Continuing from this post, syntegrality answers with body-emotion-mind-spirit well integrated, while noting that each of those domains are not levels sublated (transcended and included) into mind or spirit but all developed to the same level and coordinated by dynamic structural coupling.
Wilber agrees with the notion of the body having its own levels. (Same applies to emotions.) On p. 9 of excerpt G matter is not the lowest rung on the great chain but is the exterior of every level. Hence even the highest levels of consciousness are not meta-physical. Each one has a ‘body.’ As gross form complexifies (human brain) there are corresponding subtle energy bodies (18). However on 19 he still uses traditional Vedanta to interpret these subtle bodies. But they are still tied to the complexification of the brain: “These subtle fields cannot be reduced to matter, but neither are they ontologically disconnected from matter altogether” (20). Figure 7 shows this relationship to brain structure (21). Psychic (mental) energy emerges with triune brains (24). Causal and nondual are related to the overmind and supermind (28).
On 36 though he goes back to the traditional Vedanta-Vajrayana interpretation of these bodies. See table 2 on 37. He here brings in waking, dreaming and deep sleep to correspond with gross, subtle and causal bodies. And also the difference between states and stages. He admits though that “I have incorporated those aspects, virtually unchanged, in my own model of Integral Psychology” (40). And therein lies the problem. I’ve recontextualized this system keeping the notion that each level must have a body without keeping the “virtually unchanged” metaphysical tenets inherent to this paradigm. See for example the “states, stages” thread and the “postmeta definition of states” thread.
The whole thing completely derails in the discussion of reincarnation starting on 42, where we can now separate the gross body from the subtle and causal bodies. This is how he maintains that a ‘body’ is still required, just not a gross-material body. I obviously don’t accept this. He mentions that for Varela and Thompson this is not possible, and they are ‘Buddhists’ (43). Agreed. I have an IPS thread on Thompson where he has been doing neurological tests on advanced Buddhist practitioners for a long time. His findings are consonant with my notions. E.g. from this post:
“But whereas the Advaitin takes this minimal selfhood to be a transcendental witness consciousness, I think itʼs open to us to maintain that it is my embodied self or bodily subjectivity, or what phenomenologists would call my pre-personal lived body. In this way, I think we can remove the Advaita conception of dreamless sleep from its native metaphysical framework and graft it onto a naturalist conception of the embodied mind.”