There are two competing models of development within transpersonal psychology – a depth versus a height approach. In Psychosynthesis, this difference shows itself between Assagioli’s theories and Firman / Gila’s theories.
Frank Visser founded www.integralworld.net in 1997 (then under the name «The World of Ken Wilber»). He is the author of the first monograph on Ken Wilber and his work: «Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion» (SUNY Press, 2003) and of many essays on this website. He is currently the service desk manager for the worldwide Sara Lee website at online advertising agency Lost Boys.
Within transpersonal psychology, there exist two competing directions within the field of human development. Depth psychology (Grof, Washburn) sees human development as a dialectical, spiral-like and basically regressive movement, where during the second half of life one re-establishes the connection with the unconscious point of view one had in childhood.
In height psychology (Assagioli, Wilber), human development is seen as an additional, ladder-like, developing movement in the second half of life. By comparing the work of leading transpersonal authors, we can get help in understanding the transpersonal dimensions. Today’s disagreements are between Wilber and Washburn, and between Wilber and Grof. It is discussed and evaluated, and it is claimed that transpersonal psychology is actually height psychology, and that depth psychology’s approach to the transpersonal is broken.
The transpersonal environment seems content and peaceful. A new paradigm has emerged that promises to unite science and the spiritual, and thus save the world from the ecological crisis. They are still those who live in the old paradigm, based on mechanical science, but a deceptively simple difference hides a deep rift that permeates the entire transpersonal environment.
Some see human development as a straight line, while others see it as a spiral that eventually returns to itself. This is sometimes referred to as the difference between the «ladder» model and the «spiral» model. (Washburn, 1988, 1994), between «progressive» and «regressive» views of development. (Wilber 1995,1996) or between «additive» and «dialectical» theories. (Scotton, Chinen, & Battista, 1996). My view is that these contrasts are useful but limiting. They can all be reduced to the more fundamental and simple difference between depth psychology and what in contrast is called «height» psychology. Depth psychology’s approach to the transpersonal is very spiral-like, regressive and dialectical, and height psychology’s approach is ladder-like, progressive and inductive. These two directions give a quite different view of two different concepts within transpersonal growth and development.
This challenge has not received enough attention until now. It is not mentioned in Rowan’s (1992) survey of the transpersonal, nor in Walsh and Vaughn’s (1980,1993) transpersonal writings. Ken Wilbers’s 14-point transpersonal writings for the coming decade (discussed in detail in Walsh and Vaughn, 1993) did not mention this either, apart from the statement (in point 9 on Jungian psychology) that the relationship between Jungian theory and transpersonal theory «will indeed be the most important discussion of the coming decade». But this problem is only part of the more fundamental question about the value and limitations of depth psychological frameworks for transpersonal psychology. In this article we will therefore explore the assumptions and consequences of these fundamentally different approaches to the transpersonal.
If one considers the origin of modern transpersonal psychology, which is the California Bay Area, one can say that hidden tensions exist in this field, that depth and height psychology pull in opposite directions, almost imperceptibly, easily recognizable and irresistible. This hidden tension can possibly lead to earthquakes. Let’s explore the consequence of this type of theoretical earthquake.
Depth and Height Psychology
Sigmund Freud, the founder of Western psychology, called his psychoanalytic approach to consciousness «depth psychology». He divided man’s consciousness into consciousness, which is governed by the reality principle, and the unconscious, which follows the pleasure principle. The unconscious is often depicted as being many times greater than the conscious; the conscious mind forms the well-known tip of the iceberg. About one-tenth of human consciousness exists above the water and nine-tenths of it exists below the surface. Freud depicted the process of human development as a movement from the unconscious to the conscious, from the id to the ego. Wo Es war, soll Ich sein, was his formula. This means more or less: the ego arises from the depths of the unconscious, first as a fragile structure that is easily overwhelmed by emotions, later as a more stable structure that is adapted to the vicissitudes of life. The conscious has the type of logic we associate with rationality and common sense, the so-called secondary process. The unconscious also has its own logic, primary process, which we still experience in dreams and fantasies. It is well known that Freud does not value religion and spirituality very much. He saw religion in general as the product of an immature mentality from the past, which sees ancestors in heaven (or mothers in earth). According to Freud, the modern man should abandon the illusion of religion. Freud interpreted mystical experiences as symbiotic «deep» emotions which he linked to the peaceful «infantile chest» state to which every human longs to return.
His most important student, Carl Gustav Jung, had a much more liberal attitude towards the field of religion and spirituality. He is therefore rightly regarded as one of the great forerunners of transpersonal psychology. Jung stated that religion plays an important role in the second half of life, during the process of individuation. Jung has remained faithful to the depth psychological perspective throughout his life. Because according to Jung, the ego also emerges from the depths of the unconscious, in a heroic effort to achieve autonomy. The detailed study of symbols and myths in the world challenged Jung to divide the unconscious into a personal and a deeper collective layer. In this «collective unconscious» there exist archetypes that can appear in visions and dreams all over the world. Jung had a hypothesis that at the core of this «collective unconscious» there was a «fundamental force» that arose from nature and the collective psyche. This universal layer of the unconscious includes not only all of humanity, but also the lower biological man and nature. In the Jungian formula, depth means: more universal, more collective, more spiritual and more transpersonal. Although the individual and personal dimension is in contrast to the collective and transpersonal. Collective and transpersonal are more or less equated in the Jungian view, even if this is not justified. Where Freud saw the unconscious as a pool filled with instincts, Jung believed that the unconscious was charged with religious and spiritual meaning. His gaze was fundamentally downward. However, like Freud, he realized the value of ego development in the first half of life. Only a fully formed ego can be strong enough to accommodate the energies of the unconscious and its archetypes, and as the Self as the primary archetype. Through this individualization process in the second half of life, the so-called ego – Self axis is formed, where we become aware that we have a Self. Jung had his reservations about the values of Eastern spirituality for the West. Although he wrote the foreword to many Western classics, he had objections to the radical direction in India which is about the higher consciousness, the Self or Atma, being experienced in deep meditation. For Jung, the Self was primarily an archetype and not a reality that could be experienced directly, and not least it was not the only true identity.
The depth psychological approach to spirituality is characterized as fundamentally ambiguous. For both the primal instincts and the most refined spiritual aspirations arise from the same source – the unconscious. The unconscious has become a kind of collection of experiences where you can sometimes experience a positive uplifting spiritual experience and sometimes a degrading experience. Primitive thoughts and mythology are mixed with spiritual. Many Jungian Christians still turn to mythology for answers to man’s spiritual needs. This fundamental ambiguity has led to many cases which Wilber (1983) has called the «pre-trans fallacy». When prepersonal and transpersonal experiences come from the same core, the unconscious, confusion is inevitable, as Wilber has shown. Freud made the mistake of reducing all spirituality to instincts, while Jung made the opposite mistake: seeing spiritual meaning in the instinctive. None of them had a real understanding of the transpersonal dimension as a separate reality behind the prepersonal and personal. So this theoretical dead end could just be solved by developing height psychology where the prepersonal, the personal and the transpersonal are separate in a unique way in the search for the spiritual dimension. Both Freud and Jung had nowhere but the unconscious mind to look for the spiritual dimension.
Assagioli – the founder of height psychologist
The Italian psychiatrist Roberto Assagioli (1888-1974), who founded psychosynthesis in the twenties of this century, saw very early in his career that this depth psychological direction would in the long run lead to absurdities. He is best known for his view of the will as a valuable spiritual resource (Assagioli, 1973). Next to Jung, he is one of the great forerunners of today’s transpersonal psychology, but unfortunately he has been seriously and unfairly neglected until now. He was well acquainted with the work of both Freud and Jung, and was the first to introduce Freud to Italy. He felt a lot of kinship with the Jungian direction and was convinced that the human consciousness not only had a depth dimension, but also a height dimension. Within the unconscious he distinguished between a lower part («the lower unconscious») and an upper part («the higher unconscious or superconscious»), and very clearly distinguished the more primitive parts from the more spiritual parts of human nature. This does not mean that he valued the «higher» parts more than the «lower» parts, although this may certainly be a legitimate interpretation. He just meant to say that these two worlds should never be compared. In contrast to Jung, who rejected the idea of a superconscious mind, Assagioli understood the Self as a reality that can be experienced through the process and practice of disidentification. This experience of the Self is, however, in a category of its own, for the one who is experienced and the one who experiences are one and the same. The very word «experience» is misleading here. Nor can it be said, in the true sense of the word, that we identify with our Self, because the Self is the one who does the identification (and disidentification). A better way to explain this is that by dis-identification from parts of the conscious Self, the Self discovers itself (Visser, 1995).
What is now interesting about «high psychology» is that the depth dimension now emerges in its true light for the first time – Freudian than Jungian – not overloaded with spiritual meaning. But most important of all is that the level of the conscious and the mental ego is such that two movements in two opposite directions are now possible: downwards to the (mostly unconscious) emotions and bodily sensations, and upwards to the (mostly unconscious) intuitions, acts of will and the true Self. This vertical dimension, which psychology fundamentally lacks in depth, gives direction to the development process. Because it can be said that we move from the unconscious to the conscious to the superconscious. Or: we move from past to present to future. Or: we move from animal to human to the spiritual or divine level.
Assagioli can be considered the founder of advanced psychology, because he was the first psychologist to speculate systematically on the superconscious mind. Unfortunately, he has not been able to contribute much to this revolutionary approach to consciousness in the form of published work. Compared to the literary production of Freud and Jung, Assagioli’s literary work is very limited (Assagioli, 1965, 1973, and posthumously: 1988). However, his theoretical importance is almost inversely proportional to the size of his limited literary work. Assagioli has drawn much of his system from Eastern philosophy and esoteric traditions such as Theosophy (Campbell, 1980; Hardy, 1987). Already as early as 1904 – just four years after Freud published his first major work on the interpretation of dreams (!) – theosophical writers had already outlined a true high psychology, especially with emphasis on the will and the spiritual Self (Besant, 1904). Assagioli was a good friend of another theosophist, Alice Bailey, whom he represented in Italy. His system shows many similarities to hers, which any student of theosophy can see (Visser, 1996). Considering today’s interest in transpersonal psychology and esoteric traditions, the field of theosophy deserves more attention. Early attempts (more than a hundred years ago) have been made to formulate a transpersonal view of human nature, development and evolution that contains some remarkably modern insights (Roszak, 1976). What is important is that it can provide a much-needed metaphysical background for many – if not all – transpersonal theories (Visser, 1995). For example, the question «where does this higher Self come from in the first place?» can actually just be answered metaphysically.
In a way, Assagioli took «the narrowest path» and it has actually made a big difference. Very few have followed his path, but many have continued to work within the framework of depth psychology.
Psychoanalysis
Freud also had followers who took the human body as a starting point for his theories about human nature. Although Freud gave a lot of value to the body and to sexuality, he also believed that we must come to terms with our instincts in a rational and mature way, by strengthening our ego. We can no longer simply return to the blissful state of unconscious nature. In order to become human, we must suppress our instincts to a certain extent, which thus causes feelings of discomfort that are so common in human culture. But psychoanalysis did not succeed in all cases. Body-oriented therapists such as Wilhelm Reich and Alexander Lowen saw a failure of psychoanalytic evidence to support their view that the body should also be engaged in therapy. According to them, by focusing on the body, you can treat psychological problems far more effectively than by just using talk therapy. What is interesting is that the body has here replaced the unconscious and the deep psychological (Conger, 1988). Because the unconscious then just becomes the part of the body we are unable to feel. In depth psychology, the unconscious is considered to be closer to our true nature than the conscious mind, and in body-oriented therapy the body is often taken to be our true being. It sometimes speaks its own language, outside of the censorship of the conscious ego. When we hide the unconscious and its secret motives, we also hide the body, «the body doesn’t lie» has become a popular expression. Where Jung searched for the essence of human nature in the unconscious, Lowen searched for the body. In his literature, he writes about the body’s need for food, sex and exercise in a positive way. While the ego’s need for fame, recognition and approval is often seen as neurotic (quite the opposite of Marslow’s pyramid of needs where the needs of the body, soul and spirit all have their own place in a hierarchical order). Another popular direction in these environments is: body/head. To live from the head means to be rational, to live a non-religious and static life. To live from the body means: to be spiritual, to live a holy, divine and dynamic life. This ignores what separates us from the animals and the animal kingdom, that we are able to use the «head». In other words, it is our ability to think abstractly that really makes us human. It would be very nice if this ability turns out to be our least spiritual part, while the part we have in common with the animal kingdom must be our most spiritual part. Then all the animals would be enlightened. But this is actually what much of the body-oriented literature says. In Lowen’s latest work, he has become more and more explicit in his expression and in his conviction that it is the body that really matters. As for example «in the spirituality of the body», he writes: «In mitt sinn, the mind is secular, the body is sacred».And in his latest book «Joy – surrender to the body and life» he says «The goal in therapy is to get in touch with God.» God lives in the self, in the body and even more explicitly, to surrender to the body is to surrender to God». But it is one thing to work with the body in therapy, it is another thing to establish it as sacred and exclusive. The denial of the body, which is the main theme in all of Lowen’s writings, is equated to the denial of the true Self. The self and the body are synonyms, they are both contrasts to the fleeting and unspiritual ego.
Both depth psychology and body-oriented therapy use the same recipe: deeper – becoming the unconscious or the body – means more reality, while higher means more unreal. Both view human nature as bipolar: unconscious/conscious, self/ego, body/ego, body/head, or earth/ego. In my opinion, this dualistic development leads to a «regressive» view of spirituality. Because if spirituality is recognized at all, it will undoubtedly be placed in the first category of the unconscious which is the Self, nature or cosmos. It doesn’t seem like anyone is able to see any spirituality in the ego. Growing up can seem like moving away from the spirit. Finding the spirit later in life can therefore mean returning or regressing to the source from whence we came. There is actually no other option, there are no other ways to go but backwards. The highly psychological alternative is the total opposite. It follows a threefold development model. Human nature is divided into body, soul (ego or self) and spirit (Self). Development is then seen as a straight line of development from body to soul to spirit. Growing up no longer means growing from the spirit, but the opposite, growing into the spirit. The path from the mature ego to spirituality no longer means going back to where we came from, but going forward on the path already chosen. This leads to a «progressive» view of spirituality. In this view we do not discover the spirit by looking «backwards» or into the «depths», but by looking «forwards» and «upwards». This progressive and future view of spirituality is fundamentally in line with the regressive and retrospective view prevalent in transpersonal psychology today. It concentrates less on what has been «lost» and more on what can be «gained» by continuing to develop. The idea that we have lost our spirit along the way during the maturation process/civilization process expresses a widespread feeling that we will return later.
If we follow the threefold development model, then we can imagine human nature as a pyramid. Psychologically, life can be seen as building a pyramid of body, soul (ego or self) and spirit (Self). This relates to the prepersonal, personal and transpersonal levels of human nature. Development starts at the basic level with the body where all the foundations for subsequent growth are laid. A bad foundation is harmful to the rest of the building, but it would have been worse if it had not been built at all. In the same way, we need to ground our sense of identity in the body, but we should not only keep it at this level. We don’t have to wait for the next step up until the current one is finished. We should first construct a basic strong structure and then fill in details later. In the same way, we need only moderate body awareness to be able to transcend the body, and we only need a certain mastery of the mind to be able to transcend it. And it is always good to be able to return to the basic structures to repair the damage that life’s winner has inflicted on us. But we must never forget that we are on our way to the top. All levels are important to be able to build a complete pyramid, but it is the top that makes the pyramid.
What is the relevance of these discussions for transpersonal psychology? Today’s dominant trend in transpersonal psychology – led by Stanislav Grof and consolidated philosophically by Michael Washburn – still uses the depth psychology framework, while a less critical minority – led by Ken Wilber – introduces and promotes the terminology around height psychology. The interesting thing is that both Grof and Washburn are published by the State University of New York (SUNY) Press, while Wilber’s work is published by Shambhala, which is the specialist in Eastern spirituality, and Quest Books at Wheaton, which is a theosophical publisher. Grof and Washburn are closer to the scientific direction, while Wilber is closer to the East and the esoteric studies. This more or less indicates that there is a theoretical battle going on: What happens to psychology when it is influenced by the spiritual/esoteric tradition? Is Wilber crossing a line or is it the opposite? Is this scientifically necessary? My opinion is that the difference between the opinions of the leading transpersonal writers deserves to be explored more deeply. They should at least be recognized. In the rest of this article we will therefore examine some of the theoretical differences between leading transpersonal authorities.
The Wilbur/Washburn debate
Since his first publication in the late 70s, Ken Wilber has consciously used the direction of development within the transpersonal field. He has applied this model to many scientific fields: developmental psychology, cultural history, and sociology of religion, just to name a few. His thoughts have evolved over the years. After his first and more depth-psychologically oriented attempt to create a model of consciousness (Wilber 1977,1979), Wilber has switched to a height-psychological model where he uses the «Great Chain Of Being» as a metaphysical metaphor (Wilber, 1980,1981,1982,1983,1995,1996). While his earlier model uses the personal level as a starting point, his current model starts with the physical body. His earlier model describes the process of personal and transpersonal development from the perspective of the mature adult. His current model describes the natural and chronological process of development, in both the personal and transpersonal fields. Over the past twenty years, he has further developed this model into a nine-stage model covering approximately three prepersonal, three personal, and three transpersonal stages (see Wilber 1995, 1996, 1997). The first three are primarily bodily and emotional, the middle three predominantly mental, and the last three are genuinely spiritual in nature. Wilber has strongly warned on various occasions against the widespread tendency to look for spirit in the prepersonal level of physical nature and in the body. We don’t need to look for spirit there, he claims, because spirit has its own place in life’s «Great Chain of Being» which transcends the personal. Thus, Wilber single-handedly created a comprehensive high-level psychological model of consciousness and development.
Wilber’s model has not been without criticism. Most critics object to the apparently linear and hierarchical nature. Regarding the first point, it is sometimes argued that real life is much messier than these neat linear models allow. In my opinion, this is beside the point. The fact is that if we can go up and down a staircase, this does not say anything against the existence of this staircase, on the contrary, it proves its existence. In a more abstract language: we should distinguish between logical development, which describes in detail the steps one by one, and dynamic development, which concentrates on the current development process with all its disputes and directions, regressions and progressions, fixations and resistance. Come to the fact that general spiritual development or human development does not follow a linear pattern and that this cannot prohibit us from making such a model. And to the assumed hierarchical model of Wilber, one can say that the height psychology model of consciousness is inherently hierarchical. It describes different levels of being able to transcend ordinary consciousness. In the same way, transpersonal psychology talks about different levels of experience that transcend the experience of the everyday personality. So this hierarchical aspect is built into the transpersonal direction unless we insist on living in a «flat» universe. For physicists work with quantitative ‘levels’ of spirituality, not qualitative or ontological different levels (Smith, 1976), and this is not at all what is meant here (see also: Wilber, 1995, 1996).
Michael Washburn (1988, 1994) has developed a theoretical alternative to Wilber’s model of transpersonal development based on the principles of depth psychology. He stands firm in the traditions of Freud and Jung, and actually tries to integrate both. Although Washburn believes that the two paradigms are «equal», he chooses the depth psychological «spiral» model because he believes that it provides a more «sensitive» version of the transpersonal levels, (not – «egoic») and higher potentials in life (1988, p40). Washburn follows the two-part developmental logic described earlier: he sees human nature as bipolar, consisting of an «egoic» (brain) and a «non-egoic» pillar (body/spirit) and otherwise called «Ground/grunnlagen». We start our development with a non-egoic, prepersonal phase, then we move on to the egoic, personal phase, and then we go back to the non-egoic phase – which is now «seen differently» in the third transpersonal phase. In this third phase, we go back to the source, the unconscious, to discover new aspects. In the terminology of our introduction, we mention that Washburn treats both the body and the unconscious as the spiritual principle, and contrasts it with the ego, which, because of its oppressive powers, is seen as the enemy of the spirit.
Washburn’s model strongly resembles the views of European existentialist literature. Here people are depicted as a «bipolar» entity of body and mind, and sometimes referred to as «person» to avoid confusion with the other two elements. These two principles can actually form the basis of a three-phase model of development. Human development can be understood as a dialectical process where a phase of the body (thesis) is followed by a phase of the thoughts (antithesis), and if all goes well, a phase where the thoughts and the body are integrated (synthesis). The French philosopher Georges Gusdorf (1953), for example, called these stages: «mystical», «rational» and «existential». The first phase is dominated by the body, the second phase by the mind, the body is then suppressed and the mind becomes, in a way, disembodied. The third existential phase is characterized by «a return of the repressed», i.e. of the body. The disembodied thoughts are then reincarnated, but existentialism does not mean transpersonal, so integrating body and mind is not the same as integrating spirit. Washburn has changed this direction to a clear transpersonal model where he has attributed part of the qualities to the body so that in the transition from the first to the second phase we will not only suppress the body, but also the divine aspect. In the third phase, where the displaced body is returned, the transpersonal energies are also released. The implementing qualities of the third phase are interpreted as follows: the ego (second phase) resumes contact with the energy of the unconscious (first phase), but reaches a conscious state (third phase) so that body and ego need to reach the third phase. Jungians say that the development of the ego is necessary in order to have a strong enough foundation to be able to come into contact with the archetypal forces in the unconscious. A regression plain and simple (from phase two to phase one) is not what these authors have in mind. But because they put the spirit in the same category as the body, never as the mind, their model will have a strictly regressive undertone! In contrast to the height psychology model where the development of the ego is positive for completely different reasons. This takes us one step closer to the spirit. The ego is the spirit’s friend, not its enemy. Or in traditional terms: the soul (ego) is one step from the spirit (Self), the body is two steps. It is therefore certainly a good reason to attribute transcendent power to the ego.
Washburn has suggested that the difference between him and Wilber is primarily culturally conditioned. Where Wilber has focused on cognitive developmental psychology, and Eastern tradition and thought which emphasizes thought and consciousness, Washburn has based himself on depth psychology and Christian mysticism which favors dynamic factors and emotional development. He claims that a truly cross-cultural transpersonal development model is still a long way off and perhaps an impossibility. Of course, this cannot be the last word for a true transpersonal model. For this lies deeper than cultural differences which are true enough in themselves. And even more importantly, and by extension, Washburn complements Wilber in his possibly one-sided cognitive interest. We can only be grateful for this attempt. But I think we should be less enthusiastic about Washburn trying to hinder Wilber’s progress. If the «Wilber revolution» (the term was coined by the British psychologist John Rowan, 1992) is essentially that the spiritual or transpersonal dimension has been given its own place in transpersonal theory – beyond the bodily and mental worlds – we could characterize Washburn (who strangely does not appear in Rowen’s research) as a counter-revolutionary who operates from the camp of depth psychologists. He actually places the spirit back to the unconscious and its primitive impulses. He follows a different development logic.
Washburn (1988) has respectively named the two rival models «ladder model» (Wilber) and «spiral model» (Washburn). The ladder model is hierarchical, linear and stage-like, while the spiral model has the form of a U-turn in the sense that around the midpoint of the human development process it reverses its direction and somehow returns to its starting point again, but not in a literal way as the depth psychologists are keen to point out, but on a «higher» level, hence the image of a spiral. Another significant difference is that while Wilber sees development as a more or less transcendent process, Washburn sees it as the result of a repression that is lifted in the later stages. Wilber (1996 b) comments here that although suppression will certainly occur during development, it can never be seen as the mechanism of development itself.
Both models can be used to describe a three-phase sequence. The fundamental difference between them lies in the way the transition from the second to the third phase is described: as a next step forward in development (ladder) or as a return to origins (spiral). In the ladder model, just to take the simpler of the two first, development starts with the body (phase 1), progresses to the soul, ego or Self (phase 2), and culminates in the spirit or Self (phase 3). The three stages of development – prepersonal, personal and transpersonal – are not only possible to separate, they are «supported» by three different «structures». Let us call them: body, soul and spirit. The spiral model also has three phases, also called: prepersonal, personal and transpersonal, but with a big difference: while the first two phases are almost the same, the third transpersonal phase is seen in a different light. By moving from phase one to phase two, we have -according to Washburn- not only suppressed the body, but also the spirit. To find this spirit again, we must reverse this oppression and return to the body/spirit stage. By putting both body and spirit in the same category – the non-egoic state – Washburn is forced into the statement «dynamic state» (Washburn’s name for the unconscious states in which the ego arises). This is particularly related to the body and the source of both libido and spirit. It may seem that he compares the liberation from the suppression of instinct by the ego with the liberation of the spirit. My opinion is that it is doubtful whether a single principle in human nature – no ego – can account for such diverse phenomena as body and spirit.
Washburn (1990) has summarized his point of view in the article «Two patterns of transcendence/two transenderende musterne», which ironically appeared in the journal «Humanistic psychology», where Wilber also participated with a long article on the same theme. They directly address the fundamental question: Does development follow a straight line, or does it follow a pattern with a u-turn? Formulated differently: as we grew up, did we grow from (the unconscious) the spirit, or did we move one step closer to the spirit? This question can ultimately only be answered metaphysically: is the spirit the most central part of our existence? As we discover at the end of our personal development, or is the spirit hidden in the unconscious that we have tried by all means to escape from growing up? Depth psychology and height psychology are going to answer this question differently. Washburn argues that the spiral model’s view of development is confirmed by Western alchemical traditions and Christian theology, and is coherent in itself.
Wilber’s response to Washburn refutes these arguments. He believes that the model has no support in the sources that Washburn provides. Wilber then goes on to say that the motif of the spiral model can be integrated into the ladder model, but that it must discard its reductionist elements. He then claims that the spiral model’s view is different from what the Western spiritual traditions have to tell us about development. His opinion is that it is a romantic notion that we go back to Schelling, who in his time was influenced by Jung and romanticism, and which takes us back to the lost paradise that we lost growing up and that this can support the spiral model. Wilber also points out that his earlier model had a circular form which suggested that all development eventually returned to its core/origin. In later versions he has abandoned this view because of its regressive implications. Unfortunately, this view is still referred to in transpersonal circles when it comes to personal «outward Arc» and transpersonal development «inward Arc». In a way, the human life cycle can be described as an «outward» movement, followed by an «inward» movement. Because in the first half of life we learn to focus on time, career, politics, how to live, have a family, while in the second half of life we learn, or should learn to focus on infinity, religion, the meaning of life, what death is and what happens after death. This does not mean that we must return to the childish part, our younger days, on the contrary we will only reach this stage if we continue to mature. Wilber also points out that his development model should not be seen as a straight line that stretches towards the spirit, but as a process where each step is followed by a return to the previous one in order to be able to integrate the new. Human development then becomes a process which is continuous «upwards spiraling». In a way, you can say that his model is also fundamentally circular. Wilber says that the alleged straight line from body to soul to spirit is actually the other half of a larger movement: the process of involution (involusjon), from spirit to soul to body and the subsequent process of development from body to soul to spirit. This important concept of involution is the only protection that transpersonal psychology has against the regressive attachment to spiritual growth.
In his latest book, The Eye of Spirit, Wilber (1997) devotes an entire chapter to discussing Washburn’s view. He summarizes the discussion they have had so far and points out that Washburn’s position shows a lot of similarity to the romantic Jung’s view which he himself expressed in his earlier work. Around 1980, however, Wilber radically broke with this view and developed his height psychology model for growth and development. Wilber then concentrated his criticism against Washburn against his latter conception of origin and the claim that child is one with this origin. None of the existing spiritual traditions claim that children live fully in contact with spirit. On the other hand, they are seen as more tied to the material. The fact that children sometimes give a holistic impression to us half adults should not blind us to the truth that they are total in their limitations. Children seem «whole» to us because they can only concentrate on an ontological reality, which is the physical body and its needs. While adults have to deal with many more realities: thoughts, soul and spirit. For Washburn, origin includes body and spirit, but strangely not thoughts and the ego. For Wilber, origin includes: body, thoughts and spirit, and that human development moves successfully through body to thoughts to spirit. This view of development can be found in all major spiritual traditions where no one limits God to the bodily level. Washburn’s position is therefore that his whole view of human development which is the process of a God being lost and recaptured will actually collapse when the divine is spread over all of existence.
The Esoteric Tradition
Esoteric tradition can fill in some important details here (Visser, 1995). For example, the formation of the spheres should be separated from the process innvikling/utvikling, the same applies to the process incarnation/ekskarnasjon of the human individual soul. According to theosophical understanding, the spheres are shaped through a process where amorphous root-matter (formless matter) is grouped into several distinct layers, the layers in nature. These contain the scene where the drama of the development takes place. After this cosmic event, the spirit or monad, which is in the divine and on the highest plane, is led down through the various layers until they reach the physical layer. Here it will then reverse its direction and then return to the divine again. Through a calm and demanding process where nature, minerals, plants, animals and people are shaped. This great movement is rightly called entanglement/development as it all happens on a collective level that covers the whole of nature. This downward/upward process is then repeated again in the cycle gjennom reincarnasjon. When we incarnate, we come down, when we withdraw (ekskarnsjon) we ascend through the various spheres. Throughout life our senses are attuned to the level of physical existence, but our consciousness may have traveled to higher levels. Emotionally, mentally or spiritually. The whole human process (personal and transpersonal) development can be understood as a gradual ascent or journey towards the spheres while still in contact with the visible world through the physical body. If this is true then it becomes extremely important to decide which spheres are behind the level of physical existence and in what order they are. The theory of the spheres deserves a study of its own. Different views of the spheres will lead to different predictions in connection with human development. A comparison of Wilber’s model and the spheres teaches us that his existential and psychic levels are what are different. Because they do not correspond to a specific sphere of existence or spiritual levels. The spheres/level cooperation coincides.
The concept of involution is a key doctrine of transpersonal theory. It can be difficult for the modern researcher to accept. But it is a closer example of the same principle behind the theory of reincarnation. The downward/upward movement is also evident in the cycle of reincarnation which consists of a downward movement towards incarnation and an upward movement towards excarnation. Involusjon/evolusjon and inkarnasjon/ekskarnasjon are different but analogous processes. Through incarnation we move from the spirit, down towards the spheres until we reach the level of physical birth, then reverse direction again. So every step we take from the minute we are born takes us closer to spirit. This leads us to a paradox which is an incredibly important insight, in order to return to the spirit that we have lost we must continue on the path we have traveled to reach, and not return to previous stages that are in our individual and collective history. (Such as, for example, our glorious childhood, the ecstasy with the breast – or to say with the state of the womb, the primitive man, etc.). Let me repeat: to return, we must continue forward! Physical birth is the last place to look for the spirit because it represents the lowest point/nadir of this cyclical process of incarnation/excarnation. (The point of view of Stanislav Grof, where he attaches great importance to the process of physical birth and redemption in the birth process as an entrance to the spiritual level, will be discussed in the next section). So Wilber’s model is also a spiral model but his spiral is upside down. And while Wilber and Washburn both use expressions like «returning to the core», their core is dramatically different.
So what is at stake here is the exact content of the spiritual or transpersonal dimension. It is an important question for transpersonal psychology, because what else is transpersonal psychology than the scientific study of spiritual experience and development. The Wilber/Washburn dispute is ultimately the question of whether the transpersonal spirit exists as a separate structure of human consciousness. If it is so, then we can continue on the path we have taken until now, where development as a whole follows a straight line, if not, we must look elsewhere for the spirit and we must certainly look back to where we came from, so then development must take a U-turn. But since when did trees grow by sticking the branches back into the ground again? Only ostriches are known to do this! Depth psychology’s theory that the spirit hides in the depths of the unconscious is outdated and should be re-evaluated in the light of current knowledge. It seems like a holdover from depth psychology’s past. It is actually an insult to the spirit, for it conflates spiritual development with regression. Washburn and depth psychology are very attached to this form of regression. He even talks about regression in the service of the transcendent, paraphasing, the well-known expression of «regression in the service of the ego». This notion only makes sense if it is not some kind of spirit behind the body and the ego that we can develop after we have completed our personal development.
It seems as if depth psychology lives in denial of spirit as an autonomous principle. A new depth psychological approach to the transpersonal seems to be a contradiction. It can never escape its regressive implications as long as they search for the spirit in the depths of the unconscious. Depth psychology seems to be looking for the sun at the bottom of the sea only because they see the reflection of the sun on the surface of the water. Height psychology looks up to the real sun.
The Wilber/Grof Debate
The other major theoretical opponent of Wilber is Stanislav Grof. He appears as the leader of the transpersonal movement. He offers not only a complete model of consciousness (based on his research on non-ordinary states of consciousness) but also a practical method of personal development (called: «Holotropic Breathing») and a worldwide organization (The International Transpersonal Federation). He has written a lot, but not just based on his own research. (Grof, 1975, 1985, 1988) but also on the theme of death and life after death. (Grof,1980, 1994) and on the New Paradigm (Grof, 1983). Grof has been part of the transpersonal community almost since the end of the 60s and he has been able to debate with almost all major intellectuals in the field. Where Washburn has criticized Wilber primarily for theoretical reasons, Grof has put forward his extended clinical experience which is based on thousands of therapeutic sessions. Grof clarifies the concept of non-ordinary states, while Wilber clarifies the concept of «stages» of personal and transpersonal development, or contemplative development. Very different perspectives! Grof and Wilber represent two competing, alternative and in a way equally exclusive models that deserve to be compared. Because again, we have here an interesting case of depth versus height psychology. In Grof’s well-known model «realm of the human unconscious», three levels are defined: a personal level, which contains biographical material; a deeper «prenatal» level which contains memories of the birth process and a deeper more «transpersonal» level, more or less like the Jungian collective unconscious. Described in the right way, the personal level is Freud’s domain, the prenatal level is Rank’s and Reich’s domain, and the transpersonal is Jung’s domain. It does not seem as if Grof anywhere transcends the depth psychology framework. Grof, like Washburn, sees himself as a depth psychologist following in the footsteps of Freud and Jung, and for Grof – Otto Rank (who studied birth trauma). So not surprisingly, Grof also went for the spiral model. As the development of consciousness continues (into the transpersonal), it does not follow a linear path, he writes, but in a way it folds back on itself again. In this process, the individual returns to earlier stages of development, but evaluates them from the adult’s point of view. At the same time, he or she becomes consciously aware of various aspects and qualities in these phases which were implied, but which were not recognized when confronted in the linear development. (Grof, 1985, p.137). Grof and Washburn were in complete agreement on this important point.
The model for Grof is regularly used as a map for spiritual development. Through an intense procedure with psychological regressions through breathing techniques, Grof and his wife Christine have developed the first personal and biographical level where the unconscious is explored. Memories from life as a small child and as a baby come to the surface. And by going deeper, memories from the birth can surface. This unconscious level has been thoroughly studied by Grof. It is central to his concept of consciousness development and spiritual development. This study has resulted in a detailed theory of the four stages in the birth process (called: basic «perinatal matrices/structures») which shape all later experiences in life. Experiences from the perinatal structures can vary from being extremely painful and sadomasochistic, to being ecstatic and liberating. The first of these levels is the relatively peaceful period in the womb before labor begins. Grof relates this stage to mystical union. By reliving this birth process, which we know as a «near death» experience, but which is a «near birth» experience, we can gain access to «spiritual levels» – the deepest layer of the Grofian unconscious. Incredible archetypes can be experienced here, mostly those related to death and rebirth. Grof defines transpersonal experiences as a feeling of oneness or identification with other entities from biological cells, plants, animals, other people, and spirits of the universal brain or Meta-“cosmic void”/the higher universal void.
The fact that a leading transpersonal theorist relates mystical experiences to the symbiotic and oceanic conditions of the womb is no small surprise, but quite embarrassing to be honest. Freud, for example, would have loved it! Grof writes explicitly that: «the mystical experience of cosmic unity seems to be related to the primary unity between fetus and mother. When no harmful influences affect the child, the situation for the fetus is almost completely ideal, it is completely protected and all its needs are met. One can describe this as a transcendence of subject/object, a feeling of holiness, to move beyond the boundaries of time and space, an enormous bliss and a cosmic insight» Grof, 1980). Although Grof and his followers do not go so far as to say that the mystical experience is a repetition of the physical birth process, a logical understanding of this model leads to such a conclusion. For Grof looks backwards and forwards in time for the spirit: from here and now, back to the past, back to birth, and even further back to the relatively peaceful «transpersonal» period of lying in the womb and which Grof calls «the good womb». But why is birth an entrance to the spirit? And can we say that the needs of a fetus can be compared to the needs of an adult person, and not least a mature mystic? As we have seen earlier, birth represents the lowest point in the cyclical process of reincarnation, it is actually the opposite pole of spirit. It seems that Grof places a lot of importance on «near-birth experience» because he searches for the spirit in the depths of the unconscious, so that the body becomes the primary entrance to the spirit. He has found a paradigm of spiritual experiences in the (symbolic) experience of death and rebirth, which is also widespread in mythology. He sees both birth and death as entrances to spiritual levels. In my opinion, and when I consider the available knowledge of the spheres, it is highly doubtful whether we should look for the spirit in these deep muddy waters.
Unfortunately, Grof and Wilber have not yet engaged in a personal face-to-face debate (but Wilber, 1997, describes Wilber’s extensive criticism of Grof). If we assess the importance of their theoretical opinions, such a debate will certainly have its place. They have communicated sporadically through their published works, but what is interesting is that where Wilber has recently banned Rank from his otherwise inclusive spectrum model, Grof has focused everything around Rank’s domain as a main entrance to the spirit! Wilber and Grof are each other’s mirrors in that respect. And both claim that they have a complete evidence model! Grof has criticized Wilber for the rigidity of his linear model, and for his omission of the phenomenon around birth and death (Grof, 1985). Wilber’s model starts with birth, Grof’s starts earlier. We have discussed the linear model earlier. And to the second point: for the place of the birth trauma in human development, Wilber has modified his point of view by including the first development and a possible influence from the birth trauma in his model, called: «Fol crum-0» (Wilber, 1995,1996). He is also willing to admit that birth trauma can have an impact on development later in life, but he does not see it as fundamental and as basic as Grof does. And he denies that physical birth sets the foundation for all development.
For Washburn’s part, it is a marked parallel between Grof and Wilber’s earlier work. In his first book, The Spectrum of Consciousness (Wilber, 1977), a developmental model is outlined which has strong depth psychological factors. It starts at the top with the persona and then descends to lower levels by integrating the shadow, which is represented by the body (organism) and the transpersonal. In the «deepest» level of thought we then become united with the great cosmos. This is repeated in Grof’s model where it is described as: personal/perinatal/transpersonal. Both models use the daily personality as a starting point for development, the development then proceeds from there to a deeper level of being. As we have seen in his previous work, Wilber has switched to an explicit height psychological model that starts at the basic level with the physical body and then works its way up towards the soul and spirit. Here Wilber has also distanced himself more and more from the depth psychological model.
In his last major work, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, the first volume of a planned cosmic trilogy (Wilber, 1997), he has answered Grof’s criticism more explicitly. But he tries to minimize the differences between the models by maintaining that even though they both arrived at different models, they both started with the same truth about human consciousness. Where Wilber describes a chronological process, Grof has documented the result of a whole lot with experience in regression therapy, so there he has reduced the order of events, one might say. According to Wilber, the work required to integrate both models is very little, because both follow the same movement, but in the opposite direction. Grof’s direction is the regular ego/Freudian/birth trauma/transpersonal, while Wilber’s is birth trauma/Freudian/regular ego/transpersonal. But according to Wilber, his model will create the same movement as for the process of regression: ego/Freudian/birth trauma/transpersonal. But the fact is that an alternative interpretation of Wilber’s model is relevant here: from the point of view of the personal ego, two different and contradictory directions are possible: upwards and forwards (progresjon) to the transpersonal and downwards and backwards (regression) to the Freudian and prenatal levels. My opinion is that it is an essential difference between Wilber and Grof. Depth and height psychology do not meet here, they take different paths.
In the same debate, Wilber characterizes Grof’s approach to the transpersonal as a form of «closet spirituality» (Wilber, 1995, p587). For Wilber, the existential stages are an entrance to the transpersonal, for Grof, birth is the entrance. But when could these two entrances lead to the same reality? The near-birth experience and the near-death experience can perhaps be an entrance to a trans-physical consciousness on the basis that the physical body is transcended. All so-called paranormal phenomena (extrasensory perception, near-death experience and out-of-body experiences, etc.) point to a possible transcendence of the physical, bodily or sensory level, and not necessarily mental or personal. According to theosophy, the spheres you come into contact with through birth and death are not spiritual but astral/emotional in nature (Visser, 1995). This can explain the strong «astral» and the psychedelic expressions in Grof’s books where he describes dark and intense emotions in the human psyche. Grof also defines the transpersonal in a quite limitless way, he includes paranormal and spiritual phenomena. Rowan (1992) refers to this as extrapersonal and transpersonal. Traditional understanding is that the difference between «psychism» (the paranormal) and «spirituality» (the transpersonal), or between «occultism» and «mysticism» are two very different fields.
Wilber (1997) has recently provided an in-depth analysis of Grof’s point of view and levels within prenatal care. Grof uses a double definition, which is central to his understanding. Where Grof repeatedly repeats that it is mandatory to relive the birth process before the spiritual levels can be contacted, Wilber believes that no spiritual schools have ever described this as a necessity. The fact is that an existential awareness of phenomena in life and in death seems to be a prerequisite for spirituality. According to most sources, no one believes that it is necessary to go back to our own birth process to gain access to the spiritual. This opinion of Wilber seems decisive to me because the question is: must one include a relief of the clinical birth in order to be able to get in touch with the existential level? Maybe sometimes, but must it be a rule that you have to go through this? Grof says yes, but almost everyone else says no. One does not find anything about the need to alleviate the clinical birth in any of the other spiritual directions. It is also hardly found in the ascetic practice, shamanistic techniques or in contemplative yoga. Nor will you find it in the great classical prenatal philosophy, or in any of the other great wisdom traditions. Not even in the vast majority of western depth psychologies, James, Jung and the Jungian tradition, (not even with Washburn, as one might expect to find it because of his interest in the regressive). My opinion is that Grof is so dedicated to the phenomenon of birth that as a depth psychologist he is obliged to go back and not forward in time to find the spirit.
Grof has given the theme of death and life after death special attention in several of his books (Grof & Halifax, 1977, Grof, 1980, 1994). Wilber has also taken up this theme, but in a more theoretical and personal way (Wilber 1991). Both Wilber and Grof have contributed to Gary Door regarding the theme of life after death (Doore 1990). On the basis that this is a central theme in modern esotericism, a comparison of the different perspectives could prove to be hardly informative. Grof (in Doore, 1990) is optimistic about the possibility of a life after death, based on the results of modern research on consciousness, and especially research on extended states of consciousness, including LSD and holotropic breathing. These directions work to evoke paranormal experiences of various qualities, visions, experiences and memories described in the Tibetan Book of the Dead, out of body experiences, spiritualistic or astral phenomena, or memories from previous incarnations. According to Grof, these phenomena provide support for a worldwide recognition of the reality surrounding death, and the experience of consciousness. His view is that time, space and the entire physical universe are transcended in transpersonal experiences, they are in the last category archetypal visions, encounters with spirits of deceased persons, clairvoyant observations that shine new light on the fact that it can be a reality after death. Especially the category of OBE’S, encounters with «spirits» in the «astral» and memories of previous incarnations which Grof sees as transpersonal although «psychic» would be a more appropriate way to describe it to form a source of evidence for life after death. The esoteric tradition a simple explanation of the spheres that transcend the physical plane. This scheme is more complete and clearly formulated than the shamanistic and Tibetan worldview that is so popular today.
Wilber (Door, 1990) does not point to paranormal evidence to support his theory that reincarnation is fact. He believes that reincarnation is a spiritual hypothesis and that one can gjennom meditasjon gain access to all near-death experiences described in religious traditions. His anthropological theory is more simply a Grofs -body, thought, soul and spirit which are the basic elements of human nature. Wilber believes that it is not the thought that reincarnates, but the soul. He also doubts memories from past lives, he believes they belong to the thought life and not the immortal soul or Self. His view is that memories that sometimes arise in very young children provide an exception to the fact that nothing of the earthly personality remains except «virtue» and «wisdom». According to the Tibetan tradition that Wilber follows, we pass through all the spheres between two lives, all the way up and down. We move through the dying body to the clear and absolute light through eight stages. After a relatively quick ascent through the spheres and as far as in contact with the light – we leave the body and enter the bardo-life which contains the stages of shining visions and the stages of reincarnation in a new body. Wilber does not just see this as an interesting phenomenological event, but as a confirmation: «in my opinion these levels are true, they have a real and clear ontological status, so therefore the experience of these levels is true» (p186)
Theosophy, which is a modern philosophy and deals with these levels, agrees that it is not the thought (personality or ego) that reincarnates, but the soul (individual or Self). But they bring memories from past lives because the Self has its own memories. Because how else could memories from past lives be described in Buddhist literature? Why should we deny the Self its mental aspect? According to theosophy, the Self contains the will (Avirtue), intuition (Awisdom), and abstract thought (Amemory). Furthermore, we move through the spheres between the ten lives but: (1) we do not go all the way up to the absolute, but only to the soul (or self), (2) this ascent takes much longer than the few hours the Tibetan Book of the Dead gives us, (3) the subsequent descent to the bodily level can be quite rapid, (4) this period is in no way limited to the 49 days described in the Tibetan Book, (5) returning in an animal body is completely out of date. It would be relevant to place the theosophical school’s view of life after death next to the Tibetan or shamanist school. According to theosophical research, it can also be said that the traditional descriptions of heaven, hell and purgatory are not far from the truth. This means that we can establish a metaphysical view of life after death without having to borrow from the primitive cultures of the East. Where Wilber aligns himself with the Tibetan view, Grof takes a more cross-cultural point of view, even if this makes his view a bit more general and vague. No detailed information regarding the soul’s journey after death is to be found in his model. Are we exploring the prenatal and transpersonal layers of the unconscious during the death process and in life after death? Are we being reborn in the transpersonal? Theosophy gives a simple answer to the question of what happens when we die, our personal self survives the death of the body, experiences «heaven» and «hell», but will eventually dissolve, while our transpersonal self is relatively immortal and able to receive release from the cycle of reincarnation.
What Grof sees in New Sciences is: system theory, quantum physics, holography, etc. – a real arena for gathering the transpersonal. The study is another point of disagreement between him and Wilber. Wilber has criticized the regressive and reductionist nature, and almost all so-called new paradigm thinking (Wilber, 1995). Grof is actually the one who speaks the loudest when it comes to holism. He believes that where older science fails the non-ordinary phenomenon of consciousness, the newest science can handle it. The transpersonal experience is clearly fundamentally incompatible with mechanical science. But it can be integrated through revolutionary developments in the various scientific disciplines. This is referred to as the new paradigm (Grof, 1988, p.163). But what is sad and thought-provoking in my opinion is that neither the old nor the new science is able to penetrate the inner worlds of the subjective consciousness, it can only deal with the materialistic, however developed, automated or holistic. No quantum physics can tell us anything about even the smallest human emotion. And Grof’s fundamental metaphors, hylotropic vs, holotropic thinking, which means moving forward towards part-ness vs, moving forward towards wholeness, or holistically bound up against the physical. The metaphor parts/whole should, in my opinion, be replaced with the depth/height metaphor.
The reductionist holistic view often places the spirit in nature, so that the split from nature becomes our split from God. The worldwide desire for a more ecological society gives this a spiritual overtone, because healing the split from nature then becomes the same as healing our split from God. According to Wilber, our split from nature is not a split from God, but on the contrary a step closer to God. The whole process of modernization and secularization can in its origin be seen as an act of God! And while the ecological problems are serious and extreme and should be dealt with, they should never be compared to spiritual problems. But they are just as big and serious. In Wilber’s last work (Wilber, 1995, 1996) he made it clear that this holistic claim is unfounded. So here it is also a deep split in the transpersonal environment where Grof and Wilber are the main characters.
Conclusion
The difference between depth and height psychology is the most important theoretical disagreement in transpersonal psychology. Two different and opposite perspectives on man and society can be drawn from these perspectives. The depth psychological/holistic view seems to emphasize the importance of the collective dimension, what all people have in common. It only talks about unity and wholeness, which is often understood as being physical and a pre-modern society as a remedy for modern problems. One is asking here for a more holistic world that is less divided and fragmented. The high psychological view seems to emphasize the individual dimension of growth and looks for the soul and the unusual experiences that mystics have. It tells of an ascent to the mother spirit and a hierarchy that brings us into contact with several spiritual levels, in order to clarify the next steps on the road to unity.
So you can say that transpersonal psychology is at a crossroads. We stand in the middle between the unconscious and its many levels – the body, sexuality, emotions, etc. – and the superconscious – the spirit, intuition, higher Self, etc. This superconsciousness is presumably as complicated as its lower counterpart that it forms a proper domain for transpersonal psychology. So where can we find the spirit? Do we search for the spirit in the depths and therefore in the past (in our own development history?) or do we look upwards for the spirit, and therefore into the future? Depth psychology does not only look into the past, it is itself part of the past. A true «transpersonal» transpersonal psychology will therefore be a high-level psychology that embraces the domain of spirit in a unique and scientific way. It would be best if it could include the personal dimension as well, «integral psychology» (Wilber, 1997). A truly comprehensive psychology of human consciousness and development will cover both depth and height psychological dimensions. In this integral psychology, the «vertical» depth/height dimension will be the most important. It is time to leave our depth psychology past to become a pioneer in our height psychology future. Depth psychology has nothing to do here. Psychology starts like all of us, with the instinctive level. And it will be completed, like all of us, on the spiritual level.
Translated by: Krestine Pettersen
References
ASSAGIOLI, R. (1965). Psychosynthesis. New York: Viking.
ASSAGIOLI, R. (1973). The act of will. New York: Viking.
ASSAGIOLI, R. (1988). Lo sviluppo di transpersonale [Transpersonal development]. Rome: Editrice Astrolabio.
BESANT, A. (1904). A study in consciousness. London: Theosophical Publishing Society. Current edition: Adyar, Madras, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1987.
CAMPBELL, BF (1980). Ancient wisdom revived. Berkeley: University of California Press.
CONGER, JP (1988). Jung and Reich. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books.
DOORE, G. (1990). What survives? Los Angeles: Tarcher.
FREUD, S. (1961/1923). The ego and the id. Standard Edition 19. London: Hogarth Press.
GROF, S. (1975). Realms of the human unconscious. New York: Viking.
GROF, S. (1980). Beyond death. London: Thames & Hudson.
GROF, S. (1983). Ancient wisdom and modern insight. Mill Valley: Cal.: Robert Briggs Ass.
GROF, S. (1985). Beyond the brain. Albany: SUNY Press.
GROF, S. (1988). The adventure of self-discovery. Albany: SUNY Press.
GROF, S. (1994). Books of the dead. London: Thames & Hudson.
GROF, S. & J. HALIFAX. (1977). The human encounter with death. New York: Dutton.
GROF, S. & H. BENNETT. (1992). The holotropic mind. San Francisco: Harper.
GUSDORF, G. (1953). Myth et mJtaphysique. Paris: Flammarion.
HARDY, J. (1987). A psychology with a soul. London: Routledge.
JACOBI, J. (1942). The psychology of CG Jung. London: Routledge.
LOWEN, A. (1967). The betrayal of the body. New York: Macmillan.
LOWEN, A. (1990). The spirituality of the body. New York: Macmillan.
LOWEN, A. (1996). Joy: surrender to the body and to life. (in press)
ROSZAK, Th. (1976). Unfinished animal. New York: Harper & Row.
ROWAN, J. (1992). The transpersonal. London: Routledge.
SCOTTON, BW, CHINEN, AB & JR BATTISTA (eds.). (1996). Textbook of transpersonal psychiatry and psychology. New York: Basic Books.
SMITH, H. (1976). Forgotten truth. New York: Harper & Row.
VISSER, F. (1995). Zeven sferen [Seven spheres]. Amsterdam, Uitgeverij der Theosofische Vereniging in Nederland.
VISSER, F. (1996). Transpersonal views of human nature: Jung, Assagioli and the esoteric tradition. Submitted for publication.
VISSER, F. (Spring 1996). `Bodhisattvas will have to turn to politics’. Interview with Ken Wilber, Panta (journal of the ITANT, the Dutch section of the ITA).
WALSH, R. & F. VAUGHAN. (1980). Beyond ego. Los Angeles: Tarcher.
WALSH, R. & F. VAUGHAN. (1993). Paths beyond ego. Los Angeles: Tarcher.
WASHBURN, M. (1988). The ego and the dynamic ground. Albany: SUNY Press.
WASHBURN, M. (1990). Two patterns of transcendence. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 30(3), pp. 84-112.
WASHBURN, M. (1994). Transpersonal psychology in psychoanalytic perspective. Albany: SUNY Press.
WILBER, K. (1977). The spectrum of consciousness. Wheaton: Quest Books.
WILBER, K. (1979). No boundaries. Los Angeles: Center Publications. Current edition: Shambhala.
WILBER, K. (1980). The Atman project. Wheaton: Quest Books. Second edition 1996.
WILBER, K. (1981). Up from Eden. New York: Anchor Books. Current edition: Wheaton, Quest Books, 1996.
WILBER, K. (1982). A sociable God. New York: McGraw-Hill.
WILBER, K. (1983). Eye to eye. New York: Anchor Books. Current edition: Shambhala, 1996.
WILBER, K. (1990). Two patterns of transcendence: A reply to Washburn. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 30(3), 113-136.
WILBER, K. (1991). Grace and grit. Boston: Shambhala.
WILBER, K. (1995). Sex, ecology, spirituality. Boston: Shambhala.
WILBER, K. (1996). A brief history of everything. Boston: Shambhala.
WILBER, K. (1997). The eye of spirit. Boston: Shambhala.
WILBER, K., Engler, J. & DP Brown. (1986). Transformations of consciousness. Boston: Shambhala.
(c) 1998 Frank Visser
