I strive to take Integral approaches to issues in ordinary life, culture, politics, sexuality, and spirituality. A graduate of Harvard University and The Divinity School at the University of Chicago, I have worked as a writer for more than 15 years. 
Bruce: What does “transrational” mean?
June 19th, 2008 by Joe PerezIn “The Wilber-Combs Lattice and the Pre/Trans Fallacy”, Bruce Alderman discusses developments in the more recent work of Ken Wilber on consciousness, and how it helps us to understand spiritual experience and development. Here’s Bruce’s conclusion:
As a stage of cognitive development or epistemology, the transrational involves the establishment of an abiding mode of interacting with the world, ordering experience, and acquiring or generating knowledge. As such, it should not be confused with discrete altered state experiences which, in themselves, are questionable in terms of their capacity to deliver propositional knowledge. Rather, it represents the evolution and integration of sophisticated human capacities for meaning-making, perspective-taking, and broad state access, with relevance to human well being functioning far beyond having access to transitory “mystical experiences.”
Most of Bruce’s discussion seems exactly right to me. Where I think it gets a little fast is in Bruce’s assumption, I think, that transrational stages of consciousness deliver an epistemology whereas states do not. Technically, epistemology refers to a branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. In other words, its concern is how we know what we know, the nature of truth, and how beliefs are justified.
Bruce calls this “propositional knowledge”, whereas I don’t think I would say that transrational stages (like mystical states) deliver a theory of knowledge or propositional knowledge of any kind. What they deliver, I think, is a formal knowledge, not content of principles or propositions. Thus, if a person is at a transrational stage of development, they will have knowledge in a certain form, not of certain things. They will take, say, a 5th-person perspective on the existence of angels. But two persons each employing a genuine 5th-person perspective may come to different beliefs about whether or not angels exist.
Sphere: Related Content
Tags: beliefs, consciousness, integral, pre/trans fallacy
June 19th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Hi, Joe,
I think you raise an important issue — one, in fact, that I’ve been planning to explore on my blog for some time now. In a number of discussions on Gaia, we’ve touched on the relationship between propositional knowledge and contemplation, e.g. whether contemplative states can deliver propositional knowledge about the world. (People often use meditation in this way: they make a particular claim about the world, and then use meditative experience to prove or support their claim).
My comment on the entry you’ve highlighted was a nod in the direction of these earlier discussions.
I believe I agree with the distinction you’ve drawn between propositional and formal knowledge. I am not claiming that transrational stages of cognition will lead inevitably to the apprehension of particular “facts” about the world; rather, the transrational stage involves its own ways of generating and organizing knowledge (without determining content). I do not expect people at transrational stages of development to be any more unanimous in their opinions about “the facts of existence” than prerational or rational folks are; but, following the model I described in my post, I would expect them all to be able to use expanded 4p or 5p perspectives…e.g., to cognize in similar ways.
One reason I was even making this point was because I had had a recent discussion with Julian in which he claimed that “transrational experiences” were purely UL affairs and that they had no bearing on, nothing to say about, “the objective world.” My contention, however, is that because the transrational is properly a stage of cognitive development (not just a particular mystical state experience), then it will certainly involve its own ways of interacting with, gathering knowledge about, and making pronouncements about the world. It isn’t just a private UL experience, but a particular developmental context of tetra-enactment.
Best wishes,
Balder
June 19th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Joe, I meant to add that I like the new look of your site, and it’s nice to see you writing online again…
All the best,
B.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Hey, thanks. It’s good to be back blogging again.
I would agree with you 100% regarding the claim by Julian that “transrational experiences” are purely UL affairs. Is there even such a thing as a purely UL affair?! Isn’t that like saying that a coin is a purely one sided affair?
It’s hard to argue with the notion that mystical experiences have their own contribution to make regarding knowledge, even if it’s the sort of knowledge of “a particular developmental context of tetra-enactment” rather than “objective” knowledge per se.
I think we’re in agreement here.
I will add that I’m not sure that there ISN’T propositional knowledge about “the world out there” that results from mystical experiences. But I hesitate to say that we know enough to speak about such knowledge definitively. Maybe if the number of people who were at transrational levels of consciousness increased from, say, 0.5% to 5.0%, then maybe we would have more for consciousness researchers to investigate.