THE WAY FORWARD IS DOWN
From looking at the possibility of a more benign,
less tragic human trajectory, I would now like to delve into the implications
of this devolutional model of development as concerns psychotherapy, human
growth, or "healing." We turn from prevention to correction, once
the patriarchal pathology has occurred.
To begin with, I said at the outset of Part
Two that a metaphorical analysis such as this one can uncover underlying
meanings — can provide understanding of inner and outer behavior as well
as guidance for such. At this point it can be stated that the implications
of an analysis such as I have been presenting are for no less than the
direction of growth, the direction of mystical experience, the concept
of regression, and the evaluation of current ego psychotherapies, among
others.
Specifically, this perspective puts in question
the psychotherapeutic maxim that ego strength precedes higher consciousness.
I confess that many years ago I myself made exactly that claim in a work
titled The Dangers of Mysticism for Modern Youth (1970). As
I concluded, "Cosmic consciousness is dependent upon self-actualization."
By this I meant, following a Jungian line, that ego-actualization leading
to a solidified ego and ego strength was necessary before one could hope
to face the overwhelming and terrifying Unconscious Self — the repressed
inner Divinity . . . and this usually therefore during the "second half
of life."
Subsequently, however, I encountered the new
experiential psychotherapeutic techniques which — it has been my own experience
— allow one to deal with and integrate the repressed 'negative' energies
that lie along the path (as this analysis demonstrates) to mystical experience
of Energy, Mind, Absolute Subjectivity, and God. Thus, I declined
to publish that earlier work.
Those subsequent experiences, however, resulted
in works titled, descriptively enough, "The Way Forward Is Down" and The
Centered Path Through Hell. The proposition arising from this
later work is that low self-esteem, low ego strength, is
a precondition for "higher" ("lower") growth in a mystical direction; that,
as Maslow (1968) put it (and contrary to Wilber [1970]), some people are
sick for sick reasons and some people are sick for healthy reasons; that,
therefore, especially in an avowed "insane" (see Fromm, 1955) culture,
we might want to think twice about doing people the big favor of "helping"
them in the direction of increased ego defenses (and societal adjustment
and social functioning); that, in fact, those people with inadequate defenses
against what is in essence more real are not only closer to being truly
sane than the majority of us but also might be better helped by leading
them in the direction of dismantling what remains of the barriers between
themselves and pure Energy, pure Consciousness, and helping them instead
to integrate with and grow to encompass the expanded awareness that results.1
Now, I realize that this proposition is not
absolutely new. For one thing it seems to make sense out of some
of the extreme and bizarre behavior, the seemingly manifest neurotic behavior,
of some of the saints and mystics on their way to expanded awareness (see
for example James, 1899/1982, especially Henry Suso, pp. 306-310; and Saint
John of the Cross, 1959).
But in this secular age, it seems such allowance
for "aberrant" behavior is rare. Keep in mind that in many cultures
there are institutions — like medieval monasteries — or roles, like shamans,
through which structures such distortions of personality can be worked
out in socially sanctioned ways. Contrast this with the modern attitude
which seems to be that if they can't be talked into picking themselves
up and/or behaving themselves like everyone else they are to be drugged
or electroshocked into compliance.
Nevertheless, there are those in this day also
who do speak out in favor of the direction of growth that this book is
presenting. Laing, Janov, and Grof are not the least of these.
Indeed, the Grofs' (1990) book, The Stormy Search for the Self,
is a near-exact affirmation of the proposition I have just stated.
Still, this idea of a "stormy" spiritual path
— despite the fact that it was distinctively presented and described nearly
a century ago in William James's classic (1899/1982) work, The Varieties
of Religious Experience — in my opinion, goes too much against our
hard won "rationality" (which we see is essentially our cultural rationalization),
our culturally embedded "pragmatism" (our cop out to consensual constructs,
especially fear-rooted economic ones), and against our Judeo-Christian
anti-body bias to be easily accepted.
Even in the field of transpersonal psychology,
for example, there seems an inability to accept such a visceral, energetic,
cathartic, "Dionysian," spiritual path — a "surrendered" one. Instead
we see a tendency to opt for "Appollonian" head trips, mere relaxation
and visualizations, cybernetic ego programming and affirmations, and rational-intellectual
metaphoristics — a "controlling" path (cf., Berman, 1986, "Cybernetic Dream").
Thus we hear that one must have an ego before one can lose one. As
if we all, from birth, don't have some kind of ego!
Interestingly, Wilber has been, at different
times, on both sides of this development. His change of position
from The Spectrum of Consciousness (1977) to The Atman Project
(1980) is, in my opinion, regrettable. Obviously, from the preceding
analysis, it is clear that I believe that his stance at the outset, in
The
Spectrum of Consciousness, is closer to the truth. Further, I
agree with Washburn (1990) that Wilber's espousal of a pre/trans distinction
(Wilber, 1982) — which predicates his change of position — "assumes a major
point at issue," viz., that "'pre' and 'trans' states are totally
unrelated, and are in fact opposites," and that Wilber does not establish
this position empirically (p. 94). Similarly, while I regret the
use to which Schneider (1987) puts this information, I concur with him
that "a careful reading of the case evidence does not — as Wilber . . .
would have it — clearly differentiate (prepersonal) psychotics from truly
(transpersonal) visionaries" (p. 202).
In sum, the operative factor in Wilber's change
of position, which is also a basic building block of all of his later theory
— viz., the pre/trans distinction — does not fit with the evidence
from the spiritual or psychiatric literatures. It certainly does
not fit with the evidence of experiential psychotherapy and pre- and perinatal
psychology. Finally, as Epstein and Leiff (1981, p. 140) pointed
out, neither does his hypothesis appear to fit with the evidence of meditation
research.
As Grof (1985) said concerning Wilber's pre/trans
distinction:
My own observations suggest that,
as consciousness evolution proceeds from the centauric to the subtle realms
and beyond, it does not follow a linear trajectory, but in a sense enfolds
into itself. In this process, the individual returns to earlier stages
of development, but evaluates them from the point of view of a mature adult.
At the same time, he or she becomes consciously aware of certain aspects
and qualities of these stages that were implicit, but unrecognized when
confronted in the context of linear evolution. Thus, the distinction
between pre- and trans- has a paradoxical nature; they are neither identical,
nor are they completely different from each other. (p. 137)
Indeed why Wilber, while acknowledging Grof at
least, would choose not to incorporate the findings of pre- and perinatal
psychology and would opt instead for a Piaget-based theory of development
that begins (1) at birth (1980, p. 6) and (2) with the self identified
with matter that is defined as lowest consciousness (1980, p. x and p.
7)2 — a Piaget-based theory
that is radically altered by pre- and perinatal psychology and consciousness
research in general (see Grof; Pearce, 1980) — is a mystery in itself.
As Grof (1985) has exclaimed concerning Wilber:
It is . . . somewhat surprising that
he has not taken into consideration a vast amount of data from both ancient
and modern sources — data suggesting the paramount psychological significance
of prenatal experiences and the trauma of birth. (pp. 135-136)
Further, concerning Wilber's theoretical system:
The complexity of embryonic development
and of the consecutive stages of biological birth receives no attention
in this sophisticated system, which is elaborated in meticulous detail
in all other areas. (p. 136)
It seems that Wilber (1980, 1982), however
— as one of the chief proponents of the ego-quest-as- precondition-to-spiritual-quest
school of transpersonal thought — has made the mistake of constructing
his transpersonal argument within the gravitational field of the Western
ego psychologists. Thus it ends up helplessly skewed in that direction.
He completely ignores the evidence cross-culturally for the ego weakness
that most often characterizes mystical adherents and religious practitioners.
At any rate, I think the integration of Wilber's
work with that of Grof, primal psychology, Masters and Houston, and the
new pre- and perinatal information from various sources3
helps to clarify some of the confusion4
resulting from his change of position.
I believe his refusal to adequately acknowledge
the information of pre- and perinatal psychology also explains his inability
to discriminate the primary and secondary dualisms, as indicated earlier.
His postulation of them as occurring together is, as near as I can determine,
a product of his inability to analytically conceive of them as occurring
separately. I think that a review of the empirical data demonstrates
how, experientially, they can occur separately, and, as mentioned
earlier, I feel that the womb experience is the prime example of that.
EGO-WEAK MYSTICS AND SHAMANS
In a more recent work, John White (1990) continues
Wilber's mistake in not realizing that the sharp distinction between the
sacred and the profane that we observe today is a product of recent history.
While White refers to early mystics in making his case for what a unitive
state of consciousness entails, he does not seem to notice that these people,
in terms of his proposition of developing a fully functioning ego as a
necessary prerequisite to transpersonal realms, would not only fail in
this regard but that by his criteria the kind of odd and extremely eccentric
behavior of holy people in the past would be considered insane.
My point is that in neither White's nor Wilber's
limited Western viewpoint is there any allowance for that kind of "regressive"
behavior on the spiritual path. I quote Feuerstein (1991) as an antidote
to this omission:
It is true that when we look at crazy
adepts like Drukpa Kunley or Nityananda, we see phenomenal feats of renunciation.
But we also see behavior that, certainly in the eyes of a psychiatrist,
at times borders on the neurotic, if not psychotic. Some of these
holy fools have in fact wondered about their own sanity. The saintly
Ramakrishna, teacher of the world-famous Vivekananda, is a case in point.
For a period of time he ceremonially worshipped his own genitals, and on
other occasions he installed himself on the altar of the temple where he
served as head priest.
Such behavior is certainly not "normal."
Nor is sitting on garbage heaps or sexually fondling women and girls, as
has been reported of several contemporary Hindu adepts. (p. 21)
THE "FULLY FUNCTIONING EGO"
Thus, I re-iterate, as White (1990) himself points
out (p. xxiv, he says "I elaborate on this central point throughout the
book"), central to White's argument that we are evolving into a new species
of human at this time in history is that the characteristic Western ego
"development" — one could as easily say (and some have said) — "ego-dissociation"
— is a necessary prerequisite to higher consciousness. Thus he marshals
in, to support his proposal, the concept of the "fully functioning ego"
which Wilber has unfortunately popularized.
What these transpersonal theorists are claiming
then, in deference to mainstream psychology which is dominated by ego psychologists,
is that a fully functioning ego is necessary to develop before one can
go on to transpersonal pursuits. My research and experience, confirmed
by that of Grof and supported by the theory of Washburn (1988) and others,
tells me they are wrong in this espousal and that in fact what they are
talking about developing is merely a supremely defended ego. It seems
that what they would wish to develop is high self-esteem as a prerequisite
for higher consciousness. Yet my research indicates that this is
a legacy from Freudian thought which claimed that defenses are necessary.
To the contrary, what we have learned from primal therapy and the other
experiential, feeling psychotherapies is that defenses are not necessary.
Furthermore, research by Gergen and Marlowe
(1968) points out that there is a difference between high self-esteem and
high self-regard. Essentially, high self-esteem involves the use
of defenses that deny and avoid aspects of reality, whereas high self-regard
is based on an openness to and acceptance of those same kinds of unpleasant
aspects of reality. Self-esteem and the fully functioning ego are
based on distortion of reality and falseness relative to the Self; high
self-regard is rooted in painful and not necessarily so functional acceptance
of reality in its dark and light, pleasant and unpleasant facets.
Similarly, there is a difference between what
is often called ego strength and what is meant by the fully functioning
ego. For ego strength, as Erikson (1968, 1985) uses it for example,
is really a consequence of being in tune with the higher self, which is
in fact not ego strength at all. On the contrary, this kind
of attunement with the higher self (or Self) represents a diminution of
the ego, a reduction of ego defenses.
Going back historically, what is noticeable
about mystical adepts (not always their followers, interestingly — see
Hesse [1951, 1930/1968], for example) is their lack of ego, often from
a very early age, and how they are closer to their mystical promptings
because of this. This pattern also relates to creative people and
the process of creativity. For creative people from all times quite
often exhibit this poorly functioning ego that has often been associated
with mystics. Because of this, people are familiar with the connection
between madness and genius as well as the one between madness and mysticism.
(See Erikson, 1962.)
The point is that in neither of these cases
is there the development of this recent prescription: "the fully functioning
ego." In fact, a fully functioning ego is the last thing a person
with mystical promptings would want to develop.
One begins to suspect that what these transpersonal
theorists and their legions of followers are really saying is that they
really do not want to surrender to mystical promptings or to surrender
to the Divine and that they want to continue to do their controlling; they
want to continue to do their affirmations; they want to control
their inner life. Certainly there are fear reasons why one would
want to avoid the path of spiritual surrender and would wish to carry one's
controlling and defensive ego over with one into the transpersonal realms.
And the devolutional model helps us to see the very deep roots of that
fear and makes this entire transpersonal gambit quite understandable.
Still, the dictates of truth, and of real spirituality,
require that these fearful prescriptions and their illusion-weaving proselytizers
be spotlighted for what they are. For it is bad enough when one is
self-deluded. It is purely unacceptable when one seeks to foist one's
ego defensiveness onto the spiritual pursuits of others. It is worse
still when institutions, such as the psychiatric and psychological, are
reinforced in their antiquated and soul-destroying methods by such efforts
and beliefs. And it is worst of all when these beliefs support the
kind of unconscious racism and denigration of other-than-Western-cultures
that has caused so much suffering historically.
CONTROL VERSUS SURRENDER
What people like White and Wilber simply do not
get is that spirituality is not a matter of further ego-actualization .
. . that spirituality involves surrendering the ego, letting go of the
ego. Instead they would have us construct, control, strive, to build
a "super" ego.
An Example of This Mistake
The Homo noeticus that White (1990) describes
in his book, The Meeting of Science and Spirit, is an example of
the kind of mistakes that are possible with this ego-highlighted model
of human development. His Homo noeticus might better be termed
"Homo ego." For indeed, what he offers us is a continuation
of the Promethean hubris that has brought us to this precarious situation.
What he offers us is the same kind of attitude toward the inner world as
we have taken towards the outer world, the same kind of advance and conquer,
the same kind of control tactics. In support of this I note that
while he uses the terms "control" and "master" often — in describing higher
states and enlightenment, he uses the terms "surrender" and "letting go"
only once. In White's universe I suppose the meek do not inherit
the earth.
This entire attitude is reminiscent of a book
from 1968 titled The Master Game by Robert S. deRopp. Theorists
like deRopp, White, and Wilber have never quite understood the idea that
this whole spiritual trip is not a matter of transpersonal athleticism,
mystical machismo, or jocko-militaristic "mastery." Indeed, it is
obvious that White has this attitude in his espousal of the martial arts.
It is equally clear that he does not quite
understand the concept of the surrender of ego for, even in his very espousal
of Jesus, he does not accept Jesus's attitude of non-violence or "turn
the other cheek." Of course these pacificistic attitudes would not
make sense in a spiritual program like his which involves the aggrandizement
of the ego and its defense at all costs.
These sorts of would-be spiritual teachers
also, in line with the kind of thinking I have described, are the ones
who are wont to point out the dangers of regression to "pre-" states and
so forth. Once again, in doing so, they acknowledge their fear of
loss of ego in their espousal of so-called "higher" or "transcendent" striving.
They do not understand that spirituality is, in reality, a matter of attunement
with God, attunement with All That Is . . . is a giving up of ego struggles,
and a letting go into All That; as opposed to a control, a "mastery," a
striving, or a transcendence of it all.
Essentially what I am saying is that there
are two paths of so-called "spirituality." One of these might be
described as going up the "hierarchy of defenses" and the other as undercutting
or going below such "act-outs" or spurious "atman projects." Another
way of saying this is that there are "control" spiritualities and "surrender"
spiritualities, with rarely the twain meeting.
Control spiritualities are adapted to
patriarchal cultures and involve the use of the ego to "control" and be
in charge of even the realms of the supernatural. This is so because
an ultimate evil — a devil or Satan — is postulated, which is given equal
weight along with God in determining one's ultimate fate. This type
of spirituality is normally what is called "religion."
But there is another brand of spirituality
that is based on a belief in the ultimate goodness and rightness of All
That Is. God's goodness being essentially the dominant force in the
Universe, herein it is considered safe to "surrender" in one's relation
to Reality, to expect that one will be guided correctly, in fact perfectly,
in the act of letting go. Thus letting go is not to be feared (as
in the control spirituality) but is to be practiced and fostered.
In this perspective, which we might call surrender spirituality,
control is seen as the problem, not the solution.
Of course these two approaches to spirituality
represent two approaches to psychotherapy as well. The control attitude
is the dominant mode of psychoanalytically-based approaches (in which the
"demon" of the id is postulated). The attitude of "letting go" and
"surrender," on the other hand, is the dominant attitude of the experiential
psychotherapies, which are themselves rooted in the tradition of humanistic
psychology with its belief in the ultimate goodness of the human organism
and which thus allows a faith in the ultimate rightness of human processes.
Since the control attitude, in any of its manifestations,
requires the postulation of an ultimate evil against which one must remain
vigilant and must fight, the common "hero's journey" myth — with its typical
fighting and slaying of supposedly evil parts of the personality and reality
symbolized as dragons and other monsters — is a prevalent focal myth to
this attitude. Corresponding to this myth are the emphasis on disciplines
and practices seeking to develop the ego and the will (over against the
dangers that are postulated to exist in the universe requiring these disciplines
and, so-called, ego developments).
In history, the surrender spiritualities have
had correspondences in myth in which the dragon is not fought, conquered,
and slain, but rather is either tamed and becomes one's ally or pet (St.
Margaret is the prime example in the West, but this is a depiction prevalent
in the East) or else one is swallowed by the "dragon" or monster and, after
a while, is reborn. Jonah is the prime example in the West for this
latter depiction. But again this reaction to the fearful dissociated
aspects of the personality, or the Shadow, is not a common one in the Western
patriarchy, and it is much more common in traditional cultures and in the
East.
These two paths have been rather distinctively
delineated a hundred years ago by William James (1899/1982) in terms of
the spirituality of "healthy mindedness" and that of "the sick soul."
The point is that the one — the "healthy mindedness" — involves a
kind of mental ego-actualization, ego-aggrandizement; and the other
— the "sick soul," or surrender spirituality — involves an honest dealing
with and processing of the unconscious and all that it is. This second
path, this true spirituality involves a going through hell on the way to
heaven — which is a matter of surrender and letting go, as opposed to control
and healthy-mindedness. The one is a matter of surrendering to All
That Is; whereas the delusional path is a matter of defending the ego,
continuing ego defenses to keep out negative thoughts, and so on.
It is interesting that the one can always be distinguished from the other
in the false one's emphasis on discipline, indicating its militaristic
attitude of defending against unwanted negative thoughts, and so on.
Elsewhere I have called this the "patriarchal mistake" (Adzema, 1972b).
It might be pointed out that these two radically
different views of spirituality are exemplified in the transpersonal psychology
movement in that surrounding the ideas of Stanislav Grof and that surrounding
the ideas of Ken Wilber. It is clear that rarely does the one movement
ever refer to or revere the insights of the other. For example, in
his recent book, White (1990) does not mention Stanislav Grof at all.
Yet he genuflects at the altar of Ken Wilber frequently.
In this respect, also, we have White's inconsistency
in his analysis of the terms tob and metanoia (and repent).
In pointing out that the original Aramaic term for "repent" was tob
he says that it means "to return" or "to flow back to God." This
is fine so far. But then he states that the Greek translation of
tob
is metanoia which then means "to transcend." He then forgets
the original meaning, disregards it, and builds a theory upon the latter
term — meaning that we are to strive, struggle, and travel upward.
The entire meaning and significance of returning or flowing back — which
would serve to undermine both Wilber's and his theories in its espousal
of the significance of the "pre-" state — is completely ignored.
To this move I say, you simply can not have
it both ways: You cannot ascribe some type of greater validity to
an earlier term as being closer to the original meaning (metanoia
over repent), while at the same time ignore or dispute the relevance of
the even earlier term, in fact the original one (tob), just because
to do so would undermine the argument you wish to present!
Inconsistency — Dualism — Matter and Spirit
Nonetheless, perhaps White's biggest theoretical
inconsistency is his assertions of a dual nature to the Universe — Matter
and Spirit — (with them "interacting"), laid alongside of his assertion
that "God is all." He presents therefore a dualistic view of reality
much reminiscent of ghost-in-the-machine thinking, with his supposed big
advance being that the ghost is just as important as the machine.
Not a New-Paradigm View
In this respect then, White fails to make the
transition to a new-paradigm view. He seems hopelessly caught between
the views of competing worlds, trying to assert competing claims, trying
to keep his old world from falling apart while still wanting to follow
the light he sees ahead. Although he claims to, he does not present
a new-paradigm vision.
The point is — as opposed to the old paradigm
which says that the world is basically matter and that consciousness is
an epiphenomenon of matter — that the new paradigm says the world is basically
consciousness or a subjectivity that encompasses All and that the material
universe is an epiphenomenon of consciousness. In this worldview
one does no more need to assert a difference between spirit and matter
any more than one can assert a primary distinction between ocean and waves.
In this respect we have Sathya Sai Baba's statement that: All there
is is the "I" or the Atma and that this is the foundation for everything
else; everything else is illusion. All that really exists is the
"I."
This is the same as saying in Western philosophy
that subjectivity is the only true reality. This is in line with
the philosophical position that the objective reality is indirect perception
and is dependent upon subjective reality, and so subjective reality is
the only true reality that can be known.
Unfortunately, White's view is directly contradictory
of this — he says that there is danger in "seeing one or the other (matter
or spirit) as illusion or delusion" (p. xv). This he does despite
the fact that this position of the ultimate phenomenal nature of mundane
"common sense" reality is the major conclusion of most of the world's religions,
of much of traditional and Platonic philosophy, and more recently, even
of the new, quantum, physics.
In essence then, White's volume presents an
example of the kind of frantic hyper-kinetic convoluted theorizing that
is known to characterize the transition phase between paradigms.
Like the convoluted theories of pre-Copernican astronomers, who struggled
fervidly in re-arranging and making room in obsolete theories and concepts
for the ever new astronomical data that was pouring in, who were doomed
to failure and obsolescence by their inability to grasp the central organizing
principle or concept of an Earth that is both round and not the
center of the universe; so also White's book, lacking any valid new-paradigm
integrating vision, finds itself twisted about itself trying to keep one
foot in old-paradigm concepts and theories while stepping with the other
into new-paradigm facts and data.
CRITIQUE OF HOMO NOETICUS
Finally, I would like to make it clear that all
of this is not to say that I do not appreciate White's enthusiasm for advances
on the leading edges of science and spirit and for thinking that this might
have something to do with an increased pace of changes in consciousness.
Indeed, I do believe that we are seeing an incredible and positive change
in Western consciousness. But I view these changes, in Wilber's terms,
as a translation on the existing "level" as opposed to a "transformation"
to a "higher" level, to a "Homo noeticus."
To my way of thinking, there may in fact be
pressures to bear upon changing the quality of Western consciousness, and
possibly, even probably, in a positive direction. But I believe that
these forces have more to do with the effects of our technological advance,
in various ways, back upon ourselves.
For example, I believe that modern telecommunications
has the effect of making an assault upon ego defenses, making the ego-narrowed,
nationalistic or "tribal"-bound views increasingly untenable under an onslaught
of information. We might also consider some of the side-effects of
pharmaceutical advance. I believe that our exposure to altered states
through a variety of prescription and illicit drugs makes narrow, single-state,
ego-fortified beliefs and ideas increasingly untenable.
I also feel that the negative effects of technological
advance — pollution, for example — are having positive effects on Western
consciousness, albeit totally inadvertently and fortuitously. In
this respect I might note that our co-habitation with the bomb and with
environmental destruction is a spur to the growth of consciousness akin
to more traditional spiritual paths that speak of the benefits of "having
death as an ally." That is, that the imminent possibility of death
is a spur to taking life seriously (and spiritually) and to "waking up"
in general.
Another factor is that the declining quality
of air and the increased level of toxins that we ingest also are attacks
on ego defenses. It is known, for example, that breathing increased
amounts of carbon dioxide can bring up primal and perinatal feelings (repressed
traumas that our ego defenses normally keep safely [?] tucked away in our
subconscious). Grof (1993) has described how at one point he explored
the use of increased carbon dioxide as a method of inducing nonordinary
and perinatal/transpersonal states. The reduction of oxygen apparently
acts similarly to a reduction of blood sugar or glucose to the brain and
thus results in an inhibition of the brain's ability to keep out unwanted
information. The evidence concerning heavy metal toxicity indicates
that can have a similar effect (Watson, 1972).
Now, I do not espouse environmental poisoning
as a technique of higher consciousness. But I am saying that apparently
Nature (and we are part of her) has ways of balancing herself. And
as we edge our way toward global destruction, we increasingly sicken ourselves
in the process, causing us to psychologically "go back to the drawing board"
and seek solutions — both inner and outer — to our misery. Specifically,
I am saying that inhibited brain functioning, whether through oxygen depletion,
heavy metal toxicity, or other environmental anomalies have the effect
of heightened "mind" functioning (lowered ego and defensive functioning)
in the sense of opening us to suppressed individual (and global/universal)
truth.
Granted that many people, especially visible
in our big cities, are not integrating this information from outside their
ego boundaries (from the unconscious) and sadly are instead acting out
the energy of these repressed materials (which our degenerating environment
is opening up to them or giving them access to) in violent, destructive,
wasteful, and pathetic ways. That is indeed a tragedy and is something
that, if that response ends up prevailing, could actually do us in.
But there are also many people who are integrating
this emergent material, regaining their truth and the truths of this planet
and the universe, expanding their consciousness to include this information,
and carrying that information forward into positive action to heal themselves,
the people around them, humanity at large, and the planet. We can
only hope that the forces of integration are more successful than those
of disintegration and re-action in the face of this influx of material.
That, and then again, that those of us who are dealing positively with
these emergent truths can help to build societal structures and processes
that make it easier and more likely for those less able to integrate and
themselves grow in response to it.
So what I am saying is that our advanced technology,
itself a product of an unhealthy dissociated ego state that is called Western
consciousness, seems, simply fortuitously (or through the grace of God),
to be having the effect of intense consciousness change — yes! . . . but
essentially back in the direction of what has been normal for our species
for at least sixty thousand and possibly millions of years but, this time,
while retaining (if we are lucky) the boons of technology.
Some people think that the only way our consciousness
will return to normal is with the loss of technology and the re-creation
of the primal state. Thus they picture "Planet of the Apes" and post-nuclear
"Thunderdome" scenarios. But I believe that we may just be lucky
enough (God may be merciful enough) to allow us to keep the fruits of the
extended Western aberration of consciousness; we may just be allowed to
keep some of the toys we acquired from our prodigal days. There is
nothing written in stone, after all, that says that people cannot enjoy
the benefits of things produced from "unholy" vessels. Indeed, in
the perfect universe that we are beginning to finally re-apprehend, it
is clear that all things are useful and to some good end in God's
universe. For example, the legacy and benefits of democracy that
we enjoy are not lost or neutralized by our realization that our founding
American fathers were chauvinists and slave-owners.
So basically I am saying that I disagree that
we are evolving into a new, advanced species, a Homo noeticus.
For one thing, it has been pointed out that brain size has actually declined
slightly over the past 100,000 years (Winkelman, 1990, p. 28). No,
what I believe is that in fact consciousness change is happening
(especially in Western culture) but in the direction of a return
to a more truly human and natural state — one that characterized our species
for millions of years — that our Western mental illness, our cultural aberration
of consciousness is reversing and healing — however with it some
fruits of that extended aberration, which we may only fortuitously or through
God's grace (and not through any particular heroics or "super"man virtue)
be allowed to keep.
Now, that combination of a healthy consciousness
and advanced technology may be truly new on this planet (and even of that
we cannot be sure; and certainly — and White would agree — likely it has
occurred in other places of the universe many times — so that there is
no need for species-ego-aggrandizement here, by any means), and that is
certainly a reason for excitement and rejoicing. And is certainly
something to be sought. But there is no need to march in the streets
or "we're number 1!" about it. If this is the case, we have just
been lucky. And can only be grateful to the Universe for conspiring
to correct our transgressions before we, indeed, "killed us all
off"!
BEWARE OF SKINHEAD SPIRITUALITY
I hope I have conveyed why I believe that the
exclusion of the pre- and perinatal information from Wilber's otherwise
comprehensive and laudable schema of transpersonal development leaves it
lacking and flawed. I feel that this entire area of integration between
the two is considerably more complex and important than has been assumed
(certainly that it should not be dismissed, or ignored). Indeed,
I feel that the inclusion of pre- and perinatal evidence is crucial for
any map of consciousness that purports to be a guide to spiritual evolution.
Cosmic consciousness is not aided by a "fully
functioning ego" or by ego-actualization. The age-old admonitions
against the lures and enticements, the devices and strategies of ego are
as apt in this day as they have always been.
The ego does not surrender easily. It
sends out its emissaries of diversion and disruption, of fear and insecurity,
to trip up the gullible and the arrogant. Yet surrender is what is
required; the tendency to try to control and to ritualize our native experience
is what is to be resisted. Therefore, banners such as "Homo noeticus"
and "fully functioning ego" may bring temporary relief from the difficult
task of ego resistance, dismantling of ego defenses, and confrontation
with the painful aspects of the unconscious, the Shadow, in the ego-inflation
inherent in such standards. But it is as wise to align oneself with
these tokens to fend off one's necessary insecurity (see Watts, 1951) as
it is a good idea to join up with the KKK or the skinheads as a way of
dealing with the same kind of insecurities of changing (and growing) events.
In fact the responses are much alike.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN NOTES
1. Schneider (1987) claims
that the kind of mystical consciousness of which Wilber speaks is not possible
because, for one thing, it would be terrifying and overwhelming.
That was a good part of my position in The Dangers of Mysticism for
Modern Youth (Adzema, 1970). But as I have said, I eventually
came to understand there to be a big difference between access to
and integration of these realities. For, as both Jung and
Campbell have pointed out, a God is often seen as a devil until one is
wholly enough (I would say surrendered enough) to approach him. [return
to text]
2. Wilber (1980) claims
that at birth the self is identified with matter (p. x and p. 7), which
he calls the pleroma and which he states is a gnostic term for the
virgo
mater or materia prima (p. 20). First of all, my reading
of gnosticism does not tell me that the pleroma is a primal matter but
is rather a primal spiritual source from which all else — specifically,
matter — devolves. Gnostic writings tell that, in fact, the
creation of matter and the world occurs later, much later in the course
of devolution than the "spiritual" pleroma. They tell also that the
material universe comes in only with the creation of the inferior god,
the Demiurge (the ego); and that it is a flawed creation — one might
say it is one that no longer adequately reflects spirit and that it has
fallen from grace. (See Robinson, 1988, The Nag Hammadi Library
in English)
This may seem a minor point; however, its implications
are huge for Wilber's theory and it indicates exactly where we differ.
What I am saying is that, from a particular perspective — one might say
a gnostic one — matter is from spirit (or Consciousness), is of
the same stuff as spirit (except that it is flawed). That really
and truly what we see "out there" is spirit and is no different from what
we experience "in here" save that our sensory experience is an imperfect
— one might say, reflected or indirect — experience . . . but of the same
thing! This is indeed the implication of the new physics and
the new psychology. As one song sums it up: "God is all.
God is all there is."
Now, Wilber knew this in The Spectrum of
Consciousness; he espoused this perspective in that book. That
he later turned from this radical spiritual perspective on matter; this
mystical, Eastern, "new physics," psychedelic, and Platonic perspective
on the material world and sensory experience . . . well, one might say
he "fell from grace." [return to text]
3. Publications and
conferences of the Association for Pre- and Perinatal Psychology and Health
(APPPAH); the writings of Thomas Verny (1981, 1987); the evidence from
primal therapy, rebirthing, holotropic breathwork, and psychedelic research
— published in places too numerous to mention; and so on. [return
to text]
4. See, for example,
A
Sociable God where Wilber says adolescence includes previous structures
("as the adolescent mind emerges, it destroys the exclusive identity with
the body but does not destroy the body itself; it subsumes the body in
its own larger mental identity" 1983, p. 104) compared with The Spectrum
of Consciousness where each stage splits off from and represses
previously "owned" realities making them unconscious. [return
to text]
CHAPTER FOURTEEN REFERENCES
Adzema, Michael. (1970). The Dangers of Mysticism
for Modern Youth. P.O. Box 1348, Guerneville, CA 95446-1348. Unpublished
manuscript.
Adzema, Michael. (1972a). The way forward is
down. P.O. Box 1348, Guerneville, CA 95446-1348. Unpublished paper.
Adzema, Michael. (1972b). The Centered Path
Through Hell. P.O. Box 1348, Guerneville, CA 95446-1348. Unpublished
manuscript.
Berman, Michael. (1986). Cybernetic dream.
Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, 26(2), 24-51.
deRopp, Robert S. (1968). The Master Game.
New York: Delecorte Press.
Epstein, M., & Leiff, J. (1981). Psychiatric
complications of meditation practice. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology,
13(2), 137-147.
Erikson, Erik H. (1962). Young Man Luther.
New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Erikson, Erik H. (1968). Identity: Youth
and Crisis. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Erikson, Erik. H. (1985). Childhood and
Society. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Feuerstein, George. (1991). For God's sake:
Reflections on religious extremism. The Quest, 4(3), 17-22.
Fromm, Erich. (1955). The Sane Society.
New York: Rinehart.
Grof, Stanislav. (1976). Realms of the Human
Unconscious. New York: Dutton.
Grof, Stanislav. (1980). LSD Psychotherapy.
Pomana, CA: Hunter House.
Grof, Stanislav. (1985). Beyond the Brain:
Birth, Death and Transcendence in Psychotherapy. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Grof, Stanislav. (1993). From presentation
on holotropic breathwork in Grof Transpersonal Training module, July, 1993.
Grof, Stanislav and Grof, Christina. (1989).
(eds.) Spiritual Emergency: When Personal Transformation Becomes a Crisis.
Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher.
Hesse, Hermann. (1968). Narcissus and Goldmund.
Trans. by Ursule Molinaro. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. (Originally
published, 1930).
Hesse, Hermann. (1951). Siddhartha.
Trans. by Hilda Rosner. New York: New Directions.
James, William. (1982). The Varieties of
Religious Experience. New York: Viking Penguin.
Maslow, Abraham H. (1968). Toward a Psychology
of Being. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Robinson, James M. (Ed.). (1988). The Nag
Hammadi Library in English, Revised Edition. San Francisco: Harper
& Row.
St. John of the Cross. (1959). The Dark
Night of the Soul. (E. A. Peters, Trans.). Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Schneider, Kirk. (1987). The deified self:
A "centaur" response to Wilber and the transpersonal movement. Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, 27(2), 196-216.
Verny, Thomas, and Kelly, John. (1981). The
Secret Life of the Unborn Child. New York: Dell.
Verny, Thomas, (Ed.). (1987). Pre- and Perinatal
Psychology. New York: Human Sciences Press.
Washburn, Michael. (1988). The Ego and the
Dynamic Ground: A Transpersonal Theory of Human Development. Albany,
NY: SUNY Press.
Washburn, Michael. (1990). Two patterns of
transcendence. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 30(3), 84-112.
Watson, George. (1972). Nutrition and Your
Mind: The Psychochemical Response. New York: Harper & Row.
White, John. (1990). The Meeting of Science
and Spirit. New York: Paragon House.
Wilber, Ken. (1977). The Spectrum of Consciousness.
Wheaton, IL: Theosophical Publishing House.
Wilber, Ken. (1980). The Atman Project.
Wheaton, IL: Theosophical Publishing House.
Wilber, Ken. (1982). The pre/trans fallacy.
Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, 22(2), 5-43.
Wilber, Ken. (1983). A Sociable God.
Boulder, CO: Shambhala Publ.
Winkelman, Michael. 1990. The evolution of
consciousness: An essay review of Up from Eden (Wilber 1981). Anthropology
of Consciousness 1(3-4):24-31.