Stan V. McDaniel- Models of Development in Esoteric and Western Thought: A Brief Summary

8/3/2019 Stan V. McDaniel- Models of Development in Esoteric and Western Thought: A Brief Summary

1/23

MODELS OF DEVELOPMENT IN ESOTERIC

AND WESTERN THOUGHT: A BRIEF SUMMARY

Stan V. McDaniel

1. Background

Over the period 1970-1985, I engaged in an intensive study of models of development found in eastern

and esoteric religio-philosophical thought and at the same time, in the texts of several western thinkers

including Aristotle, Kant, W. V. Quine, Pierre Teilhard (de Chardin) and John Dewey. I found that these

systems rely to a greater or lesser degree upon a common paradigm of organization with respect to differing

sets of contents. In eastern and esoteric doctrines the development is that of the spirit; in western

philosophical systems it is the development of consciousness from organic life, or mind from matter.

A common trait of such systems is that the logical orformal structure being utilized is never articulated

or consciously acknowledged as such. The focus is not on the logic but on the system-specific contents being

arranged according to that logic. Various metaphorical expressions, and particularly in the eastern or esoteric

systems, symbolic diagrams, are used to represent the relationships between the contents of each system. In

order to reveal the common underlying logic, it is necessary to adopt a perspective independent of the

physical, biological or metaphysical claims about the specific contents of a system and instead to stand back

and look at the system from a more objective standpoint. This requires detailed analysis and comparison

of such materials with regard only to the logic of their relationships within the system.1

In eastern and esoteric doctrines the similarities between systems are sometimes cited as a kind of

proof that they all represent a common reality. A step I have taken is to discount this questionable thesis

and treat the underlying organizational paradigm from a purely descriptive viewpoint. But because therelevant texts represent a time span of millennia and are cross-cultural, and because the use of the implicit

formal structure is unconscious, some sort of archetypal impulse may be involved. This possibility raises

curious questions about psychology and its possible relation to cosmology.

This paper summarizes the essential logical structure, followed by a brief speculation on its possible

cosmological, psychological and physical suggestiveness. The model may be expressed discursively, as a

set of rules or parameters, and also diagrammatically. Diagrammatic representation assists in making

comparisons between systems. Diagrams involving specific content, in frequent use in eastern and esoteric

systems, help in understanding the role of metaphorical expressions used in such texts. Below I list ten

discursive requirements along with five diagrams that together express the essential features of the logic.

The logic itself is content-free except for a few very general characteristics. No effort is being made to

explain the model or to account for any of its peculiarities. The procedure here is descriptive, notexplanatory.

In the system put forth by John Dewey the chief aim is to explicate continuity of development over

time. The term frequently used to characterize this philosophy is that it emphasizes transaction rather than

interaction; that is to say, it is a transactional philosophy. Accordingly, and strictly for convenience in

naming, I refer to the logical system as the transactional model of development. The five diagrams used to

express this model in a visual way I call the five schemata of the transactional model.


2/23

2

2. The Transactional Model

Schema One: The first diagram comprehends the first five of the ten parameters.

1. A group offunctions is arranged in asequence of stages.

2. Later stages in the sequence are said todevelop out ofearlier ones.

3. Early stages in the sequence are generallyconcrete (physically, biologically, etc.)4. Later stages in the sequence are generallyabstract (mentally, spiritually, etc.)

5. The developmental sequence moves from lesser to greatercomplexity.

The stages of development are termed functions.2 They are located at the small arrow-points. The

number of functions is variable. COSMOS refers to the universe of discourse, or the region of interest

covered by the content subject matter, whatever that may be in one or another system. The tree-like diagram

above the arrow of development does not represent any hierarchy but is simply an organizational aid whichclassifies the various functions that lie along the line of development. The first defining function is the initial

action of the dynamic of development, acting on the primitive or elementary function and continuing

throughout the sequence. TELOSdoes not refer to some idealized goal or aim, but rather to the organizing

factor, or rule, underlying the entire system of development. In other words, what we have is a diagram

expressing a series of functions developing over time according to a rule.


3/23

3

Schema Two: The second diagram expresses the parameters that have to do with hierarchy. The

corresponding discursive points are:

6. Hierarchy is expressed as levels, earlier stages being lower and later stages higher.

7. No stage is abandoned in the process of development, but is retained in such a way that the functional

characteristics of all the stages are potentially available simultaneously in the maturity of the sequence.

Requirement (7) is represented diagrammatically by the continuation of the central line representing

the Primitive Function from the bottom to the top of the hierarchy, and by the similar continuation of each

successive stage. The first defining function embodies the telos of the system and as such bears a special

relation to the complexifying functions (this is made explicit in Schema 4).


4/23

4

Schema Three: The third schema represents the functional complementarity that must hold among

the successively developing stages. The discursive requirement is:

8. The resultant contemporaneous set of capacities is a functionally complementary set.

Functional complementarity is represented by distributing complementary functions around a circle,

such that the common center indicates a coherent and simultaneous functional relationship. Additionally the

structural (primitive/complexifying) and dynamic functions (defining/culminating) are placed as polar oppo-

sites united by their common relation to the center. Roughly the vertical polarity may be seen as

unity/diversity and the horizontal polarity as initiation/completion. This schema is already presaged by the

second schema at its highest level, where all the sequential functions are clustered together.

Schema Four: The discursive requirement for the fourth schema is:

9. The unique functional character of any particular stage bears a special relation to the unique

functional character of any (and all) of the other stages. This relation is based on an assertion of analogy,

and will be termed theAnalogy of Patterning among functions.


5/23

5

The Analogy of Patterningserves also as the principle of complementarity, or unity, of the set. In

Diagram 4 the analogical relationship is expressed by means of the crosses which characterize the individual

functions as well as the whole. This schema represents in essence a unification of serial organization in the

resultant system with structural (hierarchical) organization by means of a rule expressed as theAnalogy ofPatterning. This phrase is chosen because a relationship of pattern is often how the analogy is expressed

in various texts. However the analogy is not one of static form, but one of dynamics or process, i.e. the

dynamic of development (see Schema 1). The first defining function is the initial expression of this process,

while the telos of the system is its governing directionality, or rule. This crucial element in the transactional

model of development will be discussed in detail after presenting the fifth schema.3

Schema Five: The discursive requirement for the fifth schema is the following.

10. The governing dynamic that drives the resulting developmental system and serves as its

organizing rule is an open teleology (purposive, but without final closure).

In the vast majority of such systems (there are very few exceptions) the process of development is left

open-ended, i.e. to continue ad infinitum, or to reach a condition of infinite potential. Because of this, the

telos of a system is not deterministic but is always open to the possibility of adaptation.


6/23

6

The image I have chosen for the fifth schema is less geometrically formal than those for the previous

schemata. The reasons for this are outlined in the subsequent text.

The symbolism of the arrow and the drawn bow as a catapult to liberation, or freedom, appears

explicitly in this passage from the Upanishad: Having taken as a bow the great weapon of the secretteaching, one should fix in it the arrow sharpened by constant meditation...The OM is the bow; the arrow

is the self; Brahman is said to be the mark. Here the OM is associated with liberation either as a means

to it, or as a symbol of its attainment, leading to the experience of the infinite within us. 4

In western systems one finds passages like the following from Pierre Teilhard, which likewise express

the intent of the fifth Schema:

Is not the end and aim of thought that still unimaginable farthest limit of a convergent sequence,

propagating itself without end and ever higher? Does not the end or confine of thought consist

precisely in not having a confine?... Every increase of internal vision is essentially the germ of

a further vision that includes all the others and carries still farther on. 5

The final sentence is also an expression of Schema 2. Each increase of internal vision corresponds

to a complexifying stage in the developmental sequence which, as the schema indicates, includes all the

others and carries still farther on. The phrase includes all the others expresses requirement 7 of Schema

2. A more detailed discussion of the choice of the arrow and drawn bow to represent the fifth schema will

be found in the section below.


7/23

7

3. The Analogy of Patterning

In schema 4 the analogical relationship is represented by crosses. The cross is not chosen arbitrarily.

It is one of the two main ways that the relationship asserted by such systems takes diagrammatic form. The

other most common diagrammatic representation of the analogy of patterning is the triangle. The analogy

is not about similarity of form, but rather an assertion of a very specific kind of energetic process. It is the

process ofsynthesis, or reconciliation of opposites. Because this is the central dynamic of any transactionalsystem of development, the transactional model is fundamentally non-dualistic.

In western philosophical texts, appeal to diagrams is rarely found. Instead, synthesis as the guiding

analogy is expressed discursively and in the form of various metaphors. On the other hand, in an esoteric

system such as that set out by Mouni Sadhu in his detailed analysis of the esoteric Tarot, triangular diagrams

of synthesis, like that of Fig. 1 below are ubiquitous.6

Opposites, represented by Hebrew letters in this system, are characterized in numerous ways: as male

and female, as positive and negative and so on. In each diagram the central item is the result of the

reconciliation of the two opposites, a new term that transcends the divided status of the original pair. The

third thing is the agent of reconciliation.

Examples of similar triangles of synthesis, represented in their respective texts discursively rather than

diagrammatically, are the following taken from works by Aristotle and Dewey (Figs. 2 & 3). 7

Figure 1. Kabbalistic Triangle

Figure 3

Deweyan TriangleFigure 2

Aristotelian Triangle


8/23

8

These diagrams are equally images ofsynthesis, with differing contents reflecting the specific set of

contents referenced in each system. Diagram 6 below shows the full extent of the Aristotle and Dewey-

Bentley systems relativized to Schema 2 and showing the dynamic factor at different levels.

Although there is a rough (but reasonable) similarity in these two cases between the two different sets

of functions, there is no necessity that they should be considered as expressing the same thing. It is the

logic of the arrangement as revealed in the texts, not the contents, that is our focus.

Note the situation of thefirst defining function in each case. For Aristotle, it is the faculty of nutrition

which as a process extends analogically upward through the levels as a reconciliation of like with

unlike at each level. The situation is strictly similar in the Dewey-Bentley case, where sign-process is

the first defining function and is a reconciliation of settled and unsettled situations by means of activities


9/23

9

of inquiry (search and exploration at increasingly complex levels).

As symbols of synthesis, the triangle includes a central or fourth factor which represents a move

beyondthe dualistic state in which the opposites are separate. In esoteric symbolism various forms are found

such as those below. I have adopted the convention of placing the third or dynamic factor at the top of the

triangle, with the opposites at each side.

Fig. 5 to the right is an analysis in

diagram form of the corresponding text in

Teilhard, illustrating the symbolic idea of

the fourth factor by the addition of an

arrow, as in the lower right of Fig. 4. This

representation of synthesis (triangle with an

arrow) is the additional basis on which the

image of the arrow and drawn bow has been

chosen to represent Schema 5, the Schema

of Adaptation.8

Figure 4

Various representations

of synthesis

Figure 5

Teilhardian Triangle of Synthesis


10/23

10

The triangle of synthesis, as a symbol, embodies the idea of qualitative change, adaptation, creativity

and liberation. Especially important in the selection of the bow-and-arrow image for Schema 5 is the fact

that the drawn bow expresses dynamic tension or potential force, which is coordinate with the active

character of the first defining function. With these ideas in mind, a triangle of synthesis (Fig. 6) may be

drawn in relation to Schema 3 and Schema 5.

Because there are four factors in these representations of synthesis,

an alternative diagrammatic form is the cross (Fig. 7). This is the reason

for the use of crosses to represent the Analogy of Patterning in the case

of Schema 4. In the configuration of Schema 4 the central cross

corresponds to the fourfold up-down right-left arrangement shown in the

diagram of complementarity (Schema 3). For example, in Schema 3 the

culminating function is on the right, corresponding to the position and

symbolic meaning of the number 4 in Fig. 7. Because of this diagram-

matic relation between the cross and the triangle as representations of

synthesis, the Schema of Analogy may also be represented using

triangles, as shown on the following page (Fig. 8). In this case the fourth

factor is understood to occupy the centers of the triangles.

Figure 6

Schema 3 as Triangle

Figure 7

Cross Representation of Synthesis


11/23

11

In esoteric treatises and in eastern religio-philosophical

traditions, variations of Schema 4 and Figure 8 can be seenrepeatedly, using both geometric forms and representations

using other symbolic images to represent a dynamic relation

of opposites . These are termed mandalas. In western trans-

actional thought, the same logic is regularly used but without

distillation of the underlying concept in diagrammatic or

fanciful symbolic form.

For example, in Kants Critique of Pure Reason we

find the list of four categories of pure reason, each of which

has a triple expression. This appears in his Table of

Categories. The Kantian structure below matches that of the

alternative view of Schema 4 shown in Figure 8. Here weencounter the contents specific to the Kantian system.9

Of Quality

Reality

Negation

Limitation

Of Relation

Inherence & Subsistence

Causality & Dependence

Community (Reciprocity)

Of Modality

Possibility Impossibility

Existence Non-existence

Necessity Contingency

Of QuantityUnity

Plurality

Totality

Kants Table of Categories

Figure 8

Alternative Schema 4


12/23

12

Regarding the triple (i.e. triangular) structure attending

each category, Kant makes the following comment: For the

combination of the first and second concepts, in order that

the third may be produced, requires a special act of the

understanding. That act is synthesis, which is for Kant the

fundamental creative act of the understanding. Thus in the

Kantian case, the third listed factor is actually the fourth,which is the result of the creative act, as illustrated in Fig. 9.

Kant is dealing only with questions regarding the

possibility of knowledge in a pre-existing conscious knowing

self having the capacity for understanding and judgement.

Because his work is pre-Darwin, concerns regarding a

possible developmental origin of consciousness are not

present. For similar reasons Kant is not here concerned with

issues of biology or any relation between the continuity of

animal behavior and the continuity of human consciousness. Thus although there are non-dualistic and

transactional aspects to Kants construction, the developmental schemata (schema 1 and 2) do not appear

in any obvious way in Kant. One of the rare cases in western texts where diagrams occur showing theunconscious influence of the transactional logic of development is to be found in the theoretical edifice set

forth by biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Among the few diagrams he uses to illustrate this concept is that shown

at the left in Fig. 10 below.

Figure 9

Kantian Synthesis,

Category of Quantity


13/23

13

Sheldrake refers to his position regarding the development of organic forms as organismic and states

that according to the organismic theory, systems or organisms are hierarchically arranged at all levels of

complexity.10 On the right of the figure is an analysis in terms of the underlying logic involving the Analogy

of Patterning. This figure should be compared with Diagrams 2, 6, 4 and Fig. 8 above.

Sheldrake represents the analogous relation between the levels of complexity by a triangular pattern

(three circles arranged as triangles), but this is evidently an unconscious choice. Sheldrake calls each

successive structure a morphic unit Any morphic unit may serve as a morphogenetic germ around whicha more complex unit may form. Each more complex unit is related to the morphogenetic germ by similarity

of form, i.e. by analogy of pattern. However for Sheldrake, forms are analogous because of their structure,

not because of a common dynamic. Using the formal transactional model as a standard, we would say that

on this basis Sheldrakes construction fails to conform to the model. Nevertheless, Sheldrakes

morphogenetic germ for any given developmental series serves approximately as afirst defining function

and his model invokes increase in complexity combined with association by analogy.

4. Possible Cosmological Implications

In general, the transactional model of development as it occurs over historical time and across cultures

tends to be occupied with describing the relation between matter, consciousness, and spirit. That is to say,it often takes the form of a cosmological thesis relating the physical universe to the universe of mind. An

example of this is to be found in the doctrine of the evolution of spirit from matter in relation to Akasha,

Space, as shown in this transactional analysis (Diagram 7).11


14/23

14

In this cosmological system the role of the first defining function is the initial manifestation ofprana

or universal rhythm also translated as breath. This is the originating dynamic of development, parallel

to the concept of soul (anima = breath) in Aristotles system. Here the progressive syntheses are represented

as the movement of psychic energy or kundalini, through the functions by reconciliation of opposing

channels by means of a third (sushumna). Diagram 8 below shows the same system under Schema 2.


15/23

15

The evolving functions in Diagrams 7 and 8 are the chakras, or psychic centers. The diagrams also

relate the chakra sequence to the sequence of skandhas, or five aggregates of consciousness, and the

elements associated with them in this system of symbolism.12 In Diagram 8, we see the triangles of synthesis

where the opposing channels of energy are symbolically represented as solar and lunar. The geometric

symbols on the right side are associated with each element but are not images of synthesis. However the

triangles of synthesis are implicate in this sequence also: not shown are the yab-yum (male-female embrace)

images of synthesis that are associated in this system with each of the meditation buddhas named there(Aksobhya, Ratna-Sambhava, etc.).

It is of considerable interest now to compare this eastern cosmological system with the developmental

system of Teilhard. The governing ideas of the Teilhardian concept include the following: All energy in the

universe is ultimately psychic energy. This fundamental energy has two aspects, tangential and radial.

These two aspects of energy refer respectively to the without which is the subject of study by the physical

sciences, and the within which represents the various manifestations of consciousness at all levels of

existence. The fundamental category of psychic energy is an energy in which consciousness and matter

are undifferentiated.13 (See also Fig. 5.) Diagram 9 is an analysis of the Teilhardian system in terms of

Schema 1.

Teilhards radial energy is defined as the energy of centreity, that is, energy that draws material

complexity toward a center or unification of form and action. The ideas of functional relationship and telic

organization are embodied in this concept. Drawing toward a center is quite clearly comparable to

synthesis, where the fourth factor is the unified result corresponding to the within. In the Akasha

diagram, the corresponding factor is that ofprana, having its first manifestation in the muladhara (root)

chakra, whose principle of energy is the triangle of synthesis as shown in Diagram 8.

At the level of the first defining function, under the influence of radial energy, Teilhard most

remarkably places the force of gravity.14 The very provocative suggestion is that gravitational force is the


16/23

16

first form of synthesis and the originating dynamic of evolutionary development. In Diagrams 7 and 8 the

sequence of functions begins later than that in Diagram 9. The position of the muladhara chakra would

correspond more closely to that of the Biosphere in the Teilhard system. If physics were to accomplish the

long-sought for ideal of a unified field theory in which gravitational force is unified with the other three

forces of the universe (strong, weak and electromagnetic), the implication would be that the unified forces

embody both radial and tangential energy, and are therefore initiating factors of synthesis leading eventuallyto the evolution of life and mind.15

5. Synthesis, Continuity and Teleology

Synthesis, by its very definition, is an absolute denial of any form of substance-dualism. It follows,

then, that the initiating and governing dynamic of any non-dualistic developmental system is synthesis, or

unification of opposites. Images of synthesis (e.g. by triangle, cross, metaphor, and explicit discourse) are

a constant factor in the transactional model of development regardless of the differing contents arranged

according to the model in this or that philosophical system. This identifies the model as fundamentally non-

dualistic. That this is a common trait of certain western, eastern and esoteric systems has been shown in

previous research.16What is left to consider is whether, because the logic underlying this model appears to derive from

some archetypal influence emerging in the psyches of various individuals and cultures over millennia, there

may be a veridical component. A detailed discussion of this possibility is not to be attempted in this sum-

mary paper but I will conclude with a few hopefully relevant observations.

A key factor in the logic of the developmental model is that of continuity. The functions which follow

one another in a time-series (Schema 1) do not disappear into the past one after another as the series

progresses, but are retained in such a way that the functional characteristics of all the stages are potentially

available simultaneously in the maturity of the sequence. (Schemata 2 & 3). According to the model, what

accomplishes this association, which is temporal continuity, is a process: the process of synthesis as

expressed by the analogy of patterning (Schema 4).

The developmental model therefore asserts a time-conception differentfrom the concept of time as a series of discrete moments, following each of

which all preceding moments are lost in the past. It is suggestive of a post-

Darwinian concept of biological time, in contrast to a Newtonian concept of

absolute space and time in which each increment must have its own

irretrievably separate and unique location. With regard to a full cosmological

developmental sequence such as that shown in Diagrams 7, 8 and 9, which

proceeds from matter to mind, what is represented by the combined five

schemata might perhaps be represented as shown in Figure 11.

Within the model continuity is expressed in two modes or aspects: the

first is temporal continuity, by means of which past functions are

incorporated into the ongoing present (Schema 1 & 2); the second is

functional continuity, by means of which contemporaneous functions are

unified by complementarity (Schema 3 & 4).

The assertion of temporal continuity is embodied in the summarizing principles I have associated

with the first two schemata: Functions develop serially, and Serially developed functions reach pro-

Figure 11

Cosmological Triangle


17/23

17

gressively higher. It is an outcome of these two that functional complementarity arises: Serial/Hierarchical

movement yields a polar system of complementary functions.17

The effect of these two modes of continuity, which are fundamentally expressions of synthesis, is

teleology: the temporal sequence is given direction, while functional complementarity provides what

Teilhard calls centreity, or motivation to maintain a center, with its implication of adaptive behavior.

The above considerations impact the concept of memory. If time is a series of discrete instants thatdisappear into the past as soon as they occur, then the only way we have memory of past events is through

impressions made upon some sort of physical recording of the events carried into the present. This is the

basis for the memory trace theory according to which events in our past are encoded e.g. into brain cells,

to be called up as memories when required. But it has been convincingly argued that this theory requires an

infinite regress of such recallings and leads to logical absurdities.18 The theory maintains itself in the

popular mind and in scientific dogma despite its faults, however, because of the fixed idea of time as an

evanescent series of incidents lost in the past immediately upon their occurrence.

If however the concept of continuity suggested by the transactional model of development is correct,

a different view of memory in which the past and the present are continually in a kind of transactional

relationship is the result. The general empirical category that would be applicable in this connection is the

category ofbehavior. Living things are capable of engaging in activities that are not unrelated but insteadoccur in a series oriented toward some result. Behavior in this sense is a constant process of remembrance

without having to remember what was just remembered in an infinite regress. Dewey refers to this

character of the living organism as not a mere succession but a series.

As long as life continues, its processes are such as continuously to maintain and restore the

enduring relationship which is characteristic of the life-activities of a given organism. Each

particular activity prepares the way for the activity that follows. These form not a mere

succession but a series....living may be regarded as a continual rhythm of disequilibrations and

recoveries of equilibrium. 19

On this premise memory or remembrance is inherent in the manifestation of organic life at whateverlevel. It is inherent in behavior itself, not just in those self-conscious moments of articulated thought which

we as humans, possessing language, focus on as acts of remembering.

The difference between merely bringing up one memory after another as isolated or disconnected

occurrences, and remembrance as involved in carrying out a course of behavior, is crucial to Kants

discussion of the unity of consciousness in the Critique of Pure Reason. Robert Paul Wolf puts the issue

succinctly:

If I kept forgetting the last representation of the manifold every time I came to a new one in the

temporal order, I would not be thinking them together in one consciousness. There would be

merely a succession of unitary and disjoint apprehensions, not a unity.20

This issue has often been put in terms of simple actions, such as that of counting. When one counts

a series of objects, let us say for example four tennis balls, looking at the first and saying one, then looking

at another and saying two is not even a case of counting unless upon saying two there is (a) an awareness

of having just previously said one, and (b) knowing that this is a step in carrying forward a course of action


18/23

18

governed by a rule: the rule of counting with its aim of arriving at a sum. This process requires continuity

of behavior and is inherently an expression of teleological being.

The transactional model of development as represented above argues for a particular organizational

scheme applied to the development of functions, that is to say stages of development of organisms,

increasing capacities for actions, and levels of mental or spiritual accomplishment. Following the suggestion

just made regarding memory and the concept of time, it seems that the model may be applied as well to thegeneral category of behavior at any level of complexity.

In applying the model to individual actions in carrying out a course of behavior, it becomes evident

that restriction of the concept of development to Schema One is a severe limitation. Schema Two must be

taken into consideration. Schemata Three, Four and Five are implicit in the first two taken together. Thus

one might represent an action such as counting a set of four objects in the following manner, which is in

effect a combination of Schemata One and Two (Diagram 10).

The overlaying structure represented here by the overlapping (interpenetrating) channels is

understood in terms of the model as a result of a continuing process of synthesis in which each stage includes

and builds from the earlier stages according to a rule.21 Such a model must view the progression of time as

cumulative and telic in character rather than consisting of a sequence of discrete and disconnected, thus

fleeting and purposeless, moments.

We might call this individual act of counting a microcosm of behavior, because it is enmeshed in a

larger more complex system of organic and mental functions that constitutes the total functioning individual

and may extend beyond the individual to the communicative environment within which the individual

behaves.22 Thus one may later on remember that there are four tennis balls in the box, not because he or


19/23

19

she must retrieve some sort of stored data image from the brain, but simply because the totaling of the tennis

balls has become an ongoing functioning element of the individual consciousness and is continually

available for expanding and enriching the range of behavior.23 The brain may have a role to play in this

capability, because it is an organ of the total behaving system, but the brain must work in transaction with

the organs and actions of the entire body as well as with the demands of the physical, social and cultural

environment.Finally, the potential for adaptation and freedom is inherent in the process of synthesis and is expressed

in Schema 5, whose principle is: continuity generates infinite potential. It may be, then, that this process

itself is the source of our experience of time and freedom.

6. Synthesis, Experience and Aesthetics

What has not been addressed above in any detail is the question of the nature of synthesis. It has been

roughly described as a process, as the reconciliation of opposites, and as some form ofactivity. Kant did not

speak of synthesis as a biological function but only as an action performed by an unexplained, but inferred,

faculty of the mind. Rather than explaining the source of synthesis, this amounts simply to pointing at the

fact of synthesis, seen as a necessary way of speaking about what happens when, e.g., one conceptualizes,makes judgments or, as in the example of Fig. 10, performs actions involving overlay of memory; that is to

say it is a necessary presupposition when accounting for continuity of thought and behavior.

To make the point, synthesis is a necessary and sufficient condition for continuity. A universe without

synthesis (and therefore without continuity) would be a mechanism. From this perspective we would have

to conclude that attempts at mechanistic reductionism to account for the characteristics of living organisms

are doomed to failure because of the absence of the factor of synthesis and its associated characteristics of

continuity and teleology.

Features of the above summary discussion, and of the related papers previously mentioned, bear on

the issue of the nature of synthesis.24 The Aristotelian case is similar to that of Kant, in that it is the

faculties of nutrition, sensation and thinking that bring about the synthesis of like with unlike. But

in Aristotles case nutrition, and perhaps sensation as well, may include biological rather than only mentalactivity. Teilhards division of the fundamental unified energy of the universe into two aspects, one

tangential and the other radial, would indicate that radial energy is the energy of synthesis (Diagram 9). In

this respect Teilhards provocative identification of gravitation as the first defining function of radial energy

argues for gravitation as the first form of synthesis, giving synthesis a cosmological interpretation that argues

against a mechanistic conception of the physical universe.

In this connection one is compelled to note the relation between the idea of gravity as an elemental

form of synthesis and Aristotles compelling metaphor for synthesis as taking a stand. 25 With gravitation,

the curvature of material upon itself toward the development and persistence of structural forms constitutes

a kind of taking a stand against the dissipation of matter that would otherwise result. In a mechanistic

universe nothing takes a stand. There is no teleological factor and hence no action ever, to the very end

of time, may have a point (assuming that time in any meaningful sense would even exist) 26

In a more familiar context, Deweys assertion of activities of search and exploration in a hierarchy

of levels (See Fig. 3 and Diagram 6) suggests that synthesis is brought about not by the operation of some

mysterious intellectual faculty but by activities of engagement with the natural world on the part of

organisms, even to the level of conceptualization and judgment. However any such activity in its very nature


20/23

20

is already a manifestation of synthesis because of the necessary qualities of continuity and teleology that

anything like search and exploration must require.

On the other hand, we have in the esoteric models a presentation of synthesis as essentially a mode of

concentration as required in the process of meditative exercise aimed, for example, at engaging the third

force or kundalini (Diagram 8). Although in the heavily symbolic and esoteric contexts in which these

concepts occur concentration is often misunderstood as strictly a mental exercise, in fact there are manyforms of meditative concentration seen as spiritual exercise that are actions in the world rather than

contemplative withdrawal. Restrictions of behavior and austerities are modes of focus and concentration as

well as silent internal processes. In a wider sense of meditative concentration, active processes such as

search and exploration all the way up to persistent focus on a problem including the carrying out of

scientific inquiry may be understood as meditative practices and hence embodiments of synthesis.27

What we are returned to by this consideration is again the wider concept of continuity and what is

associated with continuity, namely teleology. Focusing requires continual returning to a point of desire.

(It is a premise of yoga that intense desire for union with the goal is a condition for advancement. There must

be a great love for the aim. In the Rig-Veda we read Thereafter rose desire in the beginning: desire, the

seed and germ of spirit.)28

The upshot of this is that we try in vain to locate synthesis as some form of process to be accessed,externally or internally, as a tool. The existence of any tool presupposes continuity and thereby synthesis.

We are brought to a simple and inevitable conclusion: Synthesis is Experience. A disembodied brain, or

a computer, or for that matter a stone, has no experience. But a bee, or a snake, or a bird in flight, or

ourselves, must have experience, because these things engage time so as to allow continuity of behavior.

There are, however, according to the transactional model of development, levels of Experience. The

critical change in level as far as human experience is concerned is the advent of language. There are clearly

linguistic behaviors among life-forms other than human. Biological research is discovering an increasing

number of communicative activities across a wide range of animal interactions. Nevertheless the human

level of linguistic complexity represents a major transition in the developmental sequence.29

It is here that two outstanding characteristics of human experience appear to me to be significant

developmental ramifications of the action of synthesis that is to say, ramifications of Experience. Thesetwo are aesthetics and empathy, along with their correlate, ethics.

Prana, the first defining function in Diagram 7, is universal rhythm exemplified at a physical level

by breath. The experience of rhythm requires synthesis in exactly the same way as counting to four

requires synthesis. Two pulses only form a rhythm when the second pulse is brought into organization with

the first according to a rule. The same applies to the experience of melody. Two tones heard one after

another are a portion of a melody only in a context of antecedents and expectations. To imagine that in order

to experience a melody, upon hearing the second of two tones this activates a stored memory of the previous

tone, and so on with each subsequently heard tone, in such a way as to yield melody, is absurd. Among other

features of this absurdity is that no subsequent tone would be heard as the conclusion of the melodic line.

Furthermore there is nothing inherent in, say, C# that necessarily dictates calling up the memory of B, or E,

or any other note in particular.30

Temporal continuity as exemplified by our experience of music has been compellingly represented by

philosopher Victor Zuckerkandl: True time is not the succession of instants that rise out of the future and

descend into the past; true time is a duration that, however, never stands still, survival of the no-longer-

existent in the existent, growth of the existent by constant addition of the not-yet-existent, continuous


21/23

21

1. The required analyses are carried out in a number of unpublished papers. A portion of the background researchis in the two papers The Transactional Developmental Model: Part One and The Transactional Developmental

Model: Part Twofound at http://www.stanmcdaniel.com/pubs/development/development.html.

2. For example, in the eastern system of the five, or seven, chakras, the chakras clearly play the role of functionsdistributed sequentially and hierarchically..

3. In a separate paper, Form of Life, I analyze the concept of a life-form as a structural/dynamic unity in relationto a telos or rule. (Location cited in endnote 1).

4. Govinda, Lama Anagarika, Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism, Samuel Weiser N.Y. 1974, pp. 23-24.

5. Teilhard Pierre, Op. cit., page 231. also Govinda, op. cit., ...there must be an infinite series of dimensions inthe same way each further extension of our spiritual horizon hints at new, undreamt of dimensions. (p. 200.)

6. Sadhu, Mouni, The Tarot. George Allen & Unwin, 1962.

7. The expression of views on the part of Dewey and Aristotle as triangles of synthesis is explained in the papersreferenced in endnote 1.

8. Teilhard, Pierre (de Chardin), The Phenomenon of Man. Harper Torchbooks, 1959, pp. 60-66.

9. Kant, I., Critique of Pure Reason, Trans. N. K. Smith. MacMillan & Co., London, 1961, p. 113 (B106). I haverearranged the order to correspond more closely to Diagram 3 and Fig. 7, and added the cross for obvious reasons.

10. Sheldrake, Rupert,A New Science of Life. Icon Books, Third Edition 2009, p. 95. Figure 10 is based on adiagram in his bookThe Presence of the Past, Vintage Books, 1988, page 95.

11. See also the discussion of Chakric Systems in Part Two, section 3 of The Transactional DevelopmentalModel referenced in endnote 1.

12. This and the following diagram are taken from a more detailed analysis in a separate paper. The material on theright side of Diagram 8 is not discussed here. Cf. Also Govinda, Op. cit., pp. 137-154.

process. 31

What these considerations very strongly suggest, in my view, is that synthesis lies at the heart of

aesthetic experience, where relationships and rhythms may present new potential for enhanced modes of

experience. I would wish to argue that aesthetics and ethics are related in this potential; and that because all

of experience is a mode of synthesis, within the deepest centers of human consciousness lies the ecstasy of

unity. But that remains for another discussion.

Original drafts 1970-1980

This revision Jan. 3, 2010

ENDNOTES


22/23

22

13. See OManique, John,Energy in Evolution, Humanities Press N.Y. 1969, pp. 44-45 (a study of Teilhardsconcept of Hyperphysics). The concept of Psychic Energy here bears a strong resemblance both to the notion of

Akasha (Diagrams 7 & 8 ) and The Void or Sunyata in Buddhist thought

14. Teilhard, Pierre, Activation of Energy, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, N.Y. 1963, p. 168.

15. A recent study indicates that lifeless proteins called prions, which have neither DNA nor RNA, are capable ofevolutionary change. Cf. http://www.physorg.com/news181466564.html

16. See note 1.

17. The text here describes the logic of the model. It is not making independent factual claims about the nature ofreality. We are analyzing the structure of the model. It is important not to misunderstand the procedure.

18. Cf. Braude, Stephen E., Memory Without a Trace, European Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 21.2 SpecialIssue, pp. 182-202.

19. Dewey, John,Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, Henry Holt, 1938, p. 27.

20. Wolff, Robert Paul, Kants Theory of Mental Activity, Peter Smith, 1973, p. 128.

21. Cf. The Transactional Developmental Model: Part Two, Section 5, Dynamic Networks (Endnote 1). Alsosee Wolff, op. cit., pp. 129-130.

22. If mind or consciousness is localized not wholly within the body but includes a portion of the environment, assome have recently proposed, then the locus of remembrance may be thought of as inhering in such a field rather

than as encoded in the brain. Cf. Rockwell, W. T.,Neither Brain nor Ghost, MIT Press, 2005, Ch. 6.

23. Ibid., discussion of The Return on pages 5-6.

24. See note 1.

25. Cf. section 3 of The Transactional Developmental Model: Part One (ref. Endnote 1).

26. The focus of attention in physics presently is the search for the Higgs Boson and the Higgs Field, thought toconfer mass (and hence gravitation) on elementary particles. Regarding teleology and having a point cf. my paper

Form of Life at http://www.stanmcdaniel.com/pubs/development/development.html.

27. In the historical contexts within which esoteric and yogic practices were developed, the concept of powersassociated with such practices may have been the result of the contrast between a specially trained class of

individuals (and the institutions for their training) and the general population. Reading and writing were, for

centuries, seen as evidence of special powers and as the property of a specially trained class of individuals.

28. Cf. my text Yogasayings aphorisms 74 - 78 (available privately as an e-book).

29. Cf. sections 1 & 2 of The Transactional Developmental Model: Part One (ref. Endnote 1).


23/23

23

30. Cf. Braude, Stephen E., Memory Without a Trace, European Journal of Parapsychology, Volume 21.2,Special Issue, pages 182202 ISSN: 0168-7263.

31. Zuckerkandl, Victor, Sound and Symbol: Music and the External World, Princeton University Press, BollingenSeries, 1956, paperback edition 1973, p. 243. Zuckerkandl cites Bergsons view of time as the result of analyses of

psychological and biological processes.

Documents

Stan V. McDaniel- Models of Development in Esoteric and Western Thought: A Brief Summary