Level 6—(Green) Pluralist Postmodern

There was still one more, major stage or level of consciousness and culture yet to

emerge at large—level 6—and this was announced with the student revolutions of the

‘60s (starting in May, 1968, Paris), which then spread around the world and eventually

fleshed out movements only barely begun with the Enlightenment, including the

important civil rights movement in America, the massive environmental movement

worldwide, feminism on a personal and professional level, and multiculturalism in

general—in other words, the emergence of… postmodernism. The “post” in

“postmodernism” means that this next higher level, like all successively higher levels,

brought a new and higher perspective into being—where orange rational modernity

introduced a 3rd-person perspective, this new stage—known variously as pluralistic,

postmodern, relativistic, sensitive, individualistic, multicultural (and given the color

green)—came with the emergence of a 4th-person perspective—the capacity to reflect on,

and criticize, 3rd-person perspectives, including science, leading to a multitude of

different or pluralistic views. (And “pluralism”—the belief in many different but equally

important approaches to reality—can be taken to its limit, where it becomes

“relativism”—the belief that there are only multiple approaches, with absolutely no

universal or globally unified approaches—no “Big Pictures” that are true for everybody,

just local, culturally constructed beliefs. Some developmentalists, such as Clare Graves,

call this stage not the “pluralistic” but the “relativistic,” emphasizing this common

characteristic of much of this stage.)

This “pluralistic/relativism” led, among other things, to the whole immensely

influential movement called “deconstruction,” where a higher 4th-person perspective—

not always with the healthiest of motives—reflected on the productions of previous levels

and began criticizing and “deconstructing” them (especially their “universal” claims),

pointing out their major limitations and partialities (namely, according to this view, there

are no real universals, there is only “local knowledge,” and so, according to this stage,

these “universal” claims to know truth for everybody are really just ways to impose one’s

own beliefs and values on others, a real attempt to oppress and dominate. So

postmodernism became especially identified with aggressive critiques of any “isms” or

“Big Pictures” of any type—critiques of capitalism, of Marxism, of fundamentalism,

racism, sexism, patriarchalism, ageism, speciesism, scientism, and so on—and this was

the basis of everything from the civil rights movement to handicapped parking spaces to

hate crime legislation).

In many cases there was a fair amount of truth in their criticisms (all of the

previous levels were, after all, narrower in scope and reach than this latest higher level);

but postmodernism in general tended to be taken to extremes, where it contradicted itself.

It maintained that all truths are culturally constructed; there are no universal truths; there

are no Big Pictures or meta-narratives (such as the one I am giving now); that all

knowledge is context-bound, and contexts are boundless, and thus depend endlessly on

interpretation. The problem is, postmodernism (whose central claim is that all knowledge

is culturally constructed) claims that all of those items I just listed are not mere cultural

constructions or a simple pluralistic interpretation, but are absolutely true for all people,

in all cultures, in all places, at all times. In short, they claim that it is universally true that

there are no universal truths; they give a very Big Picture about why all Big Pictures are

not true; they claim that theirs is a superior view, but they also claim that there are no

superior views anywhere. Oops. So this tendency to self-contradiction has to be watched

in any postmodern movement or idea—including if it shows up in you, as we’ll see.

Most human rights organizations in the West are at this green pluralistic

multicultural stage, or level 6. They believe that all people are absolutely equal—a view

known as “egalitarianism”—and that no culture is superior to another culture. The

majority of non-governmental organizations (called “NGOs”) are at this green stage of

values as well. This is where the common postmodern self-contradiction can come into

play with unfortunate results. The standard NGO, with its postmodern relativistic values,

believes that no culture is superior or better than another; and yet it goes into countries,

where it is working, and assumes that its own values are in some ways better than or

superior to those of the culture it is helping—otherwise, why would it consider what it is

doing as being “help,” if it didn’t have something more valuable to offer than what those

receiving the “help” presently have? Thus many NGOs (with their level-6 values) go to

work in a developing country whose major values are still at tribal red power (level 3) or

traditional mythic fundamentalism (level 4) and attempt to impose their level-6 pluralistic

values on the culture and population, and the whole endeavor backfires badly. (Thus, as

an all-too-common example, imposing green democratic structures on such societies

results simply in the “free election” of the next military dictator). Again, one of the

important discoveries of developmental research is that level-stages of development can

be accelerated but not skipped or bypassed, and so it is literally impossible for a level-3

or -4 entity to move directly to a level-6 entity—any more than you can go from letters

and words to paragraphs and skip sentences. Instead, a series of social and cultural

systems, growing out of the organic background of the developing country itself and not

imposed from the outside, needs to be proposed and put into place, so that there are

stations of life (organizations, institutions, jobs and vocations, educational systems,

governmental branches, and so on), each offering healthy and functional versions of each

of the major stages of consciousness and culture—none of which, remember, can be

skipped. With few exceptions, the “layer cake” of a culture needs to be organically

grown layer by layer by layer in order to take root at all.

In the United States, approximately 40% of the population is at amber traditional

mythic-religious values; about 50% at orange, modern, rational scientific values; and

about 25% at green, pluralistic, postmodern values (that doesn’t add up to 100% because

of much overlap). Those 3 levels are both the 3 most common levels to evolutionarily

emerge, and the 3 most prevalent levels in Western cultures. But so show that these are

merely theoretical speculations but real realities, simply notice that those three major

value sets are exactly what is behind the so-called “Culture Wars” (those three value sets

are the last three major levels of development to emerge in human history, and each is

still fighting for dominance). It is widely agreed that the Culture Wars are a battle

between traditional religious values, modern scientific values, and postmodern

multicultural values—exactly stages 4, 5, and 6. And as long as these 3 value sets are the

major stages that Americans have access to, then these Culture Wars will continue

unabated. And those 3 value sets are fighting each other in every single area of Western

culture—they are fighting in education, in politics, in international policy, in medicine, in

law, in history interpretation, in science and religion—virtually everywhere you look.

These levels of Growing Up—these structures of consciousness—are very real, very

powerful, and very present.

Each of them is a hidden map—and you can’t change a person’s hidden maps

with arguments or data or evidence or proofs—because what the map itself will accept as

data or proof varies from map to map. Religious fundamentalists don’t accept scientific

proofs (of evolution, for example); they accept God’s truth, as revealed in the Bible. And

scientists don’t accept religious so-called “truths,” which they see as childish myths. And

postmodernists accept neither, seeing both as being mere social constructions of equal

unreality. The Culture Wars is one of the easiest ways to see the reality of these

stage-levels of development and their incredibly powerful influence in all areas of our

life. And there will never be harmony in a culture that has these stages fighting with each

other (unless there are yet higher stages that somehow, in offering yet higher wholeness,

offer a way out—a very real possibility which we will examine in just a moment).

For the time being, let’s look at green pluralism or relativism (and start tracking

these qualities to see if any apply to you). First of all, it believes that there is nothing

superior anywhere in the world; what’s true for a particular person is true for that

person—you can’t go in and impose your beliefs on somebody, claiming that you are

right and they are wrong. You have your truth, they have theirs, and that’s it. Likewise,

all ranking, all hierarchies, are strictly taboo. What’s required are partnership societies,

where all people—and especially all men and all women—are looked at equally. Even

excellence and achievement—the hallmarks of the previous modern stage—are looked at

suspiciously by green postmodernism, because that means you are making judgments

about somebody being better or higher or more achieved than somebody else, and that is

nothing but oppression. Meetings are considered a success, not if any conclusion is

reached, but if everybody gets a chance to share their feelings; this tends to take forever,

and few actual actions are taken. All previous approaches to a topic are considered

essentially wrong, driven by oppression or patriarchy or sexism or racism or colonialism

or imperialism, and green pluralism will redo all of this and do it right, based on pure

equality, partnerships, and no ranking or hierarchical judging.

And the new pluralistic approach is not based on abstract rationality or logic, but

is based on feelings and comes straight from the heart, not the head; thinking is out,

feeling is in. The heart is the basis of all important truth, and it must be “embodied”—

anchored in feelings, not thoughts. The notion of “embodiment” is huge for this stage.

All the previous approaches are “old paradigm,” and this new approach is “new

paradigm”—old paradigm is rational, analytic, divisive, Newtonian-Cartesian, egocentric,

Earth-hating and Earth-denying, sexist or patriarchal, racist, colonialist, built on rampant

commercialism and profit/greed; whereas the new paradigm is congruent with the new

physics (meaning quantum physics, which is actually a century old now), is eco-centric

instead of egocentric; is built on partnership, caring, and loving-kindness, is holistic and

organic (not fragmented and mechanistic), is congruent with systems theory; is feminist,

Gaia-focused, Earth-centered, and glocal (meaning global and local) oriented.

Now the first thing you want to do, if you have a good deal of this stage in you, is

pay particular attention to the ways that it contradicts itself. In fact, it has been strongly

attacked by social philosophers for committing what is called a “performative

contradiction”—a big phrase that simply means you are actually doing, in your own

behavior, what you claim either cannot be done at all, or is totally immoral if you do—so

you yourself are actually doing what you say either can’t or shouldn’t be done. We

mentioned earlier that this pluralism or relativism (relativism being a more intense

version of pluralism) maintains that all knowledge is a social construction and based on

interpretation; that science is no more real than poetry because both are interpretations

and are socially constructed; that all meaning is context-bound, which means there are no

universal truths, only locally and culturally situated, socially constructed truths. But this

pluralism believes that every one of those statements is not a mere interpretation or social

construction, but is true for all people at all times in all cultures (thus claiming it is

universally true that there are no universal truths—might as well write 10 volumes

claiming that writing doesn’t exist). And although this pluralism claims that there are no

superior views, and nobody has a right to tell somebody else what is true or not true, it

clearly believes that its view is true and everybody who disagrees with them are wrong;

their view is superior in a world where nothing is supposed to be superior.

So you might watch yourself for when you judge people for judging someone; or

how you get down on people who engage in various sorts of ranking schemes; or feel

uneasy around someone who feels that they have the truth and others don’t. You’ll see in

these cases that you are doing exactly what you are condemning them for doing. You’re

judging them for judging; you’re ranking them for ranking; you feel you have the truth,

not them, when they claim they have the truth. You might say things like, “What’s true

for you is true for you, I wouldn’t dream of imposing on you”—but you strongly disagree

with people who feel differently than that belief—you would in fact like to impose your

view on their view that imposes itself on others. In short, you want to treat all people

equally, but you explicitly or implicitly loathe people who don’t share that view. So you

yourself are doing exactly what you say shouldn’t be done. And the fact is, green says

that it treats all people fairly and sees all people as equal—but it loathes all orange values

(particularly capitalism, business, profit, achievement and the recognition of excellence),

and loathes all amber values, and it loathes all integral values, and so on.

So, to begin with, watch the ways in which you judge when you judge people for

making judgments. You will usually feel that you are free of nasty judgments, but all

those other people are massively guilty of it—whereas that belief itself is a judgment, a

ranking, a hierarchy. So begin your mindfulness sessions by holding the very act of

negative judgment in your awareness. Pick some particular example of when you judge

somebody negatively, and hold that situation—of your judging that person—firmly in

mind. For example, what is it like when you judge somebody negatively for being a

racist? Feel that judging activity as deeply as you can; videotape it from every possible

angle. Bring pure Witnessing to that feeling. (Now notice—that judgment might in fact

be a true, universally valid judgment—which I believe, in this case, that it is—but if you

allow that universally valid moral judgments are possible, then you are not contradicting

yourself—and, you are not a postmodern pluralist, either, who denies all universal

judgments. So you might be either—totally correct, or involved in a performative

contradiction, depending on what you actually think about universal judgments. But,

because the pluralistic stage is involved in many of the judgments we make—correctly,

or contradictorily—we want to be aware of judgments in any case: those are subjects we

want to make object. So let’s proceed with Integral mindfulness on that area—making

judgments, starting with negative judgments: judging somebody for being intolerant,

racist, sexist, and so on. Pick one, and let’s proceed….)

So what exactly does negative judgment feel like? What does looking down on

somebody look like? What does it smell like? What color is it? Where is it located

(head, heart, gut, elsewhere)? What are the characteristics of this person that you

especially judge negatively? What is it about those characteristics that trigger this hidden

judgment in you? You don’t have to do anything about these judgments—just hold them

in the space of feeling-awareness and see them clearly as objects.

Remember to alternate sessions of mindfully videotaping judgment with sessions

of resting in limitless, unbounded Awareness, your ever-present I AMness. Notice that

limitless, unbounded Awareness, with its radical Love, has a background of pure,

absolute All-Acceptance: “I the Lord make the Light to fall on the good and the back

alike; I the Lord [or pure I AMness] do all these things.” The worldcentric acceptance

and nonjudmentalism that the pluralistic level at its best at least attempts to embrace is

once again a quality moving closer to infinite Acceptance, infinite Nonjudmentalism,

infinite Mirror-Mind, infinite Love-Acceptance. It’s just that, still bound to the self-

contraction and the separate-self sense, it doesn’t quite get there fully, and so it ends up in

contradictory confusions where it claims to accept everything but actually judges quite a

few things. So just start by being aware of this limited and narrow judgmentalism—

make that the focus of your Integral Mindfulness, and then alternative that with resting in

pure, limitless, unbounded Awareness with its infinite and all-pervasive Love-

Acceptance and radical Nonjudmentalism.

Now, shift the nature of judging just a little bit. Look at the things that you do

judge—once you recognize how widespread your judging is—and see if there are areas

that the judgment could actually be considered to be a good thing, or to be founded on

truly legitimate reasons (and this is especially important if you are actually coming from

this stage—this will be looking at judgments that might be universally correct, even

though, if you are at this stage, you will doubt that such things exist. So if you do doubt

universal judgments really exist, then definitely continue with this exercise…).

According to green postmodernism, there aren’t any universally valid judgments or

valus—all ranking judgments are bad. But again, that itself is a ranking judgment—it

ranks nonranking as higher and better than ranking—and that itself is a major ranking.

So once you see that ranking is unavoidable—and that is why you were doing so much of

it, even when you claimed you weren’t—let’s look at what the basis of some good

guidelines for ranking might be.

Now, this is tricky, because each level will have some quite different answers to

this. So let’s even go with the major values of this level—the postmodern pluralistic,

level 6—and see when ranking would actually be considered not only okay, but

recommended, something to be encouraged, according to this level’s own values.

This level values equality above almost everything else. So let’s just notice that

not all levels share this view. In fact, none of them do. Red power divides the world into

predators and prey, and favors those things that help only itself, as predator, and nobody

else; absolutely zero equality here. Amber fundamentalism divides the world into the

saved and the damned, saints and sinners, and values only those who accept the correct

savior; all others are infidels, bound to burn eternally in hell; only true believers are

equal. And orange divides the world into winners and losers, and values

accomplishment, merit, and excellence above all others—none of this equality stuff.

Only green values equality, and sees all people as being essential equal or egalitarian.

So let’s further notice that that level is itself just that—a developmental level. It’s

stage-6 in an overall developmental scheme. So the first judgment you can make based

on these stage-6 values is that that vertical development—from archaic to magic to power

to mythic to rational to pluralistic—that development is much better than not having that

development. In other words, those lower levels can be ranked and judged accordingly as

being less valuable than this stage, level 6, because only this level believes in equality,

and this level requires development. And the reason is that, as we have seen, each level

of development is characterized by an increase in wholeness—each level has an identity

that gets larger and larger, more inclusive and more inclusive—and you will treat people

morally only if you identify with them. So red power treats only itself morally; amber

ethnocentric treats all its religious brothers and sisters morally, but not all infidels.

Orange modern expands rights to all humans, and begins to treat all humans fairly and

morally, but notices that some people share this view, and some don’t, so it begins to

judge people on how tolerant they are, or are not. And green pluralism takes this to its

ultimate limit, where it goes overboard and claims to treat all people equally whether they

treat others that way or not; whereas it should say, based on its own values, that anything

that helps a person get to this stage—where they can wish to treat people equally—is

good; not reaching this stage of wholeness, and thus not treating all people fairly, is bad,

is wrong, is less good. And that’s a truth that holds across the developmental spectrum—

namely, each level is adequate and good for its circumstances, but each higher level is

“more adequate” and thus in some ways “better”—increasingly more inclusive, more

embracing, more whole, more compassionate, more moral, and more loving. And

virtually every developmental test we have proves this out, showing that the capacity for

love, consciousness, care, creativity, morality, compassion, and solidarity increases and

becomes measurably greater with each stage of development. This is evolution in action;

this Eros showing its true colors.

So take Carol Gilligan’s stages of female moral development. Gilligan became

famous, in her book In a Different Voice, for suggesting that men and women reason

differently—men with an emphasis on hierarchy and autonomy, and women with an

emphasis on relationship and belonging. Feminists jumped on the fact that because all

hierarchies are allegedly bad, and men—not women—think hierarchically, then men (and

the patriarchy) are to blame for most of humanity’s ills. But Gilligan made a second

point in that book, which was studiously ignored by feminists and postmodernists in

general. Namely, both men and women develop through the same 4 basic hierarchical

stages (her term). In women, Gilligan named these hierarchical levels: stage 1, or

selfish—the woman cares only for herself (this is our egocentric); stage 2, or care—the

woman extends care from only herself to groups (our ethnocentric); stage 3, or universal

care—the woman extends care to all humans, regardless of race, color, sex, or creed (our

worldcentric); and stage 4, which she called integrated—where women and men integrate

the other sex’s attitude (our integral). So women might indeed tend to think

non-hierarchically, but women’s non-hierarchical thinking itself develops through 4

hierarchical stages. This simple fact, feminists (and postmodernists) still haven’t

grasped.

But it does mean that we can’t just say that what Western cultures under

patriarchy need are more feminine values—which is quite common to hear nowadays—

because clearly we don’t need the first two stages of feminine values—we do not need

more selfish/narcissistic and sexist/racist thinking—which are the first two (and largest

set) of feminine values. Even according to these theorists—including feminists—those

values are killing us. The higher stages of development (Gilligan’s stages 3 and 4) are

not “equally good,” they are better—they have more wholeness, are more inclusive, and

therefore are more moral, more caring, more loving, more valuable (and less oppressive,

less dominating). We need the feminine values from the higher stages—from

worldcentric and integral (as well as masculine values from the same higher stages as

well, it might be noted). That is a judgment that is true and good, and more people

should begin thinking that way, because more people will be treated better the more that

happens.

So be careful when you think that you are not being judgmental, when in fact you

are. And then look at the type of judgments you make, and try to base them on these

well-tested developmental facts. So we can say that each developmental level is good;

but each higher level is “more good”—more inclusive, more whole, more conscious,

more moral, more caring (and research consistently shows exactly that; of course, higher

stages also introduce their own new problems, which can only be defused at yet higher

stages—but that’s just the nature of an ongoing evolutionary complexity). And if there

are levels higher than level 6, then those levels would be even more “more good,” more

valuable—and there are.

Before we get to those, notice that all of this points out an important fact, almost

always overlooked by postmodern pluralism. There are two types of hierarchies, not just

one. There are dominator hierarchies, and there are growth hierarchies. Dominator

hierarchies are indeed nasty (oppressive and dominating)—things like the caste system,

or hierarchies in criminal organizations (where the higher the level you are, the more

people you can dominate and oppress). But growth hierarchies are exactly the opposite—

the higher the level, the more inclusive, the more caring, the more loving and embracing

(the less dominating and less oppressing) you are. All of the developmental models we

are talking about here (including the 6-to-8 stages of Growing Up in general) are growth

hierarchies, just like Carol Gilligan’s. In fact, most hierarchies in nature are growth

hierarchies—like the central atoms to molecules to cells to organisms—each of those

levels “transcends and includes” its predecessor, so it becomes more and more whole,

more and more inclusive, more and more embracing. And higher levels don’t oppress

lower levels, they embrace them, they enfold them. Molecules don’t hate atoms, or

oppress atoms, or dominate atoms—they include them, they embrace them, if anything,

they love them. So keep that in mind about the growth hierarchies that we are discussing.

And this will be particularly hard if you are basically pluralistic stage 6, because stage 6

inherently loathes and distrusts all hierarchies, without really realizing what it’s doing.

It’s part of its “performative contradiction”—it puts hierarchy on the lowest level of its

hierarchy.

So if you spot this stage-6 hidden map in yourself, using this Integral overview,

then put it under the bright light of mindfulness, and videotape it from all possible angles.

What you want to be aware of, to apply mindfulness to, is the simple attitude of

judgment—it can be negative judgment, or positive judgment, the point is simply to

videotape the very act, the very feeling , of judging, of thinking or feeling that this is

better than that. Now the point we just made is that in some cases, at least in the relative

manifest world, sometimes one thing is better than another, and that’s fine. But what we

want to do here, with this mindfulness session, is “transcend and include” all judgment—

so that means, for the “transcend” part, we will want to be letting go of judgment itself

altogether (and “include” it by simply being directly aware of it)—but no identifying with

it, condemning it, being one with it, negating it or condoning it—just videotaping it, just

applying feeling-awareness to this extraordinary activity of judging. This is BETTER

than this… just exactly WHAT does that feel like? Where is it located? What color is it,

what shape is it, what does it look like, what does it smell like, what does it feel like?

Get this judging attitude firmly in awareness, and then simply videotape it, fully,

completely, carefully.

Then, as we briefly mentioned already, alternate this focus on finite

judgement-making with limitless, unbounded Awareness, with pure, ever-present,

radically Loving and infinitely Accepting (Nonjudging) I AMness. There has been much

confusion in New-Age movements about nonjudgmental Awareness. The idea, taken

mainly from Eastern traditions, is that our Awareness should have no judging at all. But

this thoroughly confuses what the Traditions call relative and ultimate Truth. Relative

truth is something like, “Water is composed of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oygen atom”—

that is a relative truth, and relative truths are important. But with regard to ultimate

Truth, water is not made of hydrogen and oxygen, it is made of Spirit—of Brahman, of

the Tao, of Godhead, of Ein Sof, of the One. And in relative truth, there are good

judgments and bad judgments—in relative truth, worldcentric moral judgements are

better that ethnocentric moral judgments. Those judgments are NOT supposed to be

denied or pushed out of awareness or suspended. Running around with a non-judgmental

relative awareness is to be crippled in the truths of this manifest, relative world. That is

NOT what the wisdom Traditions mean by non-judgmental awareness.

But alongside relative truths are ultimate truths—and ultimate truths are

ultimately nondual or not-two or beyond all judgments altogether—beyond good and

evil, beyond pleasure and pain, beyond happy and sad. Metaphorically ultimate Truth is

sometimes referred to with terms like radical Love or Beauty or Goodness or

Consciousness or the Ground of All Being—but ultimately those are just concepts; and

all concepts make sense only in terms of their opposites—good versus evil, life versus

death, enlightened versus ignorant, and so on—but ultimate Reality has no opposite.

Being radically all-inclusive, no concepts and thus no judgments at all correctly refer to

it.

So as you move from attention to relative judgments—whether positive or

negative—to resting in ultimate Awareness, notice that ultimate Awareness, being

limitless and unbounded, draws no boundaries at all—no inside versus outside, no past

versus future, not good versus bad, no up versus down—just pure Isness, pure Thusness,

pure Suchness free of all concepts, feelings, notions, or ideas at all. The Christians call

this the “cloud of unknowing” and the anaphatic path of Waking Up; Zen calls it “don’t

know mind”; for Vedanta, it is nirguna Brahman—ultimate unqualifiable Spirit; for

Buddhism, it is the core notion of Emptiness—ultimate Spirit can be referred to neither

as “A,” nor “not A,” nor both, nor neither.

As our final finite characteristic of stage-6, we’ll use inclusiveness. The

pluralistic level prides itself on its inclusiveness, or its “nonmarginalizing.” In a positive

sense, this was behind everything from the civil rights movement to feminism to the

environmental movement. And inclusiveness is another quality that is demonstrating a

movement closer and closer to ultimate Truth, as we have seen with relative love,

acceptance, and moral judgments.

So after resting in pure Witnessing and centering there, focus on your own sense

of identity—get a strong, deep sense of the feeling of being identified with someone or

something—how your own ultimate I AMness becomes identifies with a relative I AM

this or I AM that—what is that identification movement? And then imagine it expanding

to your include your family; then your circle of friends; then your colleague and business

associates; then everybody in your state; then in your nation; then in the entire global

village. Feel the deep solidarity expand and expand and expand. FEEL that expansion.

So this continual expansion of self-identity—from egocentric to ethnocentric to

worldcentric to Kosmocentric—represents the ongoing movement of evolution itself in

the manifest realm, in the manifest universe, which, as we’ve seen, is driven by a

constant Eros of “transcend and include,” “transcend and include,” so that each level or

stage of evolution becomes more and more whole, more and more unified, more and

more loving and caring and moral and accepting. And simultaneously, behind all of that,

is the pure and unchanging Self, the pure Witness, which is pure limitless, unbounded

Awareness, and is identified with absolutely nothing in the entire manifest world—rather,

as we’ve seen, it is radically Free of all things, events, objects, persons, and occasions—it

is net, neti. But as evolution continues, and the relative self’s identity becomes larger and

larger and larger, there comes a point in the Waking Up process (which, remember, is

occurring along with our exercises in Growing Up, because we are alternating focusing

on the finite limited stages of Growing Up with the limitless, unbounded State of pure

Awareness)—and in that process of the relative self’s increasing identity, there comes a

point in Waking Up where the Witness itself completely vanishes and becomes one with

absolutely everything that is arising in its Field of Awareness. That is pure unity

consciousness—the 5th state of consciousness, which is beyond even the 4th State, the

state of Turiya or the Witness). So in one of the upcoming sessions—very soon now—

we will finish the Waking Up process by directly experiencing this nondual unity

consciousness, this pure One Taste where the entire universe arises within you, as you—

your ultimate and truest Condition.

Right now, with pluralistic stage-6, there is another direct move to become more

and more inclusive—pulled by that allure of the One Taste of pure unity consciousness.

But the pluralistic stage is still just a partial movement in that direction, so it end up not

really liking any of the previous stages—it loathes orange profit, capitalism, and business

in general; it despises amber fundamentalism and its belief in its one true way; it even

spurns the levels higher than itself, and vocally condemns them.

So as you bring Witnessing to bear on this fundamental process of inclusion—

what it really feels like, looks like, where it’s located, and so on—notice that it is always

limited—it is always identified with this but not with that; it likes this, but loathes that;

it’s glad to identify with this, but wouldn’t touch that. Notice that that is what your own

identity process is doing—really feel that boundary between you and not-you. And then

alternate that identity awareness with resting in limitless, unbounded Awareness, in your

own pure, radically Free I AMness, which remains completely Free from any identity at

all. This is the formless Ground of All Being, and it will always remain formless, empty,

open, clear, an infinite Abyss of radical infinity, identified with absolutely nothing.

But this pure Emptiness, this pure formlessness, this ever-present, clear,

luminous, open I AMness and its radical Freedom (it’s perfect non-identity or neti neti) is

occurring right alongside the ever-expanding, ever-more-inclusive,

ever-more-comprehensive course of evolution itself, until these two currents come

crashing together, the Witness itself disappears into all that is witnessed and becomes

radically one with it, and ultimate unity consciousness announces itself. We are coming

closer and closer to that radical event, and we will finish our exploration of Waking Up

by doing some exercises that will introduce you directly to this One Taste, to this ultimate

unity consciousness, as this part of the developmental path continues its course straight to

God.

So until we meet again, on day-one of this practice period, focus on level 5—on

excellence, achievement, and moral judgments; and alternate that with resting in pure

limitless, unbounded Awareness, noticing the difference (finite, narrow, and restricted

versus infinite, limitless, and unbounded). Then on day-two of this overall session, focus

on level 6—and it characteristics of judgment—both negative judgment and positive

judgment—equality; and inclusion—alternating that with resting in pure limitless,

unbounded Awareness, and the eternally free and radically non-identified True Self or

pure I AMness, noticing how you must surrender the infinite Freedom of the True Self in

order to identify with a limited identity of self-contraction. Then back to day-one

exercises, and so on until we meet again.

So until then, Godspeed and good luck. This is Ken.