Balder: Two thoughts:
1. Regarding generative mechanisms, recall (from Bonnie's report on the IT/CR conference) that one of Bhaskar's critiques of IT was that it does not have a sufficient explanatory critique for aspects of its developmental model, i.e., it lacks an understanding of the generative mechanisms that drive certain forms of development. His argument was that the path of increasing cognitive complexification mapped by Wilber and others was driven by contingent social and political factors (outside of those being studied); the ego develops in these ways in order to survive in certain (he would argue, competitive and exploitative) geopolitical environments, rather than this representing any sort of kosmic absolute or necessity.
This, or something like it, might play into your endo-structure account via Gendlin's body-constituting, since body-constituting involves the development of implicit structuration via ongoing interaction with the body's environment.
2. From Wilber's letter, his convention of providing a nondual "line" of development would seem to more explicitly support one of my points in the states threads (or related ones*): I had noticed that Wilber never provided 'altitude' in IS when giving the kosmic address for nondual or Emptiness/Big Mind experiences or enactments, even though elsewhere he had indicated altitude is one of the minimal requirements in kosmic addressing, and I had wondered if this was an oversight or intentional. I had argued that it should be included, since I believed there was more than one kind (and stage-expression) of nondual insight and experience possible. His "line" conception (of states) supports that.
* Oh, it was this one: Kosmic Addressing of Mystical Experience. I had a parallel thread on Integral Life, with a lot of rich discussion and back-and-forth with David Marshall, Brandon, and a few others, but apparently all of that was lost when IL transitioned to its new site.
theurj: Yes, image schema and endo-relations via the likes of L&J and Bryant are exactly the type of generative mechanism arising from an organism-environment assemblage. That is my link to a non- or postmetaphysical grounding. More on that later.
In the Wilber quote above he thinks at least systematic and meta-systematic levels are necessary "if the transpersonal is to become a stable adaptation and not merely a passing peak experience." By this he means the subtle, causal and nondual ‘lines” or states. As I said I don’t think we need a systematic level for that, just a rational ego. And that the so-called higher postformal levels are really just lateral or horizontal extensions of the rational ego, which is the only necessary and sufficient level to go transrational. Which itself is necessary but not sufficient to go postformal, the latter requiring the kind of emboded ‘real’ reason of L&J.
As we can see, Wilber’s ’99 email predates the WC lattice but the latter’s basic ideas are already apparent. As for the non-dual line, I’d agree with him that “this nondual line is based on a natural given, namely, the natural mind or the primordial mind.” Which itself undergoes development. Recall above my correlation of this to our basic awareness without an object or content, and how image schema relate to that. Hence in reconnecting with this basic awareness via the reflective ego we downwardly cause it to not only be integrated more fully but to transform into the subtle and causal ‘bodies,’ something it was not before.
He also goes into basic and transitional structures in the email. And that’s another area I’m trying to improve, since the elements of endo-structural organization on indeed basic structures that are transcended and included, or intensive relations per Bryant. Whereas for Wilber basic structures are things like cognitive stages from sensorimotor to emotion to concrete, etc. Bryant through Luhmann finds such levels to be autonomous substances in themselves via extensive relations as parts, not elements. These notions would add more clarity and empirical accuracy to Wilber on basic and transitional structures.
In Jordan’s original post he differentiates the hierarchical approach to levels with Puhakka. The latter uses ‘seeing’ as a mode of awareness that doesn’t require more complex or postformal thinking. I’m finding that akin to our discussion of triple-loop awareness and the virtual, which again I claim only need an integrated transrational development combined with a ‘real’ reason postformal level. That might be what is considered a systematic or meta-systematic level but I’m doubting it at this point.