Unto the woman he said,
I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy
conception;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire shall be to thy husband,
and he shall rule over thee.
And unto Adam he said,
Because thou has hearkened unto the voice
of thy wife,
and hast eaten of the tree,
of which I commanded thee, saying,
Though shalt not eat of it:
cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all
the days of thy life:
thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth
to thee;
and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,
till thou return unto the ground;
for out of it wast thou taken:
for dust thou art,
and unto dust shalt thou return.
And Adam called his wife's name; because she
was the mother of all living.
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD
God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become
as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand,
and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
therefore the LORD God sent him forth from
the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
So he drove out the man: and he placed at the
east of the garden of Eden cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every
way, to keep the way of the tree of life. (Genesis, 3: 16-24)
The foregoing presentation, in Part Two, has not
been an optimistic portrait of the human condition. The question
might arise, is this scenario true for all people? Has it always
been true? Is it this way in all cultures? What are the roots
of this dismal human predicament? Finally, and not the least of these,
can it be otherwise?
The next two parts will address some of these
questions. We will begin by looking more closely, in Part Three,
at the "evolutionary" and historical aspects of this situation. If
the last part could be said to describe the ontogenetic or "developmental"
arc of the devolution of consciousness that has led to our estranged state,
this upcoming part can be called the phylogenetic arc of that perspective.
Therefore, the next few chapters will address
the questions of origins and cultural variations. I will also relate
the historical and cultural variants to the contemporary situation in putting
forth a cultural solution.
But the most thorough response and effort at
solutions will be brought out in the following section, Part Four: "Return
to Grace." Chapter Thirteen, "Can It Be Otherwise?" will carry the
threads of solution forward and weave them into a tapestry of an understanding
of what an alternative might look like.
In surveying the phylogenetic and historical
terrain immediately before us, however, I will employ the myth of Abraham
and Isaac as the primary viewing-rock from which to make out the relevant
features. Other aspects of the Genesis account of creation,
from The Bible, will also serve as vantage points in our understanding
of how we have come to be at this particular pass.
EDEN
One interpretation of the Garden of Eden myth
in the Genesis book of The Bible concerns God's direct communication
with Adam and Eve prior to the Fall. It is said that Original Sin
occurs out of the fact that Eve begins talking to the serpent and making
decisions of her own without consulting God — keeping Him "in the dark,"
so to speak.
Thus Original Sin occurs out of our separating
ourselves from God, turning from Him, as it were, to the things
of the world and leaving off direct communication with Him. The
result is that we are banished from Eden — the place where we "walked with
God" — and are thrust out on our own, "in the sweat of thy face," to work
it out by ourselves.
BIRTH: AN AWAKENING OR A FORGETTING?
Now, the obvious psychological corollary to this
pattern of falling from grace in Eden is that of one's birth into this
world. Prior to birth, many of us have a relatively direct relationship
to the Divine. The "first major shutdown" has not occurred — that
is, the first major time that we have retreated from our roots in
the infinite because of our entanglement in the pain of physical existence
(Adzema, 1985).
We know this from our re-experience in the
various forms of experiential psychotherapy, especially primal therapy,
and from the various spiritual growth modalities going under the rubric
of "breathwork," especially holotropic breathwork (Farrant, 1987; Grof
1976, 1985, 1988; Hannig, 1982; Janov, 1983; Lake, 1981).
But we also see this in the spiritual literature.
Sathya Sai Baba (1984), for example, put it:
When you are immersed in your Self,
you are happiest. The child in the womb is in Soham (I am He); but,
when it is born in the world, it starts the question, Koham, who am I?
For it forgets its truth; it identifies itself with the body and the senses.
Until it becomes a Jnani, it will never regain the Soham knowledge.
(p. 111)
By "I am He," Sai Baba is indicating the identification
of the self with the Divine essence of all. So he is saying we are
identified with that essence, or God, in the womb but that when we are
born we forget this identification — wondering afterwards, "who am I?"
Similarly, Swami Paramahansa Yogananda (1946)
wrote about his experience of returning to a physical body in his reincarnation
on earth. He described it: "Like a prodigal child, I
had run away from my macrocosmic home and imprisoned myself in a
narrow microcosm" (p. 46, emphases mine).
Birth trauma causes this first major shutdown,
this first major forgetting of our divinity.1
After birth we no longer "walk with God" as easily, like most of us did
in the womb. We are too caught up in the world, its play of pleasure
and pain, our survival in it.
"AGRARIAN REVOLUTION" . . . DEVOLUTION?
Turning now from the individual, the microcosm,
to that of society, the macrocosm, the obvious historical corollary
to the Fall from Grace in Eden is the switch from the hunter-gatherer way
of life to the horticultural. For most of our time on this planet,
our species has lived as hunter-gatherers. But the switch to the
harnessing of Nature and the less mobile agricultural way of life brought
with it a correspondingly different worldview.
There were specific economic factors that came
into play here. The hunter-gatherer culture has been called "the
original affluent society" — with the amount of daily work required for
survival being estimated at only four hours (Sahlins, 1972; Bird-David,
1992). With the run of the forest, so to speak, and so much spare
time for personal, creative, or playful pursuits, it is easy to imagine
hunter-gatherers having more congenial attitudes toward each other.
With the beginnings of agriculture and the
domestication of animals, the so-called "agrarian revolution," repression
and oppression begin to rear their ugly heads. Being truly a "fall
from grace," agriculture, along with the seeming advantage of control
of Nature, brings with it a significant increase in work time required
— especially at certain seasonal times.
So here we have also the beginnings of large
families (free labor) and child labor. Children are born into families
where they feel themselves invisible and unspecial and are forced into
drudgery at an early age. This is, of course, contrary to an individual
child's needs and desires; so authoritarian controls and a system of sanctions
and punishments are required.
This master/slave pattern is reflected also
in the larger culture. With the onset of horticulture we have the
beginnings of settled communities. Whereas in nomadic groups it does
not pay to own very much and hence an egalitarianism is the rule, in settled
groups we have the gradual accumulation of wealth and property into the
hands of a few. This brings in a hierarchical society and an elitism
which, reflecting the situation of the family, requires control of the
populace for the ends of the elite. Thus a system of dire sanctions
and punishments is instituted. We have the beginnings of law . .
. and hence of "out-laws" — i.e., those who refuse or cannot abide by the
wishes of the dominant group.
The agrarian culture is, generally speaking,
much less tolerant of individual differences, viewing them as potential
threats to essentially ill-gotten wealth and power. Its economic
system "requires" conformity and repression of individualistic impulses
of all kinds. This cultural and familial situation is reflected in
the psyches of those who pass for "normal" in that society. Authoritarian
cultures create authoritarian personalities. The members themselves
are as equally repressive of their own "individualistic" impulses as the
larger society is oppressive of such corresponding individuals and groups.
In support of this, I quote:
The entire period under discussion,
from 3.5 million years ago to about 10,000 years ago, was a peaceful period.
There are no remains of weapons used by humans against humans, no signs
of groups of human beings being slaughtered. Thus the early forms
of humanity, far from being savagely aggressive and cruel, were probably
a gentle, humorous, peaceable folk, like many tribes living to this day
in gentle climates. The picture previously offered of early societies
— that of a patrilocal band of related males who exchanged women and treated
them as commodities — is a patriarchal construct; such societies probably
never existed. Most likely, early gatherer/hunters lived in fluid,
flexible egalitarian groups. This is not to say that these people
lacked aggressiveness and did not experience conflict. But they developed
social skills for dealing with negative interaction; their education focused
on personal relations, cooperation, their part in a larger whole.
A group life centered on child care
and sharing could not survive in a highly aggressive environment.
Intense aggressiveness would have destroyed the species. And among
present-day gatherer/hunters, whose customs vary from extreme male dominance
to more or less equal but segregated male/female to integrated egalitarian
societies, one factor is universal: all live by sharing . A
degree of aggressiveness is culturally induced: where it is not valued,
it is not strong. This "advance" was left to Homo sapiens
and that glory, civilization. (French, 1985, p. 39)
Upon which Skibbins (1991) elaborates,
As [Marilyn] French documents in her
book Beyond Power, the first three and a half million years of our
existence on this planet as hominids and the first 85,000 years walking
on this planet as homo sapiens, we lived without war. There are no
cave paintings of war. Replace that inaccurate bear killing bundle
of testosterone which Wilber paints, with the images of the tribe in the
movie The Gods Must Be Crazy. Research in anthropology and
paleontology reveal that we were a gentle, nomadic, primarily vegetarian
people. For 95 percent of our lives on our planet both genders shared
their love of children, their loyalty to hearth and tribe, and their deep
sense of connection with each other and with the earth mother who gave
them life.
Aggression, domination, subjugation, isolation,
depersonalization, sowing wild oats and clinging to powerful others are
the products of the last 5,000 years. They reflect the gradual domination
of a worldview obsessed with an addiction to power and control. This
pollution has so warped our capacity to love that we believe the differences
Wilber describes to be inherent. Actually they are a symptom of a
recent aberration in our history, a disease which we may be nearing the
end of. . . . (Skibbins, 1991)
So at a certain point some of us began the agricultural
attempt to harness the natural order for our benefit. The hunter-gatherer
and the agricultural lifestyles correspondingly reflect two radically divergent
ways of viewing oneself and the world — two separate attitudes, two different
consciousnesses, if you will.
In the agricultural worldview, people are separated
from nature and seek to control it. By contrast, the hunter-gatherer
sees in nature a great provider who asks only that one relate harmoniously
to it and act in harmony with it. Marshall Sahlins (1972), in the
famous anthropological essay titled "The Original Affluent Society," first
published in 1968, which did a lot to expose Western ethnocentric biases
in evaluating these early cultures, wrote "a pristine affluence colors
their economic arrangements, a trust in the abundance of nature's resources
rather than despair at the inadequacy of human means" (p. 29). But
see, also, Colin Turnbull's (1961) classic, The Forest People, for
further help in freeing oneself from the burden of our limiting Western
heritage concerning the basic "darkness" of human nature.
From these newer perspectives it is easier
to see how, since Nature is seen as beneficent, this dependence on it is
not viewed as a problem. Still, it does imply a strong element of
basic trust; whereas the agrarian culture seeks to control the natural
and economic forces upon which it is dependent and implies basic mistrust.2
The relationship for the agricultural society, thus, is one of fear, struggle,
attempt to control nature, and to propitiate and appease God — in a word,
separation, analogous to the physical separation at birth of the
newborn from the mother.
Notice that at the outset, in The Bible,
immediately after being thrown out of Eden, people are agricultural:
And Adam knew his wife; and she conceived,
and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And she
again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but
Cain was a tiller of the ground. (Genesis, 4:1-2)
We, of course, did not really start out keeping
sheep and tilling the ground. So in Genesis the entire period
of a hundred-thousand years (or three-million years, if you include our
hominid existence) of hunter-gatherer culture is subsumed under the time
in Eden. But then we ate fruit from the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil. We no longer trusted God and instead attempted ourselves
to gain power over nature by the separation of life into a duality of good
and evil and pleasure and pain — struggling to avoid one and possess the
other. In doing this we began our agricultural lifestyle, and so
we were thrust out of The Garden.
Birth Pain and Culture
It is interesting, in this regard, to note biological
anthropologist Jim Moore's (1987) comments in a talk given at the University
of California, San Diego, concerning secondary altriciality and pelvic
size. He pointed out that the paleontological evidence from the bone
records of our hominid line show several fascinating developments occurring
simultaneously. One is an increase in skull size. It is reasonable
to suppose that this increased skull, and brain, size in hominids contributed
greatly to birth pain, for both mother and infant. This is so for
the obvious reason that the size of the head is the determining factor
in the size of the vaginal opening required for delivery.
It is also likely, then, that this was not
always the case (when skull size was smaller); that a smaller head passed,
in general, with considerably more ease for infant and mother. In
support of this we also note that this is exactly the case for all our
primate relatives, all of whom have proportionately smaller skulls.
That is, they do in fact show observably much less difficulty and pain
in birth, for both mother and newborn. So, along with this trend
to increasing skull size we can surmise a corresponding trend to increasing
birth pain, birth difficulties, and, consequently, increasing birth trauma
for hominid newborns.
About this factor of birth trauma, keep in
mind that it is demonstrated neurophysiologically (Janov, 1971) that much
of the increased brain size in humans is tied up with processing unconscious
pain — that is, that we require the expanded capabilities inherent
in neocortical expansion to keep traumatic experiences repressed.
What I am saying is that increased brain size
and painful birth become, then, phylogenetically linked in a vicious cycle
— one producing the other. To reiterate, greater pain in birth leads
to greater repression of pain which leads to the development of greater
neocortical capacities for processing and keeping that pain repressed,
which leads to actual physical neocortical expansion, which results in
greater skull size, which causes greater pain in childbirth for both mother
and infant, which causes greater birth trauma in neonates, which leads
to greater repression of pain, and around and around and around again.
But keep in mind, also, that this is a chicken-and-the-egg
correlation. There is no way of knowing what came first. Whether
changes in skull size and expanded neocortical capacity (as for example,
in the development of tool use), or greater repression of feelings and
pain (possible as a consequence of increased social behavior, requiring
increased repression/ control of individual behaviors) or increased birth
trauma (either on its own, for some unknown reason, or because of skeletal
changes occurring through increasing bipedal locomotion and upright posture)
came first is irrelevant. These are mutually arising causative factors;
and it is enough that we notice their interrelationship.
To continue, the point is that the much-touted
increase in intelligence, along with the elaboration of culture that goes
with it (which are universally acknowledged to constitute our distinction
from other primates and which are traditionally correlated with increased
brain size), become, with this understanding, a mere byproduct of our neocortical
attempts to deal with unconscious pain, specifically, that of birth trauma.
Secondary Altriciality and Culture
Let us now add another factor, that of secondary
altriciality. The meaning of secondary altriciality is that
the newborn requires a period after birth of getting its needs satisfied
in the same complete way as it did prior to that in the womb. This
is a characteristic of Homo sapiens; and it is another one of those
very few things that definitively distinguishes us from all other species
known. That is, the human infant is in a more dependent state, when
born, than any other species, when its young is born. The human infant
at birth in terms of its degree of development, is at a level corresponding
to that at which, in every other mammal, it would still be in the womb.
In other words, we are born, comparatively, "premature."
By comparison, all other mammals, when born,
are more able to provide for themselves, are further along in their development
toward independence when born, are more capable of bringing about or at
least initiating the satisfaction of their needs . . . hence they are less
dependent, and vulnerable, than are human infants.
Secondary altriciality in human infants means
that there is a greater need for care, for "mothering" — because of the
newborn's greater helplessness, greater dependence, greater vulnerability
— than that of all other mammals postnatally. But even the best mothering
cannot be as perfect in satisfying the infant's biological needs as was
the situation for it in the womb. Hence, there is going to be a gap
between need and fulfillment inherent in this prematurity, an inherent
frustration of need to at least some extent, and, hence, inherently an
increase of at least some amount, in the degree of pain suffered by the
newborn and infant in the nonsatisfaction or incomplete satisfaction of
its biological needs.
But secondary altriciality is important in
another respect. Since this phase represents a dependent phase
that corresponds to phases that occur to other species en utero
— this leaves Homo sapiens vulnerable to neurosis and mental illness
(its roots in the pain of unmet biological need) to an extent unprecedented,
in any other species . . . hence also contributing to increased
brain size, increased secondary altriciality, and so forth in the way discussed
above for birth. Thus, we have another vicious cycle, again with
culture the byproduct.
Pelvic Size
In this light it is interesting to point out that
Moore (1987) presented evidence of the significantly larger pelvic size
in our ancestral line of hominids which would have either (1) allowed for
a gestation period of up to twelve months or (2) allowed for an exceptionally
easy birth (the increased brain size being much more readily passed through
a larger opening). Either of these propositions, or a combination,
is provocative in light of the above.
In other words, we can speculate that either
(1) increased pelvic size in females was naturally selected for as brain
size became larger, so as to minimize the deleterious effects of painful
birth (as in creating neurosis in the adult, hence reduced reproductive
fitness) or (2) gestation period was prolonged, with increasing brain size,
to minimize the deleterious effects of imperfectly met biological needs
which are a consequence of secondary altriciality.
In this second instance, the disadvantages
of secondary altriciality are lack of precociousness in the infant, requiring
an increase in maternal care after birth and reducing the economic potential
of the female during that period. But it logically follows that there
is a limit to which gestation can be prolonged without itself becoming
an economic disadvantage to the female — certainly the proposed gestation
period of two years for full precociousness at the level we see in nonhuman
primates would be a substantial economic hardship on the female.
Thus it would be selected against, in evolutionary terms.
Human Nature
Therefore, we may speculate that a combination
of these factors resulted in a compensatory system where the fact of increasing
brain size is eventually resolved, to date, by a comparatively reduced
gestation period accompanied by increased need for child care after birth,
increased need for economic dependency overall (both during and after gestation)
by the female, increased need for male parental investment in providing
for both female and child, and increased birth pain correlating with increased
cultural development to offset or mitigate the effects of birth pain (See
Fromm, 1955, on culture as providing the neurosis as well as the "opiates"
to deal with such).
The net effect is a species with prolonged
child care, increased tendency toward single-family units, increased brain
size, greater cultural elaboration, increased birth pain for the
neonate, increased "intelligence," and increased neurotic and psychotic
behavior (thus idiosyncratic and variable behavior) which requires further
cultural accommodation, hence cultural elaboration — all evolving
simultaneously, interrelating and mutually reinforcing each other.
All in all, with these considerations, we have the basic factors which
outline our distinctive human nature — that is, which constitute
(for good or ill) our fundamental distinctions from other species.
THE RESULT: PLATO'S CAVE
At any rate, the point is that viewing it either
psychologically or historically, it can be said that the Fall from Grace
in Eden is such that ever afterwards humans are indirectly related to God
and Nature. By this I mean they are indirectly related to the processes
of reality of either the physical or metaphysical (including their own
inner life, their subjectivity) sort. They have turned their back
on the beneficence of God, or Nature, and seek to go it on their own, to
control Nature, to focus on survival. In that they are focused now
on the world, they can see only a reflection of the Divine. They
are confusing the map and the territory. And in that reflection they
seek to discern God's will. In those shadows they seek to understand
Truth.
CHAPTER TEN NOTES
1. Mainstream psychology
disputes this on two counts — in both cases keeping with Freud: It
is contended that such a change does not occur in the direction I am proposing
(Sroufe, et al, 1992, chapter 8) and that it doesn't occur at the
time I am suggesting (Mahler, et al, 1975; Peoples & Parlee,
1991).
We (Adzema, 1985; Chamberlain, 1988; Janov,
1983; Grof 1976, 1985, 1988; Lake, 1981; Verny, 1981; to name just a few),
however, disagree with mainstream psychology based upon our evidence, which
they, as yet, continue to ignore. On both counts — the direction
and the time — our evidence is overwhelming that it is as I've stated.
The fact that mainstream psychology is reluctant and inefficient in its
methods of admitting new data and better interpretations should not, I
feel, be allowed to inhibit the progress of science — specifically, in
this case, our efforts to evaluate these findings and to follow them to
whatever other new truths they may lead.
I should point out that I don't object to mainstream
psychology limiting the range of what they consider to be valid and credible
evidence to a certain small spectrum of "hard" data. But what I do
object to is that when they stray into areas (and they inevitably do) about
which there is no hard evidence, perhaps because there can be no
such evidence in such an area (e.g., what is the subjective experience
of birth for the infant), they project into those areas their "scientistic"
biases and prejudices. This they do, completely ignoring the vast
amount of evidence of a less-than-hard variety that would completely dispute
their biases. So doing, we end up with self-serving rationales and
rationalizations for their beliefs and lifestyles, couched in scientific
language, that is anything but the empiricism they proclaim.
For how anyone could judge the (often voluminous,
meticulously recorded, and researched) "softer" data that is available
(we're not talking about wrong data) at a lower value than no data
is a mystery — understandable, I suppose, only by a reading of Kuhn (1970).
Here we see a situation where the old adage that religion takes over where
science leaves off remains true. Only it is "scientistic" religion
that is taking over to color those areas where they cannot dare to tread
on purely empirical grounds.
This would be bad enough, but for the fact
that not all the evidence that is ignored in this manner is even of the
"softer" variety. Much of it is hard evidence, scrupulously grounded
in strict empirical methodology. (The research on morphic resonance
is one such type.) So apparently there are sanctioned sources here and
unsanctioned sources for one's information; again we need Kuhn (1970) to
help us understand this.
At any rate, this book may be considered part
of the effort to evaluate the evidence ignored by the mainstream.
Further, the attempt to reconcile these findings, to accommodate mainstream
constructs to these discoveries is an ongoing effort on our part.
At any rate, technically speaking, birth is
the first major narrowing of consciousness after the one at conception.
Therefore, conception is the first shutdown, technically the first
fall from grace. But at this point, after that first fall, and while
in the womb, many people are still relatively open to the Divine.
There is the awareness of separation, and the creation of form. But
the second duality, the second split has usually not occurred — that of
separation from the present, and the creation of time (see Part Two, "Falls
from Grace").
In addition, there is a great deal of individual
variation in this depending upon the events in the womb. These are
complicating issues that would not be profitably addressed here.
[return to text]
2. These differences
of basic trust versus basic mistrust are fascinating considering their
possible relation to birth trauma. That is, Erikson proposes that
the earliest relation of the infant with the mother sets the foundation
of the later attitude toward the world, where a caring, sensitive, and
responsive environmental and caretaker response can be the basis for an
attitude of basic trust toward the world and where a harsh and insensitive
early experience (wherein the child begins to feel it cannot get its needs
met) becomes the basis for a feeling of basic mistrust toward the world.
However, with our understanding of the influence
of birth on basic attitudes toward the world, we realize that these basic
orientations are formed much earlier and, importantly, that birth is a
huge influence on that basic orientation of trust or mistrust. That
is, that if the first encounter with the world outside the womb (at the
time of birth) is painful, and characterized by harshness, insensitivity,
and unresponsiveness to one's needs, then the infant comes to view the
world mistrustfully. This is important considering the connection
I make further on concerning the correlation between birth pain and the
beginnings of culture. [return to text]
CHAPTER TEN REFERENCES
Adzema, Michael. (1985). A primal perspective
on spirituality. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 25(3), 83-116.
Baba, Sathya Sai. (1984). Sathya Sai Speaks:
Volume IV. Tustin, CA: Sathya Sai Book Center of America.
Baba, Sathya Sai. (1991). Sanatha Sarathi,
November, 295.
Bird-David, Nurit. (1992). Beyond "the original
affluent society": A culturalist reformulation. Current Anthropology,
33(1), 25-47.
Chamberlain, David. (1988). Children Remember
Birth. New York: Ballantine.
Farrant, Graham. (1987). Cellular consciousness.
Aesthema: The Journal of the International Primal Association, No.7,
28-39.
French, Marilyn. (1985). Beyond Power: On
Women, Men, and Morals. New York: Ballantine Books.
Fromm, Erich. (1955). The Sane Society.
Greenwich, CN: Fawcett.
Grof, Stanislav. (1976). Realms of the Human
Unconscious. New York: Dutton.
Grof, Stanislav. (1985). Beyond the Brain:
Birth, Death and Transcendence in Psychotherapy. Albany, NY: SUNY.
Grof, Stanislav. (1988). The Adventure of
Self-Discovery: Dimensions of Consciousness and Mew Perspectives in Psychotherapy
and Inner Exploration. Albany, NY: SUNY.
Hannig, Paul. (1982). Feeling People: A
Revolutionary Concept in Therapy, Lifestyle and Human Contact. Winter
Park, FL: Anna Publishing Inc.
Janov, Arthur. (1971). The Anatomy of Mental
Illness. Berkeley: Medallion.
Janov, Arthur. (1983). Imprints: The Lifelong
Effects of the Birth Experience. New York: Coward-McCann.
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970). The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lake, Frank. (1981). Tight Corners in Pastoral
Counseling. London: Darton, Longman and Todd.
Mahler, Margaret S.; Pine, Fred; & Bergman,
Anni. (1975). The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant. New York:
Basic Books.
Moore, James. (1987). Colloquium presentation,
16 November 1987. Department of Anthropology, University of California/
San Diego, La Jolla, CA.
Peoples, Karen M. and Parlee, Bert. (1991).
The ego revisited: Understanding and transcending narcissism. Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, 31(4), 32-52.
Sahlins, Marshall. (1972). Stone Age Economics.
London: Tavistock.
Skibbins, David W. (1991). Letter to the editor.
The Quest, 4(3), 5.
Sroufe, L. Alan; Cooper Robert G.; & DeHart,
Ganie B. (1992). Child Development: Its Nature and Course. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Turnbull, Colin M. (1961). The Forest People:
A Study of the Pygmies of the Congo. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Verny, Thomas, and Kelly, John. (1981). The
Secret Life of the Unborn Child. New York: Dell.
Yogananda, Paramahansa. (1946). Autobiography
of a Yogi. Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship.