• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Dr. Joseph Dillard is a psychotherapist with over forty year's clinical experience treating individual, couple, and family issues. Dr. Dillard also has extensive experience with pain management and meditation training. The creator of Integral Deep Listening (IDL), Dr. Dillard is the author of over ten books on IDL, dreaming, nightmares, and meditation. He lives in Berlin, Germany. See: integraldeeplistening.com and his YouTube channel. He can be contacted at: [email protected]

SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY JOSEPH DILLARD

The Naturalism of The Dreaming Kosmos

The Dreaming Kosmos, Chapter 8

Joseph Dillard

Imagine a dark cave, deep underground, where a group of prisoners has been confined since birth. These prisoners are chained by their necks and legs, facing a blank wall, unable to turn their heads or move freely. Behind them burns a fire, casting light into the cave, and between the fire and the prisoners runs a raised walkway. Along this walkway, people pass by, carrying objects, statues, tools, and figures of animals, held high so their shadows are projected onto the wall in front of the prisoners. The prisoners, having known no other reality, perceive these flickering shadows as the entirety of existence. The echoes of the passersby's voices, bouncing off the wall, they take as the voices of the shadows themselves. This is their world: a dim, illusory realm of shapes and sounds, accepted as truth.

One day, a remarkable thing happens. One of the prisoners is freed from his chains. At first, he is confused and disoriented, his eyes unaccustomed to the fire's light as he turns to see the objects casting the shadows. The reality behind the illusions, solid forms rather than mere projections, strikes him as strange and unsettling. His liberators urge him to ascend toward the cave's entrance, a steep and painful climb. Emerging into the sunlight, he is blinded at first, overwhelmed by the brightness. Gradually, his vision adjusts, and he begins to see the world as it truly is: reflections in water, then the objects themselves, trees, animals, and people. Finally, he gazes upon the sun, realizing it is the source of all light and life, the ultimate truth illuminating the world.

Awestruck, he reflects on his former life in the cave, pitying his still-bound companions. He feels compelled to return and share this revelation. Descending back into the darkness, his eyes struggle to readjust, making him appear clumsy and weak to the others. When he tells them of the outside world, they mock him, unwilling to believe that the shadows aren't reality. They threaten him, warning that anyone attempting to free them or lead them out will be harmed. Some even suggest killing him to preserve their familiar illusion. Undeterred, he persists, driven by the knowledge that the sunlit truth is worth the struggle, even if it means facing resistance or danger.

This famous story by Plato from his Republic, called The Allegory of the Cave,” serves as a metaphor for the journey from the delusions of partial truths to wisdom, the clarity of more objective, less partial truths.[1] The cave represents the sensory world of appearances, the shadows represent perceptions shaped by limited experience, and the sun stands for the Form of the Good, the ultimate truth and knowledge. The freed prisoner's ascent and return reflect the process of education and the philosopher's duty to enlighten others, despite their resistance, a theme that resonates with the challenges of personal and collective awakening explored in The Dreaming Kosmos and by Integral Deep Listening.

What Is Reality? A Polycentric Perspective

Zhuangzi's butterfly dream, “Am I a man dreaming I'm a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming I'm a man?” echoes across cultures.[2] The Upanishads' maya veiling Brahman, Plato's Cave shadows, Descartes' dream doubt, and Bostrom's simulation theory suggest reality lies on a subjectivity-objectivity continuum, reflecting Yin-Yang balance.[3] Like Yin containing Yang and Yang containing Yin, every subjective aspect of life, even in dreams, contains some degree of autonomy while every objective aspect of life, even of mystical experiences that convey what seems to be absolute truth, contain some degree of subjectivity. We can conclude, therefore, that in some ways our dreams reveal more truth and objectivity than our waking state, which presents partial truths, like the rising and setting of the sun, which are recognized to be partial, due to the limitations of our perspective, when viewed from a broader, naturalistic perspective.

Zhuangzi's dream exemplifies this continuum by blurring the boundaries between dreamer and dreamed, challenging fixed identities and inviting a polycentric view where reality emerges from shifting perspectives, much like Plato's prisoners mistaking cave shadows for truth, only to awaken to a higher reality upon escape, underscoring the delusion of subjective perceptions and the pursuit of objective clarity.

I can add a similar example from my own experience. When my wife Claudia died, about a month later I woke up with the following nightmarish dream, in which I was talking to Claudia. I said, “Claudia! I dreamed you had died!”

But Claudia had indeed died. Yet, in my dream she was alive. Was her living presence in my dream real or was it a bitter delusion?

Comparing Core Assumptions

Every worldview, just like our own identity, is built on core assumptions and priorities. When these go unexamined we build castles in the air in the form of systems that are rational and congruent within themselves but which can easily fall apart when their foundations are called into question. The pursuit of personal enlightenment, presented in a context of spiritual involution and evolution, found in Vedanta, Platonism, Theosophy, and Wilber's Integral AQAL, are examples of systems that are internally congruent but which place substance before process, development before balance, waking before dreaming, the individual before collective good, and intent before accountability. Plato's Cave warns of such unexamined assumptions, where shadows represent delusional worldviews mistaken for reality, urging an ascent to greater objectivity and reduced partiality through critical inquiry, paralleling Zhuangzi's dream-induced doubt that dissolves rigid self-concepts into transformative ambiguity. It is important to look at core assumptions of the naturalistic worldview of The Dreaming Kosmos and ask, “just how realistic, parsimonious, and likely are they?”

We have seen that core underlying assumptions of The Dreaming Kosmos include: 1) process is more fundamental than ontological substance, 2) dreaming reconstitutes waking, 3) balance is a priority over development, and 4) the welfare of collectives takes precedence over that of individuals, which manifests as socially defined justice taking priority over the intentions of individuals. These oppositions are interdependent, meaning that each generates the other. It is important to recognize that these assumptions supporting the naturalism of The Dreaming Kosmos are themselves finally metaphysical and non-falsifiable, just like those of materialism and spiritual world views. However, this is where the pragmatic test of truth comes into play. Differences in explanatory power and predictability matter. Some truths are less partial than others, and that matters. What assumptions correlate best with what science has already grounded in its ability to create safety, security, health, and comfort for humans and sustainability for life as a whole?

These are the types of questions that make or break worldviews, and they are criteria by which the naturalism of The Dreaming Kosmos is to be judged, just like every other belief system. Zhuangzi's butterfly dream tests these assumptions by questioning when and where the prioritization of substance, waking, development, the individual, and independence is effective in our lives and in the world and where they are not. When is it more effective to emphasize a process-oriented flow that prioritizes collective harmony over personal priorities? This is similar to Plato's escaped prisoner realizing the cave's shadows as false constructs, prompting a reevaluation of personal and collective delusions for enlightened balance.

For example, a common personal delusion is to assume others understand what we are saying. It is much more likely that they have their own interpretation based on their own scripting and life experiences. Understanding is at best an approximation, but we tend to forget that. Similarly, a common collective delusion is that other cultures and societies not only understand but accept our point of view and then to be confused or angry to discover that they don't.

Comparing the underlying assumptions of various spiritual, economic, and humanistic worldviews with those of The Dreaming Kosmos is a way to evaluate its assumptions against worldviews that have had a notable impact in the world. These include Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, Chinese Taoism and Confucianism, Neoplatonism, Theosophy, Integral AQAL, capitalism, Marxism, supernaturalism and materialism. Each has its utility. There will be specific circumstances in which these other worldviews are more useful or meaningful than those of The Dreaming Kosmos. As we clarify the benefits and limitations of each, they can more effectively be employed in broader, polycentric interdependence for the betterment of humanity. By analogy, a craftsman will find he has greater options in creation when he has a greater variety of tools available to him. Plato's Cave allegory serves as a way to critique these worldviews. When are they shadow-play delusions? What happens when they are examined in the light of a more objective reality? Zhuangzi's dream, as well as my own, adds a layer of perspectival fluidity, suggesting no single worldview holds absolute truth but emerges from dream-like transformations.

Foundational Evolutionary Principles of The Dreaming Kosmos

The Dreaming Kosmos emphasizes self-organization, adaptation, and energy utilization as key mechanisms of evolutionary emergence, integrating these principles into its framework of Integral Deep Listening (IDL) and dream yoga.

Self-Organization: Emerging Order from Chaos

The Dreaming Kosmos posits that while self-organization is a normal aspect of waking experience, radical and creative self-organization occurs at the edge of chaos, where novel patterns and potentials emerge without a predetermined plan. Dreams, as processes rather than static entities, reflect this through recurring dream themes arising from neural chaos. IDL interviewing facilitates self-organization by allowing dream characters to reframe life issues based on their perspectives, fostering polycentric identity and creativity.

Plato's cave represents a self-organized system where prisoners' perceptions form a collective order based on shadows, a stable yet illusory attractor basin, similar to how our biological, familial, cultural, and social scripting forms and maintains our core identity attractor basin. The freed prisoner's ascent reflects higher order self-organization at the edge of chaos. His mind reorganizes as he encounters the new stimuli first of fire and then of sunlight, leading to a higher-order synthesis of understanding. His return to share this insight reflects an attempt to catalyze collective self-organization, though met with resistance, mirroring the text's view that evolution requires overcoming entrenched patterns.

Both Plato's Cave Allegory and The Dreaming Kosmos highlight how self-organization can either reinforce or transcend rigid scripting. The prisoner's journey parallels IDL's process of disidentifying with geocentric assumptions to access emerging potentials, driving personal and collective evolution. It also reflects a commitment to return and support others, out of the recognition that they are aspects of ourselves in a common dream.

Adaptation: Navigating Change and Survival

Adaptation is central to evolutionary emergence in The Dreaming Kosmos, with biological, familial, social and cultural scripting critical influences supporting survival and growth. Dreams also serve this end, functioning as adaptive tools for threat simulation, memory consolidation, and emotional processing. The Dreaming Kosmos argues that IDL's empathetic multi-perspectivalism enhances adaptability by aligning individual goals with the priorities of evolutionary emergence, conceptualized as an intrinsic “life compass,” moving beyond survival-driven geocentrism to polycentric flexibility.

In Plato's allegory, the prisoners' initial adaptation to the cave's shadows ensures survival within their limited reality, a geocentric adaptation to sensory input. The freed prisoner adapts painfully to the sunlight, adjusting his perception to a broader truth, reflecting the stability of currently existing adaptor basins and their resistance to change. His return to the cave requires adapting to the cave's resistance. This dual adaptation, personal growth and social challenge, reflects the text's view of balancing stability and change.

The allegory's adaptive journey mirrors The Dreaming Kosmos's emphasis on dreams as laboratories for exploring hypothetical scenarios, as Milarepa's demon interview, discussed in a previous chapter, demonstrates.[4] The prisoner's evolution from shadow-bound to sunlit awareness parallels IDL's use of dream yoga to adaptively reframe toxic scripting, drama, and cognition to enhance resilience in an increasingly complex world.

Energy Utilization: Optimizing for Emergence

Systems like the brain and culture dissipate excess energy to achieve more efficient organization. Theta waves during REM sleep optimize negentropic efficiency, fostering creative attractors, such as the spontaneous creation of Paul McCartney's song, “Yesterday” in a dream.[5] IDL leverages energy utilization by focusing on the yin-yang process of disidentification from relatively fixed and rigid attractor basins while identifying with relatively fluid and chaotic ones, amplifying transformational potential.

The cave's fire represents any energy source, casting shadows that the prisoners' minds utilize to construct their reality via a low-energy, stable system. The sun, as the ultimate energy source, powers the prisoner's enlightenment, requiring a shift to higher energy utilization for perception and understanding. The prisoner's return expends energy to challenge the cave's inertia, aligning with The Dreaming Kosmos's view of energy driving evolutionary leaps.

Both narratives, Plato's Cave and The Dreaming Kosmos, underscore energy as a catalyst for change. The prisoner's ascent to sunlight parallels adaptation-driven creativity, where energy dissipation fuels the self organization of emergent patterns. IDL's dream incubation and interviewing optimize this energy, akin to the prisoner harnessing solar truth to transform his worldview.

However, Plato's metaphor differs from The Dreaming Kosmos in that the sun represents ultimate Truth and Wisdom, similar to heliocentrism and the assumption that there is such a thing as absolute objectivity, clarity, and lucidity. The Dreaming Kosmos notes that deep sleep is not absolute subjectivity since there is still brain activity and even death involves the living on of self as species. At the other extreme, even the most transcendent of mystical experiences of oneness, regardless of how ultimate they may be experienced in their objectivity, are colored by our own perception of them. In addition, cosmology teaches us that every point is the center of the universe while, at the same time, the universe has no center. This is the paradox of multi-perspectivalism, generating intrinsic ambiguity and chaos that is anathema to the security, safety, and adaptability of stable attractor basins.

From the perspective of The Dreaming Kosmos Plato's freed prisoner moves from a geocentric delusion to a heliocentric one. While relatively awake and lucid, this is the enlightenment of one attractor basin with which we identify. It is not the wakefulness and clarity provided by the ability to shift identity among multiple attractor basins.

As higher order attractor basins emerge the energy sources that drive them become less embodied. For example, solar and wind energy sources that drive societies are derivative, products of technology. Creativity at the edge of chaos for any attractor basin is driven to a lesser or greater extent by the entropic sea of probability at a quantum near zero state. If there is an “end” of evolution it may be the conjunction of multi-perspectivalism with the sea of energy of near-zero quantum indeterminacy.

Plato's cave allegory serves as a metaphor for The Dreaming Kosmos's evolutionary framework. The prisoners' self-organized shadow-world reflects stable attractors shaped by limited energy use, while the freed prisoner's journey embodies adaptation to a reality built on optimized energy utilization at the edge of chaos generating infinite shifting perspectives. His struggle to enlighten others mirrors IDL's mission to foster collective evolution from the inside out and from the bottom up, changing global culture by liberating children from the generational chains of toxic scripting, overcoming resistance through empathetic multi-perspectivalism.

Evolutionary Priorities of The Dreaming Kosmos

Process contextualizes substance

The Dreaming Kosmos emphasizes process over substance by viewing identity and existence not as fixed “things” (substance) but as ongoing, flux-like processes sustained by attractor basins, akin to a spinning gyroscope that appears stable yet is in constant motion. This reflects evolution's experiential flow, out of which individual “sub-flows” as attractor basins are generated.

This conclusion is not meant to subordinate substance to process or be reductionistic because process and substance co-arise, as the interaction of probabilities and indeterminacy and “things” on a quantum level have been shown to give rise to matter. It is rather to restore balance to those worldviews that emphasize geocentrism and heliocentrism over polycentrism. It is not that the sun rising and setting does not have genuine sensory reality with a vital impact on life. It is that cosmology has contextualized that reality and demonstrated not that it is not true but that it is a partial truth.

Plato's prisoners cling to the substance of shadows as reality, but the escaped one's journey reveals knowledge as a process of emergence from delusion, aligning with The Dreaming Kosmos's idea that waking identity is a constructed, adaptive attractor, not an inherent self. Similarly, Chuang Tzu's dream dissolves substance, the “real” man or butterfly, into a transformative process, where dreaming and waking interweave without a core essence, echoing how the Kosmos treats all phenomena as dreamlike evocations from a latent potential, evoked by intentional “recipes” rather than existing as permanent entities.

Balance contextualizes development

The Dreaming Kosmos prioritizes balance over development by favoring waking life integration as well as negentropic reframings at the “edge of chaos,” where order emerges without hierarchical ascent, over linear progression through states or stages.[6] Development models are hierarchical, reflecting the evolutionary preference for the establishment and maintenance of stable, resilient attractor basins, which resist change and even positive metamorphosis. To generate lasting evolutionary emergence, changes at the edge of chaos require grounding in adaptive balance. Without it, development either fails to crystallize, as occurs with almost all dreams, or else reinforces regression, as is far too likely to be the case with the influence of dreams on waking mood and problem solving.

In Plato's myth, the prisoner's “development” upward to the daylight risks imbalance if the welfare of the prisoners is not addressed. The Dreaming Kosmos reframes this as balancing shadowy delusion with clarity in a cyclical dance, preventing overemphasis on “higher” enlightenment, which too often results in a compensatory regression. Chuang Tzu's ambiguity achieves balance by refusing developmental resolution. Neither man nor butterfly dominate, mirroring a view of evolution as negentropic equilibrium, sustaining patterns amid entropy without privileging one state over another.

Dreaming contextualizes waking

Similarly, the hypnotic fixation on the shadow's on Plato's cave wall contextualize the prisoner's ability to wake up. Groupthink matters, and that is why those with power, status, and money pour so much energy into generating and maintaining it. If people wake up from their collective dream the adaptive advantages of delusion vanish - or at least that is the fear.

But in reality, that fear is baseless. That we now know that the earth is not the center of the universe and that the sun does not “really” rise and set does not destroy the adaptive advantages of that delusion and illusion. Humans have the ability to both dream and wake up. We need both the play on the wall of the cave and the sunlit world above. Plato's mistake is to imply that one is better or more important than the other. The reality is that unless we recognize both we are unable to hold them in appropriate balance, relying on geocentrism when important and beneficial yet relying on cosmology in other contexts.

Collectivity contextualizes individuality

The Dreaming Kosmos elevates collectivity over individuality through polycentrism and intrasocial relationships, where the self is a node in a web of perspectives, not an isolated entity. This reflects evolutionary reality, in which individual seeds, sperm, and eggs are produced in great quantity in order to ensure the survival of the collective. Plato's cave begins with a collective delusion among prisoners, and the individual's escape serves the group upon return, illustrating how true awakening fosters communal harmony over solitary ascent. In Chuang Tzu, the dream erodes individual identity altogether, suggesting a collective flux where “I” dissolves into the shared dream of existence, akin to the Kosmos's cultural and entropic basins that condense shared meanings and non-local connections, prioritizing the web's interdependence over personal ego.

Yet, these polarities are interdependent, not oppositional; process animates substance, balance enables sustainable development, and collectivity enriches individuality in a holographic unity. Plato's myth shows how the process of escape (ascent) reveals the interdependence of shadows (substance) and light (truth), balancing individual insight with collective return to prevent isolation. Chuang Tzu's dream intertwines the polarities seamlessly, the man's individuality depends on the butterfly's collectivity in the dream realm, and vice versa, framing reality as a dreamlike interplay where polarities sustain each other at chaos's edge. In The Dreaming Kosmos, this interdependence manifests as tetra-meshing across quadrants, ensuring evolution through reciprocal flows, much like the myths' invitations to question and integrate illusions into a greater, balanced whole.

Justice contextualizes personal intent

This is a fourth evolutionary priority of The Dreaming Kosmos. Although it echoes “collectives contextualize individuals,” it deserves an equal emphasis. That is because we can agree with the first three and maintain amorality and non-accountability, emphasizing abstract truth over the real world consequences of our actions. However, the consequences of our assumptions, preferences, and beliefs not only matter; they are independent of our intentions. That is why there are social norms, law, and courts - to arbitrate, based on prevailing perceptions of the collective good, the accountability of personal behavior, regardless of professed or authentic intent. For example, people who cause car accidents rarely intend to do so, yet they are held accountable for the damage that they caused. Without personal accountability to collective standards, regardless of how imperfect those standards may be, there is no way to differentiate morality from amorality or immorality. For those for whom morality matters, justice has to contextualize intent. If respect, trustworthiness, empathy, and reciprocity are going to govern life, justice has to contextualize intent.

Examples of Worldview Limitations

These four contextualizing principles counter the competitive, substance-based, and individualistic biases of some worldviews and align with process-oriented frameworks like Taoism and Buddhism. In fact, if you approach different worldviews through this prism you will find that all emphasize one or two of these principles, but very few emphasize all four.

Hindu Advaita Vedanta emphasizes process by viewing the material world as maya, a transient manifestation of Brahman, the ultimate process-like reality. Like The Dreaming Kosmos, it prioritizes a dynamic, underlying unity over static forms. It also resonates with collective good over personal interests, as individual egos are illusory. Empathy (compassion, karuna) and reciprocity (cosmic interconnectedness) align with The Dreaming Kosmos's relational focus. However, Advaita prioritizes moksha, individual enlightenment and liberation, through transcending material development, not balance within it, contrasting with The Dreaming Kosmos' focus on systemic harmony. While maya is transient, Advaita retains a metaphysical “substance” in Brahman, less process-oriented than The Dreaming Kosmos' fully relational ontology. The focus on personal enlightenment rather than collective balance is a common way that Hinduism, Buddhism, Neoplatonism, Theosophy, and Integral AQAL differentiate themselves from both the fundamentals of evolution and the worldview of The Dreaming Kosmos. Zhuangzi's dream critiques this focus, dissolving personal enlightenment into collective ambiguity, while Plato's Cave prioritizes collective ascent over individual shadows.

The economic theories of capitalism and Marxism also provide important examples. Financial capitalism emphasizes personal goods in the form of rent-seeking and wealth extraction, as opposed to collective goods. This also reflects an emphasis on an increase in personal security in terms of the accumulation of wealth, a focus on development to the detriment of balance. Financial capitalism focuses on consumption to fuel unlimited growth, diverging from The Dreaming Kosmos' stable attractors, resembling social Darwinism's competitive pathology.

Marxism, on the other hand, focuses on placing the collective good over personal development, in industrial capitalism, in which capital is recycled to workers themselves for the uplifting of the collective. However, it also emphasizes development over balance in the form of class struggle, a formulation that also focuses on classes as real substances instead of fluid processes. Economic theories and structures that stand the tests of time are more likely to be in alignment with principles of naturalistic evolution, and understanding that principle provides a powerful lens by which to evaluate their efficacy. Plato's Cave views capitalism's growth as shadow-chasing delusion, while Marxism's class struggle mirrors the prisoner's chains, with Zhuangzi's dream offering fluid process over rigid economic substances.

Materialism also provides a partial solution. It aligns with The Dreaming Kosmos in emphasizing processes, such as physical laws and chemical reactions over metaphysical substances, as seen in our discussion of precipitation in chemistry and attractor basins. However, physicalism often prioritizes mechanistic explanations over balance, lacking evolution's focus on systemic harmony. Physicalism is also amoral, focusing on objective processes without prioritizing collective good, contrasting with The Dreaming Kosmos' ethical framework. Empathy and respect are absent or secondary, as physicalism focuses on objective interactions, not subjective or social dynamics. The Cave critiques materialism as mistaking shadows for substance, while the butterfly dream questions its objective certainty with subjective flow.

Note that all of the above tend to place either a supernatural or personal definition of justice before collective social definitions. For example, in Hinduism, Dharma, or divine law, supersedes human law. Wilber has advocated for a similar solution for Integral AQAL. Capitalism tends to support amorality and the selective enforcement of law based on individual benefit. Marxism, while focusing on collective justice in theory, in practice has proven to at times be draconian in its implementation of justice.

Personal and Collective Consequences of The Dreaming Kosmos' Priorities

Placing process over substance encourages us to view ourselves as dynamic, relational beings rather than fixed entities, fostering adaptability and openness to change. This aligns with process philosophy's view of self as a series of events and supports personal growth through relational qualities, such as empathy in self-awareness.

It is commonly believed that developing a polycentric identity challenges personal identity, as stable self-concepts, such as core identity attractors are de-emphasized, potentially causing existential uncertainty or difficulty in maintaining a coherent self-narrative. However, children normally and routinely embody multiple identities, with this resulting in increased adaptability and a more balanced sense of self. Therefore, those that think a focus on process makes increasing sense as identity becomes stabilized, generally during or after the 20's, are mistaken. Years of interviewing alternative perspectives in children and also both children and adults with mental disorders, including schizophrenia, has had an integrative, not a dissociative effect.

Placing balance over development promotes inner harmony and mindfulness, encouraging us to align with systemic balance, such as emotional regulation via empathy. This supports mental health, as seen in somatic therapies. Due to the native ability of children to identify with other perspectives, largely due to the relative plasticity of their still-forming identities, as well as the self-chosen and time-limited nature of element identification in IDL dream yoga for anyone at any age, placing process over substance, at the temporary disruption of the priority of balance and identity formation, is a realistic daily sacred practice or yoga. The Cave's balanced shadows stagnate until disrupted for development, echoing the butterfly dream's balanced ambiguity fostering mindful harmony.

Placing the collective good over personal interests fosters altruism and social responsibility, encouraging us to prioritize community needs, such as through reciprocity, enhancing social bonds and personal fulfillment. Plato's returning prisoner exemplifies this altruism, risking personal rejection for collective awakening, while Zhuangzi's dream fosters collective perspectivism over individual delusion.

Placing justice over personal intent is the most problematic, as justice tends generate solutions that adhere to general principles rather than individual and personal extenuating circumstances, with the result that in specific applications it is quite likely that neither party to a dispute is likely to feel that justice has been done. However, accountability before the law supports respectful, trustworthy, empathetic, and reciprocal social behaviors while the ability to avoid accountability tends away from moral action and toward amorality, if not outright disrespectful and unjust behaviors. It is a sad reality that fear of punishment, of negative personal consequences, is a necessary element in society to compel both cooperation and healthy competition. If there is no accountability before law to provide some objective criteria and consequences for behavior, no one should be surprised when individuals interpret law to support their own interests, whether or not doing so supports the good of the collective.

Collective Consequences

Placing process over substance promotes flexible, adaptive social systems, as seen in cooperative behaviors stabilized by relational qualities, such as reciprocity in group dynamics. The ambiguity of process disrupts social identities and generates objectivity to see and move out of groupthink.

Balance over development promotes ecological and social harmony, reducing conflict and fostering sustainable systems, such as respect for environmental boundaries. This counters pathologies like social Darwinism. Prioritizing balance builds the foundation necessary to sustain transformative change, which typically dissipates over time. We have seen how an emphasis on balance has contributed to the stability and rise of Chinese culture and civilization. However, as the West often critiques, it risks suppressing individual desires or autonomy, potentially leading to geocentric pathologies, including resentment and fears of loss of personal agency, especially in cultures valuing individualism. By challenging collective delusions, emphasizing balance over development undermines calcified, rigid institutions and traditions, as fluid processes challenge fixed structures.

Placing collective good over personal interests enhances group cohesion and collective survival, as seen in evolutionary advantages of cooperation. Relational qualities as attractors stabilize social systems, promoting equity and mutual support.

Doing so builds intrasocial collectivism that both broadens and integrates identity. Individual diversity and autonomy are strengthened, challenging conformity and censorship. The Cave's collective awakening counters this risk, as does the butterfly dream's diverse perspectives.

The overall conclusion is that evolution generates an ambiguous condition at the edge of chaos in which there exists a continuous cybernetic self-correction among process and substance, balance and development, collective good and personal interests, justice and personal intent. This inherent tension stimulates discomfort, creativity, and evolutionary emergence. Zhuangzi's dream embodies this tension through ambiguous self-correction, while Plato's Cave stimulates emergence via discomforting ascent.

The Relationship Between Subjectivity and Objectivity

The relationship between subjectivity and objectivity matters is foundational for our assumptions, definitions of truth and falsity, worldviews, and identity. Too much subjectivity means we become victims of forces and individuals we don't understand. We cling to assumptions, perspectives, beliefs, and worldviews that we have outgrown. This is normally the case with teenagers and young adults who cling to scripting and peer assumptions that they have outgrown. On the other hand, too much objectivity means that we cut ourselves off from life, from our embeddedness in experience and nature. Amorality and an absence of empathy are often signals of too much objectivity.

If we don't find balance regarding the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity we will misunderstand how our perception keeps us stuck and trapped, whether awake, dreaming, lucid, or in an altered state. Substance, balance, personal interests, and fixated attractor basins are inherently conservative, valuing subjectivity, while process, growth, and collective priorities inherently cast us loose from the secure shores of certainty and into the relatively unknown realm of objectivity. The Cave traps us in subjective certainty while the butterfly dream casts us into objective uncertainty.

Cultural practices embody a continuum of subjectivity and objectivity. Aboriginal Dreamtime weaves ancestors' dreams into collective reality, fostering polycentrism where every rock, cloud, plant, tree, and river has a voice. The difference, of course, is in whether or not one believes that rocks and rivers really are spirits possessing consciousness or not. Integral Deep listening takes a phenomenological approach, meaning that it tables both subjective and objective assumptions. It neither assumes trees and mountains are autonomous beings or self aspects. Instead, it suspends interpretations in favor of allowing clouds and rocks to define themselves. By doing so it is not assuming that such definitions are true, right, or real, but that they are relevant to recognizing and understanding the perspective of that element. In the Greek context, it is the difference between listening to a Muse and being inhabited by a Muse.

Lucid dreaming marks developmental objectivity because we know that we are asleep and dreaming, but has limits. Who and what is objective? Normally it is only our geocentric waking perspective that “wakes up” in a lucid dream, meaning that we continue to interpret our dream experience from the perspective of our waking assumptions. How objective and lucid is that? A lucid dreamer might control a nightmare's dragon but miss its waking relevance, such as suppressed fear, if it is not listened to, in a deep and integral way. Our waking identity, which we take into our dreams, whether lucid or not, has an agenda based on our multiple filtering agents: biological, familial, cultural, and social scripting, cognitive biases, our worldview, and our distinctive preferences.

It is because we take our programming into our lucid dreams that IDL focuses on lucid living, waking up out of our waking delusional state, in which we assume we are objective, when we are in fact captured by our assumptions and worldview. Just as we can learn to be lucid in our dreams, we can learn to wake up in our daily life, a movement from geo- and heliocentrism to polycentric multi-perspectivalism. Plato's Cave depicts this delusion as subjective shadows mistaken for objective reality, with awakening paralleling lucid living, while Zhuangzi's dream extends it to polycentric autonomy, where subjectivity-objectivity blurs in programmed transformations.

Partial, misperceived perspectives require lucid wakefulness to counter the fossilization of attractor basins, to foster the order of negentropy, and achieve higher order balance. Attractor basins are the structural units, precipitating like weather patterns through emergence and negentropy, nested across holon quadrants and integrated via tetra-mesh to evolve toward more integrative attractor basins.

Polycentrism and IDL are epistemological and methodological tools enabling perspective-taking to develop mutually-respectful relationships and unearth delusional assumptions while balancing the partiality of psychological geocentrism and the developmental grandiosity of psychological heliocentrism. Your core identity attractor basin, anchored in psychological geocentrism, organizes the four quadrants of experience, shaping delusional narratives, such as separateness, unless challenged by multi-perspectivalism. Entropy, negentropy, and the self-organization of emergence drive the precipitation of attractor basins, with negentropy countering entropic delusions, such as fragmentation, through ordered complexity. Tetra-mesh and more adequate attractor basins represent the integrative and evolutionary outcomes, where lucid wakefulness aligns “I”, “It” , “We”, and “Its” for collective development. The Cave's delusions frame life as shadow-like entropy, countered by negentropic ascent, while the butterfly dream's negentropic order emerges from entropic ambiguity.

When you become characters and elements in your dreams and speak from their perspectives, for that period of time you provisionally adopt their worldview, preferences, and interpretations. Such perspectives can be extraordinarily autonomous, scoring far to the objective end of the subjectivity-objectivity continuum. You move into objectivity relative to your normal waking worldview. When you become the dragon it will reveal its perspective, something that your lucid self may miss. Plato's myth reveals true perspectives upon escape, autonomous from cave delusions, echoing Zhuangzi's autonomous butterfly revealing dream perspectives.

Ways of understanding subjectivity and objectivity

There are six basic positions that we can take regarding the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity. Understanding them creates more objectivity so that we don't think we are objective when we are actually subjectively enmeshed in a limited definition of objectivity.

The first assumption or perspective regarding objectivity is that everything is objective and that subjectivity, including mind and consciousness, are misperceptions and delusions. This is presently the position of materialism and can be seen in its mainstream approach to psi. From the perspective of complete objectivity, there is no continuum between subjectivity and objectivity; everything is objective.

The second position mirrors the first: everything is subjective and objectivity, including matter, the world of form “out there,” is either an illusion or delusion, but basically a misperception because everything is consciousness. This is idealism, and Wilber's AQAL puts Integral in this camp, although that is strenuously denied by Wilber, whose theoretical framework is cognitively multi-perspectival. The way to understand this apparent contradiction is to differentiate between the integral “map,” which recognizes all six positions regarding subjectivity and objectivity but in practice gives priority to non-falsifiable spirit, an interior individual experiential bias.

The problem with these two positions, objective and subjective reductionism, is that they are not only irreconcilable; they generate each other and therefore promote perpetual conflict that is unresolvable: “I don't like what I see in the mirror. So I'll smash the mirror.” Plato's Cave critiques materialism as shadow-objectivity delusion, while Zhuangzi's dream, as well as my dream of Claudia, generates conflict through mirror-like dualism.

The third position is called “intersubjectivity,” and it says that what is real is the relationship between subjects, you and me, or between you, me, and the world. I am a subject to you and we have a relationship. I am a part of you and when you talk to me you are essentially in dialogue with a disowned aspect of yourself. The advantage of seeing everything as a self-aspect, essentially in the perspective of shadow work and deep psychology, is that you and I take responsibility for our perceptions. Doing so generates empathy and ethically-grounded action, because how I treat you is how I am treating those aspects of myself that you represent. Intersubjectivity generates a broader, collective identity, aligned with the good of humanity as a whole, not just with one's personal allegiances. This intersubjective aspect appears to be built into the fabric of evolution, as we can find the progenitors of respect, trustworthiness, empathy, and reciprocity in mammals, insects, and even the environmental symbiosis of the plant kingdom. Intersubjectivity is the foundation of culture. The Cave's intersubjective dialogue upon return fosters collective empathy, as does the butterfly dream's relational self-aspects.

The primacy of a subject-to-subject worldview also places us and our relationship in relativistic contexts. It doesn't matter what is objectively real; what matters is what we think is true or objectively real. While there is objective reality, what matters is what you and I think about it and about each other. Our meanings, values, theories, and culture, and how we interpret and discuss them is what matters for intersubjectivity. This is the natural home of post-modernist thought. Theoretical debates about the nature of reality, Integral theory, evolution, geopolitics, economics, psychology - even what we will have for dinner, are all “We,” interior collective quadrant, intersubjective views on the nature of reality. Zhuangzi's dream relativizes reality through intersubjective man-butterfly dialogue, while Plato's Cave debates shadows as relativistic meanings.

IDL teaches this variety of objectivity/subjectivity: seeing others as aspects of self and thereby recognizing to help/hurt others is to do so to ourselves. We are not born with this recognition; we have to learn it, and in most cultures and societies it is not taught, due to scripts, power, and control.

Wilber maps these assumptions about the nature of the subjectivity-objectivity continuum onto the four holonic quadrants. The “everything is objective” position is individual and exterior. “It”, with a subjective face that is self-organizing and an objective face that is empirical. The “everything is subjective” position is individual and interior “I”, with a subjective face that is phenomenological and an objective face that is constructivist. The “everything is a subjective dialogue” position is individual and collective “We,” with a subjective face that is hermeneutic and an exterior anthropological and ethnographic face.

The fourth position is called “interobjectivity,” and it is the relationship among objects, things “out there.” This says that what is real is the relationship among objects, whether they be cells, elements in the ecosystem web, families, groups, companies, nations, civilizations, cosmological objects, forces of nature like gravity, mass, and energy, or the variables that drive evolution. This is the exterior collective “It” quadrant of holons. Its subjective face is “social autopoiesis,” or the self-organization of objects in relationship, and its objective face is the realm of systems and systems theory: how objects interact.

In terms of social self-organization, collectives agree on norms by which to regulate their relationships. Informally, these are the behaviors by which we determine whether we are respected, another is worthy of respect. They are how we evaluate trustworthiness. What others say and do determines our assessment of how empathetic they are. We assess their ability to reciprocate based on their communication and behavior. Formally, social norms are called “laws” and the enforcement of them is called “justice.” These are objective social relationships, although they are arbitrary and rewritten based on the cultures and societies in play. We can see that in the UN Charter, which is international law, and we can also observe it in the “rules-based order,” by which might makes right redefines global law based on its own interests.

There is no identity tetra-mesh or passage to post mid-personal levels of overall development without individual submission to social autopoiesis, meaning obedience to basic universal social norms and international law. This is because, unless we recognize the relationships that constrain and direct objects, forces, and others, we cannot relate to them in a functional way. To ignore or disregard interobjectivity, as narcissism, sociopathy, Wolves of Wall Street, oligarchs, and “might makes right” do, is short-sighted, because while deviation from social autopoiesis, or collective self-organization, can give individuals short term advantages, the pressures for social holonic integration act like gravity. Sooner or later that pull forces alignment.

Avoidance of collective accountability is not unusual among the psychologically heliocentric. Gurus and pundits can easily practice and advocate for spiritual bypass, grandiosity, and self-inflation. Plato's interobjective sunlight metaphorically reveals true relationships, countering cave bypass, while Zhuangzi's dream interobjectifies man-butterfly as evolutionary variables.

A fifth perspective on the subjectivity-objectivity continuum focuses on the interaction and relationship between subjectivity and objectivity themselves, between the interior and exterior holonic quadrants. It asks, “How do subjective and objective influences determine where something falls on the subjective-objective continuum?” For example, “How does my self-image interact with the demands and expectations of society?” “How congruent are my intentions with my behavior? Classically, this is the position of pratityasammupada, the principle of interdependent co-arising, most clearly expressed in the Madhyamika Mahayana Buddhism of Nagarjuna. Whitehead's process philosophy[7] and Vervaeke's “transitivity” both say that the way for blind humans to best understand the elephant of reality is by considering the relationship between its objective parts and its “nature,” its subjective “elephantness.”[8]

The problem with this view is that it is fundamentally an objectivist one, in that it objectifies all four previous positions. We end up standing around like the blind men, but now rather than arguing about the exterior attributes of the elephant, we all agree that we need to take them all, including the elephant's interior experience of itself, into account if we are to reach an objective understanding of elephants and reality. The result can be too much objectivity and not enough subjectivity to be empathetic, while we remain convinced we are empathetic. Zhuangzi's dream problematizes this objectivism by co-arising interdependent states, while Plato's Cave objectifies shadows before transitive ascent.

To be sure, this fifth approach to subjectivity-objectivity remains a significant improvement over the others due to its ability to objectify and relativize them. However, that does not mean that the fifth (or sixth) perspectives are always intrinsically the best choice. Understanding all these perspectives puts more tools in our tool kit, but it doesn't tell us that this or that tool is the best one to use in any specific situation. That is why IDL teaches “triangulation,” decision-making that takes into account expert opinion, our own personal judgment and experience, and supplements them both with the perspectives of interviewed emerging potentials.

The sixth position toward the subjective-objectivity continuum is one of flow. It is differentiated from the fifth, transitivity, by its relatively entropic nature. Because at the edge of chaos existence is relatively timeless and spaceless, the influence of embodiment is minimized. Unfortunately, this sixth position appears to have two aspects, which means it can easily collapse into dualism. The first is an indigenous, “one with nature” animistic flow, easily romanticized, and seen in animal communicators, savants, and severely autistic telepaths. It is a profoundly subjective and “latent” flow which apparently has zero to do with identity, self-awareness, morality or even consciousness. At the far objective end of the continuum, there appears to exist a highly awake and aware variety of flow, represented by people like Rumi and Lao Tze. It very much involves intention, morality, and consciousness as emergent evolutionary processes. This “awake” and emergent experiential face of entropy appears to become more accessible as people truly get over themselves and move not only out of psychological geocentrism, in which reality revolves around their identity and worldview, but also out of psychological heliocentrism, in which reality revolves around a grandiose Self that is One with All, the perennial goal of enlightenment. Such hypothetical access, stumbled on from time to time in dreams, is something beyond even epistemic humility. While we all like to believe we have epistemic humility, we don't, largely due to our adaptive attachment to our sense of self. The butterfly dream flows through dual aspects, latent and aware, beyond geocentrism, while the Cave's flow culminates in enlightened awareness beyond shadows. My dream of Claudia graphically presents the dualism but does not provide a way beyond it, making the dream a nightmare. However, Integral Deep Listening provides a potential solution in polycentrism. By becoming “Claudia” and interviewing her, the dualism is at least temporarily reduced.

The Dreaming Kosmos aligns this sixth position with the two faces of the hypothetical entropic domain. On the one hand, it has a profoundly static, non-aware, subjective, and entropic face, in which experience is theoretically gestated as indeterminate probabilities, and on the other an emerging dynamic, conscious, objective, and negentropic face, through which reality is perceived, reformulated, and perceived again. Zhuangzi's dream aligns with this basin's faces, encoding static human in dynamic butterfly, while Plato's Cave reformulates shadow entropy into negentropic truth.

Which perspective is most useful?

A pragmatic theory of truth does not ask, “Which of these six positions regarding the subjectivity/objectivity continuum best reflects reality, and therefore is true?” Instead, it asks, “Which perspective is most useful for dealing with the matter at hand?” We can think of this in terms of the sun rising and setting. Normally, we take the sixth perspective as a completely subjective, unaware position. What the sun does is in natural flow. We don't notice and don't think about the sun and what it is doing; we just take it for granted. However, if we want to be on time for an appointment, then the time of day and where the sun is in relation to the earth matters a great deal for the objective organization of our daily affairs. If we are concerned about how the time of day is going to affect what we do or our mood, then we are taking an objective stance toward the sun rising and setting. It is an event that is “out there” that is controlling our lives and choices.

That is a naively realistic objective perspective of the first option. If what is most important for us is our relationship to the sun rising and setting, we focus on daily or yearly rituals that are built around that relationship: stretching when we wake up, brushing our teeth before bed, or celebrating holidays honoring the solstices and equinoxes. If we are meterorologists, cosmologists, or astronauts, what is most important to us is how the sun rises and sets as an objective process, how it affects weather patterns by affecting warm and cold air currents, the Earth's relationship to heavenly bodies, or how we escape Earth's gravity and deal with solar radiation as astronauts. When we want to consider how the sun rising and setting affects all of these areas of our lives, we may take the fifth, “transitivity” position. Zhuangzi's pragmatic dream questions utility of perspectives for daily flow, while Plato's Cave pragmatically chooses sunlight truth over shadow rituals.

The Dreaming Kosmos sees evolutionary emergence at the edge of chaos as closest to the two faces of the sixth position. The “latent” face is as close to complete subjectivity as we can currently comprehend. It reflects all experience embedded in the matrix of nature. The “entropic,” objective face at the edge of chaos is the emergent ability to access this latent face. Experiences of mystical oneness, whether with nature, devotion, the formless, or the non-dual, experienced as lucidity and enlightenment, is as close to complete objectivity as we can currently comprehend. In addition, it expands the “We” intersubjective perspective to include all objective “things” in order to understand the subjectivity-objectivity perspective from their perspectives and thereby broaden our own. However, this move is methodological and temporary. It is not a move into subjective solipsism as a worldview but rather a temporary collapse of the subject-object continuum in order to move to the edge of chaos, where creativity and evolutionary emergence occurs. The Cave's emergence collapses shadows for chaotic sunlight, latent to entropic, echoing the dream's collapse into creative ambiguity.

How IDL Dream Yoga Approaches the Subjectivity/Objectivity Continuum

Waking, dreaming, and mystical states provide relative clarity, objectivity, meaning, and lucidity on that continuum of subjectivity and objectivity. They each provide varieties of objectivity in relationship to each other. Whichever one we are in at the time is relatively objective while the other two are relatively subjective. IDL dream yoga, by accessing the perspectives of an infinite variety of attractor basins, teaches us that it is a mistake to jump to the conclusion that any experience is only subjective or objective. For instance, when I ask Claudia, “In my dream, where are you on that continuum of subjectivity and objectivity? Claudia says, “While I will always be a core aspect of you, I exist as more, as an emerging potential that calls you to examine all your assumptions and to outgrow who you are. In your life, in your dreams, you get to decide how real or how much of a figment of your imagination I am.” Zhuangzi's dream questions such conclusions through infinite perspectives, while Plato's Cave teaches mistaking subjective shadows for objective totality.

Normally, we take the first, “objectivist” approach to our dreams. Our waking identity is the objective arbiter of their meaning, and their relevance, or lack of it, is determined by us. What is “real” is our waking determination of value and usefulness.

The second, “subjectivist” approach to dreams is theoretically possible but very rare. That is because it involves the complete surrender or oblation of identity. This does not happen in either normal or lucid dreaming; there remains an objective self who is perceiving the dream experience. This is probably even true for the dream experience of animals that have yet to develop self-awareness, because it mirrors normal sensory perception of reality. To completely abandon objectivity is counter to basic principles of evolutionary adaptation, self-organization, and survival. Zhuangzi's complete surrender in dream flow approaches this rarity, dissolving objective self.

For IDL, intersubjectivity occurs on two levels. First there is your relationship to and interaction with dream elements while you are dreaming. Secondly, there is the relationship among dream elements, including yourself, as viewed from the perspectives of each of the embedded dream elements. This is called the “intrasocial sangha” and is studied by Dream Sociometry.[9]

Interobjectivity in dreaming has to do with the assessment of the relationship among dream elements as objective others. Dream interpretive methodologies like the Content Analysis of Dreams takes this approach. Dream Sociograms, which are depictions of the patterns of preference within dream groups, is an interobjective approach to dreamwork used by IDL. Plato's interobjective Forms assess dream-like shadows objectively.

The relationship between subjectivity and objectivity itself, as an interdependent embodied relationship and the fifth position, is reflected in those IDL dream interviews that anchor recommendations to everyday life issues, to the embodied existence of waking identity. There is a powerful and often profound dialogue or interactive process between the waking core attractor basin and the attractor basin of this or that interviewed perspective..

The sixth, relatively disembodied relationship between subjectivity and objectivity is best reflected in those dream interviews that are highly creative, mystical, or psychic. They reflect relatively non-embodied interactions at the edge of chaos, in dialogue with attractor basins that are highly ambiguous and difficult to integrate. The dream's mystical flow reflects this, as does the Cave's psychic sunlight vision.

Based on our interests and priorities, these different positions on the subjectivity/objectivity continuum each have their time and place. Again, the question is not which is “ best,” but which has the greater utility for our particular circumstances. But of course, we cannot make those differentiations until and unless we have first recognized each of these six positions. Zhuangzi's dream utilities flow for circumstances beyond duality, Plato's Cave for utilitarian ascent from delusion.

Falsifying the Naturalism of The Dreaming Kosmos

Do dreams reveal more truth and objectivity than waking states? This can be falsified by designing experiments comparing waking insight versus dream insight. For instance, test whether decisions or problem-solving performed in dreams consistently outperform waking decisions in measurable tasks. If waking cognition consistently outperforms dream cognition in objective tests, this would challenge the claim.

Does lucid dreaming provides a more objective perspective relative to waking assumptions? One can use neuroimaging or cognitive testing to measure objectivity or awareness in lucid dreams versus waking perception. If lucid dreamers are found to be consistently biased by waking-world assumptions, this undermines the assertion.

Do children embody multiple identities, increasing adaptability? To falsify this theory one can study children across cultures and age groups to see whether multiple simultaneous identities correlate with adaptive behavior or not. Evidence that multiple identities correlate with confusion, maladaptation, or stress would challenge the claim.

Does every objective aspect of life contain some degree of subjectivity, and every subjective aspect contain autonomy? One can identify examples of phenomena that are purely objective or purely subjective. For instance, certain physical constants, like the speed of light, exist independent of observers; if fully objective, they cannot contain “subjectivity.” Likewise, a hallucination entirely generated by a brain disorder may lack autonomy or objective truth. If such examples exist, the universality of the claim is falsified.

Does Zhuangzi's dream exemplify the subjectivity-objectivity continuum? If Zhuangzi's dream were interpreted in a way that does not map onto subjectivity-objectivity dynamics, this would challenge the universality of the analogy.

Is process more fundamental than substance? One would identify cases where substance clearly drives outcomes independently of process. For example, chemical reactions, genetics, or planetary physics may demonstrate that substance constraints override process.

Does the prioritizing of collective good consistently lead to better outcomes than prioritizing individual development? Historical or contemporary societies could be examined where collective prioritization harmed individuals or societal health, such as totalitarian regimes. One could show that in specific contexts, individual-focused strategies yielded better adaptation or survival.

Does IDL interviewing of multiple perspectives increase adaptability in children and adults? One could Conduct controlled studies of participants practicing IDL versus control groups. If the control group shows equal or superior adaptability, the predictive claim is falsified.

Is it true that all six positions on subjectivity-objectivity are valid and applicable?

One could examine if any of the six positions are internally contradictory, or if they produce logically incompatible prescriptions in real-world scenarios. For instance, the sixth “flow” position may collapse into dualism, as the text itself acknowledges.

Are the principles of The Dreaming Kosmos universally applicable across cultures and contexts? One can identify cultural, ecological, or psychological contexts where applying these principles produces maladaptive or incoherent outcomes.

Do lucid dreaming, polycentrism, and IDL lead to more accurate perspective-taking? Perspective-taking ability could be measured pre- and post-intervention. If improvements are absent or minimal, the claim is weakened.

Do dreams encode autonomous perspectives of elements, such as dragons or deceased loved ones? One could attempt to externally verify the autonomy or predictive capacity of dream characters. If such characters cannot be shown to have independent or meaningful input beyond personal memory and imagination, the claim is empirically unsupported.

“Paying It Forward”

This concept means doing a kind act for someone else, not to be repaid by them, but with the hope that they will do a kind act for someone else in the future.

It is one thing to experience the benefits of IDL Dream Yoga in your own life; it is quite another to witness healing, balancing, or transformation in the lives of others. This is because it is much easier to rationalize or forget about changes in our own lives, particularly if they are incremental, as is often the case with the application of interview recommendations. However, when we interview others and teach them how to interview others themselves, perhaps by having them interview us in return, we can watch what happens in their lives. If they have nightmares, do they decrease? If they have anxiety, does it decline? What happens when they do the yoga and apply this or that recommendation in their own lives?

You are also empowering them to support others in a deep and meaningful way, something that will raise their own self-esteem as they say they can make a positive difference in the lives of others.

NOTES

1. Plato, Republic, trans. G. M. A. Grube, rev. C. D. C. Reeve (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1992), 514a-520a.
2. Zhuangzi, Zhuangzi: Basic Writings, trans. Burton Watson (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003), 45.
3. Nick Bostrom, “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?,” Philosophical Quarterly 53, no. 211 (2003): 243-55.
4. Milarepa, The Life of Milarepa, trans. Lobsang P. Lhalungpa (Boston: Shambhala, 1985), 112-14.
5. Paul McCartney, interview by Playboy, December 1984.
6. Ken Wilber, A Theory of Everything (Boston: Shambhala, 2000), 112-15.
7. Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality, corrected ed., ed. David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne (New York: Free Press, 1978), 18-20.
8. John Vervaeke, “Awakening from the Meaning Crisis,” episode 12, YouTube, January 31, 2019, https://youtu.be/3p_m8w6koyQ.
9. Joseph Dillard, Dream Sociometry (Deep Listening Press, 2018), 23-25.