Piaget, cognitive development, and how you make sense of your world (part 1)
by Bill HarrisDecember 10th, 2007
In this post we’ll continue our investigation of the developmental process, looking at cognitive development. Cognitive development is one of the most important, if not the most important, line of development. Why? Because many theorists and researchers believe it is necessary (though not sufficient) for development in all the other areas. Unless you can be aware of something (which is what cognition is all about) you can’t be moral about it, feel something about it, create art about it, develop faith around it, organize a self around it, or develop in any other way regarding it.
The great pioneer in cognitive development is Jean Piaget, and I will draw heavily from his work in this post, with additional help from Ken Wilber, and also from Dr. C. George Boeree.
This is a pretty big topic, and I have a lot to share with you, so I’m going to split this into three posts. Part one will cover the first two levels of cognitive development as defined by Piaget. The second post, which will come a few days later, will cover the next two. Then in another post I’ll cover the current thinking about cognitive development beyond Piaget’s stages. I think you will find this information to be particularly fascinating, so let’s get started…
Cognitive development refers to our ability to perform various types of operations on what we encounter in the world and in our awareness. To live in the world, accomplish various things, and deal with the challenge of being human, we first learn to ”work with” (deal with, manage, get things done with) our body, then with objects, then with symbols, concepts, and ideas, and–if development continues to the highest transpersonal or transrational levels of development–we eventually add ways of dealing with life that are beyond the realm of ideas.
Always keep in mind that these developmental levels (which, remember, are perspectives) are ways we make sense of what it means to be a human being living in a complex and often paradoxical world. As our environment changes, and as we change, our way of responding to the world and making sense of it changes.
Piaget’s work on development is particularly important because it has been closely scrutinized over three decades of cross-cultural research. As a result, Piaget’s basic levels of cognitive development (sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational) are considered to be universally applicable to all human cultures.
Other researchers have taken Piaget’s work further, describing levels of cognitive development beyond his highest level, formal operational. We’ll look at these more advanced stages (generally referred to as transrational or transpersonal) after I describe Piaget’s basic levels.
As you’ll see, Piaget’s levels of cognitive development correspond roughly to those I’ve described so far in previous posts (if you haven’t read those posts, it might be helpful if do so). The stage I’ve described as preconventional roughly corresponds to Piaget’s preoperational level, conventional roughly corresponds to Piaget’s concrete operational, and post-conventional roughly corresponds to formal-operational. What this really means is that preconventional people use preoperational cognition to deal with the world, conventional level people use concrete operational cognition to deal with the world, and postconventional people use formal operational cognition to deal with the world.
Sensorimotor, Piaget’s first stage (the stage before preoperational), is sometimes referred to as archaic in other naming conventions (in this case, in that of Jean Gebser).
As I said in an earlier post, different naming schemes are used by different scholars and researchers, depending on which line of development (cognitive, moral, ego, emotional, etc.) is being studied. This is partly because these researchers were often working independently, without knowing much if anything about each other’s work, each creating his or her own terminology. Ken Wilber, to his credit, has pulled together many of these different developmental approaches and has pointed out the many parallels between them.
Over time we’ll visit a number of different developmental approaches, and hopefully you’ll begin to get a feeling for the different names and how they correspond to each other. These different naming protocols can be a bit confusing at first (I know it took me a while to sort them all out). I’m hoping that I’ll be able to describe them in a way that makes it easier for you to make sense of them.
Remember that with all these developmental schemes each person begins with the first level and must develop through each level, in order. This is because each level builds on the previous level–each new level transcends the previous level in certain ways (it creatively introduces new ways of cognizing the world), but also includes key aspects of the previous level.
To use an example from the physical world, atoms represent one level of physical organization. Molecules, the next higher level, include atoms, but also transcend them (molecules can do things atoms cannot do–they operate in the world in way that transcends the way atoms operate in the world, while at the same time including them).
The point I’m making is that atoms had to come into existence before molecules could exist, since atoms are a building block of every molecule. In the same way, each developmental level (each new perspective) in humans is necessary to the development of the next perspective. This is why everyone must begin at the beginning and go through the levels in order.
Not every person moves through all the levels, however (just as not every person moves from kindergarden all the way through grade school, high school, college, and graduate school). Some people move through a few developmental levels and then stop, while a smaller number move to the highest levels. This depends on the person, their environment and its demands, the developmental center of gravity of their culture, and other influences. The higher the level, the fewer people will reach it. For instance, fewer individuals in any culture reach Piaget’s highest level, formal operations, or formop, and even fewer reach the transpersonal levels beyond that.
Having made those introductory remarks, let’s move on. Piaget divided cognitive development into four broad stages: 1) sensorimotor (0-2 years), 2) preoperational, or “preop” (2-7 years), concrete operational, or “conop” (7-11 years), and formal operational, or “formop” (11 years onward). Each of these can be divided into several substages. The ages are averages, and since a person could stop and remain at any level, you can find many adults at each level (though not many are found at the sensorimotor stage).
In this discussion I’ll also use some of the stage names used by Jean Gebser and Ken Wilber: archaic (similar to sensorimotor), magic (similar to early preoperational), magic-mythic (late preoperational), mythic (early concrete operational), mythic-rational (late concrete operational), and rational (formal operational). This is just to confuse you, of course.
In the sensorimotor stage, the infant uses senses and motor abilities to understand the world, beginning at first with reflexes and eventually using complex combinations of sensorimotor skills. At the beginning of this stage, the infant cannot yet distinguish itself from its environment (what some have called an experience of oceanic oneness). This has also been called a state of “primary narcissism,” because the infant is embedded in or undifferentiated from the environment.
[A quick aside: You may remember from previous posts that all development is a process of immersion in something, followed (hopefully) by eventual development of the ability to observe it, i.e., to see it from a wider perspective. We are what we are immersed in; we are so caught in it that we are unconscious of it, unaware of it–like a fish in water. And, because we’re unaware of whatever we’re immersed in, we have no conscious control over it.
Once we develop the ability to step back and observe that which we’ve been immersed in (in other words, once we begin to be aware of it), we shift from being it to having it. Being aware of it, we have more control, more choice. This is the true meaning of expanded spiritual awareness.
You can be your body or, in becoming aware of it, you can have a body. You can be your emotions or, in become aware of them, you can have them. You can be your thoughts and other mental processes or, in becoming aware of them, you can have them. You can be your idea of who you are or, in becoming aware of it, you can have an idea of who you are. In each case, having it gives you some amount of intentional control, whether of your body, your emotions, your mind, or your sense of who you are.
You could also say that what we are immersed in is subject (in other words, it’s me–part of who I am), while what we can observe becomes object (something I have). The developmental process, then, is one in which more and more of what you have been immersed in (”subject”) becomes something you can observe, and therefore have (”object”). What you have you can intentionally use and control.]
Okay, back to Piaget. Between four and nine months of age, the infant–who has been immersed in his entire enviroment–finally differentiates itself from this environment. He moves from being the environment to having it. The infant bites his thumb and it hurts; it bites it’s rattle, and it doesn’t hurt, and in doing so he learns the difference between self and environment. At this stage, the infant’s only contact with it’s environment is here and now, in the moment, experienced through his sensory and motor abilities (hence the name of this stage, sensorimotor). As of yet there are no true emotions, nor any thoughts.
During this period it is said that ”consciousness seats itself in the physical body.” If some sort of trauma interfers with this process, the result is psychosis (lasting beyond infancy and generally into adulthood). Without a grounded physical self that is clearly differentiated from the environment, the psychotic is constantly “jumping out of the body,” as Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing put it. He cannot clearly tell where his body stops and the environment begins, creating a hallucinatory blurring of subject-object boundaries.
A healthy sensorimotor stage, then, is one of differentiating self from environment, and ends with the infant 1) knowing the difference between self and other, 2) understanding that physical objects exist independently of himself, and 3) being able to manipulate physical objects in many different but rudimentary ways.
This manipulation begins with simple reflexes, such as sucking and grasping; moves to such things as opening and closing the fingers repetitively; then to actions designed to produce a certain interesting consequence, such as kicking one’s feet to move a mobile suspended over a crib; to more complex tasks such as reaching behind a screen to obtain a hidden object; the discovery of novel ways to achieve a goal, such as pulling a pillow toward oneself in order to get a toy resting on it; and finally to rudimentary symbolic thinking in which the solution of a problem is symbolized internally before taking action.
As the beginnings of mental life (as opposed to merely sensory and physical engagement) emerge at the end of the sensorimotor period, the infant begins to create mental images. Initially the infant confuses these images with the outer world–another example of immersion. This confusion is one reason for the strong magical thinking of the next (preoperational) stage. This is created by an inability to differentiate one’s own mental imagery and symbology from the external objects they represent. As a result, mental imagery and certain actions seem to cause things when they are actually merely linked in other, non-causative, ways (they happen at the same time, for instance, or happen in the same place, but aren’t really linked by causation).
Thus at the end of the sensorimotor stage–and into the preoperational stage–the child believes, for instance, that the sun or moon “follows him” as he walks or rides in a car (I noticed this during the recent full moon–Denise and I went downtown for dinner, and the moon followed us the whole way). When a child is asked which child the moon will follow when two children are traveling in different directions, he finds the question confusing, as if he’d never considered such a possibility. His perspective does not yet include the awareness that other people experience things in a different way than he does, i.e., that there are other points of view. He cannot yet take the perspective of another.
From the child’s point of view, things notice him and tend to obey him–the wind, the clouds, the night, and so forth. Or, the child experiences a type of animism in which he endows things with consciousness and life (one oriented solely toward him). Another type of magical thinking involves thinking that the things around him are made for him: the grass is there so he won’t get hurt when he falls, for instance.
These points of view are all based on a type of egocentrism, an inability to transcend one’s own perspective and take that of another. The child takes his or her immediate perceptions to be true and interprets them according to his own egocentric concerns, without realizing that others have a different point of view. In other words, the child is immersed in his own perspective.
At this late sensorimotor stage the child may, for instance, hold a picture so that he alone can see it while assuming that because he can see it, others can see it, too. Or, he covers his eyes and assumes that since he can’t see others, they can’t see him. If someone hides a toy while he watches, and another child then enters the room, the child, because he knows where the toy is hidden, assumes that the second child also knows where it is.
As the child moves from sensorimotor to preoperational (and later to the edge of the concrete operational stage), such magical beliefs gradually disappear because 1) the child begins to to see that other viewpoints exist and 2) he gains the ability to adopt these other points of view. As this happens, egocentric (magical) logic is replaced with a more rational logic developed through concrete interactions with the world and other people.
Piaget described the sensorimotor and early preoperational stages as being that of “magical cognitions”: “To every desire corresponds immeditately an image or illusion which transforms this desire into reality, thanks to a sort of pseudo-hallucination or play. No objective observation or reasoning is possible.” By “objective” Piaget refers to the ability to take the perspective of another, to step out of that which one is immersed in. This objectivity also refers to the ability to “have it” rather than just “be it”–to make what was subject into object.
In the preoperational stage, the child increasingly uses verbal representations, but speech is egocentric (two children at this stage may talk while playing, but what they say is never in response to what the other has said). As the child masters language, play begins to involve this new ability to use symbolic thinking (rather than relating to the world solely through sensorimotor play). For example, the child can think about something without the object being actually present. A picture of a dog or the word “dog” can represent a real dog. Or, objects can represent something else: checkers can become cookies, leaves can be dishes, a box can be a table.
Using this new tool, symbolic thinking (the ability to make mental images which represent real things), the child begins to develop an understanding of past and future. If the child is told that something desirable will happen soon, he may stop crying. If he is reminded of the time he fell down he may make a sad face.
At about four years of age, speech becomes more social and less egocentric, and the child begins to grasp logical concepts in some areas. There is a tendency, however, to focus on one aspect of an object at the expense of others. If you tell the child, ”Your father is my brother,” they will not understand the two separate aspects that make up the relationship. Or, the child may say, “I don’t live in America, I live in Oregon,” not understanding that one thing can be a part of another. If you show the child five black marbles and three white ones, and ask, “Are there more marbles, or more black marbles,” he will answer, “More black marbles.” Each of these examples involve understanding and holding in awareness two different, but connected, relationships or ways of categorizing that are beyond the child’s cognitive abilities at this point.
Another result of this inability to focus on and hold in awareness different types of relationships or ways of categorizing is a preoperational belief in magical increase, decrease, or disappearance. If you pour juice into a tall, skinny glass, and then transfer the juice to a short, fat glass, the child (focusing on just one aspect of the glasses) will assume the taller glass contained more liquid. Reality is not yet firm, and immediate perception (rather than logic) dominates judgement. This ability to to see and hold in awareness more than one aspect of a situation or compare more than one way of categorizing is called decentering and is mastered in the next (concrete operational) stage.
In terms of morality, the preoperational child is unable to organize his behavior around principles of what is right or wrong. If he is caught and punished for something, it’s wrong. If not, it isn’t. What constitutes right and wrong comes from an authority figure, not from any particular principles that might be carried forward to other situations.
As the child differentiates himself from his environment, he develops a grounded emotional self. His emotional self, however, still is indissociated from the emotional selves of others, particularly that of his mother. At about 18 months, however, the child learns to differentiate his feelings from those of others. This is termed the “separation-individuation phase,” where the child creates a stable emotional self. This is also referred to as the “psychological birth” of the child, because the child emerges from emotional fusion with the mother. As before, what the child was immersed in (in this case, emotionally), he now has. Once again, what was subject has become object.
If the child is traumatized during this shift, clinical narcissism or borderline pathologies can result. In such pathologies the child is open to being “flooded” and “swept away” by his emotional environment (the borderline disorders) or he treats the entire world as an extension of his own feelings (the narcissistic disorders). In both, the child (and later, the adult) remains merged with or stuck in his emotions.
By age three, if things have gone well, the child has a stable physical and emotional self. Language has begun to emerge, and with it the beginning development of the mental self, some aspects of which I have already described (the use of symbols to represent things).
The first layer of emotional development (at the preoperational stage) is magical. The newly emerging images and symbols don’t merely represent objects, but rather are thought of as being actual parts of the things they represent. This form of magical thinking happens in a few different ways. One happens when two things are linked because they are similar in some way. If one dog is bad, all dogs are bad.
Or, two things are linked because they are connected by being contiguous with each other: daddy’s car keys, his hairbrush, or other personal items contain daddy’s power (I remember feeling this way when I handled items belonging to adults when I was a little boy). Or, in preconventional/preoperational tribal societies, a lock of a warriors hair contains his strength, or eating the heart of a lion gives one courage. This sort of magical thinking explains the preconventional attraction to talismans such as an eagle’s feather, religious icons such as crosses, statues of the Buddha, or other religious iconography, four leaf clovers, rabbit’s feet, medicine bags, etc., etc. (And, yes, many conventional, postconventional, and even integral or transcendent-level people keep such things–including me–but they don’t REALLY believe that they are magical.)
In this kind of magical thinking, two objects are seen as having something in common which enables them to act upon one another at a distance, or a thing is in some way an emanation of, affected by, or caused by, another. Piaget found that children often “reason” in the following way: the book makes a shadow; trees and houses make shadows. Therefore, the book’s shadow comes from the trees and houses also.
The idea that one object can magically alter another changes during the preoperational period. Interaction with the world eventually leads the child to realize that his thoughts alone do not egocentrically control or create the world (if there is trauma at this stage, however, magical thinking can continue as an ongoing pathology). The child eventually finds that the linkages I mentioned above, where something affects something else because it is similar, or because it is physically connected or contiguous, don’t hold up in reality.
As the child’s view that the he has magical powers over the world diminishes, however, that power is transfered to others. The child may not be able to order the world around, but Daddy can, or God can. Gods or goddesses–or whatever the human equivalent might be to a child–are able to miraculously alter the patterns of nature in order to cater to the child’s wants.
This perspective (which, though still magical, is a developmental advance over the previous perspective) is often referred to as mythic. A magical element still exists, but at the mythic level the power to alter the world has been transfered to others. Previously, in the magical stages proper, the secret was to learn the right type of word-magic in order to directly alter the world. Now the focus shifts to knowing the right rituals or prayers that will make the gods and godesses intervene and alter the world for the child.
In the New Age movement we see a lot of this–in the various types of “channeled beings,” for instance, and in what has been called “putting it out to the universe,” which is really just a form of asking “the gods” (or some similar powerful substitute) to give the beseeker what he or she want. In another post I discussed miracles attributed to Yogananda and other Eastern saints. These, too, are examples of this magical-mythic perspective, where “great others” are accorded powers beyond that of normal mortals.
(And, by the way, when I use the word “powers” in this situation, I mean magic powers, in which the laws of nature are supposedly suspended, as opposed to what I would consider to be non-magical powers (for instance, the ability to solve differential equations, or be incredibly persuasive, or intuitively diagnose a therapy client, or manage a large organization, or create a work of art, or create a spell-binding story, or flawlessly fly an airplane, or be a virtuoso musician–or even the power to access transcendent, enlightened states of awareness). These definitely are powers, but without involving what Piaget–or I–would consider “magic” in the sense that the laws of nature are supposedly suspended.)
The miracles of Jesus would also fall into this category. From this mythic perspective, the laws of nature can be suspended by a powerful other. A confusion, in effect, still exists between physical and personal causality.
It is from this stage that most of the world’s classical mythologies come. At this stage children (about age 6) have already developed elaborate mythologies about cosmic questions such as the nature of life and death, the cause of the wind, why the sun shines, where babies come from, and so forth.
There are still problems at this stage in taking the role of other, but the nature of this problem changes (the problem remains, but its form changes). As the mythic point of view replaces the magical point of view (powerful others are magical rather than I am magical) there is a shift from a purely egocentric position to an ethnocentric, or group-centric position (culminating in the concrete operational stage, which we will visit later).
This is a shift from “it’s all about me” to “it’s all about my group.” The previous magical “me” stage is organized around blood ties and family (societies at this stage were organized into clans based on family ties). At the mythic stage, the group is organized around ideas. People at this stage band together because they share the same myths, and the unit of social organization moves from the clan to the tribe. For a child, the center of his world moves from his immediate family to his age-related peer group at school. The child is now better able to take the role of other, because he needs to do so to become a member of the group. His ability to do so, however, is limited in the sense that he can only see the perspective of others who share the same myth.
This continuing difficulty in taking the role of other at the late preoperational (”magic-mythic”) stage stems in part from a difficulty in differentiating the physical world, on one hand, from the symbols and names used to represent it. Even in late preoperational thinking the child still believes that names are a part of, or even exist in, the object being named. “Names are what you see when you look at things,” a child of five once said to Piaget. When asked, “Where is the name of the sun?” the answer was, “Inside the sun.”
Though most adults would not say such things, adult magical-mythical thinkers still confuse the physical world with the symbols and maps that represent it. (Interestingly enough, one of the key insights to spiritual enlightenment is the realization that “the map is not the territory”–that our ideas of the world and who we are, our map of reality and our idea of who we are, are easily confused with the real thing, and the ability to tell the difference creates a huge shift in perception).
This confusion of the map with the territory continues to exist through several more developmental stages, but the nature of the confusion changes with each new perspective. One change we’ve already seen is the change from “I am magical” to “Powerful others are magical.” We’ll follow this shift as we look at each new perspective.
Each new level involves a progressively greater ability to differentiate self from other, and to do so in continuingly more sophisticated ways. At this late preoperational stage (magic-mythic), the use of language to represent the world is the main tool used to differentiate the mind from the body–in other words, to differentiate the child’s new ability to have mental intentions from mere bodily impulses.
As I said above, the failure to differentiate body and mind–being stuck in the body (being it rather than having it)–results in narcissistic or borderline disorders, which pretty much always continue into adulthood. Another potential pathology at this stage (if certain traumas happen) is at the opposite end of the spectrum. If, instead of a failure to differentiate mind from body, there is too much differentiation, it can lead to dissociation from the body. Instead of transcending and including the body (the healthy form of the developmental shift at this point), aspects of the body are repressed (for instance, sensuality and emotional-sexual feelings).
This repression creates neurosis. Repressed physical urges return in a disguised form, called neurotic symptoms: anxieties, depression, obsessions, etc. Healing of these symptoms happens only as the repression is relaxed and the person recontacts and befriends the body and all its impulses and urges. Being stuck in the body (being it rather than having it), then, results in narcissistic or borderline disorders, and repressing the body results in neurosis.
(By the way, just as an aside, a general rule about developmental pathologies: the earlier the trauma, the more difficult it is to heal–psychosis is more difficult to heal than are narcissism and borderline disorders, which are more difficult to heal than neurosis, which is more difficult to heal than still later traumas).
But assuming that all goes well, the child moves to the next stage, the concrete operational stage, or conop. In children this stage generally lasts from about age 7 to 11 (many adults, of course, stop at this stage, staying in it throughout life). In my next post, we’ll look at concrete operations, the stage of most people in the Western world, and then at Piaget’s highest stage, formal operational. Then, in a third post, we’ll look at the stages many thinkers and researchers have found (or are postualating) beyond formal operational.
As always, be well.
This entry was posted
on Monday, December 10th, 2007 at 10:01 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS Comment Feed.
Interact:
Add a Comment |
Trackback Link |
Permalink
Share: 
Email This Post
| google | yahoo | furl | digg | del.icio.us | technorati | stumble
Subscribe: 
RSS Feed (what's this?)
Save: 
Print This Post
December 10th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Fantastic, it’s the shortest and clearest explanation I’ve read yet about Cognitive Development. I just realized my new interest in Feng Shui is probably magical as well although I don’t really believe much of it without some kind of rational explanation and they seem to be pretty few and far between. Any comments about it relating to development would be greatly appreciated!
December 11th, 2007 at 3:42 am
Dear Bill,
enjoyed the Blog. Wondering then if the younger the childhood trauma the more difficult it is to heal–psychosis, what do you make of children who are adopted? I am beign specific here, but as I understand it you speak of pathologies from around the ages of 18 months onwards. So I am wondering what the comment would be around that please and many thanks Angela
December 11th, 2007 at 5:13 am
Great article and analysis, Sir.
Classical Christianity speaks of formation as a prelude to making informed moral decisions.
The higher religions share the notion of “consciousness” or “awarness’ as an important state of being.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:02 am
Hello Bill.
I’m using Holosync for 2 years now and I took the Life Integration Process
courses (all three).
I got this Home Seminar CD’s from an offer one time during purche of the next Holosync level online.
These CD’s are about the same matirial that in the online course but each CD is about a great subject and I find this much more easy handling the information this way rather then in the online course.
Problem is….where can I get more of these modules ?
I don’t think their for sale now and i think it may be very usefull to a lot of people.
Thanks, Sharon from Israel.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Thank you … this post is very helpful at explaining the stages of development. also it helps me meditate better and know now why it is important to do a body scan and become more connected to feeling….. thanks again, Chris
December 11th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Bill,
For a bit of refinement on emotional-cognitive development, I would recommend THE FIRST IDEA by Stanley I. Greenspan, M.D. and Stuart G. Shanker, D. Phil. They make a very strong point of the fact that cognitive development is strongly influenced by sustained and nuanced emotional communication between infant and caregiver and that the baby’s first sense of causality is not when it performs some motor manipulation and gets a result, but much earlier when the baby realizes that “when I smile, mommy smiles at me.” Greenspan has been quite successful in treating autism spectrum disorders.
John Grauerholz, M.D.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Top stuff Bill. Keep it coming. I like a bit of comprehension while I’m chopping wood.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Good insight. I was a music ed major and one required course covered Piaget. It just occurred to me that maybe the reason so many people don’t make it to formal operational or beyond is because there’s an emotional conflict that comes from Masolow’s hierarchy of needs. Just thinking out loud…
A friend of mine recently converted to Christianity despite being raised as a godless communist in China and reaching a very high level of success & comfort relative to peers. The reason given? The need for comfort, the need to know that someone out there is watching over.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:43 am
I always find it interesting to be able to reference these observations of developmental stages as it can put what are often termed “illusions” in to some kind of context.
I do wonder how the difficulty of “curing” pathological conditions can be limited by time, however, for ultimately we’re talking about variations of the map. You can apply healing modalities over time and reference the image of the past, but ultimately are we not talking about mind games and mistaken identity?
Thanks Bill
December 11th, 2007 at 10:50 am
the flaw in your point is in your definition of “the laws of nature”. Many of those that you deem as being “magical thinkers” simply have a far more broad concept of what the “laws of nature” include. These “laws” as the majority of concerete thinkers perceive them, are simply a reflection of a mass belief, a belief in a limited “law”. The universe reflects back to us our beliefs, plain and simple. If in fact there was a person named
Christ who was capable of seemingly “magical acts”, he was likely merely trying to broaden others views of the universal laws, demonstrating how each person could create for themselves through their thoughts. I am in full agreement with you bill, that to worship another is unnecessary as we hold all the power ourselves. If in fact the physical universe is actually a mirror of sorts that refelects back to us (in a way that you may feel necessary to label as “magic”) the content of our thoughts and beliefs, do you not acknowledge that due to your particular belief system, you would not in fact experience this for yourself? The truth is that if you believe that the laws of the universe are limited, then they will be for you. My life is absolutey filled with happenings that are far too “magical” in nature to simply be explained away as mere coincidences. I do not consider these occurrences to actually be magic, but merely a reflection of “universal laws” as they truly exist. The universe that I experience reflects my beliefs. It’s absolutely wild to me that you question the validity of psychic abilities or anythign paranormal. Once again, your own life apparently does not include these types of happenings due to your limited belief system, and you are therefore invalidating the reality of so many. How would you explain my absolute knowing, 16 years prior to my brother’s actual death, that he would in fact die at the age of 41 years? He was completely healthy at the time of this premonition. How would you explain my finding a remembance day lapel poppy, lying in the grass, a block away from my home, two days in a row, in exactly the same spot? Then, the exact same date a year later (unbeknownst to me at the time), receiving a strong sense of my brother’s presence, and finding yet another poppy in this same spot. In most peoples definitions, this would be considered “magical”. In mine, it is simply a manifestation of thoughts I was putting out, of wanting contact from my deceased brother. Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention, the reason these poppies were so significant was, my brother died on the morning of Remebrance Day. Anyway Bill, we obviously live in very different universes, which is absolutely okay.
I’m curious as to what stage of development one is at when he feels the need to belittle anothers point of view, by gathering facts and evidence that “prove” that this other is operating from a “lower” level of development. In short, I think you are vastly oversimplifying this entire issue in order to support your beliefs Bill. There is a whole other level to your argument that you’re not even touching upon. Perhaps you simply cannot do so due to your lack of evolvement to the necessary developmental level? (levels within levels perhaps)?
Faye Schindelka
December 11th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Hi Bill,
Brilliant article on developmental stages–thorough, insightful, a and creative in its synthesis of ideas. I found your formulation of spiritual growth as a kind of transfer process–in which the subject gradually recognizes that the body, mental processes, and the sense of self are actually objects–to be especially enlightening and fresh.
My question, however, concerns your discussion of neurosis. You said that in contrast to borderline and narcissistic disorders, which result from a failure to adequately differentiate mind and body, neuroses such as anxiety, depression, compulsions stem from somehow going too far with the differentiation and seeing the body and mind as totally split off from each other. For whatever, reason, this seems to have been the mistake I must have made early on and suppose it continues to be a problem, as I someone who has to overidentify with my mind, at times forgetting about my body altogether. (I’m a type five on the enneagram). So my question is does having a tendency for this kind of cartesian mind-body split mean that one is necessarily precluded from attaining the higher stages? My own sense is that I am someone at the rational level who is in the process of transitioning to the transpersonal level–despite my neuroses. I mean even Ken Wilber admits he has neuroses and from what I understand entered psychoanalysis for that reason.
Thanks so much,
Dwight
December 11th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Bill,
You always give good food for thought. A couple of questions…
Based on the idea that it is all one, which would make each individual a leading edge extension of ____ (Choose your label, NOthing, Oneness, Universe, Source, God, etc.) And in the realm of duality and Cognitive Psychology the individual is the Meaning Maker (1st Forgotten Fundamental of Life). NOthing has meaning without it being assigned by an individual and Cognitive Psychology states… No one has to believe anything BUT whatever one does believe WILL BECOME their perceived and felt reality. Where does the concept of morality (right/wrong) that you speak of as a given, move from a preference in each specific situation to something more general that all must line up with?
Also this concept you wrote of of magic powers, in which the laws of nature are supposedly suspended, still seems a little off to me. I think I understand the frame you are trying to set but actual experience outside of head knowledge explaining why come out different for me.
i.e. Just because I have someone come into my office with a broken finger and x-rays to prove it from the emergency room and after about 30 minutes of work he has full range of motion and goes to his doctor the next day who informs him there is nothing wrong as the x-ray taken on this visit from his office shows no break, does not mean the laws of nature were supposedly suspended only that other laws of nature (deeper-Quantum level laws) were applied. What may seem like magic in one individuals map, can be logical and science based in another’s map. And yet aren’t they both just maps? i.e. Because of the Law of Gravity man can not fly unless the laws of areo-dynamics are applied and then man can fly even though the supposedly (known) laws of nature ‘gravity’ was supposedly suspended.
If the map is not the territory then the map you are using that labels something unexplainable “magic, magical powers, etc.” and the one I’m using that explains the unexplainable magic (quantum level physics) isn’t the actual territory. It isn’t that either one of us are right/wrong, moral/immoral, would it not be that we are just using different maps? And wouldn’t the results be more of what we would use to determine if something is useful/less useful and wouldn’t it be more useful to use less judgmental/emotive type language right/wrong, magic/logic and apply more calibratory language useful/less useful?
To Your Best,
Dr. Vetter
docresults@comcast.net
December 11th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Answering Nina Potter’s post, I don’t think we can confuse Feng Shui with what Bill is talking about as Feng Shui is more a form of archetypal symbolic recognition.
Symbols have played a large part in human developement from the earliest cave paintings to the pictures we stick up that relate to the things we want to accomplish in the 21st C.
So it is with Feng Shui, it is more symbloism and basic common sense. The placing of furniture in front of a door just makes it difficult to get into the room. A mirror facing a corner of a building may look like it is warding off evil spirits but is in fact saying to your non-conscious, “the sharp edge is not heading for you. You are safe” This then lets you get on with producing your results unimpeded. You are still the one producing the results and not the placing of things at different points of the ba-gua.
The hanging of chimes in the doorway sounds like money therefore you think about it. You are putting your attention on it. Then you may have an idea of how to make it.
The world is made of thought energy but thought is not magic. One thought leads to another, even in lateral thinking, but they are related. Magic pre-supposes a complete cut off from one thought to another. ‘I want…’ to ‘I suddenly have…’ with no intervening action or thought process. The magic that Bill is talking about cannot exist in an ordered universe. (Except in someones imagination.)
Just look deeper at feng Shui and you will see the logic of it. After all it works but you can’t buy a magic wand that does the same thing. (Is it a coincidence that your name is potter?)
December 11th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
I’m wondering if perhaps you will speak about how people can be at different levels with these stages. I have a highly advanced cognitive model from which I view the world–I’ve taken your “life integration” courses on the internet–but after reading this I’ve thought about how I am very under-developed in some areas. I’m currently a college student however my communication (as you can tell) isn’t the greatest. It’s not that I’m stupid or anything, but rather that I’ve just been out of the world for a while and am now trying to catch up. It’s as if I were tramatized very early on in life–I don’t jump out of my body or anything of course–and now have to catch up to everyone else; of course this is normal, and most (if not all) people have some catching up to do. I think that we’re for the most part unaware of our stages unless we have problems within them, at which point we either want to change or just put up with whatever’s bothering you–or me for that matter–right now. Most people are asleep to what’s going on and, if this works for them, more power to them. However I believe that for some people who are suddenly awakened from their slumber, we need support information about these stages. For instance for myself I feel as if I’ve all of a sudden woken up in a big scarry world, a baby awakened in the body of a 24-year-old college student; I a stranger and afraid, in a world I never made for sure. But before my awakening I was just fine, and if I wasn’t fine at least I didn’t know it. It seems to me that the key is knowing where you are, at whatever “stage” or level or rank or whatever you’re at… It’s important to know where we are in life in general, because until we know where we are we can never get to where it is we want to be. If we simply want to be somewhere else–as many of us do–we can’t even get to somewhere other than where we are because we don’t even know where we are… If I’m trying to brush my teeth for instance and you notice that I’m using the wrong end of the tooth brush–or if I’m using it to wite my ass or something–it’s not that difficult for you to let me know so that I can turn it the other way; after that we got it! Similarly, if I’m not making sense here, the best thing to do would be to gleam what you will from it and move on, if it suits you. We are all where we are, and I love us for that, but we can’t do it by our self. I’m not big enough yet, and it’s cognitive overload and too much information; this is why “we” appreciate “you” Bill in all that you (and yours) do. Keep up the work Bill, and keep those comments coming people. We need more people like you and others like you; the future of our planet may very well depend on it.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
well done Bill,
I think the DECISSION the child or adult makes singularly to the trauma he/she has is the important issue in development/evolution.
Happens what happen we are responssible for feeling as well of doing, irrespectibly of the difficult which admiting this fact is. To accept this, not only gives us power to change, control or modifie things but makes us close to absorbe and reflex in us the SONS OF GOD WE ALL HUMANS ARE, and I say all to avoid institutionaliced expropiations by christians, islamist, jwes,budist or others. All humans are irrespective of where they live and/or believe or not beleive in my case.
What you are doing is very helpfull. I take HOLOSYN after many trials at / with other meditations methos, where I only lasted 3-4 months maximum. I find it so easy to do. In 2 years I have made the one hour meditacion part of my daily life and I still enjoy doing it. The benefit? Definitively accept that the easy way is always the best, yours definitively is easy. I am getting the best of myself for sure.
I was a little suspicious at first about YOUR HIGH POWER SELLING APPROACH, when you insist on it it must work. In my case I think is was me: Usualy one gets what one is looking or thinking about to obtain.
Health and Love
Manuel
December 11th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
To the poster asking about Feng Shui, I’ve been wondering about this, too. The conclusion I’ve come to is that Feng Shui is really mostly about order and “flow” in a room (or “chi”). Have you ever noticed how you can think more clearly in a neat room than in a messy one? I think it’s basically the same thing. The flow or “energy” in a room does have an impact, however imperceptible to the conscious mind, on how a person feels being in that room. A well designed room with “good energy” could then contribute to a clearer mind and greater ability to focus on what you want and take effective action toward it because you are no longer “fighting” your space. Things are where they should be and make sense on a deep level. An orderly, comfortable space also creates a positive impression on others, which may in turn make them more likely to want to do business with you, or be romantic with you, or whatever it is you’re hoping to achieve with that particular space. I have to wonder, then, whether some of the things about it that seem “magical” are, in reality, things that may have a pyschological, factual basis and are based on centuries of observations about human behavior (sort of like acupuncture). Science has shown that specific colors, for instance, affect us in different ways. And we know subjectively that we just feel better in certain spaces and around certain colors than we do around others. Pale blue and sage green tend to be more calming and soothing than bright red or hot pink, for instance.
Therefore, I tend to think that, under all the hocus pocus, “good Feng Shui” is really a centuries-old design method of making a room more aesthetically appealing so that it better serves its purpose and so do that those who enter it can function better within the space.
Just my thoughts.
As for the cognitive development piece — bravo. Well done. A nice encapsulation of Piaget, with hats off to Wilber.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I’m enjoying your blog. Thanks for your thoughts.
But how about changing the subject for each one when you send them as emails? They all come in with “I’ve updated my blog” as the subject. I deleted some, thinking they were duplicates.
Blessings,
Robin
December 11th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
I’m a Psychology major and you just summed up Piaget’s theory way better than I’ve ever heard before - and it only took me about 12 minutes to read instead of studying for hours upon hours!
Great post!
Jeremy
http://www.fitness-made-fun.com
December 11th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Hi Bill,
That was another great post. Can you give a little more information on how traumas at the late properational stage can cause too much differentiation, or disassociation from the body? I am especially interested in how instead of transcending and including the body, emotional-sexual feelings and emotions are repressed.
If a child feels trauma would that cause them to be unaware of the emotions associated with being attracted to or falling in love with another person? Is this the kind of repression you are talking of?
J
December 11th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Nice post Bill, Can we get this in Podcast format?
http://mastermindmiracles.com
December 11th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Bill,
As always very interesting. However I am confused about one aspect of these ideas. Although I support your idea of each perspective not being “better” than the others, I can’t help but want to strive for a HIGHER understanding in what I read as well as what I believe. So my question to you is should we STRIVE for a higher understanding, or simply let it come as it will as the children do in the early stages of cognitive development?
The main reason I pose this question is because I’m sure many of your readers and students have had their beliefs challenged by your ideas and insight (as are mine) - and may be to a point where our current perspective of the world is completely broken down because you state our map is simply a lower stage of development. The natural response to this then of course is to try to understand this new perspective (with much resistence) or disregard it until it becomes absolutely necessary to integrate this higher perspective for more efficient functioning. So once again - should we STRIVE for higher understandings or simply understand they will come when necessary.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Dear Bill,
Through the strength of your conclusion on this post,
“many adults, of course, stop at this stage, staying in it throughout life,”
I can see the strength in the foundation of your business, Centerpointe. What you are doing by promoting Holosync is helping others to move through the developmental levels where they have become stuck. This, in turn, helps move the collective consciousness higher.
Thank you,
Jessica
December 11th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Wow… Thanks alot Mr. Harris. That was awesome. I think my father, my brother and myself all suffer from the neurosis caused by repression.
How can we deal with that when it feels so scary to deal with it?
Also how do I even begin to deal with that?
Also how could I get my father and brother to begin healing it if they have constant escapes and distractions?! My father obsesses over work, and over cleaning. He cannot and will not ever sit still with himself and ever get in touch with himself or others. If the kitchen is not super perfect clean then he has to clean it and even scrape off all the minuscule blemishes with a razor! Then its the floor then its the shelves or whatever other bullshit he comes up with to obsess on and forgo real emotional connections with everyone else in the family. Oh and when its not cleaning and work its television - a 100% allways ready reliable 24/7 distraction/escape source.
My brother is marijuana, television, cleaning, and general waste of time activities — he also cannot stand to sit still and ponder something about himself - makes him edgy, anxious, angry.
It is very difficult to recognize and deal with early emotional traumas. Is there some way to begin?
Thank you from the bottom of my heart. You have helped me alot.
Sincerely,
Omar
December 11th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Hey Bill,
I have a college final that includes Piaget’s work so this couldn’t have come at a better time, haha. It’s great review and a hell of a lot more interesting than the textbook. But great stuff, I’m looking forward to the next one.
December 12th, 2007 at 12:46 am
A few days ago at a cocktail party, all the hors d’oeuvres contained meat. I am a vegetarian. As I was asking what each item contained to find what I could eat, somebody said, “I knew a girl who was vegan. She said its because using animal products hurts the animals. I thought it was stupid.”
At the time, I was very bothered by this. I said something like, “well you obviously disagree, but that doesn’t mean she was stupid.”
I understand now that his map or viewpoint is still group-centered, but unable to see the validity of other viewpoints. There is nothing wrong with thinking that using animal products is wrong because it hurts animals, and there may be nothing wrong with thinking that animals are here for our use, but there is something wrong with believing someone is stupid because they see it otherwise.
So now a question that i hope to see answered in future posts. If somebody says something like this, what’s the best way to help them expand their thinking a little without being judgmental or making that person look stupid?
December 12th, 2007 at 2:41 am
Great article Bill,
Thanks for opening this thema and start with Jean Piaget. Hope to continue with Basarab Nicolescu’ studies, “the father” of transdisciplinarity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basarab_Nicolescu
http://nicol.club.fr/ciret/english/indexen.htm
Inspiration and creativity to all Centerpointe’s members.
December 12th, 2007 at 6:13 am
Bill,
Why are you so hung up on trying to prove YOUR point of view on psychology and the laws of nature ? You seem quite desperate to validate your own feelings by citing others findings. You are just another person that still seems to be desperately searching for yourself under the guise of the intellect. Why try so hard to tell others how to think or believe. I know it comes from a good place but seems a bit arrogant. Transcend your mind. I guess I am not as evolved intellectually but true inner peace comes from a knowing and doesnt need saying. The intellect when run amok stifles true inner peace-Just my opinion and I do appreciate your point of view - Peace - JJ
December 12th, 2007 at 6:54 am
As a healer, which I call energypowerhealing.com many testimonies of reaching out “beyond time and space…lack and limitation” attest to remarkable things occurring that cannot be explained by logic. Some would label as magical or miraculous. Or originating from NOthing/ONEness.
I have a friend who explains things quite superbly on his site. As all is ONE, nothing is missing, as all is whole/complete/perfect. That we may not experience or feel or see “almost everything” with our perception based consciousness does not mean it doesn’t exist. It DOES, and we are all learning to re discover the joy of our infinite ONENESS, where we can command into “reality” with intent and imagination, and hence choose to create magic from ONE All that is beingness. It can be fun to move beyond labels and the head, and , meditate on this ONENESS that contains all now-
it might be discovered that actually, all is co equally perfect now, despite all notions of right or wrong. And we CAN choose to create “magic ” for ourselves and others- we can focus on wholeness, as best we can, in the now…and wholeness includes all theories/beliefs/everything…nothing can be left out(even if its not consciously felt/observed/ in our separation based 3D space/time paradigm).
Anyway, my friend explains it far better, very cleverly…whilst not invalidating anybody and their beliefs (as it is all ONE thing…:)
http://www.john-paolucci.com
And thanking Bill for such thought provoking discussion. Another friend has had GARGANTUAN mindblowing revelations/experiences, attributing so much to HOLO (as we call it.)
ALL IS PERFECT NOW hehe(despite all evidence of perception based conclusions, to the contrary.)
Denis
December 12th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Bill
As I scanned through the post I had to wonder several things actually. First of all these are just theories based on individual perspectives. Truth is so subjective. I think at one time I wanted to know why. These theories are just a limited perspective on ones unending quest to find answers or make sense of life itself.
This preoccupation with the theories is at best a distraction. I’ve come to my own conclusions about life and about spirituality. Nothing out there is set in stone, absolutely nothing.
December 12th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Hi Bill,
Thanks for putting up such a great stuff, waiting for Part II…
I would appreciate if you can throw some light on Feng Shui, as asked by Lina too. A couple of weeks back I got attracted to it and it felt so good, I started to arrange my things around, both at home and in office!
With Love n Light,
-Vks
December 12th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
As always beautiful and inspiring. So why do you think that some people stay at a certain level and others are able to move further ? is it just a decision they make ? what makes a person be more aware than other ?
Thanks again, we need more people like you.
All the best
Santiago from Colombia.
December 12th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Bravo, Faye. As long as we’re IN bodies on planet Earth, it will ALWAYS be bigger than we’re perceiving it to be. And we are senior to ALL OF IT…the Laws of Nature included. Caveat emptor: My thoughts and beliefs are not carved in granite. I enjoy all of your insights. Thanks.
December 12th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Hi guys, great discussion going here….Just continuing
Master Gerund thread from earlier:
“So now a question that i hope to see answered in future posts. If somebody says something like this, what’s the best way to help them expand their thinking a little without being judgmental or making that person look stupid?”
I think as soon as you start to expand your own thinking you will inevitably come up against people who haven’t really “thought things through”. I think it’s probably something everyone here can relate too, along with the anger and push-pull games you can end up in while trying to “show someone the way”.
Ultimately you can’t make anyone see anything and it really is just their perspective at the end of the day, so vegetarians are stupid…good for him
You pretty much covered it yourself that all viewpoints have validity but in all honesty I still get caught in judgment games when someone hasn’t realized something in themselves that I have, but “chunking up” 
to the big picture, there is as much validity in thinking and creating a reality where vegans are loonies, jews are bad and monkeys are evil as shifting your map to an awareness of oneness, while recuperating on a bed of nails.
Ahh the joys of filters and psychologies; we all signed up for the ride….what you gonna choose today?
December 12th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Hi Bill,
Interesting blog, I find it pretty hard to remember the names of each level (and the additional names others have defined), for me I think it would be better to just call them 1,2, 3 etc or supply a chart for quick referrence.
Thanks
Rob
December 12th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Wow! It’s interesting to read the responses and see where they might originate from in the pecking order of development. I assume that the ‘need to be right’ trait demonstrated in some of the reponses falls away as one traverses the developmental road, replaced by ‘everyone’s opinion is valid’ for where they are.
Cheers!
December 12th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Bill,
Just some feedback with regard to your posts. Great information… however as others may have pointed out - the stlye of your posts do often seem to carry a condescending tone to them.
Otherwise, keep up the great work with Holosync.
Cheers
December 13th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Bill,
I am familiar with Piaget’s work through college Psych classes. I find his work interesting and thought provoking and am looking forward to getting more in depth with it in the future. There are also other thinkers in the world of developmental psychology that have postulated different theories regarding human development. Why concentrate strictly on Piaget? Is there something in his postulations in particular which appeal to you? Do his theories apply in a general across the board manner among Developmental Psychologists? I am thinking out loud more than anything else, but I was wondering if you could give us an anwer regarding why you choose to focus on Piaget, in particular?
This was a great post, and I look forward to reading the other two editions.
Peace, Dianna
December 13th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
What I got out of your discourse is that I must have been traumatized at the tender age of 18 months, 3 years and from 7-11 years old. What could have happened to me? Was I traumatized during birth to end up with a tender thread of development? Will you be speaking on the birthing process as a stage of development? Also the writings of Moshe Feldenkrais would be a good source of information to have a discussion about development on a physical psychological level.
December 16th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Bill, Thanks for a very stimulating discussion. I have difficulty with the concept of trauma at specific stages of develpoment causing specific mental health problem as an exclusive theory. There is a large genetic component to many mental health disorders. As we know more about the structural and biochemical abnormalities in these disorders I suspect that we will hear less and less about trauma at stages of development causing mental illness. Schizophrenia is an example of an illness that once was thought of as being caused by such trauma, but we now know so much more about the disease. Thanks for being such a great teacher. Ed Pisko, M.D.
December 16th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Dear Bill: I appreciate the work you’ve done to integrate the work of Piaget, Wilbur and also Clare Graves contribution to Spiral Dynamics. As a parenting instructor for the Community Colleges of Spokane, I teach about the ages and stages of children’s development. One resource you and your readers might enjoy is the work of Jean Illsley Clarke and Connie Dawson, called “Growing Up Again.” They review the ages and stages from pre-natal to death. Each developmental stage has specific tasks to learn. Their work lists parenting skills that are helpful or unhelpful for each stage. What I most appreciate about their book is that it also includes clues of adults who need to “grow up again” because they missed out on learning a particular skill during their development. Also, these stages tend to recycle about every 13 years. So, learn it now or learn it later. For example from 18 months to 36 months, the Thinking and Feeling Stage, young children are beginning to think and feel for themseslves. As they define themselves as separate from others their favorite word is often “No!” Now, skip ahead 13 years later and you have a 15 year old. They’re also separating from their parents with even more intensity and their “no” might become “No Way!” Parents who haven’t been comfortable with teaching their two-year-old appropriate ways to think and feel for themselves as they push and test limits can be overwhelmed when their teen expresses independent thinking. Skip further cycles ahead and you have a 54 year-old who is still struggling with how to express anger and other feelings appropriately. The authors also include affirmations for each age and stage such as: “It’s OK for you to be angry, and I won’t let you hurt yourself or others.” As we grow in our awareness, sometimes we need to re-parent ourselves in healthier ways.
December 16th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Hi Bill~
Something which puzzles me regarding the Law of Attraction is if we live in a holographic world/reality where all, past, present and future, is happening all at once then haven’t our “scripts” already been written? How can the law of attraction have an affect on what has already come to pass? Aren’t we really just “reviewing” our lives as it unfolds before us?
We can certainly monitor our thoughts to ensure we come from a place of comapassion and forgiveness, but can we truly alter this holographic reality within this illusion we call life?
Thanks for sharing your insight and all the work you do in re-minding us of who we truly are.
In light and love
Teri
December 16th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
What kept occurring to me as I read this was the end-point it was moving towards, differentiation of self from other & the world, & that this only occurs through the rational manipulation of signs recognized as such, & that God & any mystical beliefs are thus immediately dismissed as so much magical feeling of ‘me’ transferred to an ‘other’ (father, a deity, the state). Is it possible that such well-meaning analyses are a form of secularist fundamentalism, resulting from arrested development, what might be termed a psychosis, or ‘concluding’ that the objects I cognize are the alpha/omega, the sum total, of existence. Such radical secularism believes itself trapped in an object-laden matrix of space/time. I would argue this is a very real form of arrested development, a falling-into separative cognition as the end-all & be-all. Why do we so blithely assume that the imaginative richness of children’s cognition constitutes only an undeveloped, unfinished perambulation through hard objective reality. As time goes on, I increasingly see that psychology evinces in its own paradigms the very disorders & symptoms of arrested development if so confidently describes.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:17 am
Hello!
I received the Holosync CD and became somewhat light headed and a bit ill after listening to it…Has anyone had a similar reaction? I have an extremely high IQ…My cognitive perception levels have been shown to be extremely high…Could this hold as being a factor as such?
Thank you so much…
December 18th, 2007 at 10:20 am
I love these postings. Brilliant Bill. Thank you for sharing so much!!!
Especially this description of a childs thought process - the following description sounds like the perspective of the Christian God. I wonder if it was a child that created this universe somtimes
From the child’s point of view, things notice him and tend to obey him–the wind, the clouds, the night, and so forth. Or, the child experiences a type of animism in which he endows things with consciousness and life (one oriented solely toward him). Another type of magical thinking involves thinking that the things around him are made for him: the grass is there so he won’t get hurt when he falls, for instance.
cheers,
jon
December 18th, 2007 at 10:25 am
The question to ask is - why as adults are we still so delighted by magic and motivated to action by powerful mythologies…both very high vibrational states, and how can we use that energetic power/redirect to powerful actions.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Bill, This is a great beginning. I have been thinking about the Law of Attraction and Nuclear Physics, and the clearing being done through Ho’oponopono or the Seldona Method. Wouldn’t one who was perfectly clear of the illusions of the here and now, be increasingly able to manipulate the laws of physics. I look at the Western religious leaders of the past who were able to generate what they needed when they needed it. Isn’t this what Jesus did: use the Law of Attraction at an Expert Level?
From your earlier blog defining the Transcendent Developmental stage, “all objects are man-made constructs.” Isn’t this stage, which is based on science beyond that known by Piaget, where we can understand the “miracles” of the past?
December 29th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Hi, I really enjoyed part 1 and 2 of your article, it hit hard and was hard for me to grasp. I related to the preop and having the tramuas at an early age, I dont remember it, I just sense something happened. I dont think I made the transition, for the reason that I cant seperate mind and body and some of the examples describes me. I am immersed in everything and my life is out of control, (borderline, narc,disassociate etc….how can I fix this… articles says if tramuas are early it hard. I’m feeling hopeless!!!
December 31st, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Hi Bill,
Have you read the article published on the Scientific American website? Better Brains: The Revolution in Brain Science. Science Talk - August 8, 2007
I think that you may find some really interesting info on some of your ideas there.
http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=465B1677-E7F2-99DF-36E1378B1640D492
Best,
Lolene
January 1st, 2008 at 4:25 am
Hi Bill,
As always I find the information you disseminate to the public thought provoking and to the point.
The massive amount of information I have acquired from you over the last 6 or 7 years and the Holosync Mediation levels, have not only inspired me to become more aware of my thoughts, feelings and beliefs; it has also been a tremendous guide to me in helping others through my website.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Gene
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Hi Bill,
Reading your articles always leave me with the thought of … Hm-mm.
The bottom line to all of this is this, YOUR MIND IS YOUR POWER. Thoughts are Living Energy.
If you don’t use your power properly, then it is being used by others improperly. The world we live and have our experience in and all that we perceive as life today is a testament that the mass consciousness is a direct reflection and result of individuals not using their mind properly.
When the masses realize who and what they are as opposed to who and what they’ve been taught they are this type a dialog will be unnecessary.
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I find myself very much in agreement with everything that Stephen Carter said. Your promulgation of the Piaget system of psychology highlights the modern mania with labeling everything and assuming that by so doing you’ve automatically ‘understood’ it. I’m tempted to say that you should get into the writings of David R. Hawkins who points out the ultimate aridity of all purely intellection-based viewpoints but that would involve interfering in the free will of another and these days I hope that I’m no longer that naive; the general thrust of everything you’re saying here is ultimately in a direction that reaffirms and consolidates the ego of the individual but ultimately the return to God or experience of mystical matters requires that one move in exactly the opposite direction, one that systematically de-constructs the ego!
Everything you say sounds very plausible but I’m convinced that the entire tenor of it is to push people in a direction that is probably 180 degrees the opposite of what will ultimately serve their highest good.
But I will read the other articles that you’ve posted in this series anyway!
Why be human if you can’t be perverse sometimes?
January 17th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Bill,
I enjoyed reading your thoughts on that. I tend to take what is on the written page as fact. Ver batem. This is pretty typical with my life in this world. It was so interesting where you wrote: “cannot clearly tell where his body stops and the environment begins, creating a hallucinatory blurring of subject-object boundaries.”. I have described this to therapists time and time again. No one understands. My mind litterally feels like it supports my body… controls it. It is separate from my body physically. All of my movements are almost consciously controlled. This has resulted in my having… faulty muscle recruitement patterns and as a result pain in many joints in my body. I also have the physcosis to go along with it. Anxiety, depression, dissociation, no real sense of self apart from the environment… etc. It has been termed “sensory integration disorder”, “layered muscle imbalance”, “complex PTSD”… etc. I lived, and as a result have this stuff in me still, in a traumatic environment from the womb basically. Father always yelling and then beating me when I was old enough for him to justify it in his own mind. So it wasn’t safe for me to move without thinking about it, because it wasn’t safe for me to leave my mind out of fear. I was always watching my environment very closely… became it. It made me a very good athlete. But as an adult, the psychological manifestations that were hidden but inevitable to birth, manifested themselves. I am on Awakening Level I, just starting CD 2 with affirmations. But I recorded so many affirmations at such a high rate of speed… i don’t know if they will be effective. I would appreciate any advice that you can give.
Thanks so much for this article. I have personal experience of what you are saying. I am not a doctor and dont’ have a degree in development from a psychosematic level. But my thoughts on my own development parallel, sometimes shockingly close, to what you are describing. But then again, they are only thoughts. And I am prone to projecting my thoughts onto my view of the world.
Any thoughts you have would be very much appreciated. I dont’ have the money to go to the expensive retreats. I am already doing a movment science recently developed by Eric Cobb called Z-health. I still can’t get past my body. Anyway… I’ll end there.
Thanks in advance Bill.
Sincerely and in peace (as much as my mind can muster),
Billy
January 30th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Thank you so much for the podcast. Now I can concentrate when I listen to you and I can listen several times to fully digest what you say. It doesn’t matter if I agree or disagree, I studied Piaget and others in Developmental Psychology and Linguistics,( I teach English in Greece) and I often didn’t agree, but l always learned something.
With what you write and the podcast, I feel I’m back in the classroom and I LOVE it. Thank you so much.
Kathleen
January 31st, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Bill,
Your blog is getting better all the time, and podcasting now. Im going to download the mp3 and listen on the road.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Hi Bill
Much love to you and yours. I hear that question a lot lately. How well do you know yourself? I can say with complete honesty, that I know my self better now than I ever have. Holosync has changed my life and I wish with all my heart I could see you and say that so don’t be suprised if I get what I wish for, it’s been happening a lot lately. Holosync has opened a whole new world for me. It came not like a bolt out of the blue, but soft gentle as a lovers first kiss. The first thing I learned is Resistance (the ego) is suffering. Acceptance Causes a shift in awarness of the connectedness of the whole. If I hurt someone I hurt myself, If I hate someone I hate myself. If I cause strife I will have strife. If i give love I will be loved. The biggest thing I have learned about myself is that I have to actually want what I wanted when I get it. Every day is another chance to be filled with a joy that is beyond my limited education to define. I would like to see you make a movie one day that shows how to do some of the things are done. I am a visual person. I would like for the whole world to see to feel. There has to be some way. Well I am going now. I finally have started that garden in the back yard of that beautiful home I always dreamed of but until I stopped resisting It came. The best to you and yours.
April 6th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Bill,
Regarding the sensorimotor stage which you say is roughly between ages 0-2: How would you explain children who are taught, sometimes at day-care centers to use sign language even before they are 1 year old or before they can speak. I’ve seen children indicate through signing such abstract concepts as “more” before the age of 1. Does this mean that we need to update what is going on at these early ages that hasn’t in the past been expressed by children and what it obviously possible for these very young children? I recently heard that children before the age of 1 are not just lying there doing nothing, they are very busy constructing language…now that’s a pretty abstract and complicated piece of work!
April 30th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Conformations is a wonderful thing to find that your are up on the latest wave and all the rave’s which can be eithor positive or neg. this really gives you a better feel for taking the pulse of how we all feel and all in one spot. Just got to Love it. Thanks for making us think of what really is out there just waiting to be exposed in the right way of coarse.. Thanks again for giving us a great boost.