Ken Wilber on Jung fallacy
Christopher Johnson
just makes allot of damn sense. See for yourself:
================================================
Introduction to Volume 1of the Collected Works of Ken Wilber (to be
published during the summer of 1999).
I wrote the Spectrum of Consciousness in the winter of 1972. I was
twenty-three years old and about half way through graduate school in
biochemistry. I wrote it "in my head," as I often do; I began to write it
down on paper the next winter. It took me three months to write it out
long-hand, whereupon began a hilarious nine months as I tried to get it
typed. By 1974 the manuscript was ready to go, and largely through the
efforts of Jim Fadiman and especially John White, it finally found a
publisher (after being rejected by almost three dozen).
In The Eye of Spirit, written twenty-five years later, I divided my
work into four main periods: period-1 was Romantic; period-2 was
evolutionary and developmental; period-3 subdivided development into
levels and lines; and period-4 set development in the context of the four
quadrants (intentional, behavioral, social, and cultural). Periods 2, 3,
and 4 form a fairly coherent sequence, each building on and incorporating
its predecessor(s). But period-1, which was steeped in the general
Romantic philosophy (which is still by far the most prevalent model of
spiritual unfolding), forms a great ground of what I think are both some
very good, and some very confused, ideas.
All of the works in this volume are from period- 1, and they represent,
in my opinion, about the best you can do with the fundamentally flawed
notions of Romanticism. These works were extremely important for me,
because in trying to make the Romantic ideas work, I found out precisely
why they would not. The general Romantic notion is that men and women
start out- both phylogenetically and ontogenetically (in infancy, in the
noble savage, in Eden)-immersed in an unconscious union with Spirit, a
type of wholeness and oneness with the entire world. But as development or
evolution proceeds, we lose that wholeness and are thrust into the world
of separation, alienation, suffering, and pain. But once having split from
that wholeness, we can regain or recapture it, but now in a conscious,
mature form.
The Romantic view has much to recommend it, and I would incorporate
many of its essential features in later models. But the crucial problem
concerns the nature of the infantile state of "unconscious wholeness with
the world."
Since infants do not clearly differentiate subject and object, inside
and outside, Romantic theorists have taken this as a type of mystica unio,
a type of nondual union with the entire world. But are infants really one
with the whole world? They certainly are not one with the world of
language, logic, poetry, art, commerce, economics, or even the Oedipal
complex- for none of those have yet emerged. The infant exists in a type
of fusion state, no doubt, but it is a fusion merely with the sensorimotor
world. None of the higher worlds have yet emerged, and thus the early
"paradisiacal" state is definitely not one with any of those. And this
early fusion state certainly does not transcend the self, because there is
not yet any self to transcend.
The Romantics, it appeared, were caught in what I would later call "the
pre/trans fallacy."
The early infantile fusion is not trans- personal, it is pre- personal;
not trans- rational, but pre-rational; not supramental, but inframental.
Because both pre-personal and trans-personal are, in their own way, non-
personal, it is easy to confuse the two. The typical mistake is to try to
reduce all transpersonal mystical states to prepersonal infantile
narcissism, thus dismissing spirituality altogether (e.g., Freud). But the
Romantics committed the opposite mistake: they elevated prepersonal
infantilisms to transpersonal glory (while simultaneously turning Spirit
into an infantile display). Reductionism and elevationism are the two
sides of the pre/trans fallacy, and the Romantics were the original
elevationists.
This was not yet obvious to me as I began writing on these topics.
Indeed, the vast majority of the theorists in the field firmly believed,
as they still do, that the Romantic model is the correct model of
spiritual unfolding. Joseph Campbell, Alan Watts, Norman O. Brown, the
entire Jungian tradition-all had lined up in favor of the Romantic view.
My job, as I saw it, was to correlate and synthesize all of these various
theorists, East and West, and thus produce a type of master template of
human growth and development. And so I began. The works in this volume
present the major statements from that period-namely, period-1- where I
was grappling with, and trying to free myself from, the great Romantic
tradition.
One of the major difficulties with Romanticism is that, because the
early "paradisiacal" fusion state is supposed to contain the "whole world"
(albeit unconsciously), then each succeeding stage of development must be
pictured as a "loss" of something essential that was previously
present.
Romanticism must view the infantile state as possessing everything that
is important and significant (after all, if enlightenment is a recapturing
of the infantile state, that state must possess all good things!), and
therefore Romanticism must view subsequent development as a series of
painful, tragic loses. Actually trying to make this scheme work verges on
the preposterous (and hilarious), as I was soon to discover.
Language, for example. The infant is immersed basically in the
sensorimotor world. As language begins to develop, the Romantics must see
language as doing nothing but filtering the "richness" of the infant's
world.
Language is seen as a screen, as something that dilutes, distorts,
reduces, or hides the richness of the sensory world. While that sometimes
happens, the great role of language is not to filter the physical world,
but to create higher, deeper, and wider worlds-not just filter the
sensorimotor world, but create the magic, mythic, and mental worlds,
themselves verging on the transverbal and transmental. Language is the
great gateway to the transverbal, not merely a filter of the preverbal.
But you will see me, in Spectrum, attempt to support this old Romantic
silliness-I even called one chapter "The Great Filter."
Romanticism likewise confuses the merely sensory body, which is present
in infancy, with the mind-and-body integration (the "centaur"), which
doesn't emerge until early adulthood. And Romanticism must confuse sensory
and centaur because the centaur is a type of profound wholeness and union,
and all good unions must be present in the infantile "paradisiacal" state!
In the following pages you will see me likewise attempt to place the
centaur in infancy, and derive the mental-ego from a splitting or
fragmentation of the prior centaur-which is really quite hard to do, since
the centaur doesn't emerge until early adulthood!
All of these Romantic confusions stem from variations on the pre/trans
fallacy. The more I tried to make the Romantic model work, the more I saw
its inadequacies. By the time I had finished No Boundary (and the essay
called "Where It Was, There I Shall Become"), I was beginning to see
exactly what the problem was. I abandoned the traditional Romantic model,
and hence began period-2, whose first major statement was The Atman
Project.
The works in this volume, then, represent my coming of age, so to
speak. The first paper I ever published was called "The Spectrum of
Consciousness," which appeared in the November, 1974 issue of Main
Currents in Modern Thought. I was then twenty- five; had been married one
year; had left graduate school; was intensively practicing Zen Buddhism;
and was about to start my long career as a dishwasher at the Red Roster
Restaurant in Lincoln, Nebraska (in order to pay my half of the rent).
That paper was followed by "Psychologia Perennis: The Spectrum of
Consciousness," Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1975, which is
included in this volume. Finally, in 1977-five years after I had written
it-The Spectrum of Consciousness was published by Quest. As any author
will attest, seeing your first book is a thrill never quite equaled.
"Are the Chakras Real?" is a good example of how, following
Romanticism, I attempted to derive all higher structures from a
restriction or repression of lower structures. The standard line: the
infant starts out "one with the whole world" but then loses that oneness
and must regain or recapture it in order to find freedom and
enlightenment. This period-1 model has been elaborated by theorists such
as Michael Washburn, but it is a view that simply will not fit with
developmental data, as I soon discovered.
No Boundary was written shortly after Spectrum, and like Spectrum, took
several years to find a publisher. At the time I was studying Zen with
several masters, in person and by correspondence. Maezumi Roshi, of the
Zen Center of Los Angeles, was one of them, and I gave the book (and half
of its royalties) to his Center Publications; it appeared in 1979.
Shambhala brought out its first edition of the book in 1981.
"Where It Was, I Shall Become" is one of my favorite pieces from
period-1. It is still hopelessly Romantic, in that the higher levels are
all presented as a recapturing of something present in earlier
development. Aside from that, however, it outlines the whole notion of the
growth of human potentials in a fine fashion, I believe. Besides, the
Romantic idea that spiritual enlightenment is a recapturing, regaining, or
remembering of our true nature is absolutely correct; it's just that our
true nature is not an infantile state. Our true nature is timeless and
therefore eternal, spaceless and therefore infinite-and not something
present at six months then lost.
Enlightenment is a recapturing of what we are timelessly, not what we
were in infancy. So the Romantic intuition can be salvaged, but only if we
surrender the pre/trans fallacy and the wretched notion that God is an
infantile state.
What, then, if anything, is still valuable about these period-1 works?
Aside from the pre/trans fallacy, from which none escape, there is much
that still rings true, I believe. The general ideas themselves are still
sound: the existence of a spectrum of consciousness, consisting of
different levels or dimensions of awareness, ranging from matter to body
to mind to soul to spirit.
These different levels have different characteristics, values, needs,
self-sense, motivations, and so on; and they also have different
pathologies, which respond to different treatments. This spectrum of
consciousness is consistent with the perennial philosophy, from Vedanta to
Christian mysticism to Buddhism to Taoism, which gives us a cogent way to
integrate Eastern and Western approaches to consciousness, psychology, and
therapy. All of these ideas are still quite valid, I believe-and, in fact,
they would be the seminal ideas that most of my subsequent writing would
elaborate (minus the pre/trans fallacies).
The last chapter of Spectrum explains the essential meditative stance
quite carefully, and is still as cogent as ever, in my opinion. That
chapter is titled "Always Already"-the idea that the enlightened mind is
"always already" present-and this seems to have been an insight that was
with me from the very first book, at a rather tender age. It certainly is
an insight that has never left; and, along with Emptiness, is probably the
most recurrent theme of all my work-and the motivation for most of it.
That "always already" is so forcefully stated in this first work is still
somewhat amazing to me; but then, not really. No Boundary has several
chapters that I still believe are fine descriptions of the nondual
"mystical" state (chapters 4, 5, 9, and 10). When Maezumi Roshi looked at
the last chapter of No Boundary, he sent me a copy of his book The Way of
Everyday Life, which is a translation of Dogen's Genjokoan with Roshi's
commentary (and wonderful photographs by John Daido Loori, now himself a
respected Zen teacher). In his book, Roshi had underlined Dogen's
statement, "The nature of wind is permanent, and there is no place it does
not reach." No Boundary captured that essential "always already" insight,
I believe, which is probably why it is still one of the most popular of my
books.
Still, these would be the only two books of mine, out of sixteen, that
I would stop recommending to others, mostly because of the pre/trans
fallacies haunting their pages. To this day, I am quite comfortable with
every book I have written, and can still happily recommend them-except
these two. If you look at the typical diagram I used in all the period-1
models (see, for example, page 143 in Spectrum), the idea is that we start
out at the bottom, "one with the whole world," then we move upward,
through a series of splits and fragmentations, to an identity with the
narrow persona. We then move back down, recapturing the underlying
wholeness, until we arrive, once again, at a "oneness with the entire
world." Well, that is the Romantic fallacy. What this diagram actually
shows is what happens when an adult, as persona, begins higher growth to
ego, centaur, transpersonal, and nondual. The diagram does not show all
the lesser stages leading up to the adult persona! (It does not do so
because, according to Romanticism, the higher stages are just the lower
stages recaptured, so they are essentially the same structures.)
It was only as I began a serious study of infant development (and
phylogenetic development) that I realized that there are in fact a half
dozen major stages leading up to the persona. This ushered in period-2
(The Atman Project and the very appropriately named Up from Eden). In the
meantime, I seemed to sense this problem, because the diagram on page 165
of Spectrum is actually quite accurate: it correctly places the body, the
five senses, and the exterior physical world on a lower level than the
persona, something that the diagram on page 143 utterly fails to do. It is
the presence of the diagram on page 165 that salvages much of Spectrum and
accurately guides the many comparisons with the perennial philosophy
("Surveying the Traditions," chapter 6). It was only in period-2 that I
would understand that the infant starts out immersed, not in cosmic
consciousness, but merely in sensorimotor fusion, so that, in other words,
the infant starts at the lowest level on the page-165 diagram and then
grows through the higher levels on that diagram, which themselves are
novel emergents, not regurgitants.
The move from period-1 to period-2 was one of the most difficult
intellectual episodes of my life, matched only by the difficulties
conceiving Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. I described this difficult
transition in an essay I wrote shortly thereafter, called "Odyssey," which
is presented in volume 2. In the meantime, the following works are the
soil-rich with promise and confusion-from which future works would grow.
KW
Boulder, Colorado
Winter 1997
--
Christopher Johnson....Truth and Beauty fan
Clifford Stabbert
>
> I have always been very sympathetic to Jung and Campbell. But Ken Wilber
> just makes allot of damn sense. See for yourself:
Interesting stuff. I might get one of his books.
However, even though I haven't read much Jung yet, I don't quite see how Jung
fits the Romantic theory Wilber describes. Seems to me that when Wilber
describes the notion of pre-verbal union, he's talking more of his own
interpretation of Jung than what Jung espouses.
As I said, I haven't read that much Jung yet. Please clarify if I've got this
all muddled.
Cliff
Christopher Johnson
<c...@interport.net> wrote:
> Christopher Johnson wrote:
> >
> > I have always been very sympathetic to Jung and Campbell. But Ken Wilber
> > just makes allot of damn sense. See for yourself:
>
> Interesting stuff. I might get one of his books.
>
> However, even though I haven't read much Jung yet, I don't quite see how Jung
> fits the Romantic theory Wilber describes. Seems to me that when Wilber
> describes the notion of pre-verbal union, he's talking more of his own
> interpretation of Jung than what Jung espouses.
>
> As I said, I haven't read that much Jung yet. Please clarify if I've got this
> all muddled.
>
> Cliff
Hmm. It is possible. I am currently reading a critique of Wilber's
"pre/trans fallacy" by a Jungian. Not finished yet...
Still, I think the Jungians believe that the "lower" and the "higher"
consciousness are almost one in the same. OR that one must go to the
lower/shallower to get to the higher/wider.
d_ca...@hotmail.com
Clifford Stabbert <c...@interport.net> wrote:
> Christopher Johnson wrote:
> >
> > just makes allot of damn sense. See for yourself:
>
>
> However, even though I haven't read much Jung yet, I don't quite see how Jung
> fits the Romantic theory Wilber describes. Seems to me that when Wilber
> describes the notion of pre-verbal union, he's talking more of his own
> interpretation of Jung than what Jung espouses.
>
> As I said, I haven't read that much Jung yet. Please clarify if I've got this
> all muddled.
>
I have basically the same reaction. Thanks to Christopher for posting
this. Sounds like Wilbur's theories are worth reading and comparing to
Jungian thought. Off the top of my head, I think Wilbur might be right
in a way -- in that many people falsely assume that Jung's thoughts about
individuation / unconscious / Self fit the described Romantic model. But
I'd have to re-read Jungian texts (and perhaps Wilbur) to be sure.
Dennis
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Lane McCullough
implication about the romantic fallacy in relation to Freud. However, I
wasn't sure how the romantic fallacy involved Jungian thought. Jung' ideas
evolved quite a bit between the 1920's and the 1950's. Christopher could
you describe what you think Wilbur is referring to in the case of Jungian
thought and how his thought is different. Might make for some good
conversation.
d_ca...@hotmail.com wrote in message <78ktv6$3r4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <36AD5718...@interport.net>,
> Clifford Stabbert <c...@interport.net> wrote:
>> Christopher Johnson wrote:
>> >
Wilber
>> > just makes allot of damn sense. See for yourself:
>>
Christopher Johnson
> I just breezed through the Wilbur writing. I thought I caught on to his
> implication about the romantic fallacy in relation to Freud. However, I
> wasn't sure how the romantic fallacy involved Jungian thought. Jung' ideas
> evolved quite a bit between the 1920's and the 1950's. Christopher could
> you describe what you think Wilbur is referring to in the case of Jungian
> thought and how his thought is different. Might make for some good
> conversation.
I can try:
Ken Wilber, in the tradition of everyone from Buddha to Plato to Piaget ,
presents a model of growth and development in the consciousness of the
individual and society. It is an assumption that states that, in the few
islands of organization in the sea of chaos, there is a tendacy to evolve
to higher and wider complex forms. He starts off with a very simplified
model:
pre-rational: the mode of survival, fight or flight, emotions,
irrational, and subconscious (sorry, I am not a Freud devotee, but I did
not want to use the Jungian "Un-conscious" because it might be part of
Wilber's problem)
rational: the ego, the mind, rational thought, Modernity
trans-rational: everything from identification with somthing more than
your own ego, to complete immersion in the Ground of Everything --
non-dual consciousness -- no perceptional difference between Subject (me)
and Object (it) -- Zen and Vedantic (sp?) traditions. Mystical modes of
knowing that are *beyond* rationality.
Wilber will often uses Freud and Jung as examples of how these levels of
development can get confused. He calls this the pre/trans fallacy because
the modes of the pre-rational can be confused with the modes of the
trans-rational. He goes on to say that this happens because, from the
casual outside observation, they can look simillar. For example, both the
pre and trans-rational states are NON-rational. But the point he
emphasizes over and over again is that they are very different from each
other: the pre is *before* any kind of rationality has settled into the
being, so it is irrational. The trans *contains* real and legitimate
rationality, and then goes one better! A pre-rational thought: I will
murder my nieghbor because he has a leg of deer meat and I don't. A
trans-rational aprehension: my nieghbor and I are One. One of these modes
of awareness comes before rationality, the other goes above/beyond it, but
does not dissasciociate (sp?) from it.
Wilber sates that Freud is guilty of the first kind of pre/trans fallacy.
He says Freud tended to look at reported states of trans-rational
aprehension and declare them "pre-egoic illusions", not worthy of anything
(just trouble waiting to happen). This is an example of collapsing the
higher to the lower.
Then Wilber uses Jung for the *second* form of the fallacy. He says that
Jung tended to confuse some pre-rational modes of awareness with
transcendence. He used the seemingly blissful state of a baby as an
example. He says that the pre-rational states of undifferentiated ego/body
in the baby are not the same as the reintegrated body/mind/Spirit in
post-egoic stages. One never knew languge and logic, the other not only
knew them, but transcended them (while including them). This is an example
of elevating the lower to the higher. Wilber calls this regression.
I am nowhere near as articulate (or a speller) as Wilber on this issue. I
hope this helps. I know it seems elitist, but the feeling is that this
confusion can hinder growth on a practicle level. Right now I am reading a
very good disagreement with part of this theory by Michael Washburn. I
hope to have some more insight on this when I finish the paper. It might
be that for *ego-healing*, some regression maybe helpful (eg. myth,
primitive ritual, primal contact, ect.). But after that (or during),
transcendence might require somthing else altogether.
Sharyn C
Christopher Johnson wrote in message ...
>I have always been very sympathetic to Jung and Campbell. But Ken Wilber
>just makes allot of damn sense. See for yourself:
>================================================
>Introduction to Volume 1of the Collected Works of Ken Wilber (to be
>published during the summer of 1999).
>
>start out- both phylogenetically and ontogenetically (in infancy, in the
>noble savage, in Eden)-immersed in an unconscious union with Spirit, a
>type of wholeness and oneness with the entire world. But as development or
>evolution proceeds, we lose that wholeness and are thrust into the world
>of separation, alienation, suffering, and pain. But once having split from
>that wholeness, we can regain or recapture it, but now in a conscious,
>
>. . . Enlightenment is a recapturing of what we are timelessly, not what
we
>were in infancy. So the Romantic intuition can be salvaged, but only if we
>surrender the pre/trans fallacy and the wretched notion that God is an
>infantile state.
>
stance
>quite carefully, and is still as cogent as ever, in my opinion. That
>chapter is titled "Always Already"-the idea that the enlightened mind is
>"always already" present-and this seems to have been an insight that was
>with me from the very first book, at a rather tender age.
>. . . If you look at the typical diagram I used in all the period-1
>models (see, for example, page 143 in Spectrum), the idea is that we start
>out at the bottom, "one with the whole world," then we move upward,
>through a series of splits and fragmentations, to an identity with the
>narrow persona. We then move back down, recapturing the underlying
>wholeness, until we arrive, once again, at a "oneness with the entire
>world." Well, that is the Romantic fallacy. . . .
>KW
>Boulder, Colorado
>Winter 1997
>
>--
>Christopher Johnson....Truth and Beauty fan
Dear Christopher:
This is very interesting to me and probably touches on what I find most
interesting in Jung's thinking about the nature of reality. I snipped the
above passages to just speak to those specific thoughts in relation to how
I've understood Jung. On the surface you could easily see Jung's ideas as
paralleling the Romantic as Wilber has explained it, but I believe if you
delve more deeply you may see that perhaps they did not in a pure sense.
The first thing that grabbed my attention was when Wilber wrote " 'Always
Already'-the idea that the enlightened mind is 'always already' present-and
this seems to have been an insight that was with me from the very first
book, at a rather tender age. " I immediately thought of Jung's
autobiography and his description of the No.1 and No. 2 personality. Jung
wrote:
"I always knew that I was two persons. One was the son of my parents, who
went to school and was less intelligent, attentive, hard-working, decent,
and clean than many other boys. The other was grown up---old, in
fact---skeptical, mistrustful, remote from the world of men, but close to
nature, the earth, the sun, the moon, the weather, all living creatures, and
above all close to the night, to dreams, and to whatever "God" worked
directly in him. . . . Besides his world (God's world of nature) there
existed another realm, like a temple in which anyone who entered was
transformed and suddenly overpowered by a vision of the whole cosmos, so
that he could only marvel and admire, forgetful of himself. Here lived the
"Other", who knew God as a hidden, personal, and at the same time
suprapersonal secret. Here nothing separated man from God; indeed, it was
as though the human mind looked down upon Creation simultaneously with God.
. . .
The play and counterplay between personalities No. 1 and No. 2, which
has run through my whole life, has nothing to do with a "split" or
dissociation in the ordinary medical sense. On the contrary, it is played
out in every individual. In my life No. 2 has been of prime importance, and
I have always tried to make room for anything that wanted to come to me from
within. He is a typical figure, but he is perceived only by the very few.
Most people's conscious understanding is not sufficient to realize that he
is also what they are."
It seems that this passage is remarkably similar to Wilber's description of
the enlightened mind as "Always Already" present. I'm not sure that I would
agree that Jung saw individuation as a return to an ideal state that exists
at birth or in infancy but is then lost, or that God is an infantile state.
I think the way I would describe how I've understood Jung is that we must
humanize the Godhead, the suprapersonal, making it conscious of us, thus
allowing its power to divinize our humanness. I get this idea from Jung's
"Answer to Job", not that God is infantile but simply unaware of our human
condition and we must reach out (or in) to know this timeless, eternal state
that exists in every person so that it can know us also, thus you see the
importance Jung placed on the adult Ego as the necessary instrument for this
work.
I would appreciate hearing other's thoughts on this as well, and I hope I'm
not coming across as disagreeing with Wilber who I respect a great deal, but
as actually not seeing the difference Wilbur did between his vision and
Jung's.
Sharyn C.
Sharyn C
Christopher Johnson wrote in message ...
>. . . Then Wilber uses Jung for the *second* form of the fallacy. He says
that
>Jung tended to confuse some pre-rational modes of awareness with
>transcendence. He used the seemingly blissful state of a baby as an
>example. He says that the pre-rational states of undifferentiated ego/body
>in the baby are not the same as the reintegrated body/mind/Spirit in
>post-egoic stages. One never knew languge and logic, the other not only
>knew them, but transcended them (while including them). This is an example
>of elevating the lower to the higher. Wilber calls this regression.
>
>Christopher Johnson....Truth and Beauty fan
Christopher, I'm sorry but I didn't quite understand the above paragraph.
Are you saying here that Wilber considers reintegrating body/mind/Spirit in
post-egoic stages as a regression, or that Jung confused undifferentiated
Ego/Body states as transcendence and that's the regression? If the latter
is what you meant, then I wonder what Wilber thought about the idea of the
Coniunctio as found in Volume 14, Mysterium Coniunctionis.
There is a section where Jung discusses separating the body from the mind
(when you realize you have an unconscious with all the multiple parts of
yourself), and then wedding the body/mind back together as the first
coniunctio. I am really stating this briefly and probably butchering Jung's
idea, but bare with me. Then he discusses the next work as requiring
separating the body/mind from Spirit and then wedding body/mind/Spirit back
together. Are you saying that Wilber saw this idea as a regression? Have
you read this by Jung? Since I haven't read Wilber extensively or recently,
I just wonder how you would see what Jung wrote about in "Mysterium" as
different from Wilber's idea of Jung's view of transcendence.
Sincerely, Sharyn
Clifford Stabbert
<snip snip>
> Christopher, I'm sorry but I didn't quite understand the above paragraph.
> Are you saying here that Wilber considers reintegrating body/mind/Spirit in
> post-egoic stages as a regression, or that Jung confused undifferentiated
> Ego/Body states as transcendence and that's the regression? If the latter
> is what you meant, then I wonder what Wilber thought about the idea of the
> Coniunctio as found in Volume 14, Mysterium Coniunctionis.
Overall, I'm getting the impression Wilber has some very valuable things to
say, but that in saying them he may be (unnecessarily) misrepresenting Jung's
thinking. I cannot pretend to understand everything I've read of Jung's - and
in fact, I haven't read all that much of him yet - but so far I've gotten the
distinct impression that what he is talking about is *re*integrating ourselves
post-split as is Wilber, not regressing. In that I would definitely agree with
Sharyn.
This is not to knock Wilber as I haven't even read him yet. Just to say that
from what I'm hearing so far, it sounds like he treats Jung a bit unfairly.
His assessment might apply more to the (reportedly) large number of people who
misinterpret Jung as promoting regression of some sort.
Just to steer this whole thread off on an utter tangent:
I definitely see a staged or layered process in the development of our
individual consciousness - pre-rational, rational, post-rational. In some
sense, our culture is IMO going through a very similar process. This century
has seen the advent of quantum physics/godel/korzybski/etc. and the awareness
of the illusory nature of the subject/object body/mind splits that come with
that. We're now in the "postmodern" age.
The internet could in a sense be described as the (Un)Official Organ of our
Collective Unconscious, what with all the sexual/conspiracy/etc. contents.
Daytime talkshows could be described as another vehicle for exposing
previously repressed material (with all the concomitant embarrassment and
ridicule to cover it).
I'm not sure why it's an ancient chinese _curse_ to say: may you live in
interesting times. Personally, I kinda _dig_ it.
Cliff
d_ca...@hotmail.com
"Sharyn C" <sha...@ris.net> wrote:
> I would appreciate hearing other's thoughts on this as well, and I hope I'm
> not coming across as disagreeing with Wilber who I respect a great deal, but
> as actually not seeing the difference Wilbur did between his vision and
> Jung's.
>
Having thought about this a little bit now ... I think the problem is that,
at least in what I remember of the Wilbur quote, he thinks that Jung
recommends a return to the pre-egoic state of complete unity, and that is
just not true. Jung's point is that we start out with no differentiation --
we _are _ unconscious, though aware through sensory perception. Ego
develops out of the unconscious state, and it's a very typical development
for the ego do eventually deny / forget its source, and believe it's King of
the Hill. This split in the psyche is a source of ego anxiety, because the
unconscious is still actively directing things, but often at cross-purposes
to the conscious will.
What Jung says is required to alleviate this split condition and the
problems that come from it is a re-establishing of the relationship of ego
to unconscious (which relationship is already there, but not acknowledged) --
through making the relationship a part of conscious awareness. For
Jungians, the ideal ego-Self relationship is one of a balance between the
two, not a state of fusion. Fusion would be a return to the infantile state
(in a rather 'psychotic' way, I assume), because the ego cannot remain
stable -- it gets overwhelmed, disolved.
A source of misunderstanding may be the fact that in order to go from the
state of ego-self split towards conscious ego-self balance, what's often
first required is, in fact, a "return" to more "infantile," "unitary" states
-- that is, a 'regression' to the source. On the one hand, this establishes
the reality of the 'source' to ego awareness in a way that has little to do
with rational thinking (it bypasses the ego's habitual dependance on
reason.) On the other hand, the 'return' can transfer energy from the
unconscious to consciousness, and thus strengthen the ego so it can finally
stand on its own in relation to the unconscious, without having to deny /
repress unconscious contents.
This is an ongoing process in individuation -- not a one-time thing. In
terms of Wilbur's ideas, I'd imagine you can say that the individuation
process gradually builds up a stable ego-self axis which facilitates what
Wilbur calls "trans-ego" consciousness. The ego becomes more and more
comfortable with the fact that it is not the center of the universe, to the
point where the Self's active expression is not restricted, but is able to
manifest through its conscious center -- the ego. This can only come about
through ego's realization that the unconscious is a greater, more powerful
factor in the individual's life than "I" am -- so ... "trans-ego"
consciousness is similar to having, in Jungian terms, a stable ego-self axis.
Christopher Johnson
> Christopher Johnson wrote in message ...
> >In article <78l81l$kkj$1...@hiram.io.com
>
>
> >. . . Then Wilber uses Jung for the *second* form of the fallacy. He says
> that [snip]
>
> Christopher, I'm sorry but I didn't quite understand the above paragraph.
> Are you saying here that Wilber considers reintegrating body/mind/Spirit in
> post-egoic stages as a regression,
No.
or that Jung confused undifferentiated
> Ego/Body states as transcendence and that's the regression?
Yes. Forgive me if I was not clear. It was late in the evening for me.
if the latter
> is what you meant, then I wonder what Wilber thought about the idea of the
> Coniunctio as found in Volume 14, Mysterium Coniunctionis.
>
> There is a section where Jung discusses separating the body from the mind
> (when you realize you have an unconscious with all the multiple parts of
> yourself),
Ah, there it is. See Wilber would say that you created the fallacy right
there by putting *all* of the non-rational, non-egoic, states of knowing
into one basket called the "unconscious". Wilber desperately wants to
differentiate between two *very* unlike portions of the "unconscious": one
very much a less than ego, and the other, very much more than ego.
and then wedding the body/mind back together as the first
> coniunctio. I am really stating this briefly and probably butchering Jung's
> idea, but bare with me. Then he discusses the next work as requiring
> separating the body/mind from Spirit and then wedding body/mind/Spirit back
> together. Are you saying that Wilber saw this idea as a regression?
He sees (he is alive ) a return to the first of the three simplified
states, just to get to the third, as regression. He would most likely say,
"Why go to the basement to get to the roof?"
As I said before, although I am having a little love affair with Wiber's
writings right now, I am open to the fact that there will be more
clarification on this in the future for everybody. For instance, maybe the
rational ego *can* be healed by some regressive (basement) exploration.
But this is not the same as sitting on the roof, breathing in the fresh
air of non-dual awareness. Fixing the ego, the goal of psychotherapy, may
not be the same thing as reaching for the larger, wider, deeper, and
higher modes of knowing. Maybe an arrogant asshole can become enlightened
on the roof and still have work to do in his livingroom.
Have
> you read this by Jung? Since I haven't read Wilber extensively or recently,
> I just wonder how you would see what Jung wrote about in "Mysterium" as
> different from Wilber's idea of Jung's view of transcendence.
No, for jungian thought, I have only read "Man and His Symbols" and then
some Joseph Campbell.
There is a n inexpensive book called, "The Essential Ken Wilber" (1998)
out now by Shambala Press. Also he wrote a very large and academic opus
containing most of his ideas called, "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality" (1995)
and a less daunting and conversational version of the same subject matter
called, "A Brief history of Everything" (1996?).
Christopher Johnson
[snip]
> It seems that this passage is remarkably similar to Wilber's description of
> the enlightened mind as "Always Already" present.
It would seem so. The passage and your insights are very lucid.
> I would appreciate hearing other's thoughts on this as well, and I hope I'm
> not coming across as disagreeing with Wilber who I respect a great deal, but
> as actually not seeing the difference Wilbur did between his vision and
> Jung's.
Hmm. I am not an expert here, I did not major in Jung or philosophy in
college, but I am drawn to this subject matter because it could have a
direct effect on growth (what does the map look like?). I am sure Wilber
and Jung would be in good company together. Maybe the crux of the
disagreement lies in the path, and not the end result? I would like to
finish the Washburn paper I mentioned yesterday because I believe it
explores this exact crossroads.
in the Dh(ark)
Christopher Johnson <sjohnso...@eden.com> wrote in message
> Right now I am reading a
>very good disagreement with part of this theory by Michael Washburn. I
>hope to have some more insight on this when I finish the paper. It might
>be that for *ego-healing*, some regression maybe helpful (eg. myth,
>primitive ritual, primal contact, ect.). But after that (or during),
>transcendence might require somthing else altogether.
Hi Christopher,
You might want to check out chp 6 "The Recaptured God: the retro-romantic
agenda and its fatal flaws" in Ken Wilber's book "The Eye of Spirit"
(Shambhala Books) for Wilber's explanation of the retro-romantic fallacy,
especially in relation to Michael Washburn's work.
There are a couple of papers by Washburn in "Ken Wilber in Dialogue", edited
by Rothberg and Kelly (Quest Books), and Wilber's response is in the same
book (esp pp311-9).
Regards,
Avyorth
antispam measure - the header address does not receive mail.
e-mail: Avyorth(at)btinternet(dot)com
Lane McCullough
heard some complimentary talk about him. But I have read a lot of Jung.
Jung's thoughts about the unconscious were nothing like lumping all non-ego
material into one spot. He was extremely creative and dynamic with his
model of the unconscious. Interestingly, aspects of the unconscious that
had recurrently recognizable patterns (e.g. Archetypes) had both positive
and negative sides to them. Similar to Hinduism where a god will have both
positive and negative traits. (For some reason that point seemed important)
Another thing that came to mind is related to this word "regressive" that
keeps getting thrown about. The main Jungian term that I think about when I
hear "regressive" is "complex". Jung did consider that a person would
regress when they entered into a complex but this would be considered a
negative thing.
Anyway, I'm still a little confused about what Wilbur is asserting that
Jung said that he thinks is wrong. It still needs more clarification or
research.
Lane McCullough
understand what Wilbur was getting at. Jung may have believed ,as does
Hillman, that the Self has a sort of pre-destined resonance to seek out.
But the ego must struggle to find that resonance. And that mission is based
on the ego establishing a mirroring relationship with the self. This takes
a lot of work and energy.
As for the "always already": In the Grail Myth (more of Emma's territory
than C.G.s) we learn that the Grail Castle is always available but is seldom
found because one must be in the right frame of mind to find it. This 12th
century European myth seems to also speak of the "always already".
d_ca...@hotmail.com wrote in message <78nklu$bng$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <78mfd6$3t1$1...@remarQ.com>,
> "Sharyn C" <sha...@ris.net> wrote:
>
>> I would appreciate hearing other's thoughts on this as well, and I hope
I'm
>> not coming across as disagreeing with Wilber who I respect a great deal,
but
>> as actually not seeing the difference Wilbur did between his vision and
>> Jung's.
>>
>
Sharyn C
Christopher Johnson wrote in message ...
>> There is a section where Jung discusses separating the body from the mind
>> (when you realize you have an unconscious with all the multiple parts of
>> yourself),
Christopher wrote:
>Ah, there it is. See Wilber would say that you created the fallacy right
>there by putting *all* of the non-rational, non-egoic, states of knowing
>into one basket called the "unconscious". Wilber desperately wants to
>differentiate between two *very* unlike portions of the "unconscious": one
>very much a less than ego, and the other, very much more than ego.
I believe I see what you're saying, but feel that Jung believed the exact
same thing. One of the things the analyst I've studied with has stressed is
that you approach the unconscious with the attitude of creating a
partnership by wrestling with the contents you encounter. Dennis Carlyle
expressed the idea of the stable Ego/Self axis very well in another post.
In other words, it would be a mistake to see the unconscious as just a
dumping ground for repressed stuff, though it can be, and just as grave a
mistake to assume that the unconscious is totally superior to Ego
consciousness in all ways, though it can be. Now this seems to be the same
as your statement above, if I've understood it correctly.
>He sees (he is alive ) a return to the first of the three simplified
>states, just to get to the third, as regression. He would most likely say,
>"Why go to the basement to get to the roof?"
Sorry, poor use of verbs as I realize he is living - didn't mean to put him
in the past tense.
Christopher wrote:
Fixing the ego, the goal of psychotherapy, may
>not be the same thing as reaching for the larger, wider, deeper, and
>higher modes of knowing. Maybe an arrogant asshole can become enlightened
>on the roof and still have work to do in his livingroom.
I just want to say that "fixing the Ego" generally falls in what I would say
is the first stage of analysis or psychotherapy of an individual. I've
heard it said by some learned Jungians who've followed Jung's lead in
exploring the "other" through active imagination that analysis generally
falls into more or less three stages for the individual. The first being a
strenghthening of Ego, and work on complexes and shadow, which generally
include periods of regression over time, and the second usually is an
intensified period of work on the contrasexual aspects of the individual
which can also have periods of regression, and the third seems to fall into
the category that you describe above as reaching for the larger, wider,
deeper and higher modes of knowing. Of course it's not that perfectly
differentiated as people are complicated creatures and unique, also. Many
people don't stay in analysis past the end of the first stage as it's just
not their calling perhaps, and maybe that's why it's less well known that
there are stages of transmutation in analysis beyond "fixing the Ego".
Those who do continue can develop a conscious dialogue with that deeper or
higher state of being that they should be able to access any time and
ultimately no longer need the analytical partnership to develop. It would
sort of be like being on the roof and in the livingroom at the same time.
Also, as Dennis stated, it is a continual cycle of growth or whatever, and
not a one time shot and you're there.
I have only read "Man and His Symbols" and then
>some Joseph Campbell.
>
>There is a n inexpensive book called, "The Essential Ken Wilber" (1998)
>out now by Shambala Press. Also he wrote a very large and academic opus
>containing most of his ideas called, "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality" (1995)
>and a less daunting and conversational version of the same subject matter
>called, "A Brief history of Everything" (1996?).
>
"A Brief History of Everything" is what I've read of Wilber, and it was
about 3 years ago. I like the "Essential" books of authors who are
prolific, and I'll get his and perhaps get clearer on what he is thinking
versus Jung. I enjoyed the excerpt you started the thread with, as it is
always interesting to see where a thinkers work has developed from. In that
brief excerpt I could see a similarity in purpose in Wilber and Jung, and
that is that they both have seemed to want to see the big picture that
embraces all experiences of the body/mind/spirit. It has always seemed to
me that a system close to the truth can encompass systems that are only part
of the truth about reality, and a good test for a system is whether it can
do this.
>--
>Christopher Johnson....Truth and Beauty fan
Sharyn C.
Sharyn C
Clifford Stabbert wrote in message <36AED8C5...@interport.net>...
>Just to steer this whole thread off on an utter tangent:
>
>I definitely see a staged or layered process in the development of our
>individual consciousness - pre-rational, rational, post-rational. In some
>sense, our culture is IMO going through a very similar process. (snip)
>The internet could in a sense be described as the (Un)Official Organ of our
>Collective Unconscious, what with all the sexual/conspiracy/etc. contents.
>Daytime talkshows could be described as another vehicle for exposing
>previously repressed material (with all the concomitant embarrassment and
>ridicule to cover it).
>
>I'm not sure why it's an ancient chinese _curse_ to say: may you live in
>interesting times. Personally, I kinda _dig_ it.
>
>Cliff
The internet is certainly a vehicle for shadow expression and projection,
but on the bright side it seems to be this web of connection like nothing
we've seen before. The few who developed the P.C. were truly visionaries
that brought about a great social change. Just as we are wailing about the
loss of the nuclear family, and the loss of cohesive community in a world
growing more and more crowded yet less and less connected, something like
the internet comes along and acts as a great "leveling mechanism" where
individuals can really communicate across great distances and social
barriers. One of my regrets about having to die someday is that I would
just love to see what the heck the world will be like in another 100 or 200
years. I think it's beyond our ability to imagine.
Sharyn
Clifford Stabbert
<snip>
> One of my regrets about having to die someday is that I would
> just love to see what the heck the world will be like in another 100 or 200
> years. I think it's beyond our ability to imagine.
Ahhh...who knows. There's a cool book by Bruce Sterling ("cyberpunk" author)
in which he speculates about the day when our medical skills progress enough
in one year to extend the average lifespan by one year. (untangle that
sentence then think about it).
I've also heard there's a band or cd called Millions Now Living Will Never
Die.
Hey - ya never know! Not sure I'd *want* immortality...but I think it's gonna
happen. Just like human cloning and DNA engineering our embryos - if it's
possible, we're going to do it. It's not a matter of _whether_ anymore; we
need to start pondering _how_.
Cliff
Christopher Johnson
keep me hanging out with Jung, as well as Wilber. I will be out of town
and reading the Washburn/Wilber debates over Jung for the weekend, so
everyone take care. Lastly, I just wanted to point out that, even if
Wilber has misunderstood a little bit of Jung, it is still very, very
important to realize that pre and post egoic modes of action and
aprehension *can* be confused because they might look related on the
outside. This fallacy has manifested the flakier elements of the "New
Age" movement, ect. Like the rap singers say, "keep it real!"
John DiFool
Clifford Stabbert wrote:
Make sure you wish for eternal YOUTH as well as e. LIFE...else you end
up like the guy from the last X-Files episode...
John DiFool
John DiFool
talk.athiesm
for endless unresolved debates on the (non)-existence of God, thank you!).
Sharyn C wrote:
I think Jung's problem was that he was caught between the pre-rational
and transrational aspects of the unconscious (or rather there are two radically
different types of unconsciousness and they don't really have much in common
other than the fact that the ego is usually unaware of both), and his writings,
intermixed somewhat haphazardly with terms, ideas, and concepts relating to both
reflects this. IOW he never did properly differentiate between the two even
though he (later in life) he probably suspected that they were in fact two
radically
different entities.
The confusion (also committed by a host of Romantic-style thinkers) is
actually
understandable. Wilber uses the acorn/oak analogy, where the Romantics consider
the oak to be a violation of the acorn's pristine "unity-in-unconsciousness"
state.
This is in the strictest sense false of course, but >>only in those cases where
the oak
grows up healthy and vibrant.<< The Romantics looked at all the pathologies
that
followed when (Jaynes') bicameral mind broke down sometime during the 1st
millenium B.C. or so, and saw the oak instead grow all twisted and gnarled-and
they were right!
The error which they made of course was to assume that ANY and ALL growth
must then be inherently bad, and that the acorn (i.e. so-called "enlightened"
savage
societies) contained all the lost wisdom, and that if we just went back to the
acorn
state all would be well with mankind again! This ignores plenty of pathologies
common
to the magical/tymponic state (as Wilber calls it) itself and bestows an
enlightened sheen
on these societies which except in a few rare exceptions they didn't really
possess.
Jung's thoughts were a natural outgrowth of the Romantic view (that was his
back-
ground after all) even though he
greatly expanded and expounded on them, introducing a great many of his own
unique ideas, which allowed him to move a great deal towards transcending that
view (tho he never quite did so-Maslow managed to put the final pieces together
in
this regard right before he himself died).
Yet, there is something undeniably attractive about the primitive/childlike
worldview,
something which is still there even after you separate all the pre-chaff from
the trans-
chaff; in one word I would call it "transparency." Primitives and children are
often
amazingly aware of transpersonal realities, BUT (I can't stress this enough!)
they
lack the cognitive ability to make sense of them!! This ability can only come
along
later in life/evolution, as an adult, and in the meantime they will misinterpret
said
experiences to an amazing extent. However, by adulthood society has twisted
people's
souls to the point that this transparency is long-lost, and they typically have
to go thru
a huge amount of therapy, and in fact go thru a >transformative< experience of
some
sort (as opposed to a "translatative" one) to recapture this transparency to
trans-ego
realms (sometimes also referred to as "second naivete'"). THAT is the kernel of
truth
that the Romantics were chasing in an otherwise bankrupt theory.
I'm convinced that in a truly progressive and enlightened society people
would be
capable of becoming enlightened much quicker and much easier than they do now,
simply because this transparency would be nurtured and highly valued rather than
ignored and ultimately destroyed as it is in today's societies...
John DiFool
WordS...@webtv.net
pre-rational: the mode of survival, fight or flight, emotions,
irrational, and subconscious (sorry, I am not a Freud devotee, but I did
not want to use the Jungian "Un-conscious" because it might be part of
Wilber's problem)
rational: the ego, the mind, rational thought, Modernity
trans-rational: everything from identification with somthing more than
your own ego, to complete immersion in the Ground of Everything --
non-dual
consciousness -- no perceptional difference between Subject (me) and
Object (it) -- Zen and Vedantic (sp?) traditions. Mystical modes of
knowing that are *beyond* rationality.
Wilber will often uses Freud and Jung as examples of how these levels of
development can get confused. He calls this the pre/trans fallacy
because the modes of the pre-rational can be confused with the modes of
the trans-rational. He goes on to say that this happens because, from
the casual outside observation, they can look simillar. For example,
both the pre and trans-rational states are NON-rational. But the point
he emphasizes over and over again is that they are very different from
each other:
<Hi, here is the problem that I see with this model.
Its where wilber says that "trans-rational" is NON-rational.
This is where the misunderstanding occurs.
Trans-rational is most certainly not "NON-rational", rather it is an
equal combination of both ration and non-ration.
As you have pointed out:
The first step is life with out ration.
The next step is life with ration. When we reach this step the non
rational idea that there can be only one truth, usually sticks with us
for a while. And as long as this idea sticks, is how long this period
lasts.
In both this period and the pre-rational period, it is generally
thought that there is only one truth.
And yet, in this stage, you will often hear some one saying something
like "everything is a paradox."
The great paradox is merely a pre-maturity to the so called
"trans-rational" understanding.
Usually when the paradox is spoken of by a rational thinker, it is
spoken of negatively. As though since every thing is a paradox then
nothing is true.
The next logical step is putting the first two steps together.
This is when one learns that there is more than one truth. More than one
reality.
It is to understand that every thing is a paradox but that its ALL true,
rather than not true. .
This is the point of thinking, from which a cliche' is born.
A cliche' is only a cliche' because it is little understood.
For instance the cliche' "know thine enemy".
What does this mean?
Know thine enemy? Why would I want to know my enemy? Wouldnt I rather
stay away from my enemy?
Yet it seems to be a wise statement, because we naturally tend to want
to know our enemies.
People will go to great lengths to know their enemies, so that they can
use what they learned as amunition for the battle.
Know thine enemy is simply a process of expounding in reverse.
KNow thine enemy so that you may understand why it is your enemy.
Know thine enemy so that you may avoid being your own enemy.
If you do not know thine enemy, then surely you may make the mistake of
becomming your own enemy.
So knowing your enemy is not done so that you can beat your enemy in
battle, its done so that you do not have to even fight your enemy at
all. (except when you are General Patton fighting in a man against man
killing spree, called war)
So in learning our lessons, we pick lessons to focus on.
The ones we focus on are our friends.
They are the lessons we choose to live life by.
The other side of the coin, the other end of the paradox, becomes the
enemy.
Rational thinkers expound forward to the part of the lesson they want.
To the part of the lesson that is friend. Then they leave it go at that.
While the trans-rational thinker expounds forward, to find reasons a
lesson should be friend, and then expounds in reverse, all the way to
the opposing side, so that he/she may understand the reason why the side
he/she picked is best for them.
So the trans-rational thinker will often oppose him/herself, when
speaking to others. they do this with the hope that when the opposing
point is made, the reason for the point chosen will be clear. (this of
course is often misunderstood, and can be frustrating at times.)
So, on casual look, it often seems that a trans-rational thinker, is
making non rational decisions, (sometimes they do) But the process that
governs trans-rational thinking is a comepletely rational process.
Its a rational path that leads us to understand that the so called
NON-rational parts of life (instinct, intuition, imagination,
spiritualism) are as necessary to happiness as are the so called
rational parts of life (ego, id and such)
Its both of them together that leads to a higher sense of purpose in an
individual.
Of course this will be little understood, and much opposed. Many ego's
will flair, and they will do so because my claims will seem
unsubstantiated.
And my claims will seem so because words can not possibly substantiate
the so called NON-rational side of this understanding. It can not be
taught. It is NON-physical and can not be seen, can not be shown.
So before you scream for substantiation I will say: The proof is there.
Dont take my word for it. DO it. Become it.
When you experience the epiphany you will have your substantiation.
Thanks for listening, and if you think this is all a bunch of bull, then
please disregard.
Think of me as a clown with a funny hat and big shoes, performing for
your amusement.
You can chuckle and feel merry, or if you really want to, you can frown
and feel muddled.
I take no responsibility for either choice you make.
Serenity,
WordSlinger
-magic happens when you suspend disbelief-