A Four-Term Logic: Holling Adaptive Cycle, Cross of Reality, and Sacred Hoop

Since there seems to be some great confusion and misunderstanding of the purposes and meanings of The Chrysalis, which is primarily about the ongoing and rather turbulent shift from the cosmic number 3 to the cosmic number 4 — or from a reality construed in three dimensions to a reality construed in four dimensions along with the corresponding restructuration of consciousness that is implied in this  — I’m going to reach back into The Chrysalis archives and raise once again the key issues in the transition or metamorphosis — the emergence of the quadrilateral or fourfold as it is represented in the Holling Adaptive Cycle, Rosenstock-Huessy’s “cross of reality”, the native North American “Sacred Hoop”, and on to what William Blake also means by his “four Zoas” and “fourfold vision”.

The turn to a four-term logic to replace the already antiquated three-term, dialectical logic of the Newtonian-Cartesian worldview — which has entered into its manifest “deficient mode” as cultural philosopher Jean Gebser describes it — has become a pressing necessity, but also arises in the face of resistance from conservative forces manifestly nostalgic for the psychological securities, predictabilities, familiarities, and certainties of the Old Order or ancien regime.

In his book Quantum Revelation, Paul Levy also addresses the deficiencies of an “either/or” type logic and this need for a “four-valued” or four-term logic, which I will quote at some length as a way of also re-introducing previous discussions of the fourfold and transition to the fourfold as also illustrated in the quadrilateral logics of Holling, Rosenstock-Huessy, and the indigenous Sacred Hoop.

Instead of needing one or the other viewpoint to be true, in a radically new form of logic—called “four-valued logic” in Buddhism (also known as “paralogic”)—we can hold seemingly contradictory statements together as both being true simultaneously. This higher form of logic is be able to hold paradox in a new way; we can cultivate our ability to appreciate—rather than solve so as to get rid of—“fruitful ambiguities,” which opens up all kinds of new possibilities. The apparent paradoxical nature of quantum reality cannot be resolved within the framework of the standard Aristotelian, two-valued logic which is basic to Western analytical thought. Western civilization has been hypnotized by this limited form of “yes/no” logic where things are either true or false, exist or don’t exist. Aristotelian logic deals with certainties, thereby subliminally programming us to invent fictitious certainties in a world that is riddled with uncertainty.

Many of the seeming paradoxes of quantum physics are themselves a direct function or artifact of the intrinsic limitations built into the nature of a mutually exclusive, binary, two-valued logic. Having a definite utility, two-valued logic works by contrast, giving attributes to things and making distinctions, thereby limiting them. Something is “this” only by defining it as not “that.” Our very language itself, in categorizing things and ideas, conditions us into a dualistic, two-valued, logical way of thinking. The axiomatic set through which we view the world and its logic conditions and shapes our minds and thus affects the state of consciousness we inhabit. To get insight into the non-ordinary reality of the quantum world, we have to introduce a higher form of logic in order to wrap our minds around what we are dealing with. Interestingly, logic has been described as the science of thinking correctly.

Instead of needing one or the other viewpoint to be true, in a radically new form of logic219—called “four-valued logic” in Buddhism (also known as “paralogic”)—we can hold seemingly contradictory statements together as both being true simultaneously. This higher form of logic is characterized not by the two-valued logic of either/or, but by the four-valued logic of both/and, where things can be true and false at the same time. Two-valued logic is based on the law of the excluded middle in which things are either (1) true or (2) false. By contrast, four-valued logic includes the middle and the ends surrounding it, so that things are (1) true, (2) false, (3) both true and false, and/or (4) neither true nor false.

Levy, Paul. Quantum Revelation: A Radical Synthesis of Science and Spirituality (pp. 57 – 58). SelectBooks, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

In another passage, Levy describes why a four-value logic is desirable and necessary,

Four-valued logic is the logic of interdependence, unlimited wholeness, and the unity of all things. Quantum reality requires that our either-or thinking be replaced by a more nuanced, layered, and fruitful integration of surface and depth, inside and outside, the part and the whole, the root and its branch. The alternatives offered by four-valued logic represent all the possible standpoints from which every problem can be viewed; instead of there being only two extremes (yes or no), we have an infinite spectrum of choices between the extremes. This logic gives new insight into how what may appear to be contradictions at one level can be part of a deeper consistency and completeness from a higher, more inclusive level.

Truly subversive, four-valued logic undermines undermines our ability to hold on to any fixed position whatsoever. By rejecting any one view as well as the ultimate truth of all views, four-valued logic is in essence rejecting the competence of standard Aristotelian reason to comprehend the fundamental nature of reality. We are unable to conceptually understand four-valued logic, however, with a mind that has been conditioned to think with two-valued logic. Four-valued logic helps us to begin to get a sense of what we are dealing with in our encounter with the quantum realm.

Ibid. (p. 58 59).

Levy’s characterisation of what a four-value logic would look like — one that also incorporates the paradoxical — is adequate for the following discussion of the three or four models of reality we will introduce here — the Holling Adaptive Cylce, Rosenstock-Huessy’s “cross of reality” and the “Sacred Hoop”

Holling’s Adaptive Cycle

Rosenstock-Huessy’s Basic Cross of Reality


Sacred Hoop /Medicine Wheel

We could, of course, also bring in other representations of this fourfold pattern as has been done in past posts (Blake, Jacob Boehme, Rumi, alchemy or Hermetic Philosophy, or even Buddhism and Christian “mysticism”, etc), but these three will do for now. But they all indicate that, in one way or another, this “four-value logic” has always been the intuitive or tacit knowledge of the human species.

What these diagrammes represent is the flow or flux of energy, or what we have referred to earlier as “the field”, and the various phases or stages of that energy in the process of manifestation or realisation, or the process we call “maturation”. They represent the life-stages or phases of any dynamic or energetic process whatsoever. So, in many respects, a the term “four-value logic” means also a “four-phasic logic”.

Now, the Holling Adaptive Cycle is a particularly interesting example of this. Originally derived from the study of ecology, and of energy flows (thermodynamics) through an ecological niche or system, it is relevant to any energetic system whatsoever.

There are four phases in the circulation of energy, which are also phases or stages of realisation: “Re-organisation”, “Exploitation”, “Conservation”, and “Release”. The connection with the traditional four seasons, here, is rather obvious — spring, summer, fall, winter. The German historian Oswald Spengler made himself famous for describing the rise and fall of civilisations in such seasonal terms, although his pessimistic conclusions about that (in The Decline of the West) have been rejected by philosophers like Jean Gebser and Rosenstock-Huessy as too fatalistic and deterministic. The phases also have some correspondence with the life stages described as birth, youth, adulthood, and old age which also belong, among other matters, to the cardinal points — East, North, West, South — of the indigenous Sacred Hoop.

In mythological terms, the four phases of the Holling Adaptive Cycle, or the four directions of the cross of reality and the Sacred Hoop, were called “The Guardians of the Four Directions”, and which also have some relation with William Blake’s “four Zoas” and Carl Jung’s “four psychological functions”, and with Gebser’s four civilisational types as “structures of consciousness” (the archaic, the magical, the mythical, and the mental-rational).

Rosenstock-Huessy’s cross of reality model and sociodynamics, where he introduces the terms “traject” and “preject” to supplement the spatial terms “subject” and “object” arose coincident with the inclusion of time as the “fourth-dimension”. In sociological terms, “trajective” and “prejective” correspond to the conservative and progressive moods or orientations — backwards or forwards to supplement the inwards and outwards. The “conservation” phase in Holling’s cycle corresponds to Rosenstock-Huessy’s “trajective” phase (or traditionalism) while the “re-organisation” phase corresponds to Rosenstock-Huessy’s “prejective” (or progressive) phase of the cycle that follows the “release” phase, which we would call the “decadence” phase in sociological terms.

And so, what you have also described in the Holling Adaptive Cycle is the Gebserian “double-movement” of disintegration and re-integration — that is, the release and re-organisation phases of the Holling cycle which have become coincident — the “coincidence of the opposites” and what makes for present chaos is the release phase coincident with the incipience of the re-organisation phase. Optional terms for this are “expirational” and “inspirational”.

And this is one reason why the “both sides” argument is quite banal and fruitless, and even the meaning of Jesus’ remark “I would that you were hot or cold, but because you are lukewarm, I will spew thee from my mouth”. The phasic nature of the ecodynamic laws and a four-value logic are clear, and that the “exploitation” and “conservation” phases cannot go on forever, but reach a limit of sustainability or coherence and revert to decadence and re-organisation. In historical terms, this re-organisation is called a “revolution” and the release phase is what we call “corruption”.

Also to be noted is that the Holling Adaptive Cycle is not a closed loop, but is open-ended. Although the fourfold pattern recurs, it never recurs in exactly the same way, for if it did, we would never have “evolved” outside any of the previous structures described by Gebser — the archaic, the magical, the mythical, the mental-rational, or foresee the possibility of the “integral”. So, the “re-organisation” is never a replication or repetition. And while there are indeed “eternal verities” in this sense, the “facts” or “truths” of any one phase of cycle are not equivalent.

What these symbols signify is that consciousness and what we call “identity” must become more fluid. It’s this that Rosenstock-Huessy, for example, calls his “ecodynamic laws of society” in his book on The Multiformity of Man. The Multiformity of Man is an appeal not to get stuck in one one phase, or any one arm of the cross of reality. Human freedom depends on being able to circulate freely through the four phases and at the appropriate times — trajective, prejective, subjective, objective or, in Holling’s terms, conservation or reorganisation, exploitation (objective) and release (or “letting go”).

What is important, though, in all these representations is what Jean Gebser also calls “the vital centre”, the quintessence. It’s not the “commanding heights” that are important, but this “vital centre”, because its at this vital centre where you perceive all four directions — the whole. That vital centre, even in the Holling diagramme, is what we call “critical juncture” or “the crucial” or “the pivotal”, and it is crucial or pivotal in a way described by Gebser, as affording the crucial knowledge of “when to let happen and when to make happen”, and these correspond to the right and left sections of the Adaptive Cycle and which are largely in conflict today.

It’s also possible to see don Juan/Castaneda’s “four enemies of the man of knowledge” in these symbols — fear, clarity, power, old age. Fear corresponds to the release phase, clarity to the re-organisation phase, power to the exploitation phase (use or pragmatic knowledge) and old age to the mature or conservational phase, but even that must necessary followed by the release phase, which don Juan calls “dancing for one’s death”. But the only reason these are called “enemies” is because they represent seductions and temptations to remain stay stuck in that phase, which is true of individuals as well as civilisations and consciousness structures. These “enemies” are, otherwise, also the famous Guardians of the Four Directions.

So, there is no “both sides” argument to be made here that has any validity. At any one phase of the process there are responses that are appropriate and others which are inappropriate. It’s a matter of discerning which phase we are in and responding appropriately and decisively, which Rosenstock-Huessy calls “timeliness”. Nietzsche’s “two centuries of nihilism” is the release phase — no question. But it is also on the threshold of the re-organisation phase, and this re-organisation phase is what Nietzsche means in saying “one must have chaos within oneself to give birth to a dancing star”.

These symbols have a lot of explanatory power, along with the newer four-value logic described by Levy as well, and also to describe the life-cycle of any of Gebser’s “four structures of consciousness” from their “effective” to their “deficient” modes of expression and their reorganisation in different structures or Gestalts.


23 responses to “A Four-Term Logic: Holling Adaptive Cycle, Cross of Reality, and Sacred Hoop”

  1. donsalmon says :

    Debashish Banerji was speaking about The Life Divine last week, and noted how the supramental consciousness supersedes the Aristotelian law of contradiction, so things can be A and not-A at the same time. Interesting connection with what Levy wrote.

    • Scott Preston says :

      yes. I’ve written about the defects of the law of non-contradiction in some earlier posts. It was one of Rosenstock-Huessy’s bugbears, too.

      From what I know of Aurobindo’s “supramental” — just from reading a couple of essays on it (I’m still working on getting through Life Divine), it does seem consonant with Rosenstock-Huessy’s “metanoia” (new mind), Gebser’s “integral consciousness” and Nietzsche’s “transhuman” as well (maybe also Blake’s “fourfold vision” — not sure yet). So, I do think something is bestirring and aborning (besides the “Rough Beast” and Lizard Brain, that is).

  2. Scott Preston says :

    Interesting read “The Tryant and His Enablers”, about Shakespeare’s Richard III, but evidently not really about Richard III.


  3. Scott Preston says :

    You might consider this application an example of the “effective” mode of Gebser’s magical structure of consciousness.


  4. Scott Preston says :

    Experiencing life from the other side. This has nothing much to do with the post, but its fascinating nonetheless, even darkly humourous. The story of women who have transitioned to being men, and what it’s like suddenly looking at the world in that way. Most humourous is the former radical feminist who, after transitioning to male, was accused of “mansplaining” everything, which threw him for a loop.


  5. Scott Preston says :

    So, almost everything is higgledy-piggledy and helter skelter, topsy-turvy and inside-out — proof that the rational principle is in disarray and that there is no coherent structure to the intelligence or coherent framework or pattern to guide it. Trumpism is just a symptom of that inner chaos.

    But one of the blessings of Trumpism — in addition to the curse of Trumpism — is, as mentioned earlier, it is forcing conservatives, liberals, progressives, to question and reflect on who and what they really are, including this fellow, Charles Sykes


    Sykes, a self-identifying conservative who writes for The Weekly Standard, has written a book How the Right Lost Its Mind, which is amusing, but revealing, given that the right today really thinks its the left that has lost its mind — “Trump Derangement Syndrome” as it’s called.

    Which is interesting, because that phrase seems to have come from Canada during former Conservative PM Stephen Harper and what was called then by conservatives “Harper Derangement Syndrome” which, of course, liberals and progressives thought was all on the Conservative side — “my leader right or wrong” kind of stuff, loyalty and obedience above all, even in the threat of authoritarianism and some very anti-democratic practices. Harper implemented then many of the things that Trump does now.

    So, this is interesting. All “sides” of the political divide are accusing each other of being deranged and thinking chaotically and incoherently. Could it be that they are all correct? And wouldn’t some knowledge of Gebser’s shared “breakdown of the mental-rational consciousness structure” provide a common basis for a shared dialogue about this instead of this factionalism and hyper-partisanship?

    Bit of irony there isn’t there? All sides thinking the others are deranged when the truth is it’s what we all share in common at “the end of history”.

    Remember Gebser’s three questions: “Where do I come from? Who am I? Where am I going?” Sykes is an example of someone beginning to ask such questions in the context of all this turmoil. But few ask those questions because they assume they are completely sane and everybody else is the one who is insane. And until people see the danger here of their own blindspot– the danger of deficient “perspectivism” — they won’t ask those questions — not until they realise that they are, indeed, deranged, which insight all kinds of “identitarianism” and identity politics serves to prevent, or what I call “point-of-view” consciousness.

    So, our first needed insight is that we are all deranged– “Physician, heal thyself”, as it were.– before we can ask the most pertinent existential questions. Most people do not even perceive the danger here because of “Fantasyland” (as Kurt Anderson calls it).

    We have to take ownership of this — our “post-modern”, “end of history” “new normal” condition is to be totally fucking mad. We won’t even begin to ask the right questions — the questions that matter for our collective survival — until we accept that we are totally fucking mad.

    Maybe waking up to the fact that we’re all madcap and crazier than batshit might arouse a bit of common sympathy for our collective condition — and supply us with a common focus and task — how to get sane (and not “again” because we’ve never really been there for an “again” to recur).

    • InfiniteWarrior says :

      But why are we “totally fucking mad?” Or, at least and at most, acting that way as a species? Speaks to Gebser’s “time freedom,” doesn’t it? Is it our freedom from time Gebser is writing about? Is it our allowing “time” to flow freely?

      Interesting phrase, “time freedom.”

      Time is of the soul.” ~ St. Augustine

      • Scott Preston says :

        No it doesn’t. It would be a mistake to assume that the breakdown of the mental-rational in anyway automatically invokes the integral or “time-freedom”.That would be to misread Gebser. It doesn’t. It only offers the potentiality for that. It’s just as likely to result in the descent into total insanity and complete self-annihilation.

        Gebser (and Blake before him) was quite clear on this — unless we’re prepared to acknowledge this breakdown of the mental-rational, recognise the symptoms, and gain insight into it and why, and then work on our own self-overcoming, then the “global catastrophe” he foresees will be fulfilled. I would not mistake aberrant (or “deficient” in his terms) expressions of the magical or mythical, which Gebser foresaw too, as having anything much to do with the integral. They only offer the potentiality for the integral.

        There is nothing automatic about this at all.

        • donsalmon says :

          Taking the deficient magic or mythic to be integral was described by Ken Wilber (in one of his rare moments of insight) as the pre-trans fallacy.

          if all one knows is the archaic, magic, mythic and mental, then the “integral” can only be seen through the lens of one of the other structures.

          Put more simply, as Vivekananda put it in his Raja Yoga, the above-I is perceived by many as below-I.

          In yet another formulation, the infra-rational, to the extent it feel free from the rational or mental, is often taken to be supra-rational. Sri Aurobindo said there is hardly any greater danger to humanity than to make this mistake.

          Whereas modern secular Buddhists divest Buddhism of its magic, mythic AND integral elements, leaving a nearly-dead flat, mental caricature of the original, much if not most of the New Age is mistaking the infra-rational for the supra-rational. (see Gary lachman!)

          • Scott Preston says :

            In yet another formulation, the infra-rational, to the extent it feel free from the rational or mental, is often taken to be supra-rational. Sri Aurobindo said there is hardly any greater danger to humanity than to make this mistake.

            I’m assuming that this is what some refer to as the aberration of “spiritual materialism”.

          • InfiniteWarrior says :

            modern secular Buddhists

            Time-travelling again….

            “Secular” Buddhists? (“Secular” Christians, et al.)

            What does that mean, exactly? “Secular.”

            Contrary to the dictionary definition, it’s largely considered to be “concerned with earthly affairs” as opposed to “transcendent” in the very much exclusively, “out of this world ” definition.

        • InfiniteWarrior says :

          It would be a mistake to assume that the breakdown of the mental-rational in anyway automatically invokes the integral or “time-freedom”.

          Did I say anything about “automatic?” No.

          Just a little something to contemplate in additon to “sight” and “perspective.” That’s all.

          Time-travelling back to TDAB days, there was much discussion about all the “Now” books currently in circulation. Considering the Buddhist (et al) emphasis on the “the present moment,” I remember thinking, “How many ways can we say, ‘Wake up and pay attention’?” (NTM, it’s rather difficult to form a proper intention unless we do wake up and pay attention.)

          We’ve also discussed a quite distinct difference between “instananeous” and “ever-present.” (Considering the “current” emphasis on instananeous everything — from cooked food to communication — I’d wager that message has been mightily miscontrued by us as a species as well. Doesn’t something becomes an instance after it’s happened.>

          That kind of thing. ; )

          • InfiniteWarrior says :


            The next Star Trek:TNG episode that aired shortly after First Contact was Night Terrors.

            Go figure.

            • InfiniteWarrior says :

              BTB. While Data informs Troi that they need to transmit a complicated message to the alien ship also caught in “Tyken’s rift,” Troi questions the complicated (as opposed to “complex”) nature of the message, upon which Data suggests that the only message that should be sent to the alien ship is “NOW.”

              Talk about a “leap.” ; )

  6. Scott Preston says :

    Just re-reading Black Elk Speaks, and came upon this passage:

    “Crazy Horse’s father was my father’s cousin, and there were no chiefs in our family before Crazy Horse; but there were holy men; and he became a chief because of the power he got in a vision when he was a boy. When I was a man, my father told me something of that vision. Of course he did not know all of it; but he said that Crazy Horse dreamed and went into the world where there is nothing but the spirits of all things. That is the real world that is behind this one, and everything we see here is something like a shadow from that world. He was on his horse in that world, and the horse and himself on it and the trees and the grass and the stones and everything were made of spirit, and nothing was hard, and everything seemed to float. His horse was standing there, and yet it danced around like a horse made only of shadow, and that is how he got his name, which does not mean that his horse was crazy or wild, but that in his vision it danced around in that queer way.” (p. 83)

    You might recognise Blake’s “Ulro” in that description, and that what Black Elki is describing there belongs to what Gebser calls “the transparency of the world” — ie, that everything that appears so soiid and real about ordinary reality is only a shadow (or symbolic form) of the spiritual world. Blake, Rumi, and Crazy Horse would probably have lots to talk about.

  7. Scott Preston says :

    “We’re not so far from the collapse of reality,” as Franklin Foer summed up at the Atlantic.


  8. Scott Preston says :

    Gary Lachman has published an essay on Barfield and Gebser and evolution of consciousness. It’s very good, and I recommend you read it.


  9. mikemackd says :

    Following on from this post, and bearing in mind the quote therein about not needing one or the other viewpoint to be true, I found Rene Guenon’s work “Symbolism of the Cross”, online at: http://cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/neoreaction/Rene%20Guenon/organized/accounted/Rene%20Guenon%20-%20Symbolism%20of%20the%20Cross.pdf

    Guenon had this to say, germane to the Star Key as well as your post here:

    we thus get what might be called, in the first case, the vertical cross, and in the second, the horizontal cross. The combination of the two crosses, which have the same centre, forms the three-dimensional cross, the branches of which are oriented in the six directions of space; these latter correspond to the six cardinal points, which, with the centre itself, form the septenary.
    We have already remarked elsewhere on the importance which the oriental doctrines attach to the seven regions of space, and also on their correspondence with certain cyclic periods. It seems worth while to reproduce here a text previously quoted, which shows that the same thing is also to be found in the western traditions: “Clement of Alexandria says that from God, ‘ Heart of the Universe’, issue all the directions of space, each indefinite in extent, one upwards, one downwards, one to the right, one to the left, one forwards and one backwards; turning His gaze in these six directions, none of which extends further than the others, He accomplishes the world; He is the beginning and the end (the alpha and omega); in Him the six phases of time are accomplished, and from Him they receive their indefinite extensions ; herein resides the secret of the number seven” . 3
    This symbolism is also that of the Hebrew Qabbalah, which
    speaks of the the ” Holy Palace ” or ” Inward Palace ” as being situated at the centre of the six directions of space. The three letters of the divine Name Jehovah,1 by their sextuple permutation in these six directions, indicate the immanence of God in the bosom of the world, that is, the manifestation of
    the Logos at the centre of all things in the primordial point, of which all extent is merely the expansion or development:
    “Out of the void (Thohu) He formed something, and out of that which is not, He made that which is. He carved great columns from the impalpable ether. He reflected, and His Speech (Memra) produced every object and all things by His
    Name, The One.This primordial point at which the Divine Word is uttered does not develop solely in space, but also in time; it is the “centre of the world” in every sense, that is, it is it is at once at the centre of space and at the centre of time. This, of course, if taken literally, concerns our world alone, being the only one whose conditions of existence are directly expressible in human language; but, as it is really a question of the centre of all the worlds, we may pass to the supra-sensible order by making an analogical transposition in which space and time no longer bear any but a purely symbolical meaning.
    We have seen that Clement o{ Alexandria deals with six phases of time, corresponding respectively to the six divisions of space: these, as has been shown, are the six cyclic periods, subdivisions of a more general period, and sometimes represented as six millenia. In fact, both the Zohar and the Talmud divide the duration of the world into millenary periods:” The world will endure for six thousand years to which the six first utterances of Genesis allude; and these six
    millenia are analogous to the six ‘days’ of Creation.” The seventh millenium, like the seventh “day”, is the Sabbath, that is, the phase of return to the Principle, which naturally corresponds to the centre, regarded as a seventh region of space. We have here a sort of symbolical chronology, which must clearly not be taken literally, any more than those found in other traditions: Josephus remarks that six thousand years form ten ” great years “, a ” great year ” being six centuries (this is the Naros of the Chaldaeans) ; but elsewhere what is denoted by this expression is a far longer period, ten or twelve thousand years in the case of the Greeks and Persians. This, however, does not matter here, since we are in no way trying to calculate the real duration of our world, which would call for a profound study of the Hindu theory of Manvantaras ; it will therefore be enough to take these divisions with their symbolic value. Accordingly, we will merely say that we are concerned with six phases of indeterminate duration, plus a seventh which corresponds to the accomplishment of all things and their re-establishment in the primal state

    It seems to me that the geometric (earth-measuring) framing behind all this involved an interplay between odd and even numbers, the next number being the centre of the number of lines with their points on the periphery, and that process need never have stopped any more than numbers have to.

    Any such models need not now be confined to Euclidian geometry. In fact Einstein broke away from that, using Reimann geometry instead, if my memory serves me right; I wonder if he was familiar with the Qabbalistic conceptions above concerning spacetime?

    So now, we may consider horses for courses as available in our framings. In those horses and their courses, we are not necessarily any more bound to the past and its framings than Einstein was. Here, I’m not talking of postmodernism as such; more one with intrinsic valuation competencies at its core, such as Max Scheler’s, which McGilchrist adopted.

  10. Scott Preston says :

    “”You have noticed that the truth comes into this world with two faces. One is sad with suffering, and the other laughs; but it is the same face, laughing or weeping.” (Black Elk Speaks, pp. 188 – 189)

    You may well consider that another way of expressing Gebser’s “double-movement” also.

  11. Scott Preston says :

    Gary Lachman interviewed by Jeremy Johnson in Reality Sandwich about his book Dark Star Rising


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: