Chapter III Appendix

8/6/2019 Chapter III Appendix

1/12

APPENDIX A--CHAPTER III

ONENESS AND TRANSCENOEN'l' IN'lERPENETRATION:REGRESSION OR REAL?

As part of the developmental procesa, the unItary and un-differentiated matrix of experience becomes diversified intomany experiential realms, one of which (internal, subjective)contains the Gestalt of self, held together by increasinglysophistIcated internal lInkages wIthin the core and I-sense.These are internally linked to elements within the selt andobject representations, both part of a more peripheral andtherapeuticly changeable self. Representational reality,which contaIns this peripheral self representation, containsmany objects (includIng people introjects) also held togetherthrough internal associative linkages into semipermanentGestalten (e.g., my wJfe's representation and her positionwithin my.ldea-mapping of external reality).

Realms in general are held together by 1). boundariesthat separate and encapsulate experience and objects, and by2). internal differentiations and connections of objectswithin realms and by 3). internal connections within objectGestalten that keep them together. Psychoanalysis deals withthe processes by which object Gestalten become formed andthen transformed into self through intrOjection and inter-nalization, across the boundary separating object and "s~lfrepresentations, or how self avoids (ego or boundary defenses)the experience of certain ideas: fantasy and emotionsproperly originatIng in representational areas or theunconscious. Ego defenses, as we see in the next chapter,also distort how we perceive the external world.

Connections Q~!!.tUlrealms of experience are increasinglythe subject matter of a number of disciplines. In most in-stances the connections examined are between theories of the

- ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -t~Sll.!.~1!t~__!:'2!:~~1!111g_2!lg_!l2.1_2t!!'!.!l_1!H!_!52!.Y.!1_~!l2~tl!.!!~2

99


2/12

~b!m~~l!~~.ur experiential worlds are made up of senses,objects~ boundaries and connectIons. But our ideas of theworld are formed into sciences only somewhat Isomorphic ~o ourexperiential realities. So science does not work at elucidat-ing the connections between our subjective experiential realmsbut between elements of cognitive sciences. In these dis-ciplines experieritial connections need not be the startingpoint or even directly observed. But experiential connectionsare Inferable from a set of assumptions about braln~ the eye'sstructure, or the brain's interpretatIon of nerve impulses.Academic physiology, concerned with the body~s effect on be-havioral.. mood and cognition, begins to explain academicpsychology (mind, self). Mathematical theory, an elucidationof the forms of cognition Itself, is used to explain informa-tion theory which, in turn Is used to understand cognitivepsychology and learning theory. Psychology is used to explainperceptual bia~ses, attribute percept ion (!'lateelect Ion andart).

Physics in one instance however, Is mis-used to explainthe SUbjectively perceived states of oceanIc consciousness,symbiosis, merger and the felt sense of interconnection withthe entire universe in spiritual states by positing an-interpenetratIon of all phenomena. This interpenetration isan esauned phys leal or connect ion between objects and contentwithin different dimensional levels of physical realityCfromatomic particle to Quasar) which is perceIved subjectivelythrough our body's participation in those forces and ourbrain's illterpretationof what the body feels.

In psychoanalysis and phenomenological therapies the con-tents and objects of the unconsciousness and other experien-tial realms are related ~o the contents of the fantasy world~to the external world, political processes and sociology.Some physicists, philosophers and psychologists take this un-derstanding further stating that each object within any realmhas connections to objects in all the other S 2 . Q n ~ I 2 1 3 ! 2 1 or per-

100


3/12

ceptual realms. (Our transitional realms, for example, arewhere we creatively manipulate elements, ideas and fantasiesto form new conc~ptual and experiential dlfferentiati~ns aboutthe external world). This transcendental- interpenetration isoften related to the work of David Bohm and his enfolded no-tions of atomic reality, and Rupert Sheldrake with his fieldof causitive formation. This point of view Is also quite ex-plicit in the Buddhist Hua Yen philosophy of 500-700 A.~., andIn some of the pre-Socratic philosophers.

David Bohm takes his enfoldment notion of quantum realityto apply to all dimensional levels of physical reality, notJust the atomic. Physicists give imaginary particles nameslike charm. Macroblologlsts use terms likeself-identification and self for antibody activity. A fewscIentists like to anthropomorphize even when they know theyare doIng It. The process itself has a warmth that leaves himmore at ease with inanimate subject matter, but lays thefoundation for.committing the basic logical fallacy of assum-ing that what happens on the atomic and molecular levels im-pacts human consciousness (and vice versa) on a perceptuallevel, in a Similar way as individual atoms or particles areinfluenced by each other. From this viewpoint, human con-sciousness or consciousness itself Is enfolded in the same wayas is conceptual sub-atomic physics and is enfolded with thephysical reality itself also. Sheldrake uses an inter-penetrating field of consciousness-like concept to explainthe perseverance and spread of new ideas; discoveries andphysIcal forms, again a mixing of physical and conceptuallevels. In both instances the mistake is similar to that ofassuming that Newton's classical mechanics applies both toatomic particles and to Stellar masses. Phenomenal levelmechanics need not apply to sub-atomic or galactic levelphysics, and vice-versa. Atomic level inferred processes neednot explain phenomenal level consciousness.

101


4/12

I think it probable that interpenetration Ideas stem froman incomplete differentiation of self from world in thephysicists themselves, and are not intuitive understandings of-real" but unperceived interconnections between realms. I amassuming that lingering symbioses are far more prevalent andimportant to the history of ideas and religion than even mostpsychoanalysts would believe.

Even when ~real interpenetrative links are discovered(including the obvious ones lIke electromagnetic and gravity,or more quirky quantum notions) there 1$ no direct indicationthat the interconnectIons they create are perceivable by theself. These interconnections are Y ! l g ~ r ! s ! l g s e l ~to the self,but not directly perceivable. The felt sense of unity is not,I think, explained by perceptions of external connectivity orby cognitive understanding of those connections alone.Understanding does not have the experiential quality of thefelt sense.

But on a personal level, ~ ! I 2 ~ t l ~ ! l ! l lrealms 9 2 inter-penetrate and contain each other. The objects of our affec-tion or anger are related to o~r subjectIve fantasy and mean-ing representations of those external people. These repre-sentations impact and connect to our core seif and are relatedto its need for external others and relationship.Representations and c~re experiences are tIed to content andexperience In every other realm and are mediated by the selfas knower and ~gent. The personal self Is the nexus of con-nections among the experiential realms and has the furtherpotential of becoming g 2 I l ~ ~ 1 2 . . ! ! of those connections. Thepersonal self is at the center of all consciousness~ or asSasaki Roshi would say~ is the center of gravity. It is thecenter of all causal, intellectual and perceptual awarenessand all experiential realms. Experiential realms with theirown type of internal linkages are not the discourse realms ofa conceptualized external reality wIth their separate type oflinkages and connections.

102


5/12

It Is far more plaus ible to assume that the !It!e~r.l~Jl!2~_Qf

122.1.!lQn__2~_.~Jl~_9~!l!!itt_2!_!22n'!2l.2.Yn~.. not from a percept ionof external linkages. All connections we are aware of, allrealms or experience, all sensual fields, all thinking, im-agInings and concepts happen around the self as center. Theself would naturally think everything interpenetrates eachother because It sees from a subjective reality of inter-penetration from moment-to-moment. It Is much more likelythat the experience of everyday 1ife wi th the sel f at the cen-ter of experience is the source of the enfoldment and inter-penetration notions In physiCS, mathematics and informationtheory than the other way around. Our sense of internal andexperiential linkages Is projected into the external world andrelfied into systems of interpenetrative linkages of a dif-ferent order. Enfoldment does point out a new vision of ourold external reality as Bohm and others conjecture, but theirnotions flow from a -hunch- about interpenetration, flowingfrom everyday experiences of interp,netration within ordinarymind. Physics does not explain ordinary reality so much asthe obverse.

This does not mean enfoldment physics Is wrong, or thatno real connections exist. It only means that we feel lnter-nal linkages within self and not-self experience and begin tolook into the external world with different types of logicsand sciences and find linkages and patterns there that we con-fuse with the inner, felt-sense of unity linkages. The feltsense of unity and transcendence arises from experiential con-nections within subjectlvttYI while other, non-perceivableconnections are discovered O r formed in the external world.TheSe connections of physical theory have a consensual realitydependent on the current validity of that theory, and perhapsand intrinsic reality we can never know in itself. Inner con-nections mature through subjective differentiation while outerconnections mature through the evolution of physical theory.

103


6/12

~--.-.

These connections are substantively dlfferent and unrelatedexcept that both spring from the same level of sophlst16atlonof sUbjectivity. A five year old could not grasp classicalfield theory nor inner connections of a sophisticated moralityor personal responsibility. One does not cause the other,both types of understanding depend on inherent cognitive andmoral maturity.

Yet there does seem to be an evolution In science of thesophistication level of ideas of both Internal and externalrealities that might sU9gest~ according to this theory, a con-tinuing evolution of conscious distinctions within modern men.Psychoanalytic thinking and physical theory are becoming in-creasingly mature indicating a generalIzed evolution of thecomplexity of thinking and intuition. Whether this resultsfrom a field of causltive formation, scientists borrowing fromeach other, or an Inherent maturation of cognition is impos-sible to know.

Where does fantasy symbiosis end and synchronicity begin?The B6hm, Sheldrake and transpersonal interpretations assu.e asubliminal perception or magical intuition of physical levelinterpenetratIons of weak and strong quantum and field forcesor similar perceptions of internal connections within inter-penetrative consciousness. These (external to the pers~nalself) connections may exist, and we may be able to perceivethem by IntuitIon or unconscious direct apprehension throughsome unknown sense, but the felt sense of oneness and connec-tion Is more likely the self's recognition of its own meaning,internal linkages and nexus centrality. Bohm and the otherphysicists confuse the levels of of speculative physics andeveryday llfe, often giving that confusion further spiritualinterpretations. Their efforts may also be motivated byneeds to make the realities of physics and astronomy morehuman, less abstract and fearful.

Much of what currently passes as religious theory andtranspersonal speculations fall Into this trap of making real

104


7/12

and objective a felt sense of interpenetration whibh is a fun-damental experience of the personal self perceiving internalconnections withIn itself and with other objects In its per-ceptual realities. This experience of interpenetrative con-nectedness Itself is profoundlyspiritual- in almost allreligious perspective. What varies, Is the interpretation ofwhat this experience means. Does it mean enfoldment Is trus#or that the Jungian Self can become aware of all consciousnessthrough an introspectIve merger with the source ofconsciousness? Does it mean Atman Is God manifesting throughan individuated body and consciousness? Possibly. But In ourperson-oriented interpretation we will likely learn more byfocusing our attention on the experience itself rather thantranscendent interpretations~ finding they have a more per-sonal origin and a meaning related to the lost experience ofa small child beIng held in its mother's arms and feellng thesecurity of being cared for and understood.

105


8/12

. . . . . . . _.

APPENDIX B--CHAPTER IIIUN RESOL VED PR OBL EMS

Gedo and Goldberg (1913) coalesced the idea of invariantstages of progressive development a patient passed through indynamIc therapy in their book on the hierarchical model ofpsychic structure. A borderline client for example. becameneurotic after a long stint in therapy and then normal. Thetherapeutic problems of each stage recapitulated the problemsorigInally encountered in the developmental progression, withthe neurotic manifesting Oedipal level difficulties and theborderline patient displaying identity and control problems.-Neurotic personalities were considered more healthy and egostructured than the borderline or psychotic. Gunderson(1984), has cast doubt on the hypothesis that the invariantprogressions in treatment structure building eMulate theoriginal developmental sequence.

The therapeutic experience with Kay seems to reflect thisdoubt also. Kay's initial regressions involved schizoid levelissues of fear of relationship, commitment and connection.Quite a few borderline and narcissitlc traits were alwayspresent and some waxed stronger durIng therapy. Yet allissues were on the same level of personality disorders. Evenafter three and a half years of therapy, although a fUnction-ing adultl' she never became a neurotic character going throughOedipal stages. She always manifested some Oedipal levelmaterial, but it was never a serious' problem. Either she hasnot been in therapy long enough to manifest these problems, orthey were already resolved or never present in the firstplace. Although there was a progression of issues In therapy,they seemed to be manifestations of prevailing ego states eachof which had its own dynamics and pathologIes, and each egostate could return even years after disappearing.

Rather than a progressive development of the enttre self,what we may be witnessing in therapy Is the binding of

106


9/12

co-existing5chtzoldl depressive, borderline and narci~siticlevel ego states within an increasingly cohesive .go or self.The apparent linear progression of object relations develop-ment may really mark the tying together of fragmented selfaspects of discrete ego statesl each with its own object rela-tions, boundaries and realIties. Progressions In therapy thendeal with the Internal movement dynamics of the loci of con-sciousness cycling through these fragmented states~ acting outthe object relations senario of each level, and then bindingthe states together through reflexivity, merger andobjectiflcation.

As of yet we don't know where the personality fragmenta-tion occurs. Is the splitting within the core of the self,within self and object representatIons, wIthin the Kfabrie ofthe experiential realms themseivesl or between ego states thatcontain prialtlve object reiationsl representations and frag-mentary core self identifications? Further phenomenological1nvest1gat1on may lead to more accurate theorizing about thIsphe none non ,

ORIGIN OF OBJECTIVIZATION FROM TWINNED MIND ASPECTS

The phenomenology of witnessing also raises a problem.Is it a function of an intact self or egol or is it a basicattribute of consciousness itself? How does objectificationtake place assuming a dual mind origin? What causes thedichotomization of the mind into subjective self and not-self?What Is the barrier between subjective and objective ex-perience# and how is the barrier between internal and externalexperience formed? Why Is it that experience dichotomizesrather than divides into five simultaneous aspects?

My belIef is that the division of the mind into thetwInned aspects of witness and merger Is the causal agent ordriYer behind all these processes. Perhaps two similar mindsperceiving the same experiential field from an objectifying

107


10/12

implicit structure and a subjectlfying structure, can "resultin in a prismatic projection- (much like two eye's seeing thesame object, stereoptically create depth) and containing ofphenomena into the previously mentioned experIential realms.The same objects (e.g.1 mother, bird, bell-sound) each per-ceived as an object and as subjectl fragment that experienceand project those fragments into various perceptual and Im-aginal realms. These projections would ultimately preserve alinking between the experiential fragments. A bird scen, abird heard or felt, and that bird visualized or rememberedshare the sarne object (bird) and the same subject (self).Bird and self interpenetrate and yet are separate.

Even assuming a dual track notion of a split mind, thereIs no necessity that the locus of consciousness moves betweenthe two phenomenal subjective-objective states in cycles ifthose wa minds are identical In quality and perspective. Forthere to be a movement of consclousne~s between subjective andobJective would require either that these two minds bequalitatively dIfferent, or that there be a qualitative dif-ference of perspective in the cognition of contents by thosetwo minds. In mechanical terms, there has to be a dynamic im-balance between the ways these two minds organize and perceivedata. There has to be a phase~ difference. This couldresult If the dual minds are qualitatively different~ withdiffering implIcit I-n,ss structures associated with merger ordifferentiating consciousness, or if there were a time lag be-tween the perceptions by nearly Identical dual minds, and acomparison function' between the perceptions of these twominds.

Another possibility is that the consciousness itself Isnot dual. that there is only one consciousness which fragmentsand differentiates into dual merger/differentiation aspects ina developmental sequence simultaneously with libidinal, self,ego and object relations development. In this case, therewould be dIchotomizing or polarizing processes which divide

108


11/12

experience, I-ness and consciousness into dual sets (realms)of experience. Each of the resulting dual realms would con-ta in the Same experience (bLed or the feeling of love) whichsometimes would be experienced as self~ sometimes as not-self.

What does splitting mean from these two differentv1ewpolnts? If there are two different minds (the sub-ject consisting of dual implicit structures) that aregradually brought together In development, then splittingIs Intrinsic to all perceptIons. If there is only onephenomenal mind (subject) with splits in the object andself representations then the splittIng Is in the mind'scontent, In its experience, rather than In its basicfabric. If splIttIng of consciousness Is tn the objectsonly~ an object relations approach to integration iswarranted. Self and object representational spllte arereconciled. If the spli tt ing of consciousness Is in thebasic way tbe mind ~erceives# In its implicit structure~then a more Gestalt-Eastern approach 15 called for. Bythis I mean an approach that works dIrectly with ex-periential boundaries, and the quality of consciousnessItself.In either of these two major cases (dual consciousness

model or one consciousness differentiated by dualizingprocesses) I am assuming that these polarized processes areprimary determinants and causal drivers of ego, cognitive andobject relations development. It would be these polarizedprocesses that stand behind Kegan's evolution of the self andremedIal self-developMent in therapy. The better that we un-derstand the processes of experiential polarIzation and bound-ary formation, the better we can do therapy.

WIth either assumptIon, at some evolutionary point theboundaries between the experiential realms becomes rigid andstable so that contents are fixed. Then the distinction be-

109


12/12

tween external world contents and Inner thinking and fan-tasizingabout those contents and other Inner world experiencebecomes meanlngful. The separation of contents is usuallyquite clear in.adults" with only a small experiential areabelonging to both (transitional realIty).

In an earlier paper (Muzlka~ 1982) I explored the pos-sibility that these polarizing processes structure experien-tial content in such a way that the self recognizes that ex-perience as being part of one experiential realm or the other.In the terms of quantum mechanics" the content becomes struc-tured as eIther a "right'" or a "left" handed experiencebelonging properly on one or the other side of a realmboundary. The self recognizes where the experience belongs bythe realm specific phenomenal and structural tag associatedwith it. In so far as these experlence types (fantasy and itsquallties# for example" as opposed to an externally perceivedtree and its subjective experiential impact on the self) havephenomenal qualities that place it In a specific realm, thencomplexes" such as the OedIpus complex# made up of fantasy,idea,. memory, and perception (transference fllters)# becom.esfixed by those qualitles~ as belonging to a specific subjec-tive realm such as representational self or the dynamicunconsciousness. Psychoanalysts have long attributed an or-ganizing function to the ego without suggesting how it wouldwork. This phenomenal quality tag assumption gIves atheoretic mechanism by which the ego, at the instlgatl~n ofthe developing self, conSistently organizes the experientialworld into meaningful arrangements. Each realm's contents hasa specific -feel- composed of sensual and other qualities.

110

Documents

Chapter III Appendix