May I submit the following note to your attention - keeping it brief, since the context is already provided by your discussion with Ashvin on Part X.
Speaking of contemporary idealism, you say: “while Kastrup’s, Velman’s, Taylor’s, and Shani’s idealistic approaches (...) take a step further in the right direction, they still lack a coherent evolutionary perspective and, most importantly, are too coarse-grained theoretical frameworks. By ‘coarse-grained’ I mean that idealism is a still too low-dimensional representation of a multidimensional reality.”
Here one could add that, even more crucially, the problem is that those idealisms are still… a *representation of reality*, that is, a model of reality from a third-person perspective, in which the role of thinking - in its real-time "thinking gestures" - is overlooked. However, as long as phenomenology is used as a partial approach, aiming at adding multidimensionality and evolutionary perspective to produce a new model - yet another model - in which the thinking who is arranging the thoughts jumps back into the blind spot and/or only *nominally* reintegrates itself, as subjective awareness (in fact, nothing other than yet another thought added to the rest of the model by a hidden hand) we are still not getting out of the bind. Am I misinterpreting your elaboration here?
If you mean that my point is that more introspection on how the mind works, and from what it is conditioned, would be desirable, because otherwise we continuously overlook “the role of thinking in its activity,” then yes, that’s for sure. That’s also why I always invite people to complement the 3rd person with the 1st person approach. These also are two perspectives of the “multi-perspectival way of seeing.”
On the other hand, I’m well aware that what I write about “integral cosmologies,” may be seen as yet another extended model and representation of reality as well. Indeed, “cosmologies,” in itself, will never get us out of the circle of the mind to become able to realize how it works, and, thereby, see what stands beyond and behind it. Yet, I believe, the attempt (or should I call it “exercise”) to become aware that the world may be richer than previously believed, eventually looking at it with phenomenological approaches a la Goethe, or mindfulness, or meditative practices, etc., that could help us to get beyond.
More introspection is surely needed, which points back to the question of practice: how to understand introspection so that it achieves its purpose to bring knowledge to life from the inside of the living thinking gestures, not from within their precipitates (the thought-contents one is normally conscious of). As you imply, the risk is dualism: an arrangement of thought-contents on one side (cosmology) complemented, on the other, by other thoughts *about* consciousness that, however, do not integrate with the cosmology, if what is brought forth are more collapsed thoughts, rather than the upstream higher order gestures that shape the process of reality. Hence the question about your approach to introspection, beyond "non-dual" surrendering of all activities to rest in awareness: would you say that there is an intersection between your practice and the phenomenological approach taken in meditative concentration? https://open.substack.com/pub/spiritanalogies/p/a-phenomenology-of-truthfulness?r=1qj4a6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The essay doesn't allow for comments. So, I comment here.
I resonate very much with this “phenomenology of intentional activity.” Realigning our intent, feelings, and thoughts is something badly needed in our times. For sure we must learn to be aware of our thoughts, feelings, and sensations and how they work under the radar of our frenetic daily surface perceptions. I would add that realignment means also transformation and transmutation. You also refer to the Rubin figure. I do this frequently to illustrate the so-called 'binding problem.' However, it is not my experience that it is through forces of logical thinking that we rediscover the Logos. Because, at least for me, the Logos isn’t logical. Or to put it in other words, it has a completely different logic than the forces of logical thinking. Anyhow, if this is your experience, then that’s fine. I feel words are so poor here to debate on these things. I guess we feel the same, even though we might express it differently and come from different backgrounds. Aligning the local with the Cosmic higher-order intents and returning to the archetypal makes very much sense to me. 😊
Well, I would not go so far in presenting this ‘integral cosmology’ as a real “practice” other than inviting the reader to take a multi-perspectival approach and learning to switch 1st- to 3rd-person perspective. However, as I alluded to previously, its intersection with the “phenomenological approach taken in meditative concentration” is Sri Aurobindo’s integral yoga. I find it the most integral both as cosmology and as a spiritual practice. On the other hand, since everyone has their own preferences, resonances, and inclinations I don’t emphasize this too much. There are so many phenomenological approaches out there, and I don’t feel like adding another one. Because one can come from entirely different paths and reach the same conclusions. If I write about an ‘integral cosmology’ it is because I like to have both a mental and intuitive picture augmented by a modern scientific perspective of all there is and its relation to deeper spiritual truths and that one can discover by going inwards. The more I do so, the more I feel it being the most coherent and universal vision of life, meaning and the universe. And let us not forget that all introspective approaches always have some sort of cosmology behind them.
I will go through your post. Looks interesting. Will comment on it soon.
I understand. And I would dare to say that, yes, all introspective approaches *can be thought about* as having some sort of cosmology *behind* them. Nevertheless, the only ones that are true - the only ones that are real in today's evolutionary phase - don't have a cosmology *behind* them. Rather, they literally *are* the cosmology, and the cosmology *is* the introspection. To start experiencing that - beyond the mere words that are not enough - to start understanding the cosmology in its fine-grained quality *on the same side of our thinking will*, a path of true practice is necessary indeed. A smorgasbord of practices cannot work (neither can the concept of consciousness as the subjective witness). But even before that path is engaged (I am personally not much advanced on it) reason alone can be walked to the realization of the certain - urgent as you say - direction. And it’s unspeakable how fortunate it feels that some of us have somehow come in fruitful contact with these precise ideas, as they - rooted in clear traditions though continuously evolving - are being unpacked and facilitated today by some confidential yet blissfully inspired voices.
I agree. But, again, with the present essay on the integral cosmology , I hadn’t the intention to introduce some new introspective approach, rather it is a description of how the (inner/outer/subjective/objective, etc.) cosmos appears from the standpoint of that introspective approach. If you wish, one could say that I don’t offer much more than what BK & al. do, other than pointing at an extended philosophical framework. And the concept of consciousness as subjective witness was only a starting point to go inward and learn to make a distinction between mind and consciousness. Of course, the subject, the personality, is yet another construct. But sometimes one must remain on the surface to avoid shocks...
Interesting read. Are you familiar with Iain McGilchrist? Your «supraconscient» vs «subconscient» distinction seems to map nicely to the right vs left hemisphere distinction of his work (The Matter with Things, The Master and his Emissary), and something I discussed as intelligence vs wisdom in a recent essay.
Could you elaborate how your usage of «conscient» differs from «conscious»? E.g. In what way is «subconscient» meant differently than «subconscious»?
Your discussion and focus on life as a dimension in all this also reminded me of Bergson, particularly his Creative Evolution. Highly recommended!
Hi Severin, I love your distinction between intelligence vs wisdom. That has to be spelled out in the post.
I didn’t read McGilchrist book but I know him from the several interviews and am ‘mildly’ acquainted with his ideas. I commented above to Don about McGilchrist distinction. I don’t know whether it is necessary to fix it into brain hemispheres. One may or may not take this point of view. It would not change the above ‘cosmology.’ There is a mind and something that goes beyond the mind. This vision remains agnostic about where these are physically expressed on the physical plane.
Subconscient or subconscious? Good question…. I would say that one could use it synonymously. If I would make a distinction I would say that one is an adjective (“we have subsconscious thoughts”) the other is an noun or object (“the subconscient plane”). But, admittedly, I will have to review the nomenclature with time passing by. This ‘translation’ is still a work in progress.
Maybe Don Salmon can comment on this, he is well into the subject I’m trying to raise here.
Yes, Bergson is IMO undervalued. But he will come back. I feel his philosophy is already going through a revival.
Ok, now we're really getting into what is truly unique and honestly, "new" about your approach. Even within the Integral Yoga world, where one would think all the ways you approach this would be common, there is VERY rarely an attempt to connect the IY views with current scientific and philosophic views.
I have a whole bunch of mostly trivial quibbles with the psychological aspects of what you have written. Mostly, it's the wording you use (feelings and emotions are for the most part these days referring to the reverse of what you write - but this is merely a linguistic consideration; your description is excellent). There's also a few quibbles about the level of reason, and whether what Iain McGilchrist calls "right hemisphere" intuition, creativity, etc are truly superconscious or simply deeper aspects of the same mind level. One could look at Sri Aurobindo's early writings on education, and see that in his chapter on the Buddhi, referring to the "critical" and "comprehensive" aspects of the Buddhi, he DOES seem to be describing, respectively, left hemisphere and right hemisphere cognitive activities at the same level, not superconscious....
But, even the last few sentences above are mostly trivial. you're describing, I think, these various cognitive skills very very well, as you do with emotions and feelings.
Anyway, this particular blog post is one that would be wonderful to do a zoom recording about. I have many dozens of concrete examples I could bring in (there's a lot in our yoga psychology book)
This is really excellent. Makes me want to give up our courses and dive in right now, but dharma has to be followed! Good work. great direction. Very important work too!
It goes without saying that I was waiting for you. 😉 In fact, I would like to have feedback from ‘aurobindonians’ to see how we could make this connection between IY and science, and bring it down to earth for a general audience.
I was also almost certain that the characterization of ‘feelings’ would have not been accepted. But you know what? I googled as mad in search of a decent definition, but EVERYONE defines or describes them differently. Everyone passionately points out that feeling and emotions must be distinguished but then talks about something else. I also looked up Sri Aurobindo clarifying the distinction but couldn’t find anything. So, I will be glad to hear from you how one can make a single paragraph characterization and distinction of feelings as above. However, as pointed out, what seems to me essential is not so much the nomenclature and definitions but to convene on which plane feelings you … well, feel to be in. I could think only of the vital plane. Feelings have a mental component but the feeling isn’t mental in my experience.
Eventually suggest some re-writing of this post. I would like to perfect it with time passing by, so that it might become something publishable in the future (book or article.) There are still several issues to be clarified. For example, Sri Aurobindo sometimes talks of the subconscient as below matter. However, that sounds strange to me… I would have said it is the inconscient or nescient IN matter…. But these are details we can keep among IY followers.
As to McGilchrist’s right hemisphere intuition, creativity, etc. I think that, as usual, we must keep in mind that it is always a matter of degrees. The real intuition and creativity that is not mixed by vital impulses, I would say begins with the higher mind and/or has a psychic source, but can have its source in much higher planes. So, I guess that these could be called ‘superconscient’ with various degrees and power (the psychic will be part of the next post.) Whether it is the right or left hemisphere I leave it to you or McGilchrist. None the hemispheres ‘produce’ or ‘generate’ intuition and creativity anyway, they only ‘transmit,’ ‘channel’ or ‘broadcast’ it.
Then, as I understand it the buddhi is (the not superconscient) reason, the intellectual and thinking mind. As such, talking of the "critical" and "comprehensive" aspects of the Buddhi automatically posits them as not superconscient "critical" and "comprehensive" thought. However, if by “critical” and “comprehensive” we mean the ability to discern and see wholistically, these can be superconscient also. The supermind is the highest form of perfect discernment and comprehensive vision. So, I don’t think there is any incoherence with the above classification of planes.
Sure, we can organize a Zoom session on this. My aim, for the time being, is that to present a model that is not too long and contrived. That would make people run away. What I believe should have priority is that of being able to get through the idea (which is a fact) that we are made of many pieces that make up our personality, and that these parts in us are a reflection of universal planes. If that gets through, it could trigger a view of seeing the world, life, and ourselves that changes everything. Then, the details of what correct classification and order should be adopted become much less essential.
I just SO wish I had time to devote all my energies to this. Meanwhile, I don't, but I agree with all your caveats (I'm happy to let go of the hemisphere analogy, by the way). I like what you wrote about intuition and the level of the mind vs above the mind or psychic intuition. You may recall we have a whole section at the end of our book on levels of intuition, and in fact, at the end of our effortless mindfulness course, we talk about the various levels of intuition that are really relevant to everyone's life, not just those engaged in yoga.
Anyway, just possibly we'll have a bit more time by mid or late summer, in which case it might work out to do some free form conversational videos on this (like the series you did with Bahman)
As for why we don't have a working group in the IY community, I'm utterly clueless - I tried REALLY hard after the integral psychology conferences (back when the integral yoga community didn't give in to Ken Wilber's psychological blackmail so HE could steal the term integral psychology) but people seemed mostly to want to go their own way.
My guess is, in the next few years, we'll just start connecting with people interested in Mother and Sri Aurobindo whether or not they are "in" the community. By Her Grace, of course:>))
Dear Don, take your time. No reason to hurry! I wish you the best for your course! :)
Meanwhile, I think the text will have to be amended and updated many times. For example I'm now realizing that "feelings" could be also of a psychic nature. A reason more to start with the soul in the next post. Hmm... it isn't easy to write down Sri Aurobindo's cosmology clearly and comprehensively in a short essay.
May I submit the following note to your attention - keeping it brief, since the context is already provided by your discussion with Ashvin on Part X.
Speaking of contemporary idealism, you say: “while Kastrup’s, Velman’s, Taylor’s, and Shani’s idealistic approaches (...) take a step further in the right direction, they still lack a coherent evolutionary perspective and, most importantly, are too coarse-grained theoretical frameworks. By ‘coarse-grained’ I mean that idealism is a still too low-dimensional representation of a multidimensional reality.”
Here one could add that, even more crucially, the problem is that those idealisms are still… a *representation of reality*, that is, a model of reality from a third-person perspective, in which the role of thinking - in its real-time "thinking gestures" - is overlooked. However, as long as phenomenology is used as a partial approach, aiming at adding multidimensionality and evolutionary perspective to produce a new model - yet another model - in which the thinking who is arranging the thoughts jumps back into the blind spot and/or only *nominally* reintegrates itself, as subjective awareness (in fact, nothing other than yet another thought added to the rest of the model by a hidden hand) we are still not getting out of the bind. Am I misinterpreting your elaboration here?
If you mean that my point is that more introspection on how the mind works, and from what it is conditioned, would be desirable, because otherwise we continuously overlook “the role of thinking in its activity,” then yes, that’s for sure. That’s also why I always invite people to complement the 3rd person with the 1st person approach. These also are two perspectives of the “multi-perspectival way of seeing.”
On the other hand, I’m well aware that what I write about “integral cosmologies,” may be seen as yet another extended model and representation of reality as well. Indeed, “cosmologies,” in itself, will never get us out of the circle of the mind to become able to realize how it works, and, thereby, see what stands beyond and behind it. Yet, I believe, the attempt (or should I call it “exercise”) to become aware that the world may be richer than previously believed, eventually looking at it with phenomenological approaches a la Goethe, or mindfulness, or meditative practices, etc., that could help us to get beyond.
More introspection is surely needed, which points back to the question of practice: how to understand introspection so that it achieves its purpose to bring knowledge to life from the inside of the living thinking gestures, not from within their precipitates (the thought-contents one is normally conscious of). As you imply, the risk is dualism: an arrangement of thought-contents on one side (cosmology) complemented, on the other, by other thoughts *about* consciousness that, however, do not integrate with the cosmology, if what is brought forth are more collapsed thoughts, rather than the upstream higher order gestures that shape the process of reality. Hence the question about your approach to introspection, beyond "non-dual" surrendering of all activities to rest in awareness: would you say that there is an intersection between your practice and the phenomenological approach taken in meditative concentration? https://open.substack.com/pub/spiritanalogies/p/a-phenomenology-of-truthfulness?r=1qj4a6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The essay doesn't allow for comments. So, I comment here.
I resonate very much with this “phenomenology of intentional activity.” Realigning our intent, feelings, and thoughts is something badly needed in our times. For sure we must learn to be aware of our thoughts, feelings, and sensations and how they work under the radar of our frenetic daily surface perceptions. I would add that realignment means also transformation and transmutation. You also refer to the Rubin figure. I do this frequently to illustrate the so-called 'binding problem.' However, it is not my experience that it is through forces of logical thinking that we rediscover the Logos. Because, at least for me, the Logos isn’t logical. Or to put it in other words, it has a completely different logic than the forces of logical thinking. Anyhow, if this is your experience, then that’s fine. I feel words are so poor here to debate on these things. I guess we feel the same, even though we might express it differently and come from different backgrounds. Aligning the local with the Cosmic higher-order intents and returning to the archetypal makes very much sense to me. 😊
Thanks for reading and commenting, Marco. I didn't realize comments were off, but they are on now. I am new to Substack posting : )
I responded on that essay so it's less confusing.
Well, I would not go so far in presenting this ‘integral cosmology’ as a real “practice” other than inviting the reader to take a multi-perspectival approach and learning to switch 1st- to 3rd-person perspective. However, as I alluded to previously, its intersection with the “phenomenological approach taken in meditative concentration” is Sri Aurobindo’s integral yoga. I find it the most integral both as cosmology and as a spiritual practice. On the other hand, since everyone has their own preferences, resonances, and inclinations I don’t emphasize this too much. There are so many phenomenological approaches out there, and I don’t feel like adding another one. Because one can come from entirely different paths and reach the same conclusions. If I write about an ‘integral cosmology’ it is because I like to have both a mental and intuitive picture augmented by a modern scientific perspective of all there is and its relation to deeper spiritual truths and that one can discover by going inwards. The more I do so, the more I feel it being the most coherent and universal vision of life, meaning and the universe. And let us not forget that all introspective approaches always have some sort of cosmology behind them.
I will go through your post. Looks interesting. Will comment on it soon.
I understand. And I would dare to say that, yes, all introspective approaches *can be thought about* as having some sort of cosmology *behind* them. Nevertheless, the only ones that are true - the only ones that are real in today's evolutionary phase - don't have a cosmology *behind* them. Rather, they literally *are* the cosmology, and the cosmology *is* the introspection. To start experiencing that - beyond the mere words that are not enough - to start understanding the cosmology in its fine-grained quality *on the same side of our thinking will*, a path of true practice is necessary indeed. A smorgasbord of practices cannot work (neither can the concept of consciousness as the subjective witness). But even before that path is engaged (I am personally not much advanced on it) reason alone can be walked to the realization of the certain - urgent as you say - direction. And it’s unspeakable how fortunate it feels that some of us have somehow come in fruitful contact with these precise ideas, as they - rooted in clear traditions though continuously evolving - are being unpacked and facilitated today by some confidential yet blissfully inspired voices.
I agree. But, again, with the present essay on the integral cosmology , I hadn’t the intention to introduce some new introspective approach, rather it is a description of how the (inner/outer/subjective/objective, etc.) cosmos appears from the standpoint of that introspective approach. If you wish, one could say that I don’t offer much more than what BK & al. do, other than pointing at an extended philosophical framework. And the concept of consciousness as subjective witness was only a starting point to go inward and learn to make a distinction between mind and consciousness. Of course, the subject, the personality, is yet another construct. But sometimes one must remain on the surface to avoid shocks...
Interesting read. Are you familiar with Iain McGilchrist? Your «supraconscient» vs «subconscient» distinction seems to map nicely to the right vs left hemisphere distinction of his work (The Matter with Things, The Master and his Emissary), and something I discussed as intelligence vs wisdom in a recent essay.
Could you elaborate how your usage of «conscient» differs from «conscious»? E.g. In what way is «subconscient» meant differently than «subconscious»?
Your discussion and focus on life as a dimension in all this also reminded me of Bergson, particularly his Creative Evolution. Highly recommended!
Hi Severin, I love your distinction between intelligence vs wisdom. That has to be spelled out in the post.
I didn’t read McGilchrist book but I know him from the several interviews and am ‘mildly’ acquainted with his ideas. I commented above to Don about McGilchrist distinction. I don’t know whether it is necessary to fix it into brain hemispheres. One may or may not take this point of view. It would not change the above ‘cosmology.’ There is a mind and something that goes beyond the mind. This vision remains agnostic about where these are physically expressed on the physical plane.
Subconscient or subconscious? Good question…. I would say that one could use it synonymously. If I would make a distinction I would say that one is an adjective (“we have subsconscious thoughts”) the other is an noun or object (“the subconscient plane”). But, admittedly, I will have to review the nomenclature with time passing by. This ‘translation’ is still a work in progress.
Maybe Don Salmon can comment on this, he is well into the subject I’m trying to raise here.
Yes, Bergson is IMO undervalued. But he will come back. I feel his philosophy is already going through a revival.
Ok, now we're really getting into what is truly unique and honestly, "new" about your approach. Even within the Integral Yoga world, where one would think all the ways you approach this would be common, there is VERY rarely an attempt to connect the IY views with current scientific and philosophic views.
I have a whole bunch of mostly trivial quibbles with the psychological aspects of what you have written. Mostly, it's the wording you use (feelings and emotions are for the most part these days referring to the reverse of what you write - but this is merely a linguistic consideration; your description is excellent). There's also a few quibbles about the level of reason, and whether what Iain McGilchrist calls "right hemisphere" intuition, creativity, etc are truly superconscious or simply deeper aspects of the same mind level. One could look at Sri Aurobindo's early writings on education, and see that in his chapter on the Buddhi, referring to the "critical" and "comprehensive" aspects of the Buddhi, he DOES seem to be describing, respectively, left hemisphere and right hemisphere cognitive activities at the same level, not superconscious....
But, even the last few sentences above are mostly trivial. you're describing, I think, these various cognitive skills very very well, as you do with emotions and feelings.
Anyway, this particular blog post is one that would be wonderful to do a zoom recording about. I have many dozens of concrete examples I could bring in (there's a lot in our yoga psychology book)
This is really excellent. Makes me want to give up our courses and dive in right now, but dharma has to be followed! Good work. great direction. Very important work too!
It goes without saying that I was waiting for you. 😉 In fact, I would like to have feedback from ‘aurobindonians’ to see how we could make this connection between IY and science, and bring it down to earth for a general audience.
I was also almost certain that the characterization of ‘feelings’ would have not been accepted. But you know what? I googled as mad in search of a decent definition, but EVERYONE defines or describes them differently. Everyone passionately points out that feeling and emotions must be distinguished but then talks about something else. I also looked up Sri Aurobindo clarifying the distinction but couldn’t find anything. So, I will be glad to hear from you how one can make a single paragraph characterization and distinction of feelings as above. However, as pointed out, what seems to me essential is not so much the nomenclature and definitions but to convene on which plane feelings you … well, feel to be in. I could think only of the vital plane. Feelings have a mental component but the feeling isn’t mental in my experience.
Eventually suggest some re-writing of this post. I would like to perfect it with time passing by, so that it might become something publishable in the future (book or article.) There are still several issues to be clarified. For example, Sri Aurobindo sometimes talks of the subconscient as below matter. However, that sounds strange to me… I would have said it is the inconscient or nescient IN matter…. But these are details we can keep among IY followers.
As to McGilchrist’s right hemisphere intuition, creativity, etc. I think that, as usual, we must keep in mind that it is always a matter of degrees. The real intuition and creativity that is not mixed by vital impulses, I would say begins with the higher mind and/or has a psychic source, but can have its source in much higher planes. So, I guess that these could be called ‘superconscient’ with various degrees and power (the psychic will be part of the next post.) Whether it is the right or left hemisphere I leave it to you or McGilchrist. None the hemispheres ‘produce’ or ‘generate’ intuition and creativity anyway, they only ‘transmit,’ ‘channel’ or ‘broadcast’ it.
Then, as I understand it the buddhi is (the not superconscient) reason, the intellectual and thinking mind. As such, talking of the "critical" and "comprehensive" aspects of the Buddhi automatically posits them as not superconscient "critical" and "comprehensive" thought. However, if by “critical” and “comprehensive” we mean the ability to discern and see wholistically, these can be superconscient also. The supermind is the highest form of perfect discernment and comprehensive vision. So, I don’t think there is any incoherence with the above classification of planes.
Sure, we can organize a Zoom session on this. My aim, for the time being, is that to present a model that is not too long and contrived. That would make people run away. What I believe should have priority is that of being able to get through the idea (which is a fact) that we are made of many pieces that make up our personality, and that these parts in us are a reflection of universal planes. If that gets through, it could trigger a view of seeing the world, life, and ourselves that changes everything. Then, the details of what correct classification and order should be adopted become much less essential.
I just SO wish I had time to devote all my energies to this. Meanwhile, I don't, but I agree with all your caveats (I'm happy to let go of the hemisphere analogy, by the way). I like what you wrote about intuition and the level of the mind vs above the mind or psychic intuition. You may recall we have a whole section at the end of our book on levels of intuition, and in fact, at the end of our effortless mindfulness course, we talk about the various levels of intuition that are really relevant to everyone's life, not just those engaged in yoga.
Anyway, just possibly we'll have a bit more time by mid or late summer, in which case it might work out to do some free form conversational videos on this (like the series you did with Bahman)
As for why we don't have a working group in the IY community, I'm utterly clueless - I tried REALLY hard after the integral psychology conferences (back when the integral yoga community didn't give in to Ken Wilber's psychological blackmail so HE could steal the term integral psychology) but people seemed mostly to want to go their own way.
My guess is, in the next few years, we'll just start connecting with people interested in Mother and Sri Aurobindo whether or not they are "in" the community. By Her Grace, of course:>))
Dear Don, take your time. No reason to hurry! I wish you the best for your course! :)
Meanwhile, I think the text will have to be amended and updated many times. For example I'm now realizing that "feelings" could be also of a psychic nature. A reason more to start with the soul in the next post. Hmm... it isn't easy to write down Sri Aurobindo's cosmology clearly and comprehensively in a short essay.