What an inspiring conversation! Thank you both! I found myself making many notes and drawing pictures to help myself digest the rich understanding you have shared.
 
The diagram I have ended up with for the moment is a trinity drawn in a vertical column consisting of (from top to bottom) Observer (a global, singular awareness), Self (the unique self of each individual), and Ego (as it is generally understood and as you discussed it). There are two directions of movement through this trinity in my diagram, which together form a circle. The movement from Observer to Self to Ego is labeled Creation, and the movement from Ego to Self to Observer, Evolution. But the movement is really one continuous, never-ending cycle, and it tells the story of “what I am” from all three perspectives within the trinity.
 
Looking at the movement called Evolution, I thus see not a single, simple path, but a complex path. Ego evolves as it realizes itself to be Self, and Self evolves as it realizes itself to be Observer. These are like two legs of one path. However, these movements are not necessarily sequential, but may be traveled concurrently, like having a foot in each realm at the same time. It’s a good thing we are bipeds, eh? It is as though the movement within the human psyche from Ego to Self parallels the movement within a deeper, larger realm from Self to Observer. As above, so below.
 
This picture embraces many of the details you explored in your conversation. For example, the rate of evolution along each leg is not necessarily the same. Thus, a person may disclose the unique self rather powerfully if they have journeyed a good distance along the first leg (Ego to Self), but at the same time they may not experience self-reflection if they have not journeyed very far along the second leg (Self to Observer). Likewise, a person may be very self-reflective but rather ungrounded, expressing shadow, distortion, or confusion. This would be an individual whose Ego has not gone far toward realizing its identity with the unique Self while the Self nevertheless has a strong sense of being part of a whole, a person who is in some ways very spiritually evolved but lacks the ego development necessary to function effectively as a human being. The ideal would seem to be either an evolutionary movement that is sequential (the first leg is traveled completely before the second is embarked upon) or, for those on a faster track, a movement that maintains balance between both legs. One’s experience of the latter would be more of a bouncing back and forth along the evolutionary path, which is common among people I know, myself included. Sometimes we experience ourselves from Ego, sometimes from Self, and our experience has not yet come full circle and whole yet.
 
Another example is the idea that Ego seeks to separate itself from other Egos, marked by an attitude of judgment, whereas the Self seeks to unite itself with other Selves, expressing the attitude of acceptance. This seems quite natural because the Ego’s movement toward Self takes place within the individual, as a separate individual, while the Self’s movement toward Observer is a collective journey of many unique selves realizing their identity with a global, singular Observer.
 
One could go on and on using this model to restate many points in your conversation as well as to expand into other topics. I do not have the background to speak in your terms, and I appreciate how you clarified things enough to bring the listener into your conversation. Very nice. Thanks again, very much.

Fantastic interview - I particularily resonated with how one begins to form alliegence with and live from a genuine sense of integrity at a post autonomous self. I recognise it as an emerging capacity in myself and friends.
Does anyone know where I can get hold of the recent article by Susan that Marc mentions in the interview.  Can't wait for the Almaas interview - Keep em coming guys!