Constructing the theoretical framework of integral psychology, Wilber attempts a very ambitious project: to create a psychological theory of everything, that includes all aspects of the psyche and development as well as all aspects of the applications of such development.
To what extent he succeeds I guess depends on what our definition of “everything “ is. Wilber incorporates within his theory personal and pre-personal aspects, the notion of Soul, the notion of Spirit, transcendent developmental categories, as well as social, philosophical and political ones. His theory definitely seems more encompassing than some of those of thinkers that preceded him, possibly also because, Wilber, an obviously extensively well read and educated man, draws upon many of those theories to develop his overall model of consciousness.
Wilber not only summarizes centuries of psychological and philosophical thought within his theory of integral psychology, but also contributes with original thoughts of his own to the field of consciousness study, thoughts that will probably prove influential in times to come. His ideas are more far reaching than those of many previous theoretical systems. However, in my opinion, his system is still far from complete, leaving room for further development by the thinkers that will succeed him. I will elaborate more in depth about this point, after examining a little closer the main concepts of Wilber’s integral psychology.
Wilber sees that all of life is part of a vast morphogenetic field, a developmental space in which each individual unit of consciousness is perfectly self-contained and whole within itself and yet contained within other units of more and more refined consciousness. We may consider the atom as an example of this. If we examine it closely we will see that it is a structure that has its own laws, it is composed of many parts and could be seen as a universe in its own right. A simplistic model of the atomic structure resembles, in fact, that of the solar system, a definite autonomous self-contained system. And, if we were to attribute consciousness to the atom (and I believe that we can), the atom would have a particular “atomic” consciousness. However the atom is contained within a molecule. The molecule is also a self-contained structure, which also has it’s own set of rules and, possibly, its own “molecular” consciousness. And so on. Wilber calls these wholes within wholes, “holons” and describes the developmental movement from holon to holon, as a “holarchic” developmental model.
Wilbur does not only apply this “holarchical” model to material structures such as atoms and molecules, but more specifically to the categories of the psyche, and, as we shall see in his four quadrant model, to the categories of the I-objective, I-subjective, We-objective and We-subjective. He calls his developmental model “holarchical” because he believes that evolution in consciousness happens simultaneously horizontally and vertically. Horizontally (within the holon), as the Self explores the development streams within such self-contained levels of consciousness, as well as vertically (hierarchically), as the Self navigates to higher consciousness levels, moving from holon to holon through a process of integration, disidentification, detachment and transcendence. The Self moves as within concentric circles of consciousness, encompassing higher and higher levels of consciousness. As each new and higher level of consciousness is reached, each transcended lower level is also still contained within it. Even the highest levels are however, even if not activated within the individual conscious awareness, are ever present at every stage. Spirit in Wilber’s world is both immanent and transcendent, spreading through the Great Nest of Being.
Wilbur shows that the Self is far from uniform in its development, it is formed of many different sub-categories, many different sub-personalities, each one capable of evolving a quite different rates and speeds. And even if each one of them is traveling through the same basic waves, the evolution of each part might be quite different, giving rise to a many facets to the overall self, each with its own developmental and therapeutic needs. The Self navigates through the great nest of being, moving from stage to stage, evolving through particularized developmental streams within each holon, and then from holon to holon, in a complex and varied way. Wilber maps out many of these possible pathways, transitions and categories within his tables, but it is apparent that the model he is trying to describe is so multifaceted to become difficult to frame in linear form. His tables are however very interesting and especially useful from a clinical prospective, the tables in which he links levels of consciousness with corresponding pathologies and suggested treatment.
To add to his already far-reaching theory, Wilber also develops his Four-Quadrant Model. He divides the possibility of human experience in four categories. A subjective individual category, the focus of developmental psychological studies. A subjective collective category, the focus of cultural psychology and anthropological studies. An objective individual category, the focus of studies such as neurology and cognitive science. And finally an objective collective category, the realm of sociology and politics. He explains human beings develop simultaneously in each one of the areas represented by each quadrant, each an integral part of what it means to be human. And he states that for growth to be balanced and healthy, no quadrant can be neglected, as they are all interconnected, inter-linked parts of the unified field of experience.
As previously stated, Wilber builds his theory on the shoulders of the work of many important theorists that precede them and incorporates them within his work, himself constructing a theoretical model that grows holarchicaly, including and transcending the work of others. Amongst these theorists are Grof and Washburn. Wilber seeks to fit both of their ideas within the basic waves structures that he has delineated, sometimes in ways that feel quite accurate and sometimes missing the mark.
Washburn’s developmental stages fit quite well along Wilber’s basic structures and in fact, it would seem as if these two thinkers might have influenced one another, in certain points. The Great Nest of Being does indeed resemble Washburn’s concept of the Ground and, although Wilber does not use a dialectical model within his theory, some of Washburn’s stages resemble a few of Wilber’s structures. Generally, though, the two theorist are quite different, Washburn being very linear in his developmental theory whilst Wilber using a more multidimensional interpretation, an all levels-all quadrants approach to the model of growth.
When classifying Grof’s work, I do not feel that Wilber is as accurate. Here he seeks to distribute Grof’s perinatal matrixes, COEX systems and categories of transpersonal experience in a developmental format. At each stage of Wilber’s basic waves would corresponds to a particular aspect of Grof’s theory. However I do not quite agree that Grof’s observations, that are experiential and clinical in nature, adapt very well to this kind of referencing. Grof, unlike Washbrun, does not actually desing a schematic model, but rather describes experiences, such as the perinatal experience, the effects of trauma – both physiological and psychological - and the transpersonal experience, without attempting to delineate a true developmental theory. He links experiences together with a cause and effect reasoning, as for example, when saying that the roots of the themes within the COEX systems are often to be found within the perinatal experience. Grof does theorizes the existence of perinatal matrixes and COEX systems and links them one to the other, but I do not think that the experiences of the perinatal matrixes can all be classified within the sensory-motor or phantasmic-emotional stages, as described by Wilber.
As seen when studying Grof, some of the perinatal matrixes suggest memories from prior lives. As such, they display fully formed memories and manifestations of consciousness, that brings me to one of my main criticisms of Wilber’s integral psychology, at least as described within the text that we have examined, and to the possible areas of expansion for his followers in consciousness theory.
In the text there is hardly any reference, if none at all, to the idea of reincarnation. As a result, although Wilber does acknowledge that different people evolve at different rates and differently within different areas, he does not seem to differentiate between the diversity in starting point for each individual. Do we all start the same? Are we all born within the same level of consciousness? Or, as some of Grof’s experiential material would suggest, even within the fetal experience there are echoes of previous knowledge, previous consciousness, previous evolution.
I am not clear, by this short reading of just one of the many volumes of Wilber’s work, if I have truly grasped what Wilber’s wider ideas on consciousness might be. The text, using the title of Integral Psychology, suggests the intent of wanting to enclose within it an integration of all that psychology and consciousness is about. However I still feel that Wilber’s model is primarily descriptive of states of consciousness, skirting the issues of “meaning” and reason behind Evolution of consciousness. Why does the Self aim toward the next level? What are we growing towards? What is the motive that propels the pulse of holarchic evolution? Why evolve at all? Just because the next state of being has within it more richness? It also contains different issues and a different version of human pain. And does a human evolve only along developmental lines as here delineated? Or might there a transition of being, almost as a change of phase, as the one from ice to water, that evolves the human into another form, of a different substance maybe, difficult to reach with our senses and, hence, difficult to describe? Does Wilber truly touch and understand the real meaning of the word Soul?
Wilber has definitely contributed a very interesting and multi-layered theory to the study of consciousness. I cannot help thinking, thought, that as multifaceted as his descriptions are, as varied his categories, that this is still a theory that feels very “horizontal” in nature i.e. it addresses a phenomenology of consciousness within the three dimensional world. He is still very “scientific”, to use a Wilber term, in a modern sense. Despite his claims of wanting to go beyond flatland, I still feel a little flatland in his work. It lacks the other dimensional quality, the warmth of the true mystical and visionary categories, categories that we find for example in Grof’s work. Wilber has made an excellent contribution to the field of consciousness. But there is still much room for evolution and more to map and explore.
©2004 Katie Gallanti. All rights reserved. http://katiespapaers.blogspot.com. This article was an assignment for a class on Theories of Consciousness.
No comments:
Post a Comment