Even in standard religious practices, surely you can do all the standard stuff–go to church on Sundays, alms for the poor, not eat pork, whatever the tenets of the religion may be–you can have all the rules already determined for you instead of trying to work it out yourself…

I think that’s a very interesting statement. But even if you are looking into non-traditional beliefs, there are still always rules that are required to be followed. Yet, there are moments when people move past exsisting rules and begin to define their own reality, otherwise we wouldn’t have the wealth of religous/spiritual practice that we do…I suppose that may be the moment you pass to the final stage from those previous?

I paraphrased the above from A Brief History of Everything,

Strange, I read that a while back, but maybe wasn’t ready to digest it in the right context yet… I’ll look through it again on the Amazon search feature, thanks.

Oh wait a second. I think I read “A Theory of Everything” rather than this one…

Alec, I found that to be very useful. I don’t *hate-hate* Wilber so much as I find him annoying at times. But I think this is one of the times where it sounds like he has a lot of useful stuff to add.

I’m glad you found that useful. I’ve definitely found benefit in his perspective on these matters. Oh, and I was being facetious with my remark about adoring little Kenny. I know you’re trying to give him a fair shake.

This is like the most succint explanation I’ve seen so far of what I’m going through right now in my life.

Hey, You too?

I guess one of the things that turns me off about Wilber a lot of times is his need for flowerly language. “Aperspectival madness,” “disidentification,” etc. Like, I know what he means, and he’s right, but I think there are more “human” ways of communicating about it.

Point taken. He does like his technical terms, he does - I’ll concede that much. Although, I think he does an adequate job defining the terms he uses that aren’t in common parlance. Verily, I think he writes with admirable clarity considering the voluminous amounts of information he is synthesizing, where each source has it’s own jargon.

Anyway, is there a particular book where he develops these ideas you’re describing? Because I didn’t come across it in my limited reading of him.

I paraphrased the above from A Brief History of Everything, pp. 173-178. Without a doubt one of the most personally meaningful portions of the book. Although I doubt it would have had the same dramatic effect if I hadn’t digested the previous pages.

indeed, the primary goal of this stage is to cultivate an authentic being-in-the-world and transcend the inauthentic tendency to abdicate responsibility and deny death.

This is like the most succint explanation I’ve seen so far of what I’m going through right now in my life.

This also makes a lot of sense to me:

Wilber proposed that movement through the stages follows a process of disidentification with the current stage followed by indentification with the next stage. Identification with a new stage generates a new world-view - all previous experience is re-interpreted from the new perspective.

I guess one of the things that turns me off about Wilber a lot of times is his need for flowerly language. “Aperspectival madness,” “disidentification,” etc. Like, I know what he means, and he’s right, but I think there are more “human” ways of communicating about it.

Anyway, is there a particular book where he develops these ideas you’re describing? Because I didn’t come across it in my limited reading of him.

but all this has happened, finding Tim’s site, at just the right time for me to appreciate it and digest it properly. Life is funny that way - doors close, doors open.

Tim, your description of “Stage 3: Lines in the Sand” seems to correspond more-or-less with what Wilber calls the Centauric/Vision-Logic stage of development. This is the “highest” stage of orthodox development before the spiritual stages - the “brink of the transpersonal”. In a nutshell, a person at the vision-logic stage has mastered the ability to consider any perspective and see the relative truth of it. This ultimately begets a condition he calls “aperspectival madness” where all perspectives become relative and interdependent; there is nothing foundational. Reminds me a bit of the stereotypical conspiracy theorist driven to paranoid schizophrenia by a perceived web of insidious interconnections - similar to the fate that befell poor Casaubon in Foucault’s Pendulum (although this is open to interpretation, of course). Anyways, I digress. Wilber also refers to this as the existential stage because the pathologies that arise from getting hung up here correspond to the typical “existential crisis” - indeed, the primary goal of this stage is to cultivate an authentic being-in-the-world and transcend the inauthentic tendency to abdicate responsibility and deny death.

I won’t belabor the point any further, but I’d like to add that I see this as crucial to understanding the movement from theory to practice mentioned above. Up until this stage of development, particularly for those of us with a decidedly intellectual bent, we approached spirituality and the great unknown predominately by thinking about it. Once asperspectival madness sets in, and we begin to recognize the limitations of logic and reason, a more experientially oriented approach is necessary. Hence the move away from thinking (theory) towards doing (practice).

Oh, and shit, I nearly forgot to mention something about the cyclical nature of development. In fact, several years ago I wrote quite a dry and ponderous paper that attempted to shed some light on precisely that issue. In particular, I was attempting to reconcile Wilber’s model of development (linear) with that of Michael Washburn (cyclical). You see, Wilber proposed that movement through the stages follows a process of disidentification with the current stage followed by indentification with the next stage. Identification with a new stage generates a new world-view - all previous experience is re-interpreted from the new perspective. This involves Wilber’s “ladder, climber, view” metaphor, which I’ve found particularly useful. I recognized this as the mechanism behind the experience of departure (disidentification) and return (identification) that many people experience while traversing the stages - the sense of leaving home and then returning to see things in a different light. There also seems to be an intermediate step of limbo where you find yourself confused, distracted, and generally flailing about ineffectually looking for somewhere to moor your boat, but I’ve simplified it to a two-step process. So, essentially, I concluded that the process of development seems very cyclical - when viewed from the inside out - experientially. However, if you take a step back and view it from the outside in - a definite linear progession becomes apparent.

it makes sense that this spontaneous enlightenment is a way to jump through the stages a bit more quickly. it’s why it’s so difficult to attain: it moves you more quickly than working through the usual channels.

Four words for you:

Fucking spiritual warp zones!

We could think of these things as sort of a vortex which travels along the linear axis in a totally non-linear way. It can also mask itself as another state or stage, or be triggered by one. Rather than a joker which is obvious, it’s a wildcard. Or, its like the chutes & ladders in the game of the same name. Some people also explicitly court this energy and experience.

Man, I have to say, I’ve so far found this to be one of the most productive and interesting conversations we’ve had on this site in quite a while. Thanks to everybody who’s participated. I think I’m going to reformulate a version 2.0 of this later tonight and submit it for further conversation.

Right now eye’m a dabbler in a few things and am doing more than reading, but eye do the reading when it can immediately inform and catalyze the doing.

Yeah that makes perfect sense and I really liked how you looked at these states/stages (and that differentiation) from a more orthodox viewpoint. I think there’s a great deal of compatibility. Also your point about going back through the cycle is well-taken I think. For example, a person in Stage 3 could again find themselves ultimatlye dissatisfied with the tradition/community which theyve entered into, and may go back through and mimic some previous states.

that’s why i think they should be two completely different stages. some people are perfectly happy reding about this stuff forever, but for real seekers, there has to be some point at which advancement comes via practice instead of theory

Okay, I get what you’re saying then. It’s not that while you’re doing it you recognize that there’s a difference. It’s that this guide serves to inform you that theory is all well and good, but you need to get off your ass. Gotcha!

PS. I really dig the way you rearranged the stages. Now let me go through and read the comments which follow that!

it might be useful to incorporate the Sufi idea of states versus stages of spiritual development. We can tap into states and they make us euphoric about our progress or the new vistas they’ve opened to us, but they ultimately wear off and are transitory. Stages, however, are for good and we may or may not experience certain states once we’re in a certain stage.

This is a useful distinction!

this is the chaos magickian state, where you’ve had a few positive experiences with alternative spiritualities, so you want to go around proselytizing to the “unenlightened.” this is the reactionary, anti-christian state.

and a fun fucking state it is too!!!!!!!!

ye feel that your steps/stages may need to take into an account an ability to transition or revisit steps/stages one has already been through, and that may happen for a whole variety of different reasons.

Well a lot of people say it (the journey, trajectory, evolution, growth) is like a spiral, don’t they?

That’s been my experience - it sure ain’t a straight line.

Two steps forward, one step back, forward, back again, things look different the second or third time around, now back to the same place but I’m differnet now, etc.

I’m also very uncertain how all this applies to spontaneous spiritual experiences/crises. Any thoughts on that in particular?

well, it seems to me that spontaneous spiritual experiences/crises can move someone from one stage to another, or even cause them to skip stages, instantaneously. maybe it’s not a stage in and of itself, but thiking back on the literature of gnosis and zen enlightenment, it makes sense that this spontaneous enlightenment is a way to jump through the stages a bit more quickly. it’s why it’s so difficult to attain: it moves you more quickly than working through the usual channels. this isn’t to say that “enlightenment” is required, just that without enlightenment someone moves up the ladder gradually, while with enlightenment someone might skip a rung or two.

Stage 1: Something’s Wrong-With how authorities within m’eye tradition have taught it or with how the culture/ parents, etc. pretend to exemplify the tradition; m’eye understanding of the tradition was perhaps too naive or simplistic or whatever. Eye still believe/have faith/ have a strong feeling or insight that the “truth” for kmee is still to be found in this tradition, but eye’m not sure how to get about finding it or exemplifying it for m’eyeself in m’eye life. but eye feel apart from and an outsider to a generic group identity or mainstream (meanstream) visioning of the tradition

Stage 2: The Matching Game–Eye’m reading up and gobbling up fragments, bits, pieces–a shit ton of stuff from all over the body of writings within and about m’eye tradition. Just for an easy example, if Christianity is m’eye tradition, eye may actually be reading the gospels and Bible thoroughly and multiple translations thereof; eye may be reading about the early Church Fathers; eye may be reading various mystics who are accepted (or at least not outright denounced by) the folks in m’eye tradition who seem to have some “depth” in their practice or who seem to model a version of m’eye tradition that feels truer to where eye’m at or think eye might want to be (e.g. Meister Ekhart; St. John of the Cross; Meister Eckhart); eye may read about Christian history (good, bad and ugly); eye may read various hagiographies that resonate to kmee; eye may also read various philosophers and theologians of m’eye religion, who may or may not be in agreement but who are still viewed as being within the tradition broadly (Niebuhr, C.S. Lewis, Søren Kierkegaard). Eye may even read some stuff pertinent to how outsiders or folks of different faiths perceive m’eye path (stuff like a Om Shalom, which is a Vaishnavite Hindu take on Judaism, courtesy that dead Hari Krishna guy, for example, if m’eye tradition is Judaism, say). At this point, eye may become dismayed and end up jumping into the parallel steps along the “non-traditional/heretic/spiritual adventurer/radical”’s path OR eye will transition on to

Stage 3- Lines in the Sand- Eye’m aware of all sorts of various theological justifications/interpretations and religious experiencings of m’eye tradition and eye could keep reading on and on, but at this point eye’m getting a clearer and clearer sense of what truly being [insert traditional religion/ideology here] is and what that then entails (in the language of improvisational theater–”If this is true, then what else is true”) in terms of the actions and attitudes eye can take in everyday life to be truly living the [insert tradition here] life as eye’m now seeing/hearing/feeling it in m’eye heart

Stage 4- Dimension X?

Again, whether one goes through these stages from within the tradition they were born into or via the other route (or routes), eye feel may largely depend on temperment and how that particular intangible reacts to whatever experiences hit us at formative/vulnerable stages of our lives.

Now, speakin’ for m’eyeself, it was reading a book on religions when eye was a junior in high school that described Zorastrianism (which eye had never gnown about before) and its influence on Christianity and Judaism that broke open that thing in kmee that was dissatisfied with Catholicism and suspect of the Bible (ever since eye read a very similar Zeus makin’ people out of clay and mud story in an english class back in 7th grade–sounded too similar to Genesis to be coincidental) and the forced CCD classes on Wednesday nights growing up. Next stop, was finding a copy of Manley P. Hall’s Secret Teachings of All Ages and Societies which was in m’eye high school library and hadn’t been checked out since the early 80’s but had all this amazing art work and magic/esoteric talk in it, which resonated with stories m’eye mama used to tell us when we were little kids about stuff that happened in the old country (ghosts, premonitions, etc., how the devil sometimes appeared as a black dog and protected children–which was such a strange mystery and cognitive dissonance-maker for kmee given what the horned dude was supposed to be about). ‘Course, it’s taken a whole lot longer to get over the sexual guilt that Catholicism imprints on the youngin’s.

As far as stages, who gnos where eye’m at. Eye went through the stage of being super in to conspiracy theories and then deciding it created too much negativity and pessimism and wasn’t useful for kmee anymore…that was about three years ago. But then, when eye discovered this site and the Rigorous Intuition blog, eye got back into them to an extent–though not with anywhere near the same emotional attachment/inertia, so who gnos? Right now eye’m a dabbler in a few things and am doing more than reading, but eye do the reading when it can immediately inform and catalyze the doing. That make sense?

Eye feel that your steps/stages may need to take into an account an ability to transition or revisit steps/stages one has already been through, and that may happen for a whole variety of different reasons. Eye feel like, also, it might be useful to incorporate the Sufi idea of states versus stages of spiritual development. We can tap into states and they make us euphoric about our progress or the new vistas they’ve opened to us, but they ultimately wear off and are transitory. Stages, however, are for good and we may or may not experience certain states once we’re in a certain stage.

Skidoo.

I think when you’re doing that, you don’t necessarily realize that there IS a difference between theory and practice, because the theory so overwhelms you.

that’s why i think they should be two completely different stages. some people are perfectly happy reding about this stuff forever, but for real seekers, there has to be some point at which advancement comes via practice instead of theory. if you’re still overwhelmed by theory, then

Also, if we were to apply this strictly to conspiracy theorists, who aren’t normally considered spiritual, what would be the difference for them between theory and practice?

buying land and a rifle and stocking up supplies?

Stage 3 (3a): What else is there in practice?

well, that would be the move from reading about alternative spirituality to experimenting with it, be it through bible meetings or psychedelia or ritual magick.

Stage 4 (3b): Hey, everybody! Look at this!

this is the chaos magickian state, where you’ve had a few positive experiences with alternative spiritualities, so you want to go around proselytizing to the “unenlightened.” this is the reactionary, anti-christian state.

okay, let’s talk about it experientially:

Stage 1: Dissatisfaction with current personal experience.
Stage 2: Self-education about alternative personal experiences.
Stage 3: Experimentation with practical alternative personal experiences.
Stage 4: Desire to share personal experiences/transition from internalizing to externalizing experience (a seperate stage because this is really the first step towards developing compassion, albeit embryonic)
Stage 5: Codification of personal experiences/Actual sharing of personal experiences via community/compassionate acts.
Stage 6: Direct experience of the divine (?).
Stage 7: X

does that make sense, or does it needlessly complicate things?

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/07/30/the-essential-human-brand/

I’m also very uncertain how all this applies to spontaneous spiritual experiences/crises. Any thoughts on that in particular?

http://www.escapefromwatchtower.com/stages.html

STAGE I:

Chaotic, Antisocial. Frequently pretenders; they pretend they are loving and pious, covering up their lack of principles. Although they may pretend to be loving (and think of themselves that way), their relationships with their fellow human beings are all essentially manipulative and self-serving. They really don’t give a hoot about anyone else. I call the stage chaotic because these people are basically unprincipled. Being unprincipled, there is nothing that governs them except their own will.

STAGE II:

Formal, Institutional, Fundamental. Beginning the work of submitting themselves to principle-the law, but they do not yet understand the spirit of the law, consequently they are legalistic, parochial, and dogmatic. They are threatened by anyone who thinks differently from them, as they have the “truth,” and so regard it as their responsibility to convert or save the other 90 or 99 percent of humanity who are not “true believers.” They are religious for clear cut answers, with the security of a big daddy God and organization, to escape their fear of living in the mystery of life, the mystery of uncertainty in the ever moving and expanding unknown.

STAGE III:

Skeptic, Individual, questioner, including atheists, agnostics and those scientifically minded who demand a measurable, well researched and logical explanation. Although frequently “nonbelievers,” people in Stage III are generally more spiritually developed than many content to remain in Stage II. Although individualistic, they are not the least bit antisocial. To the contrary, they are often deeply involved in and committed to social causes. They make up their own minds about things and are no more likely to believe everything they read in the papers than to believe it is necessary for someone to acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior (as opposed to Buddha or Mao or Socrates) in order to be saved. They make loving, intensely dedicated parents. As skeptics they are often scientists, and as such they are again highly submitted to principle.

STAGE IV:

Mystic, communal. Out of love and commitment to the whole, using their ability to transcend their backgrounds, culture and limitations with all others, reaching toward the notion of world community and the possibility of either transcending culture or — depending on which way you want to use the words — belonging to a planetary culture. They are religious, not looking for clear cut, proto type answers, but desiring to enter into the mystery of uncertainty, living in the unknown.

somewhat reminiscent of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development now that i think about it

Stage 3 (3a): What else is there in practice?
Stage 4 (3b): Hey, everybody! Look at this!

Also, as far as these two:

Stage 2: What else is there in theory?
Stage 3 (3a): What else is there in practice?

I think when you’re doing that, you don’t necessarily realize that there IS a difference between theory and practice, because the theory so overwhelms you. Also, if we were to apply this strictly to conspiracy theorists, who aren’t normally considered spiritual, what would be the difference for them between theory and practice?

Forms Spiritual Emergence can take

Ego death and dark night of the soul: These states can arise as a stage in a particular spiritual practice or as a result of life circumstances that challenge one’s sense of identity, self-image or status. They centre on the dissolution of the self - our inner and outer worlds - and a consequent loss of reference points.

The awakaning of Kundalini: This refers to the spiritual energy that arises from the base of the spine. Some symptoms are - tremors of energy rising up the spine; sensations of extreme hot or cold; perception of flashing lights; psychological upheaval.

Shamanic crisis: This typically involves images/sensations/dreams focused on a quest or journey to the underworld where demons or animal spirits are often encountered, culminating in experiences of death, dismemberment and annihilation before a rebirth.

Near-death experience: These experiences often involve an unusual and profound shift in the experience of reality. This usually includes an out-of-body experience and can involve profound lessons about life and universal laws.

Episodes of unitive consciousness: An experience of transcending the ordinary distinction between object and subject and experiencing ecstatic union with humanity, nature, the cosmos and God.

Crisis of psychic opening: This may involve channeling, telepathy, clairvoyance, out-of-body experiences and meaningful coincidences.

Past life experience: People can behave irrationally because they are experiencing something from the past as part of their current life, or else a person can be haunted by physical feelings and emotions that are seemingly unconnected to anything in the personal history.

Possession states: This is characterized by an uncanny sense that one’s body and psyche have been invaded and are being controlled by an alien energy or entity that has personal characteristics. It can be another type of ‘crisis of psychic opening’.

Psychological renewal through the central archetype: This usually involves themes of death and rebirth, battles of opposing cosmic forces (eg good and evil), and a conviction of being the world saviour. If properly understood and treated as a difficult stage in a natural developmental process, spiritual emergence/emergencies can result in emotional and psychosomatic healing, deep positive changes of the personality, and the solution of many problems in life.

Or rather, its a bridge between the community you’re reacting against in Stage 1, and the community you form or join in Stage 3. Often I think this is a very lonely time because you feel like those around you can’t understand what you’re going through and when you try to talk to them about it, they humor you or think you’re crazy.

yeah, ’cause then you start to realize that you can’t change anyones’ minds for them, and that’s what sparks that whole saturation-point thing.

so maybe here’s what we’re starting to look at (if I can fiddle around with the numbers a bit):

Stage 1: Something’s Wrong
Stage 2: What else is there in theory?
Stage 3 (3a): What else is there in practice?
Stage 4 (3b): Hey, everybody! Look at this!
Stage 5: Fuck all ya’ll– I’m doing my own thing/finding my community.
Stage 6?: Enlightenment?
Stage 7: X . . . .

1. Social interactions and relationship to a community
2. Emotional state
3. Flow of creative energy
4. Likely significant personal events
5. Likely intellectual interests and style
6. Challenges of this level
7. Benefits of this level
8. How to help and relate to people at this level.
9. Fictional (or other) characters and stories who typify this particular level.

There are probably some others, but this seems like a step in the right direction - almost like creating our own DSM-IV for modern spiritual meanderings.

Another point worth making: an additional snag that happens in Stage 3 is that as you form a community, you inevitably find yourself interacting with people in different stages.

hey are any of you guys queers? Just wondering, I’m sure this post will probably get deleted, but oh well. It sort of seems like a support group in here for ultra sensitive males. Or the queerish effiminate type. Maybe queer isn’t exactly the word, but it seems like everyone in here is looking for a pat on the back or something. It’s kind of funny and cute in a way, but also sort of weird.

I’d also like to add in the idea of reaching a saturation-point where you’ve absorbed so much information and so many connections, and so many ideas, that you just can’t do it anymore. I think this is what starts to trigger Stage 3 where you start throwing things out, rather than collecting - drawing boundaries, rather than connections.

Yep. And also stage three has a lot of interior stages too I think. You focus on something, and the momentum from stage 2 keeps making you want to say “yeah, yeah, i know that part already, lets hurry forward to stage 4, the part where i get to be the star of my own universe again?” And then you rudely disocver it doesn’t work that way, there is too much to learn at stage 3.

RE: enlightenment, I am still tripping on that comment the poster made about endarkenment in the interview.

When I “discovered” gnosticism I definitely had a lot of visions and insights into the deep nature of reality that were completely new and shocking but…. I did get oversaturated with information, lost the freshness of the original insights, and my flaws started to reassert themselves in disguised form - asceticism, bibliophilia, an autoriatrian fetish for footnotes, etc… it was necessary to plunge back down into things that genuinely frightened me again after a while, the darkness, magic, monsters, primal cthonic material…

I’m also reminded of the spiritual trajectory outlined by william black in soings of innocence and experience, ie:

1. Innocence (as in the Song of Thel)
2. Experience
3. Wisdom (a sort of improved innocence - see the Marriage of Heaven & Hell)

There is some complex interplay of themes of good and evil, light and darkness that has characterized this search always for me at least: seeing myself as victimized by the darkness, discovering the light, becoming confortable with the light, then becoming too light to deal with the world, plunging back into the darkness, growing comfortable with the darkness, then deciding I had gone further than I was confortable with into that, going back and getting reacquainted with the light, etc….

I’m sort of in the place of “why do I want to give my attention to any of this?”

And also this:

I tell you, I used to be such a biblio-holic–when I couldn’t think of anything else to do with myself, I’d haunt a B&N or Borders. Today, that thought vaguely turns my stomach. I don’t know what I want to be doing, but I do seem to be focused on actions to take rather than merely reading about stuff.

Both match up very closely with my own experiences and of other people I talk to about these things. As to the first point, I’d also like to add in the idea of reaching a saturation-point where you’ve absorbed so much information and so many connections, and so many ideas, that you just can’t do it anymore. I think this is what starts to trigger Stage 3 where you start throwing things out, rather than collecting - drawing boundaries, rather than connections.

This idea of creating a general template of spiritual growth is something I’m interested in hearing more about. I have no idea what stage I’m at, if indeed there are stages. Feel like I really am in “the Boucher stage three,” because I am experiencing the spiritual ennui Tim talks of. I know Ran Prieur also spoke thereof about six to eight months ago. I tell you, I used to be such a biblio-holic–when I couldn’t think of anything else to do with myself, I’d haunt a B&N or Borders. Today, that thought vaguely turns my stomach. I don’t know what I want to be doing, but I do seem to be focused on actions to take rather than merely reading about stuff. And yet, part of my unfolding spiritual … space-clearing (growth is such a cancerous word) seems to be about “hurry up and wait.”

That said, some of my old interests are starting to come back. I had a dream the other day where I was in the audience to see a play I’ve been writing for 20 years finally be produced. I saw the curtain rise and then I woke up. I can take a hint, so I’m going back to my family/Columbine/Ampire’s Twilight play. I grew up in Littleton, 5 miles away from Columbine. Guess it’s time for that one for some reason.

It’s odd that I seem to be exploring both gnosticism and Reclaiming-style witchcraft at the same time. I came at these through twelve-step programs, which from my vantage point seems to be a Christianated reconnection to gnostic themes. (The Big Book sort of suggests people create their own creation myths–they certainly want you to reconfigure God to a more personal way of understanding.) I’ve clearly been through some stuff and am still going through it. Part of me hopes never to become a luminary, however. Way-shower is all right, but I like being an anonymous pal stretching myself outward along the great web o’ being who enjoys a good talk with the Blue God and Freyja about whether or not to take that class or whatever. I need to be reminded of what it means to be humble/human/humorous and teachable. Regardless of wherever I may fall in this range, may I always be teachable.

1. I really appreciate Joe’s point about the transformation of personal demons into things that are useful, and the extreme pain and confusion that goes along with that.

2. I also really dig what Jeremy said about basically “putting your money where your mouth is” versus just endless armchair philosophizing.

3. Kylark’s point about breakdowns between stages also makes a lot of sense as well. I like the idea especially of coming up with not only descriptions of stages, but likely transition points and transformative events throughout as well. I’m definitely going to be expanding on this.

4. Another point I wanted to add has to do with the type of phenomenon you see on internet forums where everybody flies off the handle over (virtually) nothing. I know part of the fault is with forums and internet communication in general. But I think there’s also a stage where its useful or at least necessary to engage in these kinds of heated discussions, but ultimately also understand how to channel them in the most effective ways.

5. Oh another great point somebody made above is how would people who’ve been solidly in a spiritual tradition all their lives relate to the list above. It’s a hard question for me to answer, as I’ve done so much shifting around and exploration myself. If anybody wants to have a try at it, I’m curious to hear.

6. Jeremy made mention of how “enlightenment” fits into all this. I guess I’m not really sure or maybe don’t feel qualified to answer. Any takers?

1. Thesis= Catholicism - age 21

yeah exactly like you’ve described it here: anger, rebellion, curiousity, outrage when I realized what assumptions i’ve been operating on and how poorly they’ve served me.

I sat down one day and made a list of all the things I had always thought of as “good” and all the things I had always thought of as “evil” and realized for the first time I could be 100% wrong.

2. Antithesis = Gnosticism - age 26 - enlightenement

Obsessive connection - most definitely. Quantum physics! Gnosticism & the Nag Hammadi myths! LSD! Tantric Yoga! Computer Art! I can’t stop and I don’t want to! Its all so hilarious and magical and marvellous - anything is possible! I am an alien from outerspace! Eternity is now! Woo-hoo!

3. Synthesis = African Catholic-tribal shamanism - age 31

Hmmm… there must be more. Thats enough anarchy for a while. I need some discipline and some structure. Wait, you mean the occult isn’t all just stuff that I make up in my imagination? There actually are secret societies? Oooh… scary. Time to put my money where my mouth is.

4. We’ll see. Wish me luck!

I would add breakdown/disillusionment/vision in between stages 1 and 2, but then, that’s just because that’s what I went through. I know you include breakdown in stage 1, but I would give it its own stage. Hm. Maybe I’ll detail my journey on my blog.

When I went through my breakdown, I thought I had the visionary power of a Jesus or a PKD (though I didn’t know about PKD yet). Did I really? Who knows. I did begin the process of writing a creation myth; something Rev Max mentioned in his interview. It’s possible that someone breaking down between 1 and 2 can have a true creative vision, but that a certain amount of fortitude and preparation is necessary to carry it out. When I was breaking down I was Gaia, I was re-writing the Garden, but I was still Kylark a woman from a certain time and place (Midwestern U.S., late 20th century) with that person’s lifetime of bad habits, lazy streak, and lack of preparation or training for what she was going through. No spiritual framework.

What Rev Max said about re-writing creation and playing with the Gods; that’s basically what I was trying to do. I felt I was able to do that directly. Sometimes with the work I’m doing know, all this studying of magic, I question whether I’m trying to shoehorn myself into something smaller than I am. But at least I’ll be better prepared if the visionary experience comes upon me again. And maybe this time I won’t end up in the hospital.

I guess I’m in late Stage 2 right now. I’m learning about Tarot and the Tree of Life (Kaballah) and I love it. I’ve always liked maps. And that’s all they are, is maps, but they’re a lot more useful than the ones I had before. (One reviewer on Amazon.com said that the Tree of Life is basically just a filing cabinet. Hee hee).

As for Stage 4, well… I am visiting Seattle soon.

As far as Stage One, there’s a good historical correlation in San Juan de la Cruz’s “Dark Night of the Soul.” But, it seems like there may often be varying degrees to each stage, as well. For some people, the Dark Night might manifest as a quiet discontent with the traditions of ones’ youth, but for others it might be a full-on schizo-shamanic death and dismemberment vision.

I also might add a Step 2.5, which would be the move from the theoretical to the practical. Armchair spiritualists might sit around in Stage 2 learning about spirituality all their lives, but until they’ve really started acted on it somehow and allowing their investigations to change the way they interact with the world, I’m not sure they could move fully into Stage 3.

Also, what about “enlightenment”? How could yr stages have an allowance for a more instantaneous spiritual experience?

So, yeah, I would include in your stages the chaos of repressed personal demons that have to be transformed into something helpful. Converting the seemingly negative emotions into positive energy. Or however you want to phrase it. I think it requires a more focused direction and attention than the crazy connection-making of stage 2, which is probably why people “settle down” into something more specific.

Just a thought: obviously there are a lot of people who never leave the religion of their birth, but their spiritual progress doesn’t just stall, either. What do you think these stages look like to them? How would they describe them, I guess is what I’m asking. Because I feel like they would use quite different language in some ways. Might be good to consider to make the stages more “universal.”