paragraphs, or simply read in a flow, letting my unconscious mind soak in all things missed by my conscious mind?

Taking notes seems a time-consuming work, especially if I simply roam around the literature without any specific topic of investigation (although I usually highlight everything related to mind, states of consciousness, existential meaning of life, transpersonal realms, etc.). If I don’t save the notes to computer sooner or later they get lost.

However, every book’s text is a landscape to be traversed and carefully explored, sometimes pioneered. Notes and highlight can really be helpful if you want to access the knowledge right away. At times being able to find the quotation I needed by searching the tag system in my Zotero notes has been helpful. Taking notes from the important books now and categorizing them in a database seems like an investment into the future.

On the other hand, some of the most profound book knowledge that I have learned seems to be the one I learned passionately through spontaneous reading with an open mind (a beginner’s mind) and a broad intention. The naive reading, so to say. The flow of books would enter my life, stay there a little bit, leave a mark or a scratch or a signature, and then go away. Some years later it would re-emerge in a huge bulk of meanings constellations. That’s probably a Romantic way of looking at reading.

But no matter what, even more influential were the texts I translated myself. These texts I digested with all my sentient being. As always, it seems everything’s really scalable and we can adapt many styles to read and use many tools to enhance our reading. Perhaps, there’s a spectrum of reading?

In defense of integral reading

“In Defense of Naïve Reading” by Robert Pippin is a pretty interesting integrative article on literary postmodernism published at the New York Times website. Reading it was as if the surfaces of the Red Postmodern Sea were parted and the depth of self-consciousness revealed itself. At least for a moment a silent green beam of hope shined. To quote,

“[L]iterature and the arts have a dimension unique in the academy, not shared by the objects studied, or ‘researched’ by our scientific brethren. They invite or invoke, at a kind of ‘first level,’ an aesthetic experience that is by its nature resistant to restatement in more formalized, theoretical or generalizing language. This response can certainly be enriched by knowledge of context and history, but the objects express a first-person or subjective view of human concerns that is falsified if wholly transposed to a more ‘sideways on’ or third-person view. Indeed that is in a way the whole point of having the ‘arts.’”

For me, literature has always been a source of deep wisdom that fosters one’s greater maturity. As a brilliant Russian thinker Vasily Nalimov argues in his books, consciousness is a text-reading phenomenon (in the broadest sense of the word). In my opinion, narrative brings meaningful & very subtle structures to one’s personal development; and Ken Wilber has pointed out the importance of the world greatest religious narratives as developmental conveyor belts for preconventional & conventional worldspaces in his book Integral Spirituality.

To continue quoting this wonderful article,

“Likewise—and this is a much more controversial thesis—such works also can directly deliver a kind of practical knowledge and self-understanding not available from a third person or more general formulation of such knowledge. There is no reason to think that such knowledge—exemplified in what Aristotle said about the practically wise man (the [Phronēsis]) or in what Pascal meant by the difference between l’esprit géometrique and l’esprit de finesse—is any less knowledge because it cannot be so formalized or even taught as such. Call this a plea for a place for ‘naïve’ reading, teaching and writing—an appreciation and discussion not mediated by a theoretical research question recognizable as such by the modern academy.”

Definitely, aesthetically-built literary narratives seem to have the capacity of constructing experiential frameworks for conveying certain domains of tacit knowledge (necessary for action learning in the pragmatic sector). To additionally contribute to this statement about the importance of aesthetics in our narratives, I would quote the famous Russian writer Anton Chekhov who said, “The writer’s function is only to describe by whom, how, and under what conditions… The artist must be only an impartial witness of his characters and what they said, not their judge.” (I borrowed the quotation from another interesting article by Nina Schuyler.)

Here are some of the questions worth pondering. Why reading comprehensive literature is so important for our development? Why do I think that in order for us to contribute to humanity probably the best thing we can do is to calm our minds enough to be able to actually have read Dostoevsky’s passionate reflections on universal conscience and self-liberation? Why do stories and their archetypal images have played such an important role for our humanity’s evolution for millennia? Why good 1st-person storytelling is so important not just for narrow marketing and cheap sales pitches but for a wide range of dimensions of life that involve communication and knowledge sharing?

One of the many perspectives that I find increasingly important when contemplating the matrix of these questions is the mind-blowing neuroscientific discovery of mirror neurons: 

“In multiple reports published in the Sept. 19 issue of Current Biology, neuroscientists provide evidence that mirror neurons are multimodal—they are activated by not just by watching actions, but also by hearing and reading about them.

An effort led by Lisa Lisa Aziz-Zadeh, a neuroscientist at the University of Southern California, found that the brain’s premotor cortex shows the same activity when subjects observe an action as when they read words describing it.” (“Mirror Neurons Also Respond to Language and Sound,” September 21, 2006)

Hence, we are witnessing the capacity of comprehensive narratives to evoke altered states of consciousness and deeper modes of knowing and appreciating life which are important for the emergence of a more sophisticated pragmatics of our being-in-the-world. Science cannot replace art and morals—Habermas, Wilber and others have proved it convincingly; but if science, morals, and art are in a complementary relationship with each other their synergy will most definitely bring forth powerful results.

The sketches on contemporary biosociopsychoanalysis

I read daily news using the Internet; and sometimes I watch conventional TV news. Newsfeed often acts as a machine producing meaningful coincidences that would point to a recent trend in the emergence of creativity. Recently, there have been two news articles that were able to hold my attention for many hours. First article is about North Korea; and this year I have been following news about North Korea with an increasing interest. Something in my guts tells me it is very important to point my attention to the developments in this country. So, in this post I will start with the North Korea theme and then gradually move to the second topic.

Kim Jong-il seems to enjoy luxury.

The article about North Korea bears the title "Kim Jong-il's Label Addiction Revealed." It describes strange peculiarities that, according to a person who decided to escape from the Kim Jong-il's regime (who in a somewhat silly and disrespectful way is called a "defector"), the leaders of the long ago isolated country seem to have. It appears that Kim Jong-il (who, occasionally, was born in USSR) seems to be prone to the kind of very ordinary consumerism which can be observed among the elites and not-so-elites of the world, a consumerism that consists of the addiction to buy and wear expensive clothes, drive expensive cars, and attach oneself to expensive things in general (as we all tend to do at some point). 

If this is true—and it can be very true because it simply fits our present-day knowledge of the human nature and biosociopsychology—then the North Korean society could provide another example of the hypocritical splitting which reveals itself as discrepancies between the ideology that is being imposed by the government on the people and the ideology that is being followed by the very leaders of this government—inauthentic communication of one thing and engagement in another is the most ancient secret which is astonishing in its simplicity and yet so carefully guarded by the few! (The splitting which has been exposing itself, to a different extent, in Russia, USA, Europe and many other countries and places. In isolated countries such as North Korea it simply goes to its extreme.)

It becomes a sad and fascinating case study of how the rulers of the world often tend to use their enormous  social powers and influence to enforce entire civilizations' self-organization around satisfaction of the rulers' egocentric needs. Obviously, it's nothing personal between me and Kim Jong-il; and I believe that in the depths of his heart we can find remnants/seeds of a wonderful, if unformed, personality but in overall manifestations of his self-system—one shouldn't  let oneself be deceived—it's all repeating the same old pattern that we have seen in the Soviet Union and other totalitarian social systems where the few used the many for the benefit of their self-serving drives, the drives that they simply couldn't stop due to their socially-conditioned neurobiology (furthermore, they don't want to stop—and why would they, if all their basic egocentric needs are met at least for the moment and they can feel, if, again, for a fleeting moment, centers of the universe). 

It also demonstrates how a passion of the few for accessing a particular kind of states of consciousness (related to igniting the zones of pleasure associated with the areas around the limbic system in the brain) could virtually create entire civilizations centered around human suffering, misery and scarcity! This would be one simple case study that I would refer to if one asked me why I find the projects that articulate the importance of knowing thyself in terms of dynamics of your own states of consciousness to be crucial for our lives right here and now. (Incidentally, the altstates.net project that I am co-developing now will hopefully become one of such initiatives that would skillfully highlight the significant role consciousness and its states & structures have played in the human history.)

In some sense, we're all junkies for blissful states; and this is our "reaching the God state" project, so to say, as Ken Wilber has pointed out in his brilliant The Atman Project. Stan Grof, another pioneer of states of consciousness exploration and investigation, has emphasized that it is in the human nature to unconsciously, semiconsciously and consciously desire reaching a holotropic state, that is a state of the ultimate wholeness which has been historically associated with experiencing God states. In order to figure out today's markets and politics one simply has to master skillful biosociopsychoanalytical action inquiry that takes into account these complex dimensions in a coherent gesture.

Here we can make a discrete leap into the second, seemingly unrelated, news article which, as I mentioned in the beginning of this post, attracted my attention. The Daily Mail claims that "computers and TV take up half our lives as we spend seven hours a day using technology." This claim also seems to reflect something important; in particular I mean a very important notion that the technologies that we are using (and in which we are immersed) increasingly become essential parts of our personal ecosystems and consciousness. It is now a widely accepted reflection that the flow of information becomes so massive and multiplies so enormously that it poses multiple difficulties on societies today. (I should have said here, "it poses multiple difficulties on societies yesterday," for every word I have spoken right now in some sense reflects the past—but the past that influences each and every aspect of our present moment.) 

In order to cope with this informational stress we have to always be one step or even a few steps ahead in our creativity; and I would claim that this step would involve at least two parts: the first would be anchoring one's self in the ocean of timeless stillness (which can be achieved via advanced contemplative/meditative paradigms & technologies); and the second would consist of learning to communicate at multiple levels in one bit of information simultaneously (these levels would include the domains of body, emotions, mind, soul, and spirit, with the latter being described as a certain quality of all-pervading and compassionate meta-awareness that is built into the very fabric of the material substrate of our consciousness, that is the brain, the electromagnetic activity, and the entire material system that surrounds the space of our individual being and co-existence). For instance, this very blog should touch all these domains and contain a key for an easy-and-instant access to the holograph of experience it conveys with its limited words and textual canvas.

One possible future
of a human form.

It can easily be predicted that, since the computer and information-based technologies are conquering the human minds, there will be a growing need in brain-mind interfaces that would ensure the accessibility of simultaneous engagement with all the essential domains of being-in-the-world (by which I mean the aforementioned body, mind, soul, and spirit distributed across the interiors and exteriors of the individual and collective). For instance, in order to ensure exercising of the body in the operator of a computer in the conditions where the time is  increasingly limited and one cannot afford to exercise dissociatedly and separately from the work flow, the humanity would first attempt to create computers working on which would involve kinaesthetic "karate-like" movements. However, the advancement of consciousness/matter interfaces and technologies will quickly move to a different variation of being, the one that would involve working on a computer while exercising karate or strength training (or, better put, at the same moment with body exercises). The same goes for mind and soul and spirit. Each and every gesture would consciously and super-consciously include the involvement of all these domains simultaneously. I would walk in the street while meditating, praying, and doing tai chi exercises and enjoying this fine weather and that wonderful sunset. 

And when within a few decades humans will most likely be able to extend their life span indefinitely be prepared to include all the essential domains in your life—for death will become a luxury and if there is anything less than a fully-functioning body-mind-soul-spirit-powered cybernetic human being you are going to slide into an infinite loop of unnecessary suffering—and this is why we would need to establish psychosocioneuroethics commissions that would prevent such unfortunate cases for the greater good of humankind as soon as we are going to be ready to consciously do so.

Sounds like science fiction? Well, in this case I can only advice you to simply remember how it was 20 years ago and look around yourself now—and simply read the news, dammit! We are currently on the verge of living in the world of cybernetic ecosystems, whether we want it or not.

Notes

To demonstrate the heightened awareness in the choices I made around building the current blog post I claim that the placement of the first image in the article is done according to the recent fair use trends. The image was originally displayed in The Chosun Ilbo article. The second image is a work of art created by Richard Marchard and borrowed from here; it is used as an illustration to the ideas expressed in this essay (the picture itself, in my interpretation, points towards an artistic vision of how the future human form might look like); and my position—even though I am a human being and not a lawyer-android—is that the fair use rules are applicable here, too, and also that there should be an easier way to share reproductions of artistic pictures according to the leading-edge sense of basic moral intuition.

Anamnesis and aletheia

I am in the process of re-watching a movie called Memento (2000). My dear friend reminded me of the existence of it. It is a movie by one of the most gifted directors of our time Christopher Nolan (who also created The Dark Knight which is simply a perfect film if you are in the right mode of consciousness). The protagonist of Memento, Leonard, is suffering from anterograde amnesia, a clinical condition that blocks mind/brain’s capacity to remember new phenomena. In order to survive in the world which is full of people who would like to take advantage of his condition Leonard constantly leaves himself notes to remind who he is, where he is, and what his goals are. 

The feeling of watching this movie is so uncanny that I had to stop watching it. And when I went to bed this uncanny feeling didn’t disappear, insisted on it being followed and brought me back to my computer to write this down. To be straightforward, this uncanny feeling is that of the recognition that in some bigger sense Leonard’s condition reminds me of my own—and, perhaps, it appears familiar not only to me but also to other people.  

I feel that in some way I live a similar life always leaving myself notes in attempt to re-mind myself who I truly am in the fullness of my being-in-the-world. I have this and that peak experience, I glance here and there on my true nature, I become one with something which is what I am, I become capable to hold it in the gesture of my meditative awareness for longer periods; and yet once in a while I slip into the darkness of forgetfulness. In a sense, this very blog is a note that I leave to myself to constantly remind myself of what I am—or at least of what it is worth living for and of what it is possible to choose as one’s own destiny. 

In addition to becoming a person on the frontal egoic plane in the process of individual growth and development mediated to a great extent through socialization it seems that my life is about, first of all, reminding myself of something—of my Soul’s True Love if you let me put it that way—then remembering it and then knowing through embodying my True Self (and finally letting go of it and stepping into not-knowing). As long as I am locked within the cell of my mind which constantly chaotically twinkles and flows I have to re-mind myself of what I am and then to train my mind to remember. But eventually when the personal mind gets transcended but included, once one enters the narrow gate, a bigger entity emerges, the one that simply knows and feels and moves and speaks and sees. Here, life becomes quite easy: I simply smell my way further and operate on the skills my well-adapted personal ego has learnt through the years of learning. Sometimes I could recall to my presence some farther events and perspectives that I have once known somewhere else—and feel as if I am actually there—and yet I don’t need to rely that much on re-minding myself of all those limited details any longer—I let go. 

Sometimes I can even forget what I said a minute or an hour ago and there is simply too much information in the world now for me to try to remind myself of all of it. When I open my email client and see all these different emails from different streams of life, different parts of the world, different projects, different ideas… they simply overwhelm if I attempt to remind myself of everything through my mind.  

I don’t know where the need for re-minders would disappear. My friend Jim whose depth of mind fascinates me says the word money comes from the word warning or reminder. Will the times when we don’t have to re-mind ourselves come? How would it be if we simply… remember—for starters? All the beautiful churches, all the beautiful temples, all the beautiful pyramids, all the houses, all the cities, all the graves, all the monuments, all the books, all the photographs, all the paintings, etc.—are they here to simply re-mind us of something once in a while or can they act as catalyzing portals into remembering and eventually simply and profoundly non-forgettingly being and fulfilling one’s destiny on multiple planes of living. I don’t mind if it happens.

I am concluding with an entry from a dictionary on Plato’s works:

truth

The Greek word for truth, aletheia, incorporates the word for “forgetting”; a-letheia might be translated as “unforgetting” or “remembering.” This etymology is particularly significant in Plato’s epistemology, which maintains that true knowledge can be achieved only through anamnesis, the soul’s recollection of the Forms it has glimpsed during its circuit through heaven in metempsychosis. For Plato, knowledge of mere phenomena cannot attain the truth, as only the ideal Forms are truly real.

Brother David Steindl-Rast's Big Heart

As I mentioned in the blog earlier, two weeks ago I went for 3 days to Moscow to present at the International Transpersonal Conference. Being at the conference was quite an eclectic experience because it's attended by people of very diverse backgrounds. It was very hot on those days in the city; and the air conditioners at the Hotel Izmailovskaya were barely working. Some of the speakers whom I expected to be quite extraordinary disappointed me a little bit because they did not take an integrally balanced position. But, on the other hand, there were many profound moments, too.

There were two episodes, two meetings that have had a profound impact on me. The first episode consisted of having an opportunity to express in person all my gratitude to Stan Grof. It might not be realized by many people in the world (or in America for that matter) but Grof's books have the reputation of being somewhat classic for the generation of the intellectual Russians who spent their youth in the post-Soviet society, especially starting with the emergence of the open Internet access. It can be said that these works have broadened notions of being-in-the-world for many thousands of people. I mean not among psychologists or academia but among some ordinary people who are enthralled by the possibility and intuition of the transpersonal (although, of course, the influence is not that huge in terms of its span). Even though Grof's cartography of consciousness and its states now cannot be considered comprehensive (but it can be very useful for many individuals who are interested in consciousness exploration through altered states and peak experiences), the very fact of the existence and foundation of the transpersonal movement by such folks as Stan Grof, Abe Maslow, and Mike Murphy should be appreciated enormously.

 Expressing all my gratitude to Stan Grof, MD for his contributions to the humankind.

The second episode was the blessing of meeting Brother David Steind-Rast and having a little blissful exchange of meanings with him. Meeting him in person could definitely be a life-changing event not only for me but also for other people. I don't know what else to say here. I can only be grateful for being able to know him.

 An inspiring meeting of Brother David Steindl-Rast.

I invite you to watch the video clip I have recorded which includes a part of Brother David's beautiful speech about integral spirituality (filmed in Moscow on June 26, 2010). (I have also added subtitles but I've had problems hearing some of the words, so I'd appreciate if you can help me in filling the missing spots.)

Andrew Lloyd Webber & JCS

Andrew Lloyd Webber's Jesus Christ Superstar is one of the most beautiful and touching modern prayers that I know of.

The tale of Midas

Many Russians grew up on stories and tales from the Ancient Greek mythology. There were many Soviet cartoons made about Heracles (known in the West under his Roman name Hercules) and his Twelve Labors, about Prometeus who brought fire of knowledge, about smart Odysseus, Argonauts, and so many others. Perhaps, one of the most mysterious stories of all is the tale of King Midas.

The story is usually told in a very sad and ironic manner. Midas was a king of Phrygia. Once, his soldiers caught Silenus, who was a right-hand satyr to the god Dionysus (whose Roman equivalent is Bacchus). Midas recognized him as such and set him free. Dionysus was very pleased by this doing, so he offered to grant whatever Midas should wish for. Midas asked that everything he touch be turned to gold. As the story goes, soon Midas encounters that his blessing is also seems to be his curse. Everything he touched, a tree, a chariot, a fruit, food, and even his daughter was turning into gold. So Midas begged Dionysus to take this gift away. The god told Midas to wash himself in the river Pactolus. Ever since Midas washed away his magic touch in this river, it has been abundant in gold, and Midas returned to his normal life.

The way I am interpreting this myth is quite optimistic. In fact, gold and the color of gold has always been a symbol of Spirit. When Midas receives a gift from Dionysus to turn everything into gold, what he receives is the power of transmutation and transfiguration: of discovering Spirit beneath each and every occasion. Everything he touches turns into gold, that is every phenomenon in the universe that he  spontaneously selects with his awareness shows its true Divine essence. In the end he realizes that everything around him is Spirit's, and there is nothing he, Midas, could personally own or have. This leads to the agony and transformational death of his egoistic self. Then he asks Dionysus to retract the gift. But what has actually happened is that he makes one step further: by washing himself in the river he has undone the last barrier before the realization of Spirit as Spirit. In some spiritual traditions this move is called realization of the Nondual. Then the world becomes as simple as it has ever been. The source of gold, of spiritual energy is not ego but God. There is nothing to turn into gold because everything is always already gold—everything is always already Divine.

The Bremen Town Musicians

In 1969, a Russian musical cartoon The Bremen Town Musicians started its voyage into the hearts of citizens of the Soviet Union. It resonated with the social revolution and the civil rights movement of The Sixties in the West, and due to this fact received harsh criticism from the USSR establishment and government for "noxious Western influence."

Within the two consequent years more than 28 millions Soviet people watched the cartoon and listened to the music. Two decades later, in the ruins of the collapsing empire, the songs from this cartoon fostered my early growth and development. For all my life I have remembered the subtle joy of freedom from these songs. 

Lives of several generations were guided and transformed by the sun beams of hope brought forth by this music. Such is a power of music. Let's remember and listen in silence and reverence.

International Transpersonal Conference (Moscow, Russia)

I am honored to be included to the list of presenters at the International Transpersonal Conference 2010 (Moscow, Russia). The list of presenters also includes Stan Grof, Alex Grey, Stanley Krippner, Dimitry Spivak, Jim Garrison, Bernard Lietaer, Andrew Cohen, Jenny Wade and others.

I will be giving two presentations (on June 24 and June 26). The first will be about the altstates.net project (one of the few projects of that kind in the field of altered states of consciousness research that is supported by a mainstream scientific organization) and the second will be about the Global Dialogue: Russian Contribution program I have been co-developing together with Dr. Mark Tourevski, Dr. Joachim Faust and others for more than a year.

Unfortunately, I couldn't visit Alex Grey's seminars and he leaves on the day I come to Moscow but I wrote a letter that I gave to my friend in Moscow so he would pass it to Alex.

Everything happens so quick in Russia (and the brand new world at large)...

Interior Gulag

A few days ago I defended my thesis (that is, diploma). Basically, it means the end of the 5-years journey that fragmented my life and taught me an important lesson. The lesson is, if you want to jump into something for five years you had better be very conscious about what you are doing.

There was no joy. But there was a sense of freedom. Whole life is in front of me, and there are no deadlines, credit tests, and papers. I am responsible for my actions and for who I am.

Last week, just a couple of days before the thesis defense,  I watched a Russian movie Karaul (1989). It is a movie that is worth being watched by anyone. I perceived it metaphorically as a story about what I have recently been calling "interior Gulag." Most Russians who were born in the USSR have it. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian social system which forced replication of specific patterns and states of consciousness in its citizens. One of the specific states it has been reinforcing in order to ensure that its citizens act as parts of a mechanism was the state of being a prisoner who is forced to do things he or she doesn't want or need—useless things, pointless stuff, hard meaningless work. Many people in today's Russia continue to live as if it was the Stalin's time and they were in Gulag.

I want to write about it in more detail. But now I am too tired.

Please be well.

Bosques de mi mente

Very beautiful, inspiring music video.

The musician whose music is featured in the video offers all his albums to download for free under the Creative Commons license.

The bus episode

I took a bus to get home from the gym this evening. I like to use public transport even though I live within a walking distance from that place. In Russian buses there is usually a special person, the ticket collector, who both sells tickets and checks whether you have one. As I was standing inside the bus looking into the window I suddenly heard the ticket collector's yelling at someone.

She screamed, "Get off the bus now! You want the entire bus to smell like you?"

I looked there and saw that the ticket collector was yelling at an old homeless man who sat there; and there was indeed that garbage stink of a person who haven't washed himself for weeks. The homeless man looked at her and said stubbornly and somewhat fearfully, "But I have paid for a ticket! I can leave where I want."

As the bus was approaching the bus stop the woman started to scream hysterically in the loudest way possible, "GET OFF NOW, YOU STINK! IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BEAR YOUR STINK ANYMORE! DO YOU WANT ME TO CALL THE BUS DRIVER NOW TO GET YOU OFF THE BUS BY FORCE?"

To which the homeless man repeated, "But I bought the ticket. I can leave where I want. I will leave on the next stop."

The woman continued yelling; and the man said, "Calm down, I'm leaving on the next stop anyway." The ticket collector understood that she can do nothing to get rid of this dirty old man and went to the farthest part of the bus.

The man left the bus on my bus stop. This particular old homeless man looked intelligent, he might even had a university education (as many people who lost their homes do), and I wonder how hard it was for him to get money to pay for one ticket to use the privilege and ride wherever he wanted. I also wonder whether he left the bus on the bus stop he originally intended or he just felt uncomfortable and didn't want to annoy the ticket collector.

In Russia, as in so many parts of the world, homeless people have no rights at all. It is in  a huge contrast with the developed Western countries such as Finland where homeless people receive money from the government (about €500 per month in case of Finland). Once, when I was in Helsinki, my friend pointed a person in the street to me and asked whom do I think he was. I had no clue; and he said that's a hobo. I was shocked because most Russian professors dress worse and look poorer than this Finnish "hobo." (In fact many Russian professors barely receive €500 per month while the prices are not that different.)

When I told someone about this bus episode I had tears in my eyes.

What about the day we stop slaughtering our finest impulses?

A beautiful quotation I read a few minutes ago in the blog of one of my favorite fiction writers and magicians Johnathan Carroll. Carroll quotes Henry Miller who said,

Every day we slaughter our finest impulses. That is why we get a heartache when we read those lines written by the hand of a master and recognize them as our own, as the tender shoots which we stifled because we lacked the faith to believe in our own powers, our own criterion of truth and beauty. Every man, when he gets quiet, when he becomes desperately honest with himself, is capable of uttering profound truths. We all derive from the same source. There is no mystery about the origin of things. We are all part of creation, all kings, all poets, all musicians; we have only to open up, only to discover what is already there.

In my observations we most certainly do slaughter our finest impulses on a day-to-day basis. It doesn't necessarily refer to writing a poem or painting something beautiful. The finest impulses that we suppress may include the things we want to say, the moves we want to perform, the feelings we want to express. In some cases it emerges as a blockage in the throat, as if you were about to say something but then started to clear your throat and remained silent. In many cases we don't claim the destiny for greatness that belongs to us and settle due to our damaged self-esteem, an attachment to a false self for a lesser path or a path that is alien to us.

I hope an occasion will emerge to write extensively about Jonathan Carroll's magical novels that  helped me to rediscover my soul and make my soul presence stronger. His books have been very influential in my life—and I'm speaking of the magnitude of influence that at some point equals to that which, for instance, Ken Wilber's ideas have had on me (which is huge). Incidentally, in one of the older blogs Carroll writes about Wilber the following:

I was listening to a lecture by Ken Wilber about consciousness. He mentioned something I had never thought about. Yet as soon as I heard it, my mind jumped on its horse and rode off in all sorts of interesting directions. Wilber said one of the profound differences between mankind centuries ago and today was that in the past because a person was born, raised and usually died in one community and rarely left, their exposure to religious/spiritual ideas was limited to what was taught or believed only in that community. In modern times, particularly now with the ubiquity, width and breadth of the internet, a child in a remote community in, say, Mali, can learn in an instant about Buddhism, Christian Science, or Zoroastrianism. Sure, in the past missionaries from the various religions were sent out to the four corners of the earth to try and convert the heathen. But they were only individuals here and there. Now all that's needed is a computer and a modem and huge numbers of people can have their most fundamental beliefs challenged or changed—in an instant. I have always been fascinated by the idea of what we might be or have been if we were simply exposed to it. We would have been firm Catholics if we'd learned about that belief when we were most receptive to religious teaching. Or a great chess player if someone had only taught us how to play as children. How about a world class baker if we hadn't had a Mom who hated to cook and anything to do with the kitchen. Wilber extends that idea way way out—to God. Never in a million years would I (says the person in Mali, for example) have thought God or religion could be conceived in ways that contrast so hugely with my own. But now that I have learned about some of them, my world view and life could change profoundly (June 28, 2009).

I remember how amused I was when I accidentally opened Carroll's blog and found this post. I even spontaneously wrote him an email expressing my gratitude for his books and a joy that he, too, is getting somehow influenced by integral ideas as expressed by Wilber. Don't know if the email ever reached him though for I haven't received a reply (probably, it got lost among the tons of other fan mail). Let me quote most parts of it here:

Dear Jonathan Carroll:

I'm clinical psychology student from Russia (if I manage not to drop out on my senior year, of course). But that's not the point of this letter. The point is rather different. I'm in love with your books. I read everything I could find translated in Russian… and I'm waiting for an opportunity to buy your English books and re-read everything once again. It also happens that I'm scholar of Ken Wilber's works. It also happens that my life, my dreams, my soul, and the fabric of whatever happens in my world seems to me as being closely interlinked with the things I read. And I still can't quite figure out whose works influenced my today's consciousness more -- yours, Ken's or Neil Gaiman's. (Sorry, but I gotta admit that I'm a big fan of Neil's works, too.)

Anyway, during these two weeks, among other things, I finished reading three books. Your Bones of the Moon, Neil's InterWorld (actually, finished reading it just an hour ago), and Ken's One Taste and The Marriage of Sense and Soul (it was the first time I read those in English [and I read the former some years ago in Russian]). Freaky enough, I find that the taste of all these books is somewhat similar. I have that bad habit of immersing into whatever I read and attempting to intuit the possibilities towards greater and deeper dimensions of psyche and consciousness in it. For instance, I always sense a lot of transpersonal and transrational stuff (which doesn't look prerational to me) going on in your books, not to mention the play of Jungian-like archetypes and so on; and when I read your books, Neil's books, and Ken's books there's that unmistakable state of deeper translucence that makes all the dimensions of dream-and-reality dialogically interpenetrate—at least in my worldspace. For me your stories are keyless gates to deeper, broader states of consciousness. Believe it or not, this unmistakable recognition of the great story narrative supportive towards awakening of one's own deeper potentials is what I have always found as striking features in both your, Neil's and Ken's books. And it's even that I have been wondering whether it is possible that the art you're all working on is essentially of the same transcendental and transformational nature, pointing towards deeper dimensions and depths of the soul.

I am pretty sure that what both you and Neil are doing as artists is what can be called a contemporary transcendental art, transcendental because it transcends and integrates fragments of realities, be it the realities of waking & dreaming or realities of persona & shadow or realities of ordinary and transordinary. Ken Wilber, when speaking of integral art (you can find an essay on art here and there; see also two beautiful chapters in his The Eye of Spirit), said an interesting formula: Bad Art Copies, Good Art Creates, Great Art Transcends. Alex Grey, a famous integral artist (whose paintings have been of guidance for me), writes:

Ken has stated numerous times, and I agree, that art is an essentialized worldview, or as Bachelard called it, "a metaphysics in a moment." Over the millenia, culture has embodied worldviews that both express and guide the attitudes of the people. As artists, we need to be conscious of and responsible for the views we transmit through our work. We need to use all the tools available to re-invent and invigorate our field, and to my mind, Ken provides the amazing tool of a worldview that makes peace between the quarrelsome territories of science, art and religion. After the dissociation and alienation of artists and their communities over the past 120 years, Wilber's integrative approach holds much promise. He has lead the way beyond current post-modern thinking toward an integral approach to art, toward an art of the soul.

I would say that your art has done exactly that to my injured Russian soul that wanders in the wastelands of a collapsed country which has been experiencing a cultural disaster for more than 100 years. Your stories have been very helpful in terms of healing my soul and awakening it towards the deepest potentialities of its individuality. I remember thinking: there's gotta be something in common among these guys, I feel it with my heart, now what I need is evidence that I'm not making this up... So it was quite a surprise to read your CarrollBlog 6.28, in which you mention "listening to a lecture by Ken Wilber about consciousness." I was very delighted, because synchronicities play a very profound role in my life stream. It was "an accident" that I decided to browse your website (which I usually don't do), after reading that Neil's book in the period where everything I do is closely intertwined with Ken Wilber's philosophy. This is no accident that Ken calls himself not a philosopher... but a storyteller, a Kosmic storyteller. And I think of the universes you unfold in your stories as of the Kosmic stories as well; for me, they are visionary stories that open doors to something which is ready to emerge but is not yet here. . . .

I hope this email reaches you; and you'll have time to read it and perhaps even to respond, if it touches you. As for myself, I'm relieved, for I knew that I'm not crazy in sensing that what you do isn't simply an art confined into its own boundaries, and what Ken does isn't simply a cognitive philosophy confined to its own boundaries... everything becomes fluid, dialectical, and translucent. Which is groovy, indeed! Whenever I get your book or Neil's book or Ken's book, they always and instantaneously become my top priority in reading list; and I basically stop doing everything else besides reading, because these stories always offer gems of a deeper awareness. This is why I'm very grateful for being able to enjoy the brilliance and writing genius of all of you.

Kind regards,
Eugene Pustoshkin

Now I'd like to come back to the first point about slaughtering our finest impulses. After I posted what you have hopefully read above I went on reading Carroll's blog. There is one post that he wrote that I find right on money, so I am going to quote it:

I was reading an issue of MEN'S JOURNAL magazine. The lead article was "100 Things To Do Before You Die." On the list were things like climb Mt. Everest, parachute from a plane, hand feed a shark, etcetera. I skimmed the other things they suggested should be on everyone's list. I had no desire to do even one of them. So then I thought is there anything I'd like to do before I die that I haven't done yet? Hypothetically if someone is living fully, they're doing what matters (or is important) to them whenever and however they can. There's something pathetic about having to make lists of tasks to do before you die so you can be sure that by doing them, you will have really "lived." The Japanese say "live every day as if your hair was on fire" and within realistic bounds, that sounds just about right. Most of the time we know almost as soon as a situation arises whether we will later regret not doing it. We also know most of the time that despite the many fearful, well behaved inner voices telling us not to do something, that we should ignore those voices and just go ahead and do it. Because when we do it and it works, it makes us bigger and life richer. If it fails, we hurt for a while but generally then heal and move on. You don't need to climb Mt. Everest to have led a fulfilled life. You only have to have the courage, and usually it is only small courage, to say yes. Say yes and do something when your first, second and third instincts may be to say no because that frightens me (March 18, 2010).

Indeed.

Psychopathology of everyday life

I have been writing a lot about many different ways pathologies exist in personality and society. This interest of mine in pathological states and conditions didn't emerge out of simple curiosity; these are the practical questions asked by life itself to figure out. Since there is a spectrum of consciousness (that is, our consciousness is multilevel and multidimensional) it appears that there is also a spectrum of pathologies that can emerge at any stage of development and then progress through our being-in-the-world. Any kind of behavior, including pathological (with corresponding interior states), seems to be in some way an adaptive response of the mind-body system to certain circumstances in life. Post-traumatic stress disorder, for instance, characterized by the dissociative defense mechanism seems to emerge in an attempt of psyche to chunk traumatic experiences in pieces so as to defend the structure of the conscious self from the experiences it can't digest yet.

In classical psychiatry there are "bigger" psychological pathologies that structure the entire life around them (psychotic to borderline) and there are "smaller" pathologies (neurotic) that, even though they affect the matrix of experience, allow one to live more or less adaptive social life to some point. Wilber and some other authors argue that the continuum of psychopathology isn't limited by the psychotic to borderline to neurotic sequence and there are also role/script pathologies, identity pathologies, existential pathologies, and various spiritual pathologies (each corresponding to the stage of development where it emerged). In fact, Wilber divides psychopathologies into three broad categories: prepersonal (psychotic to borderline to neurotic), personal (role/script to identity crisis to existential), and transpersonal (psychic to subtle to causal). The last category is still not well-studied in terms of its cohesive integration with the prepersonal and the personal which are more conventionally known levels of pathology; and Wilber's model of consciousness and its pathologies has been in its own development, so certain aspects of the transpersonal category must be revisited (to my knowledge, no official work has been published yet introducing the last installment of Wilber's view on spiritual pathologies; the world is still waiting for the revised edition of Transformations of Consciousness, a book that Wilber calls one of his most important works, to be published).

In order not to distract us from the simple point of this post (those of the readers who are not interested in a technical psychological talk can skip to the next paragraph), I will just briefly mention here that, since there has been a new understanding that we can speak of vertical and horizontal development, with the former being a structural (structure-stage) development towards higher altitudes of consciousness and the latter being a state (state-stage) development that is characterized by an increasing access to various spiritual states of consciousness that can be occurring to some extent at any altitude of consciousness, what Wilber previously saw as pathologies in the transpersonal structures of consciousness (which are very advanced stages of vertical development) now can be seen rather as pathologies in the ways individual consciousness (being at any level of development) embraces spiritual states of consciousness. To my opinion this is very important because it leads to the conclusion (in a form of hypothesis) that in the worst cases one person can combine both structural and state pathologies. For instance, if a neurotic person undertakes meditation practice (such as, e.g., vipassana or Transcendental Meditation), is stubborn enough, and doesn't receive care from a really qualified teacher, he or she can actually succeed in adding a spiritual state pathology to his already emerged structure pathology of neurosis; and those ought to be treated simultaneously. Not to mention that his neurotic self will be interpreting all state experience accordingly to the already pathological (i.e. incorrect, false, lying) view of the self and others. It doesn't necessarily take a conscious spiritual practice, there can be spontaneous awakenings towards deeper states dimensions.

Now, what's probably the most important is that if structural and states pathologies can emerge simultaneously in one psychological system then they will be naturally forming a kind of interpenetrated unity, something like a states-and-structures knot, and it can be very hard to untie this knot and to hermeneutically make sense of it. I know of one case when a probably borderline/narcissistic individual, let's call him S., had a series of spiritual experiences that led him into thinking that he, and he only, was Jesus Christ and others ought to listen to him and follow his commands for he, and he only, came to save the world. S. was already wanted by Interpol for crimes he committed in a different country (in Russia; the European country where he resided gave him asylum because he was a citizen of this country) but he thought that since he was Jesus Christ himself he will not be arrested. This led him to actually attempting to leave the asylum country and travel to Russia; and, as one would rightly guess, right on the border he was arrested and imprisoned (this is where my knowledge of the story ends). This JC experience (which may or may not be considered a some kind of false satori) wasn't initially a part of the pathological phenomenology of this individual; it was appropriated by his borderline "self" (actually, it can hardly be said that there is any self in a conventional sense in a person with the borderline psychopathologies) later on.

This case seems to present a person with a psychopathic personality disorder (Hare characterizes psychopaths as following: "Lacking in conscience and empathy, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse") who for several years was able to create a kind of predatory/criminal business in Moscow based on lies, manipulations, and so on; and for a few years he had been a millionaire until he lost everything and had to flee the country which led him into a crisis of personal insignificance and an idea that if he prayed to God enough his previous life would return to him. For his self-sense it has been absolutely okay to lie, manipulate, exploit, betray, show aggressive/destructive tendencies, etc. without any remorse for most of his life. The series of mystical experiences that emerged in his attempts to undertake a spiritual discipline to recover from the shock of losing everything was appropriated by his pathological self and led to emerging of what conventional psychiatrists would call a delusional idea ("I am [i.e., my ego] [virtually] Jesus Christ; and you must obey me"), which, if that person were under psychiatric care, could pose a serious problem for differential diagnostics (e.g., he could be treated as a schizophrenic psychotic rather than a borderline psychopath that he probably was which are different diagnoses requiring different treatment modalities—and without this delusional idea, thanks to his well-developed social mask, he could be misdiagnosed as borderline-to-neurotic or even neurotic).

I recall as one of the people who knew that individual personally and suffered from his actions for some years characterized S., "You could meet him and speak to him for some time and think that he is a nice person who is worth your friendship; and then he would suddenly hit you in the back with a knife by stealing from you or framing you or betraying you in any possible way—or even attempting to actually beat you or kill you." The most peculiar thing was that from the exterior point of view for long time this person seemed to have no problem adapting to his social environment; and he could have been that rich John Smith living in a private house that you pass by while driving into the city suburbs.

And yet encountering such a person in life and communicating with him/her is no game at all because in order to survive in the childhood such a person had to develop a ruthless psychopathic personality that subsequently became effective enough to betray and manipulate dozens of people and get a house in the most expensive place in Russia—which is incidentally one of the most expensive places in the world (the notorious Rublyovka district in Moscow, where all leaders and large businessmen dream to live; perhaps, this district can be called a psychopathic paradise, a place where the densest and the richest population of psychopaths in the world resides because most of the people living there earned their capital through 1990s in the times when there was no law, only brutal force and deception reigned). He could literally ruin your life; especially if you are a lay person not familiar with a complex compound individuality of a psychopath you will not be able to correctly recognize a psychopath as such. Survival drives such people to developing sometimes a very charismatic personae system (system of social masks) so as to hide the dark passenger beneath the social mask from the world. (Dark passenger is a term from the brilliant Dexter TV series which are based on novels about a charismatic serial killer written by Jeff Lindsay.)

I remember when I tried to convey these my insights about psychopaths and how deceitful they can be for the first time I encountered a blank stare or even an aggressive response; and I have pondered what would that mean. And then I realized that since there is that spectrum of consciousness and corresponding pathologies it is actually very easy for all people to develop a pathology of their own. So almost everybody has a skeleton hidden in his or her own closet. In many cases such a pathology isn't severe, it can be a common neurosis or a script pathology; but since most people are not familiar with classifications of psychopathology they irrationally fear that the little shadow monster that they have been trying to hide in the depths of their psyche is actually a big scary monster, the kind of monster that, if revealed to people, would destroy their lives.

At some point in life almost every individual has to go through a process of coming out (initially, coming out was the term for revealing one's own sexual orientation but I believe it to be a much broader process relating to any system of self-experience that one tries to hide from oneself and others; in the broadest sense it could mean coming to terms with one's identity and the way it is interrelated with the social world). We think of our "huge" monster as of something to hide from everybody; but in most cases it appears that if we actually have this "huge" monster to come out of the closet we encounter that it is a small, cute, and perhaps a little bit angry boy or girl who is not scary at all; and, in fact, no one actually cares about your little boy or girl because everybody is so much obsessed with their own closeted boys and girls (that they falsely perceive as monsters), some personal problems of their own that are common to everybody, that they simply don't see you and build excessive systems of defense just to avoid the pain of a small girl being left home alone or of a small boy being yelled at by a parent.

We experience this closeted and alienated chunk of experience of ours as something disturbing to us so we do our best to be blind about it and not to see it or hear it or feel it. So any time I attempt to speak about this psychopath issue openly there is a chance that another person would projectively identify with the psychopath in question (even though he or she probably has just a little and harmless neurotic subpersonality) and sense immediate danger of one's own coming out. This results in prematurely shutting down of any kind of such talk and triggering all kinds of avoidance mechanisms.

The difference between a psychopathic personality and a neurotic subpersonality within a more-or-less well-adapted self-system, however, is that while the latter senses its neurotic symptoms as egodystonic (something in my own existence that is dangerous or inappropriate for my sense of self) to the former it doesn't even occur that his or her psychopathy must be cured (the psychopathological—psychopathic—structure is so embedded into the personality system and self-sense that it is completely egosyntonic); and it is actually totally okay for a psychopathic manipulator to stay a psychopathic manipulator for the rest of the life; and for a psychopath there would be no compliance (willingness to be healed) in regard to the core features of his psychopathology. It's as if these individuals say, "My psychopathy is who I am, doctor, don't you even dare to touch it, and I want to stay the way I am; what I'm interested in is why I have this headache and also why I get divorced three times, please help me with that." (But, actually, since psychopaths are so identified with their psychopathology they can't even say that because they are that, the exploiting/manipulative maniacs, and it is what they do for a living; it's not observable for them.)

The mistake that we all do in communicating with psychopaths is that we are so blinded by our little closeted monsters that we do our best not to see somebody who is a real monster and a social predator; and it seems that psychopaths tend to be extremely dexterous at using this blind spot of ours that we so carefully sustain. They are experienced masters of exploiting our weaknesses. When meeting another person we usually think that he or she thinks and feels the same way we do or deny ourselves of doing instead of putting ourselves into his or her shoes and hermeneutically understanding that this other person that we meet is a microcosm of its own. Thus, we tend to simplify other person's behavior and personality while overemphasizing the complexity of our own. Why we do it? One of possible explanations that I can think of is that in order to actually recognize the complexity of other person (not necessarily a psychopath) we have to empathically understand him or her, dialogue with him or her, and cognitively reconstruct his or her experience in our mind-body system; in turn, this could lead to our meeting with some closeted aspects of our own self (the same principle works within Gestalt therapy; and initially there is always resistance to letting go of one's habitual responses, scripts, and patterns which manifests, for instance, as an anxious struggle against doing the Gestalt dialogue and fighting against the therapist or facilitator who offers you to explore such an opportunity).

This seems to be one of the complex reasons why it is so hard for us to address difficult problems openly and honestly and directly. It simply causes anxiety; and we tend to be too serious about our experience, so we resist feeling anxiety and the truth beneath it.

Last point I would like to emphasize about psychopathologies is that they seem to be cross-culturally widespread (even though in different kinds of societies they can take different forms). My examples are not limited just to Russia; the psychopathic S. that I described above actually grew up in a European country; furthermore, this post itself was inspired by a news article saying that Rodney Alcala, an American serial killer and rapist, was "sentenced to death as police fear he could be behind 130 murders." The news article goes on describing this person as extremely smart and charismatic and seemingly socially adapted:

The photographer, who is said to have a genius IQ of 160, often boasted of his winning an episode of the American version of Blind Date. However, the woman who chose him later canceled their date because she found him "too creepy."

I strongly encourage you to read about the crimes he committed and his behavior in the court. See below a footage of his participating in a famous American TV show after he was already a psychopathic serial killer. Look him in the face. It is not necessary for a person with a severe psychopathology to be a murderer, he or she may enjoy pathological lying, emotional or sexual abuse, spoiling or tempting an innocent, and so on.  There are different types of personality disorder. He or she can be more or less dangerous than this particular case (it can be a historical leader figure like Stalin or Hitler whose actions and narcissistic struggle resulted in deaths of millions and karmic consequences for the entire planet).

The striking thing is that they will show no remorse. This is not that rare and far from your life; this could be your neighbor. This is what the real monster in a human flesh looks like (and this is where non-judgmental relativism ends). I am convinced that we have no luxury to continue being blind about difficulties of life and avoiding to take the darkest sides of the Kosmos into the fullest consideration that is only possible. We have to come to terms with difficult aspects of reality and how we can be compassionate even towards these poor souls and yet always keeping in mind the whole picture, including all the evils they do to others.