Closest precedents to the Druid Finn’s Development proposition

Explicit triads in Indian thought

1. Sri Ramakrishna / Vivekananda
Ramakrishna (and later Vivekananda) explicitly present Dvaita → Viśiṣṭādvaita → Advaita as graded stages of spiritual progress—dualism, qualified non-dualism, and (absolute) non-dualism—meant to be complementary rather than mutually exclusive. This is the clearest historical analogue to the Finn’s staging, though their endpoint is Advaita (often treated as non-dual or monistic, depending on the interpreter).

· For background on the “middle” position (Viśiṣṭādvaita as qualified non-dualism / qualified monism), see SEP/IEP summaries.

· Note that classifying Advaita as “monism” is debated; some scholars emphasize that a-dvaita is a negation of twoness, not a straightforward substance-monism.

Nearby developmental frameworks that map well to your phases

2. Faith development (Fowler)
Fowler’s empirical model tracks a move from external authority (childhood) → internalized authority (adolescence/early adulthood) → rarely achieved “universalizing” compassion (later adulthood). This aligns with your dualism → non-dualism → monism as infant → juvenile → mature self-regulation, although Fowler never frames it in dual/non-dual/monist metaphysics.

3. Integral theory (Ken Wilber)
Wilber distinguishes “growing up” (developmental levels) from “waking up” (states culminating in non-dual awareness). His endpoint is explicitly non-dual; the developmental through-line (external → internal → transpersonal) mirrors your staging even if the labels differ.

Western monist culminations (not staged as a triad, but fit your “mature” endpoint)

4. Spinoza’s monism (Deus sive Natura)
Spinoza identifies God with Nature (often classed as pantheism/monism). It functions as a mature, regulator-free view akin to your monist “Universal Procedure.” It is not, however, presented as a developmental sequence from dualism.

5. Hegel’s Absolute Spirit
Hegel’s system is frequently read as a spiritual monism in which differentiation is internal to the One (Absolute Spirit). Again, this is a destination, not an explicit dual→non-dual→monist ladder.

6. Panentheism as a “bridge”
Many contemporary philosophers of religion treat panentheism (“the world in God and God in the world”) as a mediating position between classical theism (dualist separation) and pantheism/monism—very close to your “non-dual” transition phase.

A well-known triadic development (different labels, same spirit)

7. Comte’s “law of three stages”
Not about dualism vs non-dualism, but historically important as a triadic developmental arc: theological → metaphysical → positive (scientific)—explicitly framed as moving from external authority toward immanent procedure. This is conceptually analogous to your maturation thesis.

Bottom line

· ChatGPT did not find a scholarly formulation that exactly matches Finn’s sequence and emphases (dualism → non-dualism → monism as phase-appropriate survival supports with toxicity when misapplied).

· The closest historical match is the Ramakrishna/Vivekananda presentation of Dvaita → Viśiṣṭādvaita → Advaita as staged and complementary—clearly a developmental triad in religious practice.

· Several adjacent frameworks (Fowler, Wilber) corroborate the developmental move from external to internal to universal/absolute stances, though with different terminology.

· Western monist philosophies (Spinoza, Hegel) give Finn a mature landing point that aligns with his monist phase, but they don’t present it as a three-step developmental path.

Modern Pantheism

Home