(page vi)

"We are so far from knowing all the various modes of their action that it is not worthy of a philosopher to deny phenomena because they are inexplicable in the present state of our knowledge. The harder it is to acknowledge the existence of phenomena, the more we are bound to investigate them with increasing care."
-Laplace

"If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours."
-Thoreau (Walden)

"None has begun to think how divine he himself is, and how certain the future is."
-Whitman (Leaves of Grass)

"We are such things as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep."
-Shakespeare: The Tempest

"There is nothing abnormal in the world - there is only the lack of understanding the normal."
-Swami Puri

"Our unconscious existence is the real one, and the conscious world is a kind of illusion, an apparent reality constructed for a specific purpose like a dream which seems a reality as long as we are in it."
-C. Jung

"From within or behind a light shines through us all upon things and makes us aware that we are nothing but the light is all."
-Emerson

(page vii)

PREFACE

This is a book for the Twenty-First Century. It will speak across time to those who come after, as Thoreau's Walden speaks across the Nineteenth Century to us. Happy is he who understands it now for he can set his house in order to welcome the Zeitgeist of that day and era.

The Puritan Ethic of the Twentieth Century is in process of being transcended by something newer, more in the direction of self-actualization and psychedelia. This is what all the activity in the occult, growth groups, biofeedback, Esalen, Kairos, Humanistic Psychology, I Ching, Arica, Zen, Transcendental Meditation, the Jesus People, Hare Krishna, and all the rest are about. But such a new approach is felt cognitively as well as affectively in a kind of 'synchronicity,' and consequently we see cognitive signs in the writing of the Existentialists, of McLuhan, of Lilly, and of Thompson. Furthermore it speaks to each man in his own language. To Lyall Watson, it speaks in the bios of Supernature; to Reich it speaks in the sociological terms of The Greening of America, and to this writer, a developmental psychologist, it speaks in the jargon of the development of the ego from ego-centricity to altruism.

This book represents a practical, pragmatic concept of what things are all about. It is not meant to titillate, horrify, amuse, or strike with wonder; it is meant to be useful, to explain, edify, help others understand, make sense out of, and feel more secure about the world in which they live. The world of nature is expanding to embrace supernature; the world of psychology is expanding to embrace psychedelia. In the strange world of psychedelia, it may be desirable to have the views of a developmental psychologist.

We do not believe in the value of telling of marvels merely to amaze or confound the reader, the world has enough of that already; that which cannot be comfortably assimilated into the consciousness, according to van Rhijn's hypothesis, seeks its own level in unsettling environmental behavior. So our purpose is just the opposite, to provide the reader with a rationale for understanding the diverse phenomena with which experience assails us; to provide him with the tools to see that this rationale is not founded in the superstitious worship of Apollonian gods, but, (like everything else in the universe) is a product of the generalized preconscious, in which we all have a part. Man tends so much to project credit and blame for the universe,

(page viii)

and to be so blind to the fact that he is largely responsible for the conditions he finds in his environment. Not only is he responsible in large measure for them, but he possesses within himself the possibility of their change, for if there is one key factor in the developmental and evolutionary outlook on mankind, it is increasing control over the environment. At this point the author would like to remind fellow psychologists that the meaning of our discipline - psychology - is literally "the science of the soul." It has often been perverted into something which could appropriately be called "the science of the rat," but that is not its true meaning. Admittedly the word "soul" is very much out of fashion, but man's mind and spirit, as distinct from his body, is what psychology is really all about.

In more modern terms the Existentialists tell us that Freud talked about the Umwelt, that animal aspect of man's nature; the nondirective psychotherapists have talked about the Mitwelt ,that socially oriented aspect of man; but the main concern of psychology should be with the Eigenwelt - the inner world of the mind, which seems to have a strange dual correspondence with the outer world of natural phenomena. This book is about the Eigenwelt; the inner world of man's mind. It constitutes a first explication in terms of developmental psychology - that rich inner world of man's consciousness, unsuspected by positivistic scientists. Asrani (White 1972:237) puts it this way:
 

One of the tasks of importance to be undertaken in this whole area is the development of a theory which will be acceptable to modern science. This has proved a major stumbling block to the general acceptance of the findings of parapsychological research . . .


The cognitive process of experiencing the world is a constant effort in not being lied to. We are lied to when we infer an incomplete or false construct to explain a natural phenomenon. I am not suggesting that nature actually lies to us (though it does nothing to prevent our gaining a false inference), but those who report nature (and much of our experience is at one or more removes from it) consistently either do not tell the whole truth, or color or emphasize some part of it, so that we are constrained (or at least likely) to develop an incomplete or incorrect construct to account for the effect. Furthermore, a construct may for a long time be useful on a practical level, after those most advanced in the science realize that it is rather childish and unsophisticated. The concept of electrons as little balls running along a wire is enough to give us a working model of electric flow, though the construct is far from fully satisfactory as an explanation of electricity. Long ago Pilate asked plaintively, "What is truth?" It is a difficult question to answer.

(page ix)

Theoreticians, from time immemorial have been bothered with the mixed reactions which their theories evoke. They are most usually ignored, but when, on occasion, their ideas are accepted, it is generally by a following which does not distinguish the man from the ideas he advances. This mistake leads to great difficulties. We can distinguish between chimpanzees and a man interested in chimpanzees; but we cannot often distinguish between a person at the psychedelic stage, and a man interested in people at the psychedelic stage. There is no a Priorireason why a researcher interested in man at the psychedelic stage should himself be at that stage; it would help, but it is not necessary.

One type of criticism which can easily be made against the theories enunciated herein is that developmental stage hypotheses set up arbitrary boundaries to the freedom of man, and that in doing so they do violence to his birthright. Admitting that this objection seems true when viewed superficially, the author would reply that Planck's quantum theory must have seemed very arbitrary in prescribing allowed and forbidden electron jumps, and in the absolutely determined quanta of energy in a photon. Yet we now accept this arbitrariness as opening the door to modern physics, and of releasing a new freedom. Similarly the restriction of a 4'  8-1/2" gauge on railroad lines, while seeming quite arbitrary, freed most railroads in the USA for the gigantic interlocking system which this uniformity produced.

Another objection is that since psychic experiences occur to those not creative, this indicates that one does not have to go through the creative stage to become psychedelic. It is probably fair to say, "one doesn't have to but it certainly helps a lot." To the degree that the ego is in control, the person is creative; stated differently, creativity can be regarded as psychic activity with the ego in full control; mediumship is psychic activity when the ego is in full absence of control. The idiosyncratic stamp of the controlling ego is placed on the undifferentiated material from the collective preconscious in a creative product, whereas in hypnotism or a psychic medium there is passive acceptance of this undifferentiated material.

This book will appear to some as objectionable because it suggests a construct which questions the existence of a personal God. Regrettable as it may be to offend pious readers, if behavioral science is to make progress, we must relocate values within man, and not external to him. An external system of values perpetuates religious superstition; a system internal to man allows for the development of a science of man. We submit, to the objective reader, that the concept of "The Spirit of Man", while not a personal deity, (nor even a substitute for one), is at least a value-oriented belief which displays (after the novelty wears off) a goodly number of operational advantages.

It is not now, and has never been, the object of the author to write

(page x)

a book attacking any religion, and indeed it is with great reluctance that he has come to some conclusions exemplified in the text; he would like to feel that what is advocated is not really religious at all, but represents a taking over of former religious values into the behavioral science field, so that they can now become congruent with the data of experience instead of being held as articles of faith. We cannot afford any longer the luxury of religious superstition which may be overturned by tomorrow morning's scientific discovery.

But if this philosophic stance may offend the conservative churchgoer, it will equally annoy the agnostic positivistic scientist who will be angered to find a heretofore supposedly respectable behavioral scientist espousing such a nebulous conception as the "Spirit of Man." This being the case, it is perhaps desirable to explain how things came to be this way.

Starting from a stance not far from that of our agnostic scientific friend, we were in the process of writing the earlier book on The Development of the Creative Individual. The Kubie thesis that creativity proceeded from the preconscious was the first departure, which made us very interested in the nature of the preconscious and in ways to gain more control over it. Because we were on a developmental theme, we looked for aspects of change in one's internal relationships. One that showed these aspects was the Sullivanian "not-me" with its uncanny, dissociated concepts; this seemed to behave like an immature preconscious, whereas a mature preconscious seemed to operate much in the manner of Bucke's "Cosmic Consciousness." This laid the basis of the idea that the preconscious was involved in a developmental process which started with anxiety and went to creativity, well known stations on the continuum of mental health. But the irrational aspect of the process remained, whether it is regarded as creative, or mystic, or psychedelic, and here it was Thomas Troward who supplied the idea that the preconscious is our experience with what he called in a more religious day "subjective mind." Troward identified this aspect as Divine, but impersonal, and incapable of inductive reasoning, ascribing to it all the power over self and nature of the released psychedelic preconscious.

Troward's idea put the capstone on our research, and we adopted the operational part of it, leaving out the divinity, renaming the concept "The Spirit of Man" and identifying it as the dark spirit which evolves to consciousness through our rationality and our conscious will. It was in this way that we have come to espouse this novel concept whose truth is not only attested by its operational efficiency and its science-proof theory, but by its universality of affront to both sides of the religious-philosophical controversy.

It may interest some readers to learn how this book was written. The general form was indicated by the previous volume Development of the Creative Individual. The chapter structure is the same, and

(page xi)

the Periodic Developmental Stage theory is the basis of both. This component covers about thirty percent of the book. Another thirty percent consists of "creative openings," material which seeped out of the preconscious (sometimes in the middle of the night or at other unpropitious times) generally about a page or less at a time. Some of the best insights in the book are of this origin. A final thirty or forty percent consists of convergent production, quotations, library scholarship, connective tissue, and the like. The interesting thing about the "creative openings" is that they occurred in a thoroughly random order, and had to be fitted together (like a jig-saw puzzle) to make continuity. While the author has learned to trust the commentary of these preconscious sources, the reader should be warned that they rest on this kind of intuition.

The author personally finds the Developmental and "Spirit of Man" constructs in this book quite adequate and satisfactory to account for psychic and psychedelic phenomena, but he must admit that there are other theories which may be more attractive to others. Some modern investigators are more apt to be intrigued by a deficiency theory, namely that psychedelic and psychic effects are caused not by additions or developments to the mind, but by subtractions. This is not such a naive construct as might be supposed. It is supported by numerous cases where psychic powers follow an accident or illness especially connected with the head. Under this theory, normal consciousness (or the emergence of a separate "self") is caused by some kind of insulation, which (like the myelin sheath which wears off during multiple sclerosis) when stripped of its insulating layer, reveals the psychic power beneath.

Another construct would have it that psychic and psychedelic powers are not developmental, but a type of Structure of Intellect factor, very much disused in the human race, but capable of development and training in a few deviant individuals. One must admit, that in some odd characters there is rather early evidence of such goings-on, and this early psychic precocity tells against the developmental stage theory.

One confesses this is a very real objection. It strikes at another objection to differential development (namely that it is unjust). Precociousness is a difficult subject with which to deal; and we must admit that the most satisfactory argument is that it represents stored up "good Karma" from previous lives. Yet precociousness is not just a fact in psychedelic affairs, it was noticed in the life of Jesus when a boy of twelve, and is commonplace among musical and mathematical geniuses. Whatever the explanation for precociousness in these areas, it is the same that will answer the objection above.

For reasons which may have to do with karmic properties, some psychics seem not to have the veil which surrounds most of us in this life on as tightly as the rest of us. This can be regarded either as an

(page xii)

advantage or disadvantage. It is interesting that some persons have developed psychic powers after accidents or illnesses.

Another aspect which complicates the matter is that while reincarnation seems bizarre to western minds, it appears as the only reasonable solution to the moral justice issue in the problem of individual differences. Why should one man have the mind of a genius and the next the mind of an imbecile? No man can escape the moral issue in this vital question. Admission of reincarnation or something like it would solve both the moral issue and the developmental problem at the same stroke, since development could have occurred in past lives, and "karma" could account for individual differences. There is a situation in complex algebra (in mathematics) where "ideal numbers" solve a similar logical dilemma, and it may be that a number of successive incarnations represent the manifestations of a developing spirit, just as a class of complex numbers represent an "ideal number. "

Even if we accept the developmental and other constructs of this book, there is room for further discussion and argument. We have assumed that self-actualization (a la Maslow) and psychedelic development are part and parcel of the same continuum. Such a correspondence fits our developmental theory, and simplifies a number of issues. But there are those who might refuse to make such a concession, preferring to argue that at best these are dimensions at an oblique angle (correlated but not coeval), or at right angles (independent factors). We admit that particularly the small-angled construct deserves consideration, for there obviously are cases of highly self-actualized people who are not overtly psychic (creativity might be called covert psychism), and there are equally obviously those who are overtly psychic who are not especially highly developed, creative, or self-actualized. Certainly the Northridge Developmental Scale is a better measure of self-actualization than it is of psychic performance.

These are good arguments, perhaps, for another book by a wiser author. The best this one can do in rebuttal is to say that while ice crystals generally form at the temperature of fusion when cooling a liquid, they need a nucleus, and if the speck of dust is lacking you can get a supercooled liquid. A similar thing can happen if one likens development to decreasing the temperature. It allows the necessary condition for the effect, but local situations and idiosyncrasies carry the sufficient conditions. It is particularly true that the higher facilities have to be developed. Even with such a physical thing as sex, one may be mature for several years and still a virgin; here as in the psychic area it is environmental conditions which determine the onset of activity.

Since this book assumes open-mindedness on the subject of psychic and parasensory events, it has not been felt necessary to attempt to

(page xiii)

prove that such events exist. For the hardheaded, iconoclastic reader who may desire such a book, that by Professor R. A. McConnell, ESP Curriculum Guide, New York: Simon and Shuster, ($1.95), 1970 is suggested. This paperback is 1) cheap, 2) concise, 3) authoritative, and 4) heuristic, containing a careful analysis of fifteen other books to the same purpose. Of these we mention only that of Smythies, J. R. Science and ESP, New York: Humanities Press, 1967, which contains an excellent chapter by none less than Sir Cyril Burt on the evidence for ESP.

We do not warrant that this book proves anything about matters psychedelic; what is attempted is a rationale of explanation which brings that which previously seemed miraculous or implausible into the area of the explainable and plausible - in other words into the domain of scientific psychological hypothesis. These theses are advanced, therefore, as hypotheses, and the reader must decide how much credence they will bear.

The author of this book may have some pretensions to being creative; he has none at all to being psychedelic. Consequently a certain authority of "knowing the ground" present in the earlier book is obviously lacking here. Much that could have been stated from personal experience in The Creative Individual has now to be developed by theory, quotation, hypothesis, and extrapolation. The reader would be well advised to take note of this important difference.

In this volume we shall have frequent need to use the words "psychic" and "psychedelic," so it may be useful now to get a clear understanding of them both. They are not the same. By "psychic" we mean "pertaining to unusual manifestations of the mind or occult phenomena" in line with the New Standard Unabridged Dictionary (sense 2). We regard all parasensory events as occurring in an expanded natural environment, and hence explainable by natural law, although the principle may be undiscovered at this time. By "psychedelic" we mean "mind disclosing or mind revealing aspects" (in line with Webster's Addendum), and herein shall use the word as especially pertaining to mind expanding experiences which are seen as developmentally related to a particular stage in human progress, and which occur to individuals under a variety of stimulating circumstances only one of which is represented by proactive drugs. ("Psychedelic" hence does not mean "drug related "). Psychic and psychedelic are hence different aspects of a common domain.

Some day it may be that the theories enunciated here may find a new vogue and become part of a new orthodoxy. When that day arrives, permit the writer to be in the front rank of those who oppose such an establishment. For all theories hide essential reality and are no more necessary for the adept than bridge conventions (so helpful to the beginner) are needed by the expert. Every hypothesis in some way constrains our thinking, and screens out avenues otherwise

(page xiv)

open to us. So let the new orthodoxy not deny those who can tolerate even more entropy in their acceptance of the world of experience.

Theories that make any sense out of experience, deserve respect on the basis of their points, not of their pedigree. It is true that Murphy's Law can be restated in the form that "phenomena expand to fill the vacancies left for them by theories" (which connects it with Parkinson's Law), but failure to have a theory which adequately explains all the facts of nature constrains most of us to deny nature, and this is a cardinal offense against reality. Hypotheses, like people, are better judged by their consequences than by their pedigree, and the consequence of a too narrow hypothesis is far more serious in the long run than a too roomy one. Indeed, there are some who say that the function of art is to portray intuitively and representationally concepts which (for lack of hypotheses) have not been conceptualized and expressed cognitively. Truth, after all, asks for no more than co-existence. The important thing about life is not the ordure of the human flesh, but the transcendence of the human spirit.

One last word to the reader. It is possible that there is some truth in this book, but it is certain that there is some error. The author is a creature of his time, and as such he is tainted with its superstitions and misconceptions. Inspiration may sometime have removed this veil; may the reader judge wisely when it has been so done, and pass by the remainder with mercy for the author's shortcomings. The prophet of a new dawn "sees but through a glass darkly" whereas you, dear reader, may see Truth "face-to-face."



The use of the name of the Creative Education Foundation on the title page of this book is a memorandum of a fact, and a courtesy to one of its colleagues; it specifically does not constitute advocacy or approval of the content or ideas found in this volume which are the sole responsibility of the author. No funds of the Foundation were used to produce this book.



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

No one could write a book like this without being indebted to many other people. Among those, I should like to name three principals, Erik Erikson, Abraham Maslow, and Jean Piaget, whose ideas on developmental process were so germinal in forming my own. Next should be identified Lawrence Kubie, Harry Stack Sullivan, and Thomas Troward, whose concepts have been particularly helpful to me. Nearer at home I wish to thank and acknowledge help from Marilyn Alkin, Beverly Curtis, Nancy Davidson, Phil Ferguson, and Cora Grote, all dedicated graduate students for contributions in Chapters IV and VI. Among my diligent manuscript readers, I particularly wish to single out Dr. Sybil Richardson for her untiring editorship which sometimes resulted in her rewriting the paragraph. Thanks also go to Bess Byrom, Norma Jean Groth, Stanley Krippner, and Anita Mitchell for many valuable suggestions. Lastly, but most important has been the love and support of my beloved wife Jane, without whom there would be no creativity in the first place.

J.C.G.
Northridge
June 1,1973