Transpersonlig psykologi ved en korsvej

There are two competing theories within transpersonal psychology. Is spirituality found by returning to childhood or by rising above the ego? Depth psychology or height psychology. Grof versus Wilber

Translated by Annabritt Jakielski. All boards are inserted by Kentaur Træning

Within transpersonal psychology, there are two competing views regarding the nature and unfolding of human development. The depth psychological perspective (Grof, Washburn) sees development as a dialectical, spiral-like and (initially) regressive movement, where during the second half of life we ​​reconnect with the unconscious ground that we left during our upbringing. The height psychological perspective (Assagioli, Wilber) sees human development as an additive, upward and progressive movement, where during the second half of life we ​​continue along the path we have taken so far. It will therefore greatly enhance our understanding of the transpersonal dimension to compare and contrast the work of different leading transpersonal writers. We will discuss and assess the existing controversies between Wilber and Washburn, and between Wilber and Grof, respectively. Views will be presented that transpersonal psychology is fundamentally a height psychology, and that a depth psychology approach to the transpersonal is deficient.

The transpersonal community appears to be happy and peaceful. It embraces the New Paradigm, which promises to unite science and spirituality and save the world from ecological crisis; outside, there are those who still profess the Old Paradigm, which is based on mechanistic science. However, this deceptively simple distinction contains a deep chasm that runs through the middle of the transpersonal community. Some see human development as a clear line, while others see it as a spiral process that returns to its own starting point. This is sometimes referred to as the difference between the “ladder model” and the “spiral model” (Washburn, 1988, 1994), between the progressive and the regressive models of development (Wilber, 1995, 1996), or between the additive and the dialectical theory (Scotton, Chinen & Battista, 1996). These dichotomies are, in my view, useful but limited. They can all be reduced to the more basic dichotomy between depth psychology and what might be called height psychology. The depth psychology approach to the transpersonal is by its very nature spiral-like, regressive, and dialectical, just as the height psychology approach is ladder-like, progressive, and additive. These two camps offer fundamentally different understandings of transpersonal growth and development.

To date, this topic has not received adequate attention in the transpersonal literature. It is not mentioned in Rowan’s (1992) survey of the transpersonal field, nor in Walsh and Vaughan’s (1980, 1993) transpersonal anthologies. Ken Wilber’s 14-point transpersonal agenda for the coming decade (extended in Walsh and Vaughan, 1993) does not address it either, except to state (under point 9, dealing with Jungian psychology) that the relationship between Jungian and transpersonal theory “will in fact constitute the most heated area of ​​discussion in the coming decade.” This issue, however, is only part of the fundamental question of the value and limitations of the depth psychological framework for transpersonal psychology. In the present article, we will therefore explore the assumptions and consequences of these two diametrically opposed approaches to the transpersonal more fully.

Considering that much of transpersonal psychology has its origins in the Gulf of California, one could say, metaphorically, that there is an underground tension in transpersonal psychology, where depth and height psychology constitute the tectonic plates that are shifting in different directions – almost imperceptibly, but indisputably and irresistibly. The underground tensions may well lead to earthquakes. Let us look at the consequences of these theoretical earthquakes.

Depth and height psychology

Sigmund Freud, the founder of Western psychology, called his psychoanalytic approach to consciousness depth psychology. He divided human consciousness into the conscious part, which is governed by the reality principle, and the unconscious, which follows the pleasure principle. The unconscious part is often portrayed as many times larger than the conscious; the conscious mind is the famous tip of the iceberg. Roughly speaking, one tenth of human consciousness is above the water surface, while nine tenths are below the surface. Freud portrayed 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 roughly means the following: In the course of development, the ego emerges from the depths of the unconscious, first as a fragile structure that is easily overwhelmed by emotions, and later as a more stable structure that is up to par with the vicissitudes of life. The conscious mind possesses the kind of logic that we associate with rationality and reason; the so-called secondary process. The unconscious also has its own logic, the primary process, which we continue to experience in dreams and fantasies. It is well known that Freud did not particularly value religion and spirituality. He generally saw religion as the product of an immature mentality that belonged to the past, which placed its trust in the Father in Heaven (or the Mothers in Earth). According to Freud, modern man should leave the illusions of religion behind. Freud translated mystical experiences as symbiotic and oceanic feelings, which he associated with the peaceful state of the infant at the breast, to which all people long to return.

His most prominent disciple, Carl Gustav Jung, had a much more positive attitude towards religion and spirituality. He is therefore rightly seen as one of the great forerunners of transpersonal psychology. Jung put forward the view that religion plays an important role in the second half of life, in the individuation phase. Jung remained faithful to the perspective of depth psychology throughout his life. In Jung too, the ego emerges from the depths of the unconscious in a heroic autonomous endeavor. A detailed study of the symbols and myths of the world prompted Jung to divide the unconscious into a personal layer and a deeper, collective layer. In this collective unconscious there exist archetypes that can be experienced worldwide in dreams and visions. In the primordial ground of this collective unconscious, Jung hypothesized a central force from which all individual psyches, and even all creation, emanate (Jacobi, 1942). This universal layer of the unconscious encompasses not only all of humanity, but even the sub-human realms of nature. In Jungian formulation, deeper means: more collective, more universal, more “spiritual” and “transpersonal”. The individual or personal dimension is contrasted with the collective and the transpersonal. The collective and the transpersonal are more or less equal from the Jungian perspective, although there is no evidence for this. While Freud mostly considered the unconscious to be the sea of ​​instincts, Jung attributed a religious and spiritual significance to it. His perspective remained downward. Nevertheless, he, like Freud, considered the development of the ego in the first part of life to be valuable. Only a fully developed ego would be strong enough to face the unconscious and its archetypes, of which the Self is the primary archetype. In the individuation phase in the second half of life, the so-called ego-Self axis develops, where we become aware of the Self. Jung had reservations about Eastern spirituality and its value to Westerners. Although he wrote introductions to many Eastern classics, he disagreed with the basic Indian assumption that the superconscious Self or Atma could be experienced in deep meditation. For Jung, the Self remained the primary archetype and not a reality that could be directly experienced, let alone the true identity of man.

This depth psychological approach to spirituality is characterized by a fundamental ambiguity. Both the primitive instinctual drives and the more refined spiritual aspirations arise from the same source: the unconscious. This unconscious has been made into a kind of well of happiness, sometimes providing uplifting spiritual experiences, and at other times a dark influence. Primitive thoughts and mythology as such are mixed with spirituality. Many Jungian religious scholars continue to look to mythology for answers to the spiritual needs of modern man. This fundamental ambiguity has fueled many cases of what Wilber (1983) has aptly called the “pre-trance fallacy.” When pre- and transpersonal experiences are attributed to the same source, the unconscious, it will inevitably lead to confusion. As Wilber showed, Freud made the mistake of reducing all spirituality to a matter of instincts, whereas Jung made the opposite mistake of finding spiritual meanings on this instinctual plane. Neither of them had a proper understanding of the transpersonal dimension as a reality in itself, beyond the prepersonal and personal dimensions. This theoretical impasse can only be resolved by developing a high-level psychology in which the prepersonal, the personal, and the transpersonal are unambiguously separated. In their search for the spiritual dimension, neither Freud nor Jung had anywhere else to look than the unconscious mind.

Roberto Assagioli’s oval diagram

The Italian psychiatrist Roberto Assagioli (1888-1974), who founded the psychosynthesis movement in the 1920s, saw very early in his career that the depth psychology system would eventually lead to absurdities. He is best known for his view of the will as a valuable spiritual asset (Assagioli, 1973). After Jung, he is one of the great pioneers of modern transpersonal psychology, but unfortunately also one who has been seriously and unfairly overlooked until now. Although he was familiar with the work of both Freud and Jung – he was the first to introduce Freud to Italy and had a lifelong affinity for the Jungian perspective – he was convinced that human consciousness has not only a depth dimension but also a height dimension. Within the unconscious, he therefore distinguished between the lower part (the “lower unconscious”) and the higher part (the “higher unconscious”, or superconscious), thus making a very clear distinction between the more primitive and the more spiritual parts of human nature. This is not to say that he valued the “higher” parts more than the “lower” parts – although this could very well be a valid interpretation – only that these two realities should never be confused. Unlike Jung, who denied any idea of ​​a superconscious mind, Assagioli considered the Self as a reality that could be experienced through the practice of disidentification. The experience of the Self, however, is in a category of its own, since the one who experiences it and the experienced are one and the same. The very word “experience” is somewhat misleading here. Nor can we rightly say that we identify with the Self, since the Self is that which identifies (and disidentifies) itself. It would be more accurate to say that the Self recognizes itself by disidentifying itself from the objects of consciousness (Visser, 1995).

The interesting thing about height psychology is that depth psychology now comes to light for the first time – again more Freudian than Jungian – and is no longer overloaded with spiritual meanings, as is otherwise the case. But most importantly, two opposing movements, from the conscious and primarily mental ego, now become possible: downwards towards the (primarily unconscious) emotions and bodily feelings, and upwards towards the (correspondingly primarily unconscious) intuitions, volitional acts and the true Self. This vertical dimension, which is crucially missing in depth psychology, gives direction to development, as we can be said to move from the unconscious to the conscious to the superconscious. Or: we move from the past to the present to the future. Or: we move from the animal to the human to the spiritual or even the spiritual plane.

Assagioli can rightly be considered the founder of height psychology, as he was the first psychiatrist to systematically consider a superconscious mind. Unfortunately, he has not been able to contribute much to this revolutionary approach to consciousness in terms of published works. Compared to the literary achievements of Freud and Jung, Assagioli’s works are extremely limited (Assagioli, 1965, 1973 and posthumously: 1988). However, his theoretical importance is inversely proportional to the extent of his limited works. Assagioli derived much of his system from Eastern thought and esoteric traditions such as Theosophy (Campbell, 1980; Hardy, 1987). As early as 1904 – only four years (!) after Freud published his first seminal work on the interpretation of dreams – theosophical writers had already outlined a genuine high psychology with a special emphasis on the will and the spiritual Self (Besant, 1904). Assagioli was a close friend of another theosophist, Alice Bailey, whom he represented in Italy. His system shows many parallels with hers, as will be evident to any student of theosophy (Visser, 1996). Given the current interest in the interface between transpersonal psychology and esoteric traditions, theosophy deserves more attention. It is an early attempt, more than a century old, to formulate a transpersonal view of human nature, development, and evolution, which contains some remarkably contemporary insights (Roszak, 1976). What is more, it offers 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 only be answered metaphysically.

In a way, Assagioli chose “the narrow path,” and that has made a crucial difference. Very few followed in his footsteps, as many continue to work within the framework of depth psychology.

Freud also had followers whose theories of human nature were based on the human body. Although Freud attached great value to the body and sexuality, he also believed that we had to come to terms with our instincts in a rational and mature way through the strengthening of our ego. We can simply no longer return to the blissful state of unconscious nature. To become human, we must suppress our instincts to a certain extent, thereby creating the feeling of discomfort that is so characteristic of human culture. Psychoanalysis did not succeed in all cases, however. Body-oriented therapists such as Wilhelm Reich and Alexander Lowen found in the failure of psychoanalysis evidence for their position that the body should also be included in therapy. According to them, mental problems can be treated much more effectively by involving the body than is the case through pure talk therapy. Interestingly, the body has here replaced the unconscious of depth psychology (Conger, 1988). For the unconscious then becomes simply that part of the body that we are unable to feel. As in depth psychology, the unconscious is considered closer to our true nature than the conscious mind, so in body-oriented therapy the body is often considered our true being. It sometimes speaks its own language and evades the control of the conscious self. When we hide the unconscious and its secret motives, we hide the body from the public eye. “The body does not lie” has become a popular expression. Where Jung sought the essence of human nature in the unconscious, for Lowen the body is the place to look. In his works the body – food, sex, physical exercise – is described mainly in positive terms, whereas the needs of the ego – fame, recognition, approval – are often seen as neurotic (quite contrary to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, where the needs of the body, soul and spirit each have their place and are seen in hierarchical order). Another popular dichotomy in these circles is: body/head. Living from the head thus means: being rational and living a secular, worldly and static life; whereas living from the body means: being “spiritual” and living a holy, divine and dynamic life. This completely ignores the fact that what distinguishes us from the animal kingdom is precisely the fact that we can use our “head”. In other words, the ability to think abstractly is precisely what truly makes us human. It would be very strange if this ability were to turn out to be our most unspiritual side, whereas what we have in common with the lower kingdoms were to be our most spiritual side. Then all animals would be more enlightened! But this is actually the hypothesis that is put forward in much of the body-oriented literature. In his latest works, Lowen becomes more and more concrete in formulating his conviction that it is the body that has the greatest importance.For example, in “The Divine Body,” he writes: “As I see it, the mind is secular, where the body is sacred.” And in his latest book: “Joy: Surrendering to the Body and Life,” he writes: “The purpose of therapy is to connect us with God. God is found in the natural self, the body,” or even more specifically: “surrender to God is surrender to the body.” However, it is one thing to include the body in therapy, and quite another to declare it sacred—and exclusively sacred. The denial of the body, which is the main theme of all of Lowen’s many works, can be equated with the denial of the true Self. The self and the body are made synonymous, and both are contrasted with the very fleeting and unspiritual ego.

Both depth psychology and body-oriented therapy use the same formula: the deeper – whether it concerns the unconscious or the body – the more real; the higher, the more unreal. Both essentially see human nature as bipolar: unconscious/conscious, Self/ego, body/ego, body/head or foundation/ego. This double developmental logic leads, in my opinion, automatically to a regressive view of spirituality. For if spirituality has a place at all, it invariably belongs in the former category, in the unconscious, the Self, the body, nature or the cosmos in general. No one seems to see anything spiritual in the poor ego! Growing up therefore becomes synonymous with moving away from the spirit. Finding the spirit later in life thus becomes synonymous with returning to or regressing to the source from which we originate. In fact, there is no other option; there is nowhere else to go but back. The height psychology alternative leads to diametrically opposed conclusions. It follows a fundamentally threefold developmental logic: human nature consists of body, soul (ego or self) and spirit (Self). The concept of development is now seen as a movement that is quite straightforward, from body to soul to spirit. Growing up is no longer synonymous with moving away from spirit, but on the contrary, approaching it. What is more, the step from a mature ego to spirituality is no longer made by going backwards to where we came from, but by continuing along the path we have trodden so far. This leads to a progressive view of spirituality. From this perspective, we do not discover spirit by looking backwards or downwards, but by looking forwards and upwards. This progressive and prospective perspective on spirituality is fundamentally in conflict with the regressive and retrospective perspective that prevails in modern transpersonal psychology. It focuses less on what is “lost” and more on what can be “gained” by continuing our developmental journey. The idea that we have lost our spirit somewhere in the course of civilization/maturation expresses a widely held belief that we will return to later.

Following this threefold logic of development, human nature can be pictured as a pyramid. In psychological terms, life consists of building a pyramid of body, soul (ego or self), and spirit (Self). These correspond to the prepersonal, personal, and transpersonal planes of human nature. Development begins at the body level, where the foundation for all subsequent growth is laid. A poor foundation is detrimental to the entire rest of the building, but it would be far worse if we did not build at all. Similarly, we do not need to base our identity in the body, but we should not keep it at that level alone. We begin by creating a rough structure, which is later filled in with detailed pieces. In the same way, we need only a certain amount of body awareness to be able to transcend the body. And we need only a certain degree of mastery of the mind to be able to transcend the mind. It is always good to return to the foundation to repair the damage that the desert wind has done to our lives. But we should never forget that we are heading towards the top. All layers are necessary in the construction of a pyramid, but it is the top that creates the pyramid!

What relevance do these discussions have to modern transpersonal psychology? The established transpersonal psychology – led by Stanislav Grof and philosophically anchored by Michael Washburn – continues to rest on the depth psychology foundation, while a smaller but critical minority – led by Ken Wilber – introduces and promotes the height psychology terminology. It is interesting that both Grof’s and Washburn’s works are published by the University of New York Press (SUNY), while Wilber’s works are published by Shambhala, which specializes in Eastern spirituality, and by Quest Books at Wheaton, a theosophical publisher. Grof and Washburn are thus closer to the scientific establishment, while Wilber is closer to Eastern and esoteric studies. This more or less suggests the theoretical struggle that is taking place here: What happens to psychology when it allows itself to be influenced by the spiritual/esoteric tradition? Can it remain a scientific discipline? Is Wilber crossing a line here, or is this crossing a scientific necessity? This difference in perspective between leading transpersonal writers, in my opinion, deserves more thorough examination. It should at least be acknowledged. In the remainder of this article, we will therefore examine some theoretical differences between these leading transpersonal writers.

The Wilber/Washburn controversy

Ken Wilber has successfully applied the developmental approach to the transpersonal since his first publications in the late 1970s. He has applied this spectrum model to many scientific fields: developmental psychology, cultural history, and sociology of religion, to name a few. His thinking has evolved over the years. After an initial, more depth-psychologically oriented attempt to create a complete spectrum model of consciousness (Wilber, 1977, 1979), Wilber has shifted to a developmental, height-psychological model, using “The Great Chain of Being” as a metaphysical metaphor (Wilber 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1995, 1996). While his early model was based on the personal level, his later and current model is based on the physical body. His early model described personal (and transpersonal) growth from the perspective of the mature human being, whereas his current model describes the natural and chronological process of development on both the personal and transpersonal levels. Over the past 20 years, he has redefined his model to include nine planes, roughly covering three prepersonal, three personal, and three transpersonal planes (see Wilber 1995, 1996, 1997). The first three are primarily bodily and emotional, the middle three predominantly mental, and the last three purely spiritual in nature. Wilber has on various occasions sharply warned against the widespread tendency to search for spirit on the prepersonal planes of physical nature and the body. We need not search for spirit there, he maintains, for spirit has its own place in The Great Chain of Being above and beyond the personal. Wilber has thus single-handedly crafted a comprehensive high-psychological model of consciousness and development.

Wilber’s model has not escaped criticism. Most critics object to its overtly linear and hierarchical nature. On the first point, the argument has sometimes been made that real life is far more chaotic than these neat, linear models allow for. This is, in my opinion, irrelevant here. The fact that we can go up and down a staircase does not say anything against the existence of this staircase – on the contrary, it proves its existence. In more abstract terms, we should distinguish between the logic of development, which by definition describes the steps that follow one after the other, and the dynamics of development, which deals with the actual process of development with all its nooks and crannies, regressions and progressions, fixations and places where we get stuck. The fact that spiritual development, or human development in general, does not in real life follow a rigid, linear pattern does not forbid us from formulating such a model. And with regard to the supposed hierarchical structure of Wilber’s model, it can be said that a higher psychological model of consciousness is by nature very “hierarchical”, in that it speaks of planes of existence that transcend the experiences of the conscious personality. So this hierarchical aspect is built into the transpersonal approach – unless we insist that we live in a completely “flat” universe. The question at stake here is whether we really want to go beyond the plane of matter or not? Materialism can also be “hierarchical”, as physics-based holism demonstrates, but only in an illusory way. For physics deals with quantitative “planes” of analysis; not qualitatively or ontologically different planes (Smith, 1976), and that is by no means what is intended here (see also Wilber 1995, 1996).

Michael Washburn (1988, 1994) has developed a theoretical alternative to Wilber’s transpersonal development model, based on the principles of depth psychology. He is firmly grounded in the Freudian and Jungian traditions and has indeed sought to integrate both. Although Washburn believes that the two paradigms are “equally coherent,” he chooses the depth psychology “spiral model,” believing that “it offers a more sensitive account of life’s non-ego-based and higher potential” (1988, p. 40). Washburn follows the previously described dual developmental logic, viewing human nature as bipolar, consisting of an “egoic” (mental) and a “non-egoic” pole (body/spirit), which is elsewhere called The Ground. We begin our development with a non-egoic, prepersonal phase, then move to an egoic, personal phase, and then return to the non-egoic ground—which we now see in a different light—in the third, transpersonal phase. In this third phase we return to our source, the ground of the unconscious, where we discover new aspects of it. Using the terminology we used in the introduction, we can say that Washburn treats both the body and the unconscious as the spiritual principle, setting both against the ego, which – because of its repressive powers – is seen as the enemy of the spirit.

Washburn’s model is strongly influenced by views originating from European existential literature. The human being is presented here as a bipolar “union of body and mind”, sometimes referred to as “the person”, to avoid confusion with the other two elements. These two principles can actually form the basis of a three-phase development model. Human development is understood as a dialectical process, in which a bodily phase (thesis) is followed by a mentally characterized phase (anti-thesis), and – if all goes well – a phase in which the body and mind are integrated (synthesis). The French philosopher Georges Gusdorf (1953), for example, called these phases “mythical”, “rational” and “existential”. The first phase is dominated by the body. In the second phase (the mental), the body is suppressed. The mind becomes, so to speak, discarnate. But the third, existential phase is characterized by “the return of the repressed”, i.e. the body. The discarnate mind reincarnates again. However, the existential is not the same as the transpersonal: the integration of body and mind is not the same as entering the realm of the spirit. Washburn has changed this model into a distinctly transpersonal model by attributing a numinous (spiritual, etc.) quality to the body, so that by making the transition from the first to the second plane we not only suppress the body, but in a sense our divine origin itself. In the third phase, together with the return of the body, the transpersonal energies are released. In a purely dialectical way, he sees the mind as an anti-spiritual principle, since it suppresses not only the body but also the spirit. The synthetic character of the third phase can be interpreted in the following way: the self (second phase) contacts again the unconscious origin (first phase), but now consciously (third phase), and both the body and the self are thus necessary to reach the third phase. The Jungians similarly say that the development of the ego is necessary in order to have a foundation strong enough to meet the archetypal forces of the unconscious. A pure regression (from phase two to phase one) is not what these authors have in mind. But since they invariably place the spirit in the same category as the body, and never in the same category as the mind, their models have a strongly “regressive” undertone. In contrast, the development of the ego in the higher psychological models is seen as something positive for quite different reasons: it brings us one step closer to the spirit. The ego is the path of the spirit, not its enemy. Or, to put it in more traditional terms: the soul (ego) is one step from the spirit (Self), while the body is two steps from the spirit. There are every conceivable reason to attribute transcendental powers to the ego!

Washburn has suggested that the differences between him and Wilber may be largely cultural. Whereas Wilber has drawn heavily on cognitive developmental psychology and Eastern thought – which emphasizes thought and consciousness – Washburn has relied primarily on depth psychology and Christian mysticism, which emphasizes dynamic factors and emotional development. He even argues that a truly cross-cultural model of transpersonal development is therefore still distant and perhaps impossible. The last word can hardly be said on the question of a true transpersonal science, since it has to go deeper than cultural differences, which may be real enough. More importantly, to the extent that Washburn compliments Wilber on his possible one-sided cognitive interest – we can only be grateful for his attempts. But to the extent that Washburn attempts to reverse Wilber’s progress, I think we should be less enthusiastic. If the “Wilber revolution” (a term coined by the British psychologist John Rowan, 1992) is primarily about the spiritual or transpersonal dimension getting its own place in transpersonal theory – which extends beyond the bodily and mental plane – we can characterize Washburn (who, curiously enough, does not figure in Rowan’s study) as a counter-revolutionary operating from the camp of depth psychology. He actually re-locates the spirit in the realm of the unconscious and primitive drives, thus following a different developmental logic.

Washburn (1988) has dubbed the two rival positions the “ladder model” (Wilber) and the “spiral model” (Washburn), respectively. The ladder model is hierarchical, linear and stepwise, whereas the spiral model is U-shaped in the sense that development around the middle of the human developmental process changes direction and somehow returns to its starting point again – not literally, depth psychologists find it important to point out, but on a “higher level”; hence the spiral image. Another fundamental difference is that whereas Wilber sees the developmental process as a more or less natural process of transcendence, Washburn sees it as a result of repression, which disappears in the later stages. Wilber (1996) would say that although repression probably occurs in the developmental phase, it can never be seen as the driving force of development itself.

Both models can be used to describe a three-phase process. The fundamental difference between them lies in the way in which the transition from the second to the third phase is conceptualized: as a next step forward in development (the ladder) or as a return to the roots (the spiral). In the ladder model, to take the simpler of the two first, development starts with the body (phase 1), moves to the soul, ego or self (phase 2), and culminates in the spirit or Self (phase 3). The three stages of development, the prepersonal, the personal and the transpersonal – are not only clearly separated, they are “supported” by three different “structures”, which we can briefly call body, soul and spirit. The spiral model also has three phases, also called the prepersonal, the personal and the transpersonal – but with a major difference. While the first two phases are almost identical, the third phase, the transpersonal, is seen in a different light. For in moving from phase one to two, according to Washburn, we have not repressed the body but also the spirit. So to find the spirit again, we must stop this repression and return to the body/spirit plane. By putting the body and the spirit in the same category—the non-egoic pole—Washburn is forced to make such views as: “the dynamic ground” (Washburn’s name for the unconscious basis from which the ego arises) has a special relation to the body and is the source of both libido and spirit. He seems to equate the release of the instincts from the repression of the ego with the liberation of the spirit. It is, in my opinion, doubtful whether a single principle in human nature—the not-self—can be attributed to such different phenomena as the body and the spirit.

Washburn (1990) has summarized his position in the article “Two patterns of transcendence”, which ironically was published in the Journal of Humanistic Psychology, and Wilber has responded in turn with a long article in the same journal. They go straight to the fundamental question: Does development follow a straight line, or is it shaped like a U? Put another way: did we move through development away from an (unconscious) spirit, or have we moved a step closer to spirit? Ultimately, this question can only be answered metaphysically: is spirit the most central part of our being, which we discover towards the end of our personal development, or is spirit hidden in the unconscious itself, which we have fought so hard to escape in our upbringing? Depth and height psychology will answer this question in different ways. Washburn argues that the spiral view of development is confirmed by the Western traditions of alchemy, the heroic myth, and Christian theology and is inherently coherent.

In his response to Washburn, Wilber (1990) refutes these views and argues instead that the spiral model is not even supported by the sources Washburn cites. Wilber further emphasizes that the spiral motif can be integrated into the ladder model, discarding its reductionist elements. He even argues that the spiral model is unlike anything that any Western science and spiritual tradition has to tell us about development. In his opinion, it is only the romantic notion, which goes back to Schelling and similarly influenced Jung and the Romantics, that we will return to the paradise we lost when we grew up, that supports the spiral view. Wilber has also pointed out that earlier versions of his own model also had a circular shape, which pointed to the direction in which development eventually returns to the source. In later editions, he has written off this presentation because of its regressive implications.

Unfortunately, the popular terms that occur in transpersonal circles, the “outer arc” and the “inner arc,” which describe the personal and transpersonal phases of development, continue to refer to this circular representation. In a sense, the human life cycle can be seen as a very “outward” movement followed by an “inward” movement. For in the first half of life we ​​learn to focus on the “world of time” – career, politics, making a life, starting a family – whereas in the second half of life we ​​learn, or should learn, to focus on the “world of eternity” – religion, the meaning of life, the prospect of death, the afterlife. However, this does not mean that we must return to the childish world of our younger days. On the contrary, we only reach that level by continuing to mature. Wilber also argues that development according to his model is not seen as a straight ascent towards the spirit, but as a process in which every step forward is followed by a return to the level we have just left behind, in order to complete integration. Human development thus becomes a process that is, so to speak, about continuous “upward spiral movement”. But the really important way in which his model is also fundamentally circular, says Wilber, is that the seemingly straight ascent from body to soul to spirit is actually just the second half of a larger movement: the process of involution (where we move from spirit to soul to body) and the resulting process of evolution (where we move from body to soul to spirit). This notion of involution, which is extremely important for transpersonal psychology, is the only safety valve against regressive interpretations of spiritual development.

In his latest book (1997), The Eye of Spirit, Wilber devotes an entire chapter to the view that Washburn has developed. He recapitulates their discussion so far and points out that Washburn’s position has great similarities with the romantic-Jungian view that he himself had been an exponent of in his early work. Around 1980, however, Wilber radically broke with this view and developed his high-psychological model of growth and development. Wilber concentrates his criticism on Washburn’s idea of ​​The Ground and his postulate that children are one with the Ground. None of the existing spiritual traditions express that children live entirely in the Spirit. On the contrary, they are more correctly seen as creatures who are completely conditioned by the material domain. The fact that children sometimes make an unspoiled (i.e., unseparated, etc.) impression on us separate adults should not blind us to the fact that they are completely at the mercy of their limitations. Children seem to us to be “whole” because they have to deal with only one ontological reality; the physical body and its needs. Whereas adults have to deal with much larger realities: the mind, the soul, and the spirit. For Washburn, the Ground encompasses the body and the spirit, but curiously never the mind and its ego; for Wilber, the Ground encompasses both the body, the mind, and the spirit, and humans develop by moving successively from the body to the mind to the spirit. This view is supported within all major spiritual traditions, where none confine God to the level of the body alone. Washburn’s perspective, and thus his entire view of the mechanism of human development – ​​which is to be likened to a God who is lost and found again – coincides when the divine is spread throughout existence.

The esoteric tradition can add some important details here (Visser, 1995). For example, a distinction should be made between the actual creation of the spheres and the process of involution/evolution, as is the case with the incarnation/discarnation process of the individual human soul. According to the theosophical understanding, the spheres are created through a process in which the formless root matter is divided into several different layers, the planes of nature. These constitute the background scene on which the drama of evolution is played out. After this cosmic event, the human spirit or monad, which has its origin in the divine, which has its dwelling on the highest of all planes, ascends down through the spheres until it reaches the physical plane. Here it turns around and ascends again to the divine through a slow and laborious process through which the kingdoms of nature – the mineral, plant and animal kingdoms, as well as the human kingdom – are created. This movement on a large scale is very accurately called involution and evolution, as it takes place on a collective level and covers all the kingdoms of nature. This downward/upward process is repeated in the cycle of reincarnation. When we incarnate, we “descend,” and when we discarnate, we “ascend” through the spheres. During a human life our senses are brought into harmony with the physical plane, but our “center of consciousness” may have risen to higher planes—emotional, mental, or even spiritual. In fact, the entire process of human development (personal as well as transpersonal) can be understood as a gradual ascent through the spheres, while we remain in contact with the visible world through the physical body. If this is true, it becomes of vital importance to determine which spheres exist beyond the physical plane and in what order. The whole question of spheres deserves a separate study in itself, since different views of the spheres will lead to different predictions regarding the process of human development. A comparison of Wilber’s model and these spheres shows that his existential and psychic stages “stick out” in that they do not correspond to a concrete plane of existence, such as the physical, mental, and spiritual planes. Thus, the sphere/plane correspondence falls apart.

The involution question is a key doctrine of transpersonal theory. It may be a hard pill for modern scientists to swallow, but there is a more homely example of the same principle in the doctrine of reincarnation. This downward/upward curve is also evident in the reincarnation cycle, which consists of a downward movement of incarnation, followed by an upward movement of discarnation. Involution/evolution and incarnation/discarnation are different but analogous processes. In the course of incarnation we move away from spirit and descend into the spheres until we reach the plane of physical birth, after which we turn around again, so that every step we take from the moment of birth is a step closer to spirit. This leads to a paradoxical but crucial insight: to return to the spirit that we have truly “lost,” we must continue on the path we have traveled so far; not back to a previous state of mind that can be related to our individual or collective history (for example, our golden childhood, the breast phase or even the state of the womb, the primordial human, etc. etc.). Let me repeat: to return home, we must continue! In fact, physical birth is the last place we should look for spirit, for it represents the lowest point or nadir in this cyclical incarnation/discarnation process. (Stanislav Grof’s view, which attributes crucial importance to the physical birth process and the re-experiencing of the birth process as a gateway to the spiritual realm, will be discussed in the next section.) So Wilber’s model is also spiral in a very real way, although his spiral is, so to speak, “turned upside down.” And while Wilber and Washburn both use the concept of “returning to Source,” their sources are dramatically different in nature!

What is at stake here, therefore, is the precise nature of the spiritual or transpersonal dimension. This is a crucial question for transpersonal psychology, for what is transpersonal psychology but the scientific study of spiritual experience and development? The Wilber/Washburn controversy is ultimately a question of whether the transpersonal spirit exists as a separate structure in human consciousness. If so, we can continue along the path we have traveled so far, where development as a whole follows a straight line. If not, we must look elsewhere for spirit and even look back to where we came from, where development is U-shaped. But since when do trees grow by turning their crowns into the ground? Only ostriches are known to do this! The claim of depth psychology that the spirit is hidden in the depths of the unconscious is outdated and should be reconsidered in the light of current knowledge. It seems to be a relic of the depth psychology past of scientific psychology. It is truly an insult to the spirit, since it links spiritual development and regression together. Washburn and the depth psychologists are very staunchly against this concept of regression. He even speaks of “regression in the service of transcendence,” which is a paraphrase of the well-known expression “regression in the service of the ego.” This idea only makes sense if there is no level of spirit beyond the body and the ego to which we can proceed when we have completed our personal development.

Depth psychology seems to live solely on the basis of this denial of the spirit as an autonomous principle. A depth psychology approach to the transpersonal even seems to be self-contradictory concepts. It can never escape its regressive implications as long as it searches for the spirit in the depths of the unconscious. Depth psychology seems to search for the sun in the depths of the sea, simply because it is reflected on the surface of the water. Height psychology looks up towards the real sun.

The Wilber/Grof controversy

The other major theoretical opponent of Wilber is Stanislav Grof. He emerges as a leader of the transpersonal movement, offering not only a complete model of consciousness (based on his research into non-ordinary states of consciousness), but also a practical method for personal development (called “holotropic breathing technique”) and a worldwide organization (The International Transpersonal Association, etc.). He has written extensively, not only on his own research (Grof, 1975, 1985, 1988), but also on death and the afterlife (Grof, 1980, 1994), and on the New Paradigm (Grof, 1983). Grof has been part of the transpersonal movement practically from its inception in the late 1960s and has been able to debate with almost all major intellectuals in the field. Whereas Washburn’s criticism of Wilber has rested primarily on a theoretical basis, Grof has also made available his extensive clinical evidence, which is based on literally thousands of therapeutic sessions. Where Grof emphasizes the non-ordinary states of consciousness, Wilber emphasizes the concept of “levels” of personal and transpersonal or contemplative development – ​​which are completely different perspectives. Grof and Wilber represent two competing, different and in some ways two mutually contradictory models that deserve to be held up against each other and compared, as here we have again an interesting case of depth versus height psychology.

In Grof’s well-known model of the “realm of the human unconscious,” he defines three levels: a personal plane, which contains the biographical material; a deeper, “perinatal” plane with memories of the birth process; and the deepest, “transpersonal” plane, which is more or less reminiscent of Jung’s collective unconscious. Popularly speaking, the personal plane is Freud’s domain, the perinatal layer is Rank and Reich’s domain, and the transpersonal layer is Jung’s domain. Grof nowhere seems to transcend the depth psychological conceptual framework. Grof, like Washburn, sees himself primarily as a depth psychologist in the case of Freud, Jung, and in Grof’s case – Otto Rank (who researched human birth trauma). It is therefore not surprising that Grof is also an advocate of the spiral model. “As conscious evolution proceeds [into the transpersonal], it does not follow a linear trajectory,” he writes, “but in a sense closes in on itself. In this process, the individual returns to earlier stages of development, but now evaluates them from the perspective of the mature adult. At the same time, he or she becomes consciously aware of certain aspects and qualities on these planes that were implicit but unrecognized from the perspective of linear evolution (Grof, 1985, p. 137). Grof and Washburn are absolutely essential in this crucial question.

Grof’s model is often used as a map of spiritual development. Through an intense psychological regression process, made possible by breathing techniques developed by Grof and his wife Christina, the personal and biographical layers of the unconscious are first explored. Memories of life as a child and baby emerge. Deeper still and further back in time, even memories of one’s own birth can be uncovered. Grof has studied this level of the unconscious extensively. It is central to his understanding of the development of consciousness and spiritual growth. This study has resulted in a detailed theory of the four stages of the birth process (called “fundamental perinatal matrices”), which shape all later experiences in life. Experiences at the perinatal level range from extremely painful and even sadomasochistic to ecstatic and liberating. The first of these stages, the relatively peaceful state in the womb before the actual birth process begins, is specifically linked by Grof to the state of mystical union. By reliving this birth process – in what we can call a “near-birth experience” analogous to the much more familiar “near-death experience” – we gain access to the “spiritual realm”, which is the deepest layer of what Grof calls the unconscious. Here we can experience impressive archetypal processes, most of which have to do with death and rebirth. Grof defines transpersonal experiences as a feeling of unity or identification with other beings – from biological cells, plants, animals or other people and spirits to the Universal Mind or the Meta-Cosmic Void.

That a leading transpersonal theorist links the mystical experience to symbiotic and oceanic states in the womb is no small surprise and, to be honest, very precarious. Freud, to name just one, would have loved it! Specifically, Grof writes: “The mystical experience of cosmic unity seems to be connected with the original unity between the fetus and the mother. When no harmful stimuli intervene, the conditions for the fetus are almost ideal, providing complete protection and security and conscious satisfaction of all needs. The basic characteristics of this state are transcendence of the subject/object dichotomy, the experience of sacredness that transcends time and space, ineffable bliss, and insights of cosmic relevance” (Grof, 1980). Although Grof and his followers never go so far as to say specifically that the mystical experience is a reenactment of the physical birth process, the very logic of his model invariably leads to this conclusion. For Grof continues to look back in time and downwards for spirit: from the present moment back to the personal past, back to the birth experience, and even further back to the relatively peaceful “transpersonal” phase of pregnancy – which Grof calls “the good womb”. But why should birth be the gateway to spirit? And can we truly say that the needs of the fetus can be equated with those of an adult, let alone a mature mystic? As we have seen before, birth represents the lowest point in the cyclical reincarnation process and is in fact the antithesis of spirit. Grof seems to place such great emphasis on the “near-birth experience” because he continues to search for spirit in the depths of the unconscious, whereby the body inevitably becomes the primary gateway for spirit. He has found a spiritual paradigm of experience in the (symbolic, not real!) experience of death-and-rebirth that is prevalent in mythology. He sees both birth and death as gateways to the spiritual realm. In my opinion, and given the available knowledge of the spheres, it is highly doubtful that we should continue to search for spirit in these deep, muddy waters.

Grof and Wilber have unfortunately not yet met in a face-to-face debate (but see Wilber, 1997, for Wilber’s extensive critique of Grof). Given the theoretical significance of these differences of opinion, such a debate would be more than relevant. However, they have communicated sporadically through their published works. It is interesting that whereas Wilber until recently omitted Rank from his otherwise very comprehensive spectrum model, Grof seems to focus almost exclusively on the Rankian domain as the main gateway to the spirit! Wilber and Grof are in this sense mirror images of each other. And both still claim to have a complete model of consciousness! Grof has criticized Wilber for the rigid linearity of his model, and for his neglect of the phenomenon of birth and death (Grof, 1985). Wilber’s model starts with birth, Grof’s starts even earlier. We have dealt with the linearity issue in the previous sections. Regarding the second point, the place of birth trauma in human development, Wilber has recently refined his view by incorporating into his model a stage at the beginning of development that is intended to account for possible influences related to birth trauma; the so-called “Fulcrum-0” (Wilber, 1994, 1996). However, although he is willing to admit that birth trauma may have some influence on developmental processes later in life, he does not consider it as fundamental and far-reaching as Grof claims, and he rejects the idea that biological birth sets the framework for all subsequent development.

As in the case of Washburn, there is a remarkable parallel between Grof’s and Wilber’s early works. In his first book, The Spectrum of Consciousness, Wilber (1977) outlined a developmental model that has a strong depth psychological character. We start at the top level of the personality and proceed from there “down” to deeper levels by integrating the shadow, the body (organism), and the transpersonal. At the “deepest” level of the mind, we unite with the cosmos as a whole. This is reflected in Grof’s model, where the order is: the personal, the perinatal (i.e., that which relates to the period immediately before and after birth, etc.), and the transpersonal. Both models start from the day-conscious personality and move from there to ever deeper levels of our being. As we have seen in Wilber’s later works, he has moved to a decidedly high-level psychological model, which starts from the basic plane of the physical body and moves upwards to the soul and spirit, respectively. Here too, Wilber has increasingly distanced himself from the terminology of depth psychology.

In his latest comprehensive work, Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality, the first volume of a planned cosmos trilogy, Wilber (1995) has responded more specifically to Grof’s criticism. However, he tries to downplay the differences between the two models by maintaining that, although they arose in different ways, they both provide the key to the same truths about human consciousness. For while Wilber describes the chronological processes of development, Grof has documented the results of his extensive experiments with regression therapy, in which he reverses the sequence of events, so to speak. In Wilber’s view, the work needed to integrate both models is very limited. For both follow the same chronology, but in different directions: Grof’s order would be the ordinary ego/the Freudian/the birth trauma/the transpersonal, while Wilber’s is the birth trauma/the Freudian/the ordinary ego/the transpersonal. However, his model – again according to Wilber – suggests the same order of the regression process: the ordinary ego/the Freudian/the birth trauma/the transpersonal. But an alternative way of understanding Wilber’s model would be appropriate here: from the point of view of the personal ego, two different and mutually contradictory directions of development would be possible: upwards or forwards (progression) towards the transpersonal, respectively downwards or backwards (regression) to the Freudian and perinatal levels. In my opinion, there is a fundamental difference between Wilber and Grof. Again, depth and height psychology do not meet here – they follow different paths.

In the same passage, Wilber characterizes Grof’s approach to the transpersonal as a form of “spirituality by the back road” (Wilber, 1995, p. 587). While the centaur (or existential) for Wilber is the gateway to the transpersonal, birth for Grof is the gateway. But since when do these two different gateways lead to the same realities? The near-birth experience (and for that matter also the near-death experience) may well be the gateway to a trans-physical reality, since the physical body is transcended. All so-called paranormal phenomena (extra-sensory perception, near-death experiences, out-of-body experiences, etc.) point to a possible transcendence of the physical, bodily or sensory level, but not necessarily of the mental or personal level. In the theosophical worldview, the sphere that directly borders the birth and death of the physical world is in no way spiritual, but rather astral, i.e. emotional in nature (see Visser, 1995). This may account for the strong “astral” and psychedelic undertones in Grof’s works, which have so much to say in relation to the darker and intensely emotional areas of the human psyche. Grof also defines the transpersonal in a very loose way, which according to him includes both paranormal and spiritual phenomena. Rowan (1992) refers to this as the extrapersonal and the transpersonal. A traditional understanding would mention the difference between “psychism” (the paranormal) and “spirituality” (the transpersonal), or between “occultism” and “mysticism” – two very different areas.

Wilber (1997) has recently provided an in-depth analysis of Grof’s views, arguing that Grof employs a dual definition of the perinatal plane, which is central to his understanding. While Grof has repeatedly argued that it is essential to re-experience the birth process before the spiritual dimension can be contacted, Wilber retorts by saying that no spiritual tradition has ever stated this as a necessary preparation. The fact that an existential awareness of the phenomena of life and death seems to be a prerequisite for spirituality—and why else would we begin to search for the imperishable?—does not justify the view that we have to go back to our own birth to find the gateway to the spiritual realm. Wilber’s following passage seems to me conclusive: “The question is whether the existential plane necessarily involves in part the actual re-experiencing of clinical birth? It may, but does it necessarily as a rule? Grof basically says yes, where virtually everyone else says no. We do not find the necessity of re-experiencing clinical birth in any of the great spiritual manuals or techniques. It is rarely if ever found in the great classical works of the timeless wisdom doctrine or in the texts of any of the great wisdom traditions. Nor do we find it in the great majority of Western depth psychologists, including James and Jung, or in the general Jungian tradition. (Nor do we find it in Washburn, who as a regressionist might be expected to agree, but he does not. My guess is that Grof is as committed to the phenomenon of birth as he is because, as a depth psychologist, he tends to look back in time for clues to the location of the spirit, not forward.

The question of death and life after death has received special attention in several of Grof’s publications (Grof & Halifax, 1977; Grof, 1980, 1994). Wilber has also contemplated this subject from both a theoretical (Wilber, 1980) and a more personal angle (Wilber, 1991). Both Wilber and Grof have contributed to Gary Doore’s article on the subject of life after death (Doore, 1990). Since this seems to be a central topic in modern esoteric (theosophical) literature, a comparison between these perspectives might prove useful. Grof (in Doore, 1990) is optimistic about the perspectives on a possible life after death, based on the results of “modern consciousness research” in general, and research into altered states of consciousness in particular, as these are created through LSD or holotropic breathwork. These practices seem to produce paranormal experiences of various kinds—visionary experiences such as those described in The Tibetan Book of Life and Death, out-of-body experiences, spiritualistic or “astral” phenomena, or memories of past lives. According to Grof, “these phenomena support a view that recognizes the reality that consciousness survives physical death.” From his perspective, time, space, and even the entire physical universe are transcended in transpersonal experiences. It is the latter category—archetypal visions, encounters with the spirits of the deceased, clairvoyant observations—that shed new light on the possibility of an “afterlife.” In particular, the categories of out-of-body experiences, encounters with “spirits” in an astral world, and memories of past lives—which Grof considers transpersonal, although “psychic” would probably be more appropriate—are a rich source of evidence for life after death. The esoteric tradition provides a clear account of the realms that transcend the physical plane. This topic is more fully and clearly described than the shamanistic and Tibetan worldviews that are so popular in our time.

Wilber (in Doore, 1990) does not draw on paranormal evidence to support his belief that reincarnation is a fact. On the contrary, he considers reincarnation a spiritual hypothesis and argues that meditation in this life can show us all the states of consciousness after death, as described by religious traditions. His anthropological theory is clearer than Grof’s – body, mind, soul and spirit are the basic elements of human nature. Wilber maintains that it is not so much the mind that reincarnates, but rather the soul. He even doubts the validity of so-called memories of past lives, since these are found in the mind, which passes away, and not in the immortal soul or Self. From his point of view, the memories that occasionally appear in very young children are the exception that confirms the rule that nothing of the earthly personality remains – except for “virtues” and “wisdom”. According to the Tibetan tradition, which Wilber follows here, in the course of two lives we pass through all the spheres—all the way up and all the way down. Over eight stages we move from the dying physical body to the Clear Light of the Absolute. After a relatively rapid ascent through the spheres, in which we are briefly in contact with the Light, we leave our body and enter the bardo state, which consists of a stage in which we have brilliant visions and a stage in which we are reincarnated in a new body. Wilber does not consider this to be merely an interesting phenomenological event, but affirms that: “In my opinion these planes are real, they have actual and definitive ontological status, and therefore the experiences on these planes are themselves real” (p. 186).

Theosophy, which is a contemporary philosophy that deals with precisely these planes, agrees that it is not the mind (personality or ego) that reincarnates, but the soul (individuality or Self), but opens up the possibility of memories of past lives, since the Self also has its own memory. Otherwise, how would memories of past lives, as described in Buddhist literature, for example, be possible at all? Why should we deny the Self its mental aspect? According to the theosophical understanding, the Self consists of will (virtues), intuition (wisdom) and abstract thinking (memory). Furthermore, that we do indeed travel through the spheres between lives, but: (1) we do not reach all the way up to the Absolute, but only to the soul (or Self), (2) this ascent takes much longer than the few hours that the Tibetan Book of Life and Death allows us, (3) the subsequent descent to the physical plane can occur very quickly, (4) this period is by no means limited to the period of 49 days that the Tibetan Book indicates, and (5) being reborn in an animal body is simply not relevant. It would be highly relevant to place the theosophical view of life after death on a level with the prevailing Tibetan or shamanistic descriptions. It can even be said that the traditional understanding of heaven, hell, and purgatory according to theosophical understanding is not far from the truth. This means that we can create a metaphysical view of the afterlife without having to borrow from Eastern or primitive cultures. While Wilber agrees with the Tibetan view of death, Grof is more cross-cultural in his stance, although this makes his view more general and vague. No detailed information regarding the soul’s journey after death can be derived from his model: do we explore the perinatal and transpersonal planes of the unconscious in the process of death and the afterlife? Are we reborn in a transpersonal reality? Theosophy offers a very simple answer to the question of what happens when we die: Our personal self survives the death of the body and experiences its “heaven” and “hell,” but eventually perishes, whereas our transpersonal Self is relatively immortal and capable of achieving liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth.

Grof considers the new sciences – systems theory, quantum physics, holography, etc. – to be allies in transpersonal studies and as the basis for the disagreement between himself and Wilber. Wilber has criticized the regressive and reductionist nature of almost all of the so-called New Paradigm thinking (Wilber, 1995). Grof, on the other hand, is one of the warmest advocates of the “gospel” of holism. He expresses that where the Old Science was unable to handle the non-ordinary phenomena of consciousness, the New Science is: “Where transpersonal experiences are clearly and fundamentally incompatible with mechanistic science, it can be integrated with the revolutionary developments that have taken place within various scientific disciplines, which have been called the New Paradigm” (Grof, 1988, p. 163). But the sad and sobering fact is, in my opinion, that neither the old nor the new physics are capable of penetrating the complex inner reality of subjective consciousness; they are only capable of dealing with the world of matter – whether considered atomically or holistically. Not much quantum physics can tell us about even the most basic human emotion. What is more, Grof’s fundamental metaphor – hylotropic versus holotropic thinking, i.e. moving towards the part or towards the whole respectively – is closely tied to the physical plane. The metaphor of the part versus the whole should, in my opinion, be replaced by the depth/height metaphor.

The very reductionist holistic view often places the spirit in nature, thereby interpreting our alienation from nature as an alienation from God. The worldwide cry for a more ecologically healthy society, however valuable this may be in itself, is given a spiritual overtone, since the healing of our alienation from nature is made synonymous with the healing of our alienation from God. In Wilber’s understanding, our alienation from nature is not an alienation from God, but on the contrary a step closer to God. From this very original point of view, the entire process of modernization and secularization can even be seen as an act of God! And although today’s ecological problems are exceptionally serious and must be solved, they should never be confused with the spiritual problems, which are equally serious and violent. Wilber has made it painfully clear in his latest work (1995, 1996) that there is no basis for this holistic postulate. Here too there is a deep gap within the transpersonal, of which Grof and Wilber are the main exponents.

Conclusion

The difference between depth and height psychology is clearly the most important theoretical issue within transpersonal psychology. Two diametrically opposed perspectives on man and society can be derived from these perspectives. The depth/holistic perspective seems to emphasize the collective dimension that all beings have in common. It speaks only of unity and wholeness, which is often understood as being of a physical nature and as pointing to pre-modern societies as a tool in solving the problems of modern society. The urgent holistic plea for a less fragmented and divided world rests on this basis. The height psychological perspective seems to emphasize the individual dimension, which is about growth, and which emphasizes the rare and very unusual experiences of mystics. It speaks of an ascent to the spirit and of a hierarchy that brings us into contact with ever more spiritual planes, and which thereby indicates the actual steps we must take before we reach unity.

In this sense, transpersonal psychology is at a crossroads. We are right in the middle of the subconscious and its many planes – the body, sexuality, emotions, etc. etc. – and the superconscious – the spiritual intuition, the higher Self, etc. etc. This superconscious mind is probably just as complex as its lower counterpart and is the proper domain of transpersonal psychology. So where do we find the spirit? Do we look for the spirit in depth and therefore in the past (our own developmental history)? Or do we look upwards for the spirit, and therefore towards the future? Depth psychology does not only look towards the past, but is itself, I believe, a relic of the past. A true transpersonal psychology will therefore be a height psychology, which covers the work of the transpersonal spirit in an unambiguous and scientific way. If it sees itself as also encompassing the personal dimension, the term “integral psychology” would be more comprehensive (see Wilber, 1997). A psychology that truly covers all areas of human consciousness and development will cover both the depth and height aspects. In this integral psychology, the “vertical” depth/height dimension will probably be the most important dimension. It is time for us to put our depth-psychological past behind us in order to be able to pave the way for a height-psychological future. Depth psychology has nothing to offer us here. Psychology began, as we all do, on the instinctual plane; it will – as we all do – be consummated on the plane of the spirit.

References

1. ASSAGIOLI, R. (1965). Psychosynthesis. New York: Viking. (In Danish: Psykosynthese, Kentaur Forlag)
2. ASSAGIOLI, R. (1973). The act of will. New York: Viking. (In Danish: “Viljens psykologi”, Kentaur Forlag).
3. ASSAGIOLI, R. (1988). Lo sviluppo di transpersonale [Transpersonal development]. Rome: Editrice Astrolabio. (In Danish: “Transpersonal development”, Kentaur Forlag)
4. BESANT, A. (1904). A study in consciousness. London: Theosophical Publishing Society. Current edition: Adyar, Madras, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1987. (“A Study of Consciousness”)
5. CAMPBELL, BF (1980). Ancient wisdom revived. Berkely: University of California Press.
6. CONGER, JP (1988). Jung and Reich. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books. (“Jung and Reich”)
7. DOORE, G. (1990). What survives? Los Angeles: Tarcher. (“What survives?)
8. FREUD, S. (1961/1923). The ego and the id. Standard Edition 19. London: Hogarth Press. (“The Ego and the Id”)
9. GROF, S. (1975). Realms of the human unconscious. New York: Viking.
10. GROF, S. (1980). Beyond death. London: Thames & Hudson.
11. GROF, S. (1983). Ancient wisdom and modern insight. Mill Valley: Cal.: Robert Briggs Ass. (“Ancient Wisdom and Modern Knowledge”)
12. GROF, S. (1985). Beyond the brain. Albany: SUNY Press. (“Beyond the Brain”)
13. GROF, S. (1988). The adventure of self-discovery. Albany: SUNY Press. (“The Adventure of Self-Discovery”)
14. GROF, S. (1994). Books of the dead. London: Thames & Hudson.
15. GROF, S. & J. HALIFAX. (1977). The human encounter with death. New York: Dutton.
16. GROF, S. & H. BENNETT. (1992). The holotropic mind. San Francisco: Harper. (“The Holotropic Mind”)
17. GUSDORF, G. (1953). Mythe et metaphysique. Paris: Flammarion. (“Myths and the metaphysical”)
18. HARDY, J. (1987). A psychology with a soul. London: Routledge.
19. JACOBI, J. (1942). The psychology of CG Jung. London: Routledge. “The Psychology of CG Jung”)
20. LOWEN, A. (1967). The betrayal of the body. New York: Macmillan.
21. LOWEN, A. (1990). The spirituality of the body. New York: Macmillan.
22. LOWEN, A. (1996). Joy: surrender to the body and to life. (in press)
23. ROSZAK, Th. (1976). Unfinished animal. New York: Harper & Row.
24. ROWAN, J. (1992). The transpersonal. London: Routledge.
25. SCOTTON, BW, CHINEN, AB & JR BATTISTA (eds.). (1996). Textbook of transpersonal psychiatry and psychology. New York: Basic Books.
26. SMITH, H. (1976). Forgotten truth. New York: Harper & Row.
27. VISSER, F. (1995). Zeven sferen [Seven spheres]. Amsterdam, Uitgeverij der Theosofische Vereniging in Nederland. (“The Seven Spheres”)
28. VISSER, F. (1996). Transpersonal views of human nature: Jung, Assagioli and the esoteric tradition. Submitted for publication.
29. 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). (“Bodhisattvas will have to turn to politics”)
30. WALSH, R. & F. VAUGHAN. (1980). Beyond ego. Los Angeles: Tarcher. (“Beyond the Ego”)
31. WALSH, R. & F. VAUGHAN. (1993). Paths beyond ego. Los Angeles: Tarcher. (In Danish: “The transpersonal dimensions of man”)
32. WASHBURN, M. (1988). The ego and the dynamic ground. Albany: SUNY Press.
33. WASHBURN, M. (1990). Two patterns of transcendence. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 30(3), pp. 84-112. (“Two Paths to Transcendence”)
34. WASHBURN, M. (1994). Transpersonal psychology in psychoanalytic perspective. Albany: SUNY Press.
35. WILBER, K. (1977). The spectrum of consciousness. Wheaton: Quest Books. (“The Spectrum of Consciousness”)
36. WILBER, K. (1979). No boundaries. Los Angeles: Center Publications. Current edition: Shambhala. (“No Limits”)
37. WILBER, K. (1980). The Atman project. Wheaton: Quest Books. Second edition 1996. (“The Atman Project”)
38. WILBER, K. (1981). Up from Eden. New York: Anchor Books. Current edition: Wheaton, Quest Books, 1996. (“Up from Paradise”)
39. WILBER, K. (1982). A sociable God. New York: McGraw-Hill.
40. WILBER, K. (1983). Eye to eye. New York: Anchor Books. Current edition: Shambhala, 1996.
41. WILBER, K. (1990). Two patterns of transcendence: A reply to Washburn. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 30(3), 113-136. (“Two Patterns of Transcendence: A Reply to Washburn”)
42. WILBER, K. (1991). Grace and grit. Boston: Shambhala.
43. WILBER, K. (1995). Sex, ecology, spirituality. Boston: Shambhala.
44. WILBER, K. (1996). A brief history of everything. Boston: Shambhala. (In Danish: “God, life, the universe and everything else”)
45. WILBER, K. (1997). The eye of spirit. Boston: Shambhala.
46. WILBER, K., Engler, J. & DP Brown. (1986). Transformations of consciousness. Boston: Shambhala. (“Transformations of Consciousness”)

(c) 1998 Frank Visser

How to move forward

Here you can receive seven free meditations where you develop different aspects of yourself.

Also read the article Psychosynthesis an Integral Psychology and the biography of Roberto Assagioli

Read the introductory article about energy psychology

Read the introductory article about integral meditation