Self-expansiveness and Self-contraction: Complementary Processes of Transcendence and Immanence

Friedman’s (1981, 1983) transpersonal cartography of self-expansiveness places the individual self-concept in a central position at the intersection of temporal and spatial dimensions. This map can be inverted, however, by placing transcendent consciousness in the center, creating a new cartography that is equally viable. Juxtaposing the original version (depicting the individual self as emerging bottom-up from a materialistic framework) with this inversion (depicting a transcendent Self as descending top-down from a non-materialistic framework) provides a complementary way to balance these two cartographies, such that together they supersede what can only be expressed in relativistic ways by either alone. This dialectical approach presents an avenue for reconciling long-perplexing paradoxes between notions of immanence and transcendence that underlie much of transpersonal thought. Horst (2002) has pointed out that contemporary philosophical and scientific approaches to understanding consciousness generally attempt to place it within a materialistic framework, despite the existence of many persuasive arguments against such reductionism (i.e., a non-materialistic or supernatural basis of consciousness cannot be ruled out either empirically or a priori). Conventional psychological thought, as one scientific strand, in particular tends to privilege a reduction of consciousness as being a mere epiphenomenon of brain activity or some similar natural occurrence—a position that Tart (2002) has called materialistic scientism. This marginalizing of consciousness (including the related concepts of mind and the subjective) as being invalid on its own terms is very problematic. In this regard, how can any method holistically approach the study of consciousness if it arbitrarily divorces itself from exploring its possible non-materialistic (perhaps even transcendent) aspects (i.e., studies only parts of the whole and dismisses its possible larger integrative meaning)? For a related example, the long perplexing conundrum of the body-mind problem has never been adequately resolved and implicitly accepting one side of this dualism as real (i.e., that the material body is all there is) is more than premature—it is an unwarranted Cartesian error. Consequently, we posit that an exclusively bottom-up approach that attempts to explain phenomena only from a materialistic view is ultimately indefensible, as would be an exclusively topdown view that explains phenomena only from the opposite perspective. Thus considering consciousness and the self as equally based on non-materialistic possibilities, and not just a mere residual of matter, offers a challenge to the Email: H. Friedman, [email protected]; J. Pappas, [email protected] Copyright 2006 Transpersonal Institute The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 2006, Vol. 38, No. 1 41 prevailing paradigm while reflecting many of the currents of contemporary transpersonal thought. However, the bottom-up emphasis is congruent with the Western scientific motif that has been dominant over the past 400 years, based on a Newtonian-Cartesian model. Considering this, we argue that either/or approaches to one or the other side of this dualism should be abandoned and replaced with both/and views that unite opposites into a holistic integration in the context of a dialectical approach. Consequently, we provide an alternative to the prevailing naturalistic ethos, specifically one that recognizes an equivalent validity in viewing materialistic and nonmaterialistic bases of consciousness and self as legitimate approaches. Our purpose is not to undermine the scientific form of inquiry but, rather, to broaden its method for investigating and explaining consciousness and self, including its possible highest expression as transcendent consciousness, from a complementary approach that bases its epistemology in both a top-down and bottom-up fashion. Our perspective is grounded in the construct of self-expansiveness as developed by one of us (Friedman, 1981, 1983). This construct provides an integrative way to understand a variety of phenomena that mainstream psychology and, more generally, contemporary science tend to overlook or deprecate, namely non-ordinary experiences that are often labeled as transpersonal, mystical, religious, or spiritual. It also applies to the experience of everyday subjectivity and behavior; and, it has wider implications for understanding numerous issues crucial to human adaptation and perhaps even our species’ survival, such as our relationship with our ecology (sustainability) and with others of our kind (peace and social justice). Although Friedman’s initial development of the construct of self-expansiveness was grounded in a naturalistic approach fitting into the prevailing materialism, his model is methodologically flexible enough to allow for the inclusion of more than such a view. Specifically, his cartography of self-concept focuses on the centrality of the individual—but this can easily be altered to accommodate an alternative perspective recognizing the equal importance of transcendent consciousness. Simply put, selfexpansiveness can be justifiably viewed as either centered on a non-material transcendent consciousness of the Self (capitalized to differentiate it from the personal, or more limited, self) or centered on the individual self in the material hereand-now (as it was based in its original framework). In such an inversion, with transcendent consciousness being seen as the center, the cartography of selfexpansiveness becomes changed into a cartography of Self-contraction, starting from the limitlessness of non-material transcendent consciousness and contracting into the limitations of the material world of space and time. From this inverted view, transcendent consciousness is viewed as central and the individual as peripheral. Thus the construct of self-expansiveness constitutes a model portraying individual’s potential for transcendence, while the new construct of Self-contraction constitutes a model portraying transcendent consciousness’s potential for immanence. We begin with a discussion of transpersonal psychology in general and then concentrate on a brief overview of Friedman’s construct of self-expansiveness, followed by exploration of its inversion when transcendent consciousness is centrally placed. Finally, we situate this discussion within the context of one of the The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 2006, Vol. 38, No. 1 42 most perplexing issues in both Western and Eastern philosophies, the relationship between immanence and transcendence. TRANSPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY Transpersonal psychology can be understood as the scientific field that investigates expanded states of consciousness, notably experiences that extend or transcend space and time beyond ordinary conceptions and perceptions of being and reality, a theme on which we individually and collectively have extensively written (e.g., see Friedman, 1983; Pappas, 2004; Pappas & Friedman, 2004), as have many others. More specifically, Lajoie and Shapiro (1992) reviewed many definitions of transpersonal psychology, concluding it to be ‘‘the study of humanity’s highest potential, and with the recognition, understanding, and realization of unitive, spiritual, and transcendental states of consciousness’’ (p. 91). According to Walsh and Vaughan (1993), a common theme in transpersonal thought involves a focus on an expansion of the sense of self such that it goes ‘‘beyond (trans) the individual or personal to encompass wider aspects of humankind, life, psyche or cosmos’’ (p. 203). These views are also consistent with Cortright’s (1997) proposal that transpersonal psychology focuses on ‘‘developing a self . . . [in which] consciousness is seen to be a vast, multidimensional existence where ever new aspects of Being are manifested’’ (p. 9). Similarly, Scotton (1996) suggested a view of transpersonal psychology based on the epigenetic development of consciousness from an independent sense of identity toward a transcendent identity, one where the ego is no longer attached to space-time limitations. Classical figures who have investigated transpersonal psychology include William James and Carl Jung, while contemporary figures include Robert Assagioli and Stanislav Grof, to name a few. For James (1890), the transpersonal was understood in the context of a connection between the ordinary self with the higher Self, viewed in a variety of ways (including as the universe, spirit, God, or cosmic energy). On a somewhat different note, Jung (1964) believed that, through the process of individuation, the transpersonal essence of the universal Self manifests into the individual self’s expanded sense of a collective identity that is spiritual (e.g., dreams and myths may reveal symbolic themes whose content leads to these universal experiences). Assagioli (1973) referred to the transpersonal Self as the amalgamation, gestalt, or synthesis of being that permeates unification with all existence as well as fosters transcendence, expanded states of consciousness, blissful synthetic realization, and emergence of experiences of spontaneous illumination. More recently, Grof (1985, 1992) explored transpersonal psychology from the perspective of a space-time-consciousness model in which he mapped the expanded boundaries of the psyche through realms of transpersonal experiences. According to Grof, during corporeal-bound experiences, the ego (or sense of self) remains within the confines of the physical body and materially grounded perception; it thus functions within a non-expanded, spatial-temporal, awareness—in the ordinary lived world. Fundamental to this perceived reality is the experience of physical separateness, individuation, and sovereignty of the ego within its materialistic domain, representing a sense of the self as dwelling within the province understood through scientific materialism. However, Grof discussed spiritual emergence, or the Transcedence and Immanence 43 awakening of spirituality, as involving a radical shift from this ordinary experience to one that can include communion with spiritual beings and cosmic energies that extends the self into deeper connections with the transcendent. He identified a number of stimuli for this emergence, including intense emotional experiences related to near-death, disease, accident, physical exertion, childbirth, lovemaking, and psychedelic use. Grof and Grof (1990) described the consequences of experiencing spiritual emergence, as follows: None of these individuals will ever again think of themselves as completely separate. They all have had vivid and convincing experiences that transported them beyond the restrictions of their physical bodies and limited self-concept to a connection with something outside of themselves. (p. 35) Accordingly, Grof (1985) described transpersonal experiences as revealing a connection in which ‘‘consciousness has expanded beyond the usual ego boundaries and has transcended the limitations of time and space’’ (p. 129) in ways that involve ego expansion into either consensual or non-consensual realities beyond the corporeal-physical boundaries of a ‘‘skin-encapsulated ego existing in a world of separate beings and objects’’ (Grof, 1992, p. 91). For Grof, the transpersonal is expressed in terms of a field of expanding consciousness that includes a realm of transpersonal identity accompanied by emerging themes of spiritual realizations and cosmic unity—and, in extreme form, psychotic emergency.