6 S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 2 - 2 Fa l l 2 0 1 6 Ken responded to my critical comments concerning his omission of the pre- and perinatal period in the copious notes to his Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution (Wilber 1995, 585–8, 741–63). We have had some exchange about this issue over the years, but this was the first time that he formulated his reaction in written form. He expresses his amazement about the amount of difficulties that various people perceived in regard to the task of “integration of the Grof and Wilber models”. According to him, such integration is actually a relatively simple matter. He points out that it was actually this lack of perceived difficulty, together with complications in his personal life, that prevented him from making the necessary adjustments in his theory at least ten years earlier. Opening the discussion on this subject, Ken makes a vague reference to a “large body of theory and (controversial) evidence for the intrauterine state and the birth process (and birth trauma)” [Ken’s parentheses]. And then, “having simply allowed that some of this evidence could indeed be genuine”, he creates for this entire domain a new category in his developmental scheme – fulcrum 0 (F–0) preceding the fulcrum of the pleromatic stage (F–1) and the six subsequent ones (Wilber 1995, 585–88). At this point, I will not argue with Ken whether the evidence for the psychological importance of the birth trauma deserves to be considered controversial. I have addressed this problem earlier and will return to it in another context. Instead, I will briefly describe and discuss his proposal. He suggests that the new fulcrum shows the same general features as any other fulcrum, namely: 1. An initial state of undifferentiation or indissociation (in this case the prenatal state); 2. A period of intense and often difficult differentiation (the birth process/trauma itself); 3. A period of postdifferentiation and (post-uterine) consolidation and integration, in preparation for the next round of differentiation/ integration (F–1). The extensive and complex experiential patterns associated with the consecutive stages of biological birth that I call basic perinatal matrices (BPMs) would thus simply become three subphases of fulcrum 0, with BPM II and BPM III both subsumed into a single subphase (subphase 2). BPM I would thus be subphase 1 of F–0, reflecting the oceanic indissociation experience of the fetus, both in its undisturbed and disturbed aspects. BPM II would be the beginning of subphase 2, or the differentiation process, that involves “cosmic engulfment” and “no-exit hellish pressure”. BPM III would be the later stage of subphase 2, with the beginning of the expulsion from the womb, “volcanic” ecstasy, sadomasochistic pleasure/ pain, experience of dismemberment, etc. And, finally, BPM IV would be subphase 3, the postpartum neonatal state, during which the child must integrate its new sense of separation from the mother. At the same time, this is the beginning of the pleromatic F-1, during which the infant with its new selfsense still cannot distinguish its own self-boundaries from those of the physical world around it. As much as I appreciate Ken’s acknowledgment of the exis- tence of the perinatal level of the unconscious and its inclusion in his developmental scheme, I feel that the ad hoc addition of another fulcrum (F–0) and the fusion of two perinatal matrices into one of its subphases does not do justice to the importance of this domain. Although it might render an impressive graphic scheme that pleases the eye and satisfies the need for logical order, it fails to grasp the real parameters of the perinatal experience. The easy solution that Ken offers is in fundamental conflict with the facts of observation. First of all, the second and third matrix are related to two phases of birth that are in many respects radically different from each other, both physiologically and experientially. For this reason, lumping them together into one subphase of F–0 makes little sense. In addition, the urgency and extreme intensity of birth experiences and their association with a serious threat to body integrity and to survival of the organism put them into a completely different category than the stages of postnatal development. A radical transition, from an aquatic form of life whose needs are being continually satisfied by the placentary circulation to the extreme emotional and physical stress of the birth struggle and then to a radically new existence as an air-breathing organism, is an event of paramount significance that reaches all the way to the cellular level. Even a relatively normal birth without complications is certainly a process of an entirely different order than learning to speak or developing an ego. This is clearly evident from the amount of time it takes in experiential therapy to bring the perinatal material into consciousness and integrate it. And a difficult birth and poor postnatal circumstances can constitute a profound trauma that colors the entire life history of the individual. Much of what has been said above is related primarily to prenatal and perinatal events occurring in the context of the early psychobiological evolution of the individual. It seems that much of Ken’s initial hesitation to include these stages in his scheme was based on his uncertainty whether the events from this time are consciously experienced by the fetus and/or recorded in the memory banks. However, this is
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=