Revisioning Transpersonal Theory

Many Network Members have been exploring participatory approaches to science and reality for some years, and may well have read the brilliant epilogue of Richard Tarnas's The Passion of the Western Mind where he argues that a participatory vision is our next step, beyond the dichotomy of subjective and objective, observer and observed. Rick has not only written the foreword to this remarkable book, but was Jorge's doctoral supervisor in the process of its creation.

The book falls into two parts: deconstruction and reconstruction. The three objects of Part 1 are what Jorge calls experientialism, 'the assumption that transpersonal and spiritual phenomena are fundamentally individual inner experiences'. Then inner empiricism, 'the assumption that transpersonal enquiry needs to be empirically grounded'. Finally perennialism. 'the assumption that spiritual knowledge, spiritual liberation and spiritual ultimates are most basically universal'. His reconstruction is his participatory vision that replaces the centrality of intra-subjective experiences with that of participatory epistemic events.

In discussing the origins of the experientialist vision (or experientialism), Jorge's key point seems to me the methodological one that it was 'an epistemic strategy to bolster the validity of transpersonal knowledge claims'. The project sounds familiar: the creation of a 'science of inner experience' of a new 'science of consciousness', phrases which provide the link to the second strand of inner empiricism. One danger as Jorge sees it is 'intrasubjective reductionism', the exaltation of the epistemic value of individual inner experiences which perpetuates the marginalisation of spirituality as something private and subjective when we need to stress its social engagement at the same time. In Wilber's terms, it keeps it in the upper left inner subjective quadrant. One also has to question the value of peak-experiences for their own sake if they do not lead to transformation.

Another problem is 'subtle Cartesianism', the maintenance of a subject-object division in the sense that there is a subject having experiences of spiritual 'objects'. Ironically, the very nature of transpersonal experience deconstructs this division although talk about it reifies the experience post hoc. A related danger is 'spiritual narcissism' or ego-inflation, the generic opposite of the spiritual process of letting go, transcendence and understanding of non-duality.

Moving on to inner empiricism, Jorge analyses the pitfalls of this appeal to intersubjective verification, as advanced by Ken Wilber in his model of contemplative empiricism, which I have found very appealing. The key question is whether this move perpetuates the fragmentation of the modern era. Should one accept the assimilation of all human enquiry to the methods and aims of modern science, i.e. import empiricism and instrumental reason into the spiritual domain? And along with it a correspondence theory of truth? This last point is certainly problematic in relation to unitive experiences, but arguably not for their cross-comparison. Can one move from an epistemological to an ontological claim? I have certainly argued in this direction with respect to NDEs, and against the view that they are simply fabrications of the dying brain. However it is certainly true that the descriptive level does not encompass the prescriptive: the latter invite transformation rather than objective evaluation. This is also true of the NDE.

Jorge's discussion of the perennial philosophy applies more to Huxley, Guenon, Smith and Schuon than Ken Wilber, who has distanced himself from earlier versions of this tradition. The position is stated that 'all contemplative traditions regard reality as originated by, and ontologically the same as, a simultaneously immanent and transcending Spirit which is identical in essence to human innermost consciousness'. He helpfully distinguishes five varieties of perennialism:

Basic – one path, one goal Esotericist – many paths, one goal Structuralist – contextual manifestations of deep structures Perspectivist – different reflections of the same ground Typological – limited number of types of paths and goals

Jorge's discussion of the fundamental problems of the perennial philosophy was for me one of the most stimulating parts of the book: Perennialism is an a priori stance deduced from the premise that there is a transcendent unity of reality – and not the result of cross-cultural research. This I think is true, but the unitive structure has a profound intellectual appeal. It is indeed circular, as he claims, to argue that intuitive gnosis will necessarily reveal a perennialist metaphysic. Perennialism privileges a nondual monistic metaphysic. Personally I have no problem with this privileging, but perhaps this just reveals the structure of my own mind! The phenomenal world is intrinsically polarised, as is our normal perception. Father Bede Griffiths spoke of this nonduality at the end of his life in a way that made it clear that it represented a transcendence of his earlier categories and unified the two within the one as a supremely subtle insight. Perennialism is geared to an objectivist epistemology. On the basis of a pregiven ultimate reality, humans can know this through the higher mind or Intellect. The question arises: is there anything more ultimate than the plural experiences within different traditions? Perhaps it depends, in Sir Isaiah Berlin's words, whether you are a hedgehog or a fox. I am temperamentally a hedgehog who relates everything to a single central vision, while Jorge is a fox with his instinct for ultimate pluralism over ultimate unity. Perennialism leans towards essentialism. This is a restatement of previous criticisms that perennialism privileges unity. Perennialism tends towards dogmatism and intolerance. There is some truth in this charge in that Schuon certainly ranks religions by his own standards. However, I find his distinctions between the esoteric and the exoteric, between the absolute and the relative most illuminating.

I think Jorge is also correct in surmising 'a relation of mutual influence between the experiential vision and the perennial philosophy': the first, he argues, contributed to the acceptance of the second. The legitimation of its knowledge claims were grounded in the universalism of the perennial philosophy.

I have spent the whole of this review on Part 1 of Jorge's book, partly because his article in this issue expresses very lucidly his participatory vision of spirituality, with which I have great sympathy. I am still bothered by the idea of ultimate pluralism, but then I am a Platonist rather than an Aristotelian at heart. However, Jorge himself concludes that 'the dialectic between universalism and pluralism, between the One and the Many, displays what may well be the deepest dynamics of the self-disclosing of Spirit'. Does this just amount to a version of 'relativistic pluralism' as Ken Wilber claims? This is certainly a danger, but I believe that the above observation of a dance or dialectic refutes this charge. I found this an immensely challenging and stimulating book, which is guaranteed to set readers on a process of fundamental reassessment of their views about the perennial philosophy, participatory epistemologies and the nature of spiritual paths.