Memoire Online - The three shifts of the new paradigm

Vision
(The result you want to create)

Vision
(The result you want to create)

T E N S I 0 N

Seeks resolution

Current Rea(ity
(what you now have)

In this chapter, I will present the core of my work: the hypothesis of what I call 'New Paradigm Mind'. This developed partly from my efforts to understand 'Business Flow', synchronicity, and the nature of my 'spiritual development', and partly from trying to make sense of my 'Exceptional Experiences' (EEs), which I have found are reflected, but only partially explained in the existing literature. So I am endeavouring to develop a more integrated understanding. To do this, I am applying New Paradigm thinking, as I began to define it in chapter 1 and 2, and refining it here, to the understanding of the mind. I will present a picture of how the New Paradigm mind would function, and what it would feel like to use one's mind that way. I will analyse the characteristics and skills that might be developed and how these would affect a person's effectiveness in life. This is necessarily an exploration and a provisional view, which I am using as a perspective for my experiential work. It is an emerging and complex view of what it is to be a human being living fully present and integrated into the world.

This has required me to examine my experiences from the viewpoint of at least the following areas: psychology (including values, purpose, self-actualisation), spiritual meaning (transpersonal psychology, dreaming, EEs, and synchronicity), skills of attention and other related skills, phenomenological aspects such as peak or flow experiences (or EEs) and transformation (or EHEs), the ways in which I form thoughts, and the components of my 'experience', with a relation to social aspects and to the body. Creativity takes a special place because it has connections to all the other fields. Creativity involves the self-organising force within me that drives the evolution of my self-concept, requires a higher order of meaning, triggers flow experiences, and drives my desire to develop the skills required to 'create my own reality' as, for example, the Hawaiian Huna tradition claims a human being can do (Kahili King, 1985, 1990). In its higher form, I call it my 'power of Creation'. Intuition is treated here as the receptive aspect of a general quality of mind whose active aspect is creativity.

I leave out of this study the huge but related, fields of emotional healing and interpersonal relationships that
conventional psychology addresses. I spent twenty years inquiring into these two aspects and now leave them

for others to research. The process of maturing and integrating the personality is a pre-requisit for the adequate use of the 'power of creation'. I consider it a given for this work, which requires a conscious and unbiased (as much as is possible) awareness of personal motivations and assumptions, a capacity to communicate effectively with oneself and others, and deals with the functioning of thought and perception rather than subjective and psychological experience per se.

"The emergence of intuition is part of a more global shift in values that has been chronicled by numerous sharp-eyed observers. The passionate pursuit of both individual growth and a better world, begun in earnest in the 1960 's, has led to a re-evaluation of conventional beliefs, among them, the way we use our minds and the way we approach knowledge."

Goldberg's words describe well my experience relative to mind and knowledge, especially over the past 12 months. The same applies to the way I approach my relation to the world, and so to the action component of the shift in thinking, creativity, is central. My concern is with the possibility that we may have a direct, creative influence on reality, voluntarily or not, and not only social reality. We need to develop frameworks to understand how we may use better our body and mind in all their aspects, how to live more effectively in the world and with an inner sense of fulfilment and happiness.

In this study, I will investigate how each aspect of experience comes into play in the creative and self-rerecreating process of 'spiritual' development, and I will arrange these dimensions into a multi-dimensional continuum. I recognised in particular two complementary processes within myself, which require each the development of different, mutually supportive skills. I have called them the 'A' and 'B' directions of experience (my terminology for this may evolve). I have found only hints, in the literature, concerning these processes, often in metaphoric terms, but no explicit descriptions or discussions. In many models, these two directions are simply not recognised and are confused with a single, linear movement of 'development'.

In distinguishing previously undistinguished elements of experience, I make connections between a great number of insights from a number of fields and so need to form a unifying framework that is analytical but must also be wholistic, preserving the complexity while also highlighting analogies and simplicity. My goal is not to make prediction possible but to bring into light areas offering a potential for learning and evolution.

I could find no linear way to expose the complexity of all these aspects, so I will be retracing somewhat the 'detective story' of my inquiry, highlighting (in boxes) specific side issues. The experiential part of my study comes in the form of EE reports*, which I have gathered in Appendix 3.3 to maintain a certain logic flow of the

* See chapter 1, on science, for a presentation of 'Exceptional Experiences' describing the phenomenology of the experiences, and how to report on them.

ideas presented. The overall organisation of this chapter brings together a wide variety of ideas into clusters which reflect each a different aspect of the whole that is 'a person'. In this sense, each cluster is a kind of 'fractal' image (a chaos theory term) of the whole, but expressed through a different aspect of experience. These are: psychological meaning of 'self', creativity, the functions of mind, the two directions of awareness and evolution, the present and the holistic flow experience, the skills of body and mind, and the effects of our relating to the world: synchronicity. I have addressed the social aspects in my recent SLAM paper (Bouchon, 1998d), which I will summarise in my conclusions, and the 'ecological self' appears through what I will call 'Natural Awareness'. Each cluster of ideas also contains graphic figures, my way of making use of 'imaging' qualities of mind, in order to brush a rich picture of what 'New Paradigm mind' might be. The very process of writing this chapter and the whole document has been for me an opportunity to learn to think in this complex manner in order to express the simplicity of my intuitive understanding (see EE #1 in Appendix 3.3).

'Creating' is bringing into actuality a new reality, so it originates in the way we view present 'reality', know it, perceive it, interpret it, like or dislike it, and so relies also on the assumptions we make about what 'reality' altogether is. The creative process is based on 'knowing'. Intuition is one way to extend our ability to know. I agree with Goldberg when he writes:

"Where intuition is concerned, the obstacles are rooted in long-standing epistemological assumptions, which are perpetuated in the institutions that teach us how to use our minds." (Goldberg, 1983, p.16)

Creation and epistemology are intimately linked. Creation and intuition, acting and knowing, are two aspects of the same coin, two expressions of the human mind. This led to my wondering what 'science' means, and to my desire to redefine it as I did in chapter 1.

3.1 IDENTIFICATIONS OF SELF (PART I)

3.1.1 Integral theories of mind and consciousness

A useful way to begin tackling the subject of creation is to survey what scholars have to say about the relation between mind and the physical world. This is reflected in the relationship between mind and brain, this body part where our Western culture tends to locate the 'mind', and has been the concern of many writers on consciousness. This relationship seems to be central to the way we make sense, in a radical empirical fashion, of the experiences in our life, whether we take a spiritual stance or deny spirituality.

Writers such as Crick (1994) consider that consciousness arises from complex bio-chemical, neurological processes in the brain, and deny the 'reality' of 'spirituality' which they view as 'all in the head'. To them, consciousness is an epiphenomenon arising from brain functioning.

Other writers take the opposite stance, considering that consciousness and 'mind' operate through the brain but are pre-existing. This is the case of most transpersonal writers, such as Wilber (1977), or Grof (1990). Rowan, in a book on transpersonal therapy that covers many of the issues of the field, has also addressed this, quoting evidence that 'mind' can function independently from the brain (Rowan, 1993, p.208). Hunt (1995) has recently

attempted to bridge the gap with an inclusive model going into the details of perception.

None of these attempts seem satisfying to me because none manages to go beyond the 'taking sides' in the mind-brain controversy. The fundamental ontological position they take is rooted in the meaningful experience the authors have of their life, and so cannot be logically challenged, as show the many criticisms on both sides, regarding circular arguments. I have found Joanna Macy's (1991) theory particularly useful in learning to imagine ways to transcend this kind of dualistic controversy. Her theory of 'mutual causality' is based on the Buddhist notion that mind and reality 'co-arise' (Macy, 1991). I propose that mind and brain could be seen as mutually interdependent and co-evolving, neither arising from the other 'first'.

Although approaching mind as 'consciousness' is fascinating, it seems to be a philosophical approach, doomed as a direction for science, at this stage, because the basic ontological assumption does not depend on scientific research but is rooted in mystical experiences = or their absence = which are still outside the domain of science. Rupert Sheldrake put this simply:

"In all these traditions, we sooner or later arrive at the limits of conceptual thought, and also at a recognition of these limits. Only faith, love, mystical insight, contemplation, enlightenment, or the grace of God can take us beyond them." (Sheldrake,1995, p.324)

I will follow suit and will leave the essential nature of mind, consciousness and of reality for others to debate. My interest is more pragmatic. In order to gain useful knowledge that can help us find out how to change, and how to live better, I need to study more practical issues.

One domain stands out for its tendency to formulate integral models: transpersonal psychology. I am interested here not in the mystical dimensions relative to 'consciousness', but in the humanistic aspect that deals with the 'psycho-spiritual development' of the self. 'Development', in psychology, has a hierarchical connotation I give nuance to (Appendix 3.2), but it also means learning and change, which can be very practical points of view. The most well-known (and challenged) theory is the 'spectrum of consciousness', formulated by Ken Wilber (1977). This is an elegant synthesis between psychology and Eastern spiritual psychologies. Its welcome appearance gave a solid theoretical background to the young field of transpersonal psychology. Its hierarchical nature has been discussed, attacked, modified, made more subtle b y many authors, but its basic developmental stance influenced by Piaget has not. I have also seen many email list discussions on this nagging question of linearity.

The second strong theory in the field is that of Grof, which places the cause of many of our emotional troubles not in our early childhood but in the perinatal period, before and just after the birth. This model introduces the notion of 'COEX systems' (Grof,1990, pp.24-25), systems of condensed experience that are permeated by a central theme, emotion or physical experience, which we find re-appearing time and time again in our life. This model pre-supposes 'causes' in the past that add up to a coex system. Michael Washburn (1988) proposed another model, psychodynamic, centred on the movements of life energy and in which the ego has to drastically

regress to reconnect with body and life energy before transcending. Wiederman (1986) addresses some weaknesses of the transpersonal field and notably the problem of being 'between two worlds', drawn to the inner, the mystical, and yet needing to be also operational in the outer world, or wishing to be of service. Few have addressed this issue before him, but others followed. Kornfield (1993) points out the impermanence, the emptiness of the self, and the childlike natural wisdom of the present, which, together with development of self, must be integrated in compassion for the world. Fox (1990) proposed a transpersonal ecology, and Wright (1995), described women's spiritual paths of wholeness and the concept of 'permeable boundaries'.

These models all assume one single direction of evolution and development for the person, emphasising certain aspects their author feels must be included, and simply ignoring other aspects. (discussion in Appendix 3.2).

3.1.2 Metaphors for complexity and unertainties

Moreover, the above theories seem to be fundamentally flawed, in my view, in that they seek elegant, integrative ways to explain everything with certainty. According to my redefinition of 'science', I need to seek instead the various aspects of the complex that a human being is, not worrying about certainties. It is my experience that even theories, models, and explanations can drastically change as my experience takes new forms. Over the past two years of my quest, I have re-interpreted my past entirely at least four times. Each time, the new explanations triggered the thought: 'Oh, so this is what really happened!' or 'Oh, so that is what is really going on!' I no longer invest my models and explanations with a value of absolute truth. Rowan wrote a typical description of this process, relative to creative visions (Rowan, 1993, pp.195-198).

I began with psychological explanations of 'pathology', and went on to humanistic ones of growth and self-actualisation. From there, I expanded into purely spiritual interpretations, and on to more rigorous 'transpersonal' ones. This directed toward mystical views and rekindled my old interest the cosmologies of physicists but also threw me back to old dualist science explanations. Social ecology led me to face the complexity and find brain new 'complex-'simple', scientific and humanist ways of understanding things, with elements of all of the preceding. I have learned to relativise what I think I know, indexing* it mentally with (a) the theoretical framework I use, (b) the date at which I developed the explanation, (c) the context of my personal concern at the time. The complex-simple approach seems to be the most practical for me now. It allows for uncertainty about many issues, and for expansion of the points of view I will peruse in the future.

Understanding what I call, without definition for the time being, the 'Higher mind' or '~ew Paradigm mind', requires a capacity to appraise the many aspects of the mind-body-person complex, which are embedded in a 'lifeworld' as Husserl defined it. At the core of it all is the composite 'Body-Mind-Experiencer' or 'BodyMindSelf'. My picture of this is shown in. Figure 8.

* Korsybski's (1933) General Semantics deals with how language limits the reality we experience, and how using various devices of language and thought can expand our reality. 'Indexing' is one of them.

Figure 8: Metaphors for human nature, for 'person': Mine is 'Body-mind-self'

To build a complete picture of the functioning of the human 'power of Creation', I will need to review literature from a number of fields related to the many aspects of human living experience.

The 'self' or 'experiencer' part accounts for psychological, spiritual and philosophical ways of making sense of the process of living. The sense of self rests on both the body, which gives us our physical sense of being a specific entity, and the mind that thinks, apparently to most of us, independently from the body, the mind that learns, knows, creates, has a purposive drive, and various ways of knowing. It is active thanks to all forms of life energy. These various dimensions are addressed b y a number of fields I survey.

3.1.3 The 'pre-trans fallacy' controversy

One particular controversy was crucial to my attempts at making sense of my experience and developing myself: Ken Wilber's 'pre-trans fallacy'. John Rowan has presented several aspects of this particular discussion (Rowan, 1993, pp.7-12, 17, 21, 40-41, 102, 113) and discussed the root of it, the hierarchical and linear nature of Ken Wilber's spectrum that bothers so many readers. Wilber's model influenced, from the seventies on, all thinkers on psycho-spiritual development. Its merit was to show continuity between psychological aspects of human development and spiritual aspects. It took into account the notion of development and so conventional cognitive psychology, as well as Carl Jung's archetypes (Jung, 1954). It could explain many controversies between therapists, between spiritual masters (Rowan, 1993, p.27), the un-integrated personality of some highly developed meditators (p.84), or the '~ew Age drift' of spiritual people with inflated egos (p.26) which can

culminate in what I call the 'mad guru' syndrom*. It allowed Grof to explain aspects of life crises of a deep nature, by distinguishing them from common psychosis, describing these crises as temporary psychosis, and calling them 'spiritual emergencies' (Grof, 1989). Wilber's model helps making sense of the 'spiritual call' now experienced by many in a Western society that denies its existence. For neophytes, it is a relief to find out about this model... for a time. A friend of mine, an unconventional ex-seminarist, who discovered it recently, said to me: "It is a very useful model because it integrates two separate fields, it explains a lot, but it has rather drastic 'linear' limitations." I myself wrote several discussions of it, until I wrote in my journal: "What is the assumption that limits, in this model? Where is the paradox? Why is the linearity not entirely meaningless or wrong?" (Sept. 97)

Rowan, in his discussion, suggests that the 'stages' of development may be seen as "positions which it is possible to take up, without implication of superiority. But the second thing to be said is that not all versions of hierarchy are oppressive"(Rowan, 1993, p.117), and he supports this with Riane Eisler's distinction between hierarchies of domination (based on threat and force) and hierarchies of actualisation (aimed at maximising potential) (Eisler, 1987, p.205). Rowan maintains, with Wilber, that the value of the hierarchical model, is in the distinction that: "the complex includes the simple, in a way in which the simple does not include the complex" (Rowan, 1993, p.117). This argument bothered me for a long time because it seems so obvious that we cannot deny it. Yet, children can have transformative mystical experiences (for ex. Krishnamurti 'channelled' his first teachings at age nine) or psychic experiences. I find in my own teenage life, experiences outside the ordinary psychological realm, and calls to altruistic values and desire for 'spirit', but I also feel I am going through a 'development'. The hierarchical argument seems strong and questionable at the same time.

...'At the same time'. This indicates paradox. This is my clue. Rowan's latter statement above mentions the words 'simple' and 'complex'. My seven year old son read to me the other day (11.09.98) a little book that taught the opposites: big/small, long/short, dark/light... What about shades, nuances and contexts? I thought, "this is how we are taught to think in dual terms". Rowan and Wilber are using a dualist vocabulary to respond to an intuitively felt argument against duality and judgement.

The complexity approach, as described in chapter 1, might be more successful, than an elegant-integral approach to theorising, at yielding the useful indications we need to understand what we need to learn and how we need to change our actions and thinking, how we must change our way of educating our children, etc.

My reflection gives meaning to the recent widening of my inquiry in directions that I was not sure were not simply 'dispersed'. I now have a clear strategy for inquiring into a series of spheres of explanation of human experience, with a goal of making connections between the various fields and dimensions I have recognised, as presented in Figure 8. This picture may of course have to be widened in the future. I will now review several approaches that have already yielded interesting theoretical links.

I participated for some time last year in Wilber's internet forum, and in a long-drawn discussion about this phenomenon. Many participants were highly strung about it. One of Wilber's role models, Da Free John, is said to have gone down the path of requiring exaggerate devotion and of isolating himself from society. Wilber had to qualify his earlier unreservedly laudatory writings about the guru.

3.1.4 The 'Butterfly of self'

How do I start 'clustering' the complexity of human nature? The first theme my studies in social ecology had me study was 'change', a theme I experienced powerfully at age 20, when I spent one year in Canada and came home feeling I had been 'reborn'. Two years ago, I realised for the first time what the essential dynamics was behind the research I had begun three years before and which I had led to my formulating the 'Business Flow' hypothesis. It was a dynamics of change within me, that expanded my personal self to what I called my 'cultural self' or 'societal self'. I also realised that my major approach to knowledge was experiential: I had read few books since, out of isolation, I gave up my deep interests in human nature in my twenties. Working on my second elective assignment, I defined my method and called it 'conscious experiencing', which is variously called 'conscious living', 'reflexivity', 'being conscious', or 'radical inquiry' (Heron, 1996) and is the basis for experiential methodologies (Bouchon, 1997a). I devised my 'butterfly of self' (Figure 9), and later that year, expanded it into the 'map of self' (Table 3.4.1 in Appendix 3.4). Figure 9 shows the interaction between inner concepts of self and the resulting type of interaction of the person in the world. It has been a guide to my work since last year, helping me to study at the same time my 'societal self' through working with others, and my inner self and mind, with the link of creation.

(* Neither actualisation nor its fruits are considered fixed states: they are on-going processes of becoming.)

Figure 9: The Butterfly of Self: inner (mind) and outer (social) aspects of self These are the contexts of my research for the study of the relationship between self and world. I have defined the 'societal self' in earlier papers (Bouchon, 1997d, 1997e) and the ecological self.

The old notion of 'self-actualisation' defined by A. Maslow (1968) is very useful in certain contexts, despite its
limitations, because it is through activity in the world that we meet our needs. It is well known that being 'in
survival mode' makes spirituality difficult to access, and creativity a sometimes painful and isolating process.

Self-actualisation is also relevant to the internal driving force of the person: higher purpose. I use it to distinguish between the two forms above (inner, outer). Meeting one's needs in a truly satisfactory fashion requires both. In turn, there is a complex relationship between the meeting of needs and a certain development toward creativity and spirituality (self-transcendence), but not as direct as Maslow first thought. This is one area of my inquiry, which is not yet clear, but is important because it impacts our ability to change and transform what values drive our actions in the world.

3.1.4 From monolithic 'self' to dynamics of multiple identifications of self

In one of the 'Café Discussions' where I met regularly with some friends for several months, we discussed the notion of 'ego' which popular literature on spirituality presents a some thing to get rid of (February 98). I came with an idea that there is something useful in the individual talents that the 'ego' affords us (Bouchon, 1997d), and with a view of it as co-determining and co-determined by the surrounding society. This was the effect of an intellectual deconstruction due partly to what I was learning in social ecology about post-modernism (Gergen, 1991, Bouchon, 1997c). Having to challenge all assumptions and theories was confusing for a time. At the café, my ex-seminarist friend, somewhat of a philosopher, challenged us all further, and we collectively came to the conclusion that the 'ego' was a dynamic process rather than a fixed 'thing', one that was useful but limiting if we did not see the larger context. It was plainly a construct of our mind, and needed to be transcended, but had its usefulness in daily life.

Social ecology also gave me a new vocabulary for what I used to call 'roles' and 'multiple facets' or 'aspects' of self. Psychosynthesists calls them 'sub-personalities' within the personal self or 'ego', which can be 'synthesised' into an expanded form of self and self-awareness, the High Self (Assagioli, 1965). The post-modernists see the monolithic notion of 'one self' as a multiplicity of 'selves' with which we identify alternatively, depending on the situation. Summarising different psychologies, I mapped out the various notions of self in Figure 10.

This figure is not Roberto Assagioli's 'egg diagram' (Assagioli, 1993, p.26). It simply synthesises various understandings

and models of psychology, to highlight approximate equivalences. Our usual sense of 'I' is placed in the personality, also
called 'ego' or 'conscious'. However, m y general understanding of the terms of 'self' follows roughly the definitions given b y

Rowan (1993). The words are not defined, on purpose, to appeal to intuitive understanding. "Consciousness' may mean Universal Consciousness or Mind (not in the scope of m y study) or simply being conscious of self (the sense I will use). I use 'awareness' not to mean 'conscious' but to refer to a knowing, using perceptions (inner or outer) or not: it is 'being aware of'.

My experience suggests that the Transpersonal Self (or 'Higher Self', or 'High Self') may correspond to my growing idea of 'New Paradigm mind'. I consider, at this stage, that higher creativity and 'direct knowing' --intuition-- access the higher unconscious and collective unconscious, but also make some kind of use of all dimensions of 'self'. Both these activities of the mind are increased in New Paradigm 'Higher' mind to an extent difficult to imagine for the conventional mind. I must distinguish my 'Higher mind' from what I believe Tibetans mean by the term 'Mind'. Their expanded understanding includes what Westerners generally call 'mind' (the intellect), includes higher thought power (my 'Higher mind' or 'New Paradigm mind'), creative and intuitive (that is, their 'discriminatory mind'), and includes what transpersonalists would call 'consciousness' or Spirit.

3.1.5 Boundaries of 'self'

The notion of 'self' seems to be crucial to the process of creativity. Most practical courses on creativity tend to teach to somehow 'access the unconscious' to draw creative ideas from it. Some courses that integrate transpersonal notions of 'higher self' or 'universal store of knowledge' teach processes to alter the boundaries of what the 'self' is perceived to be in a certain moment. This is a process of major importance in mysticism as well as, for example, in deep ecology.

The problem of these boundaries has been, up until now, cause for controversy. For example, Peggy Wright (1995) challenged Wilber's (1977) spectrum of consciousness on this ground. The New Paradigm framework enables me to transcend this problem. The first 'shift' (toward complexity) takes the boundaries of self from a fixed and separated notion to a complex and/or flexible view, such as 'permeable boundaries'. The second 'shift' (synergistic integration) accepts both a complex view and an 'indexed' fixed view: the boundary of what I consider my 'self' is fixed at any one moment, in a certain context, yet is flexible and changes with the context and with my intent.

I have found boundaries of self to be mind constructs with which I can usefully play to face situations, resolve problems, create, and to expand my awareness. In various contexts, I can expand or shrink the boundaries of what I accept as my 'self', and thus reframe a problem or external pressure or constraint into a purposive creative opportunity. I can do the same to access what comes with expanded awareness, up to a sense of 'universal self' being part of me. The ethical behaviours that come with a systemic view of the self are clearly linked to an expansion of the self to include aspects of reality that the usual ego regards as outside of itself. If animals are 'within' my 'self', how can I hurt them without a reason of survival? Empathy seems to be an important dynamic element in human nature that fuels this play with boundaries.

3.2 CREATIVITY AND CREATION (PART II)

Psycho-spiritual development is generally thought to involve and develop the use of higher forms of intuition, which I see as the receptive counterpart to creativity, which is active. The various forms of intuition are well known (Rowan, 1993, p.14-19, Goldberg, 1983, or Vaughan, 1979), with the most sophisticated and reliable being 'direct knowing' or 'spiritual knowing. I see intuition as an epistemological function of the mind, receptive in nature, because it requires a looking, a listening. The idea of counterpart is supported b y the fact that the creativity of genius is known to be difficult to distinguish from active creativity.

Creativity takes many forms, and is studied more widely than intuition. Hallman (1963) analyses the commonalities and differences between the distinctions made b y various thinkers about creativity since Wallas (1926). He classifies them into five approaches: personality traits, chronological stages of the creative process (preparation, incubation, illumination, verification), conscious/ unconscious, types of thinking (integrating,

In disciplines such as parapsychology, creativity research or NeuroLinguistic Programming (NLP) the term 'unconscious' is an undifferentiated notion that covers all forms of un-conscious: pre-personal as well as transpersonal, or the paranormal 'extra-personal' (Rowan's term, 1993, p. 5-13).

Disciplines such as parapsychology, creativity research or NeuroLinguistic Programming (NLP) are not concerned with complex notions of self or psycho-spiritual meanings, but with perceivable and verifiable effects in the world -- results. Here, the 'conscious' can learn to 'draw from' or to 'program' the 'unconscious'.

synthesising functions using relational activities such as analogy or metaphor, divergent rather than convergent, etc.), and the phenomenology as described in personal reports. (I would add the relationship between creativity and mental illness, another wide field, which is now being played down). He adds motivation, kinds of creative acts, genius, and cultural influences. He organises all these ideas into five clusters of 'necessary and sufficient conditions for creativity': connectedness, originality (novelty and unpredictability in particular), non-rationality, self-actualisation, openness.

Arieti (1976) provides a more recent overview
of many classical theories in the field,
psychological, psychoanalytic, and

motivational. His own approach to counterbalance the 'lack of effective knowledge developed by the field' is a psychostructural one, dealing with the psychological experience, but also with the mechanisms and the underlying mental structures, with a systemic point of view. Interested in both structures and processes, he introduces the socio-cultural elements that determine individual creativity. Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi (1996) picks up on this, with a post-modernist, social and systemic view of creativity, distinguishing Creativity (with a capital C), as the kind that makes a widespread impact on the culture of the time, from lower creativity or the crafty or ingenious handiness. He considers that the judgement 'creative' attached to a person is a culturally and historically induced one: what we call creative now, might not have been called so before, or the reverse. Creativity involves a domain of human endeavour, a field (actual people and institutions), and the person. The social aspects of creativity are only a side concern for me in this study because I address the notion of 'intersubjective validation'. He defines more precisely ten dyads of paradoxical traits that are expressed at the same time and justify the label 'Creative' for a person. I have summarised them in Table7:

Table 7:
The 10 paradoxical traits (complementary sets) of acknowledged creative people
(Summarised from Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, pp. 57-76.)

Rebellious and iconoclastic (non-conformist) Traditional and conservative (having internalised a

Passionate about their work (attached to it) Detachment (objective about their work)

Openness, sensitivity... and pain/suffering Great deal of enjoyment (from flow)

The idea that these are paradoxical traits that exist at the same time supports my associating higher forms of creativity with New Paradigm mind, which is a paradoxical synthesis, according to my definition. Gardner, who defined the 'seven intelligences', also found paradoxicality in a trait he calls 'fruitful asynchrony'. He

"claims that creative individuals are characterized particularly by a tension, a lack of fit, between the elements involved in productive work: an unusual configuration of talents and an initial lack offit among abilities, the domains in which the individual seeks to work, and the tastes and prejudices of the current field... a powerful tension among the nodes (of the seven intelligences)." (Gardner, 1994, pp.146, 153).

These approaches are summarised in Feldman, Csikszentmihalyi, Gardner (1994). These authors embody the integrative trend in thought, by collaborating closely and appealing for more collaboration in the domain of creativity, which they believe can 'change the world'. I hope to heed this call.

Avens (1980) relates creativity to imagination and myth, presenting them as vehicles to spiritual 'illumination', which is another growing trend (eg, Harman et al., 1984). There is a large body of literature relative to imagination and myth that I reviewed earlier (Bouchon, 1998a), and which is concerned with content-meanings rather than mechanisms or structure. Imagination is often linked to artistic endeavour or psychological experience. Myth relates directly to Jung's archetypal psychology, which corresponds, in the transpersonal realm of non-ordinary experience, to only two of White's types of EEs, namely 'past lives' experiences, and experiences of archetypes such as deities. It is also now considered the basis for shamanic journeying'. Philosophical writings on imagination, even related to culture and anthropology (as in shamanism), are also outside the scope of my interest.

Willis Harman (Harman et al., 1984), who had personal experience of paranormal phenomena, is more interested in the triggers of creativity, giving clues on how to trigger 'breakthrough insights', but he also supports Avens' views. He defines a spectrum of 'creative hues', from intuitive hunches to imagination, talents, foresight, channelling, intuition, inspiration, illumination, vision, revelation, and finally the highest form of 'higher creativity': mystical insight. His point of view shows how blurred the distinction between intuition and creativity is when we tackle 'anomalous' or

'extended' abilities. He joined the Institute of Noetic Sciences soon after its creation and watched, over a decade,

"research related to the capabilities of the hidden mind...(mostly) carried out in prestigious institutions...validate in different ways the theory that whatever 'mind' may be, the 'hidden mind' is potentially far more capable than we were taught to believe -particularly in its intuitive and creative aspects." (Harman et al., 1984, p.xx).

Our knowledge of these higher human capabilities is yet very rudimentary, but what the scientific community (or part of it) is now acknowledging more and more is that "We humans limit ourselves to a far greater extent than anyone can comfortably believe." (Harman et al., 1984, p.xx). This notion is spelled out by writers in various fields, including Tart (1991) under the name 'consensus reality', this culturally ingrained, collective 'hypnosis' that limits what we can perceive of reality.

Robert Fritz (1984) takes a practical direction, showing that creativity can be applied to all areas of life, not simply to art, invention or science. This goes in the direction of my point: There are ways to 'create our reality', the reality of our daily living. He challenges Harman's view of 'breakthrough insight', suggesting that creativity is an attitude in life. He makes a distinction I have found extremely useful. The conventional person mostly 'reacts' to life in automatic and unconscious ways, and responds to life with a feeling of depending on Life's whims. The creative person, on the other hand, responds actively and creatively, to an environment that is perceived more adequately, and has a feeling of mastering life better. The first type corresponds to how the 'normal' modern person lives. The second corresponds very well with the transpersonal idea of an integrated personality. Fritz's distinction, and their correlate in psychology, are perfectly explained with my New Paradigm framework.

People in general --and it is my own view as well--, tend to equate the human potential attached to the High Self with the state commonly called 'Awakening' in New Age literature or the first step of what transpersonal psychology calls 'self-realisation'. My own process of discovery has led me, from the question: 'What is Awakening?", seeking to understand a fixed state, and to find clear-cut conditions to bring it on within myself, to a more subtle understanding of a type of higher experience that can take many forms, and is intimately linked to the way we use brain, mind and body. Jean Houston's (1997) latest 'passion for the possible' and Harman's 'higher creativity' (1984) epitomise well the present trend that is bringing humanistic psychology closer to transpersonal psychology, through human potential, but including far more the other fields as well. The study of the correlate phenomena in brain and body (such as 'brain synchrony' or 'cell memory'), and of how we use them in learning, is a promising integrative direction. This field of learning is attracting growing interest partly because of its relationship to the idea of 'transformation', so central to spiritual literature, and to the ideas of change and learning that are suffusing our society now. These are part of my next step of reviewing the literature.

The latest trends in the study of creativity can be summarised as taking into account:

The possibilities of the combination of this kind of mind, with its sense of self, and its experience of the body and of life energies (such as emotions, empathy, and other more 'subtle' energies), is what Jean Houston (1982) has called the 'possible human'. The energetic aspect of higher 'mind' functions does not seem to be studied academically in its application to creativity, but it is addressed b y authors such as Tad James or S. K. King, who are psychologist and Ph.D.s., but do not publish in academic journals. It will be one area for me to study.

Krippner (1996*), who is interested in 'psi research', has proposed to approach the 'human brain's "reserve capacities" 'from the point of view of chaos theory, a direction I am beginning to explore (1998e), together with complexity theory. It is promising in the area of 'transformation', this sudden kind of evolutionary experience of learning, change, or healing, or its other form, the chaotic 'shift' of consciousness involved in insight (of knowledge, of creativity or of psychological healing).

I take the position that creativity can be all these things. Creation is a complex function of the 'whole-person-inthe-world'. I view 'creation' as a 'higher' function of the '~ew Paradigm mind' (or the 'BodyMindSelf'), and it is involved with intuition, conventional creativity, perception, memory -- long- and short-term --, etc. My attitude is akin to William James' 'acting as if' there were a higher reality or potential and, making this assumption, I study the process of developing a conscious ability to 'create my reality', what favours it and what impedes it. All the aspects above are an integral part of the process.

Used by the left mind, creativity allows us to create ideas and theories to formulate, understand and explain what intuition let us know without words or images; we create structures and systems to organise, classify, measure, and function in acts (eg, institutions, business). Used by the right mind, creativity lets us create the

painting, dance, symphony, or new product: both artist and entrepreneur bring their creation into the world. What no theory seems to acknowledge is that creativity can develop into an ability to create not only ideas and visions that we then bring into the world, using our body, or its extensions, tools and machines. There is a potential ability to alter not only our subjective experience, but the very phenomenal world we perceive, directly, without the crafty means our body gives us. The kind of 'creativity' that can act upon reality directly, I call 'creation' and the human capability to do so, I call 'power of creation'. It is an inner power of mind and body, to 'create' anything, ideas, inventions, business strategies, and even circumstances and events. (I put the term 'create' in quotes because the process seems far more complicated than a dualistic cause-and-effect relationship).

This 'power of creation' of the human mind is an ancient human ability. It is said to be explained in a number of coded sacred writings or oral traditions, notably the Hawaiian Huna shamanic tradition (Freedom Long, 1953), and the Judaic tradition. It is still known, and is revived, and taught b y Westerners. Some of these courses are audio-taped and teach the skills of 'creating reality' (with no better rate of success than any other method of learning, healing, therapy or transformation, but with just as good results). Some of them are Serge Kahili King's 'Advanced Shaman Training', the '@elphin System', Richard Welsh's '@ ynamic Brain Management', Tad James's 'Creating Your Future' (see Websites list, in References Cited).

However, my efforts to understand what favours or impedes this human activity is not rooted solely in books and tapes; it is also grounded in personal experience of synchronicity. I have documented in particular striking experiences of what I call 'flash-thoughts'. (see EE#2 in Appendix 3.3). I could find in the literature no description that could fit this kind of instantaneous, unformulated thought that is immediately related to external events, but I did receive confirmation of the existence of such thoughts from an email correspondent, Barbara Stone, a mentor at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology in the USA, who experiences them as well. I could also find no trace in the literature of scientific studies openly focused on this particular aspect of creativity.

I found general statements such as in a report on the 6th Mind & Brain symposium: Graham Martin (1996) noted, reporting on Mary Midgley's address: "Epiphenomenalism denies the utility of consciousness, its ability to affect the world." Charles Laughlin proved to be the closest statement I could find:

"The most recent concern in biogenetic structural theory has been to understand how the human mindbrain may interact directly with the quantum universe. This step has been necessitated by the anomalous evidence in quantum physics, parapsychology and the ethnology of alternative states of consciousness -- evidence that suggests that human consciousness is capable of causation at a distance and communication through telepathic means. One answer to these anomalous experiences is that the human brain operates somewhat as a quantum computer and is able to translate patterned activity in the quantum sea of energy into information, and conversely to transform information into patterned activity in the quantum sea." (Laughlin, 1997)

This echoes a series of experiences I had in which I felt I could somehow 'sense' this quantum level of 'reality' (see EE#3 and 4 in Appendix 3.3). Another promising direction of research I found is that of the 'zero point field' fundamental form of light studied by Bernhard Haisch (quoted in Holland, 1998). When meeting massless electrical charges, it 'creates an appearance of mass, of matter'. This could explain inner perceptions of 'Light' in spiritual experience and could be a good basis for explaining how the 'power of creation' functions, since it is now acknowledged that our thoughts influence micro-processes in body and brain (in mind-body medicine for example). I will now present the view I have of how 'creation' involves the mind.

3.3 A HYPOTHETICAL VIEW OF THE 'NEW PARADIGM MIND' (PART III)

Much of psychology and creativity literature is concerned with 'personality types' as if certain kinds of persons are more suitable for being, leaders, creators or to experience mysticism.

In m y experience, any model of personality types or thinking types reflects simply an educational emphasis on certain preferences. In all the models I have encountered, I found that I had preferred modes, which I developed in priority, and then emphasised other modes, not inherent in m y usual functioning. In the past 20 years, theories have appeared that link mind and body (eg, Chopra, 1989, Damasio 1994, Sansonese, 1994). Others present 'the mind' as 'two minds' (eg, Samples, 1976, Epstein 1998), or a multiple mind or intelligence (Ornstein, 1986, Gardner, 1983), or, with body included, as consciousness (the whole transpersonal field). And even the fields of creativity and spirituality now recognise 'many ways' (eg,Arieti, 1976, Ferrucci, 1990). Researchers interested in creativity now recognise that creativity does not depend on a 'type' of personality but on certain dispositions of the mind and personality (eg, Bohm, 1998, Harman et al., 1984, Feldman et al, 1994), and that creativity belongs to the potential of any person. With m y framework, 'personality types', rather than being fixed definitions of people, could be seen as snapshot profiles of a person at a certain point in time. This does not preclude personal preferences, which I am studying in the context of what I call, for the time being, 'patterns' (see Appendix 2.1)

Studying the mind's functions begins with the common functions of our brain. Theories of mind are many; they come from the fields of psychology, spirituality or transpersonal psychology, 'brain research'. A number of them are summarised by Charles Hampden-Turner (1981), up to that publication date. Some more recent ones are given by Gardner (1983), Ornstein (1986), Epstein (1998), Laughlin (1990), Maturana (1987), Czikszentmihalyi (1992). Most of these make comments in specific areas that can give me clues to develop my own model, always in conjunction with my experiential study of my own mind. Armed with the theoretical idea of an 'integrated New Paradigm mind', there was an obvious direction for this 'integration'. The so-called 'left-brain mind' and 'right-brain mind', referring to the brain's hemispheres. This distinction is now known to be simplistic, but I will use it because it is an accepted way of communicating.

The attribution of specific functions to the two sides of the brain has a long history that is retraced by Springer & Deutsch (1981). It began with a statement by Paul Broca in 1864 localising the language-related faculties in the left hemisphere (Springer & Deutsch, 1989, p.12). Split brain research developed this into the still popular notion of cerebral dominance by the left hemisphere that directs behaviour, the right one being subordinated to it (p.14). More recent research has shown that "almost any human behaviour or higher mental functions, however, clearly involves more than the actual specialties of either hemisphere and utilizes what is common to both of them." (p.71). This will therefore

be the case a fortiori for higher creativity. The notion of specialisation next led, in the general public, to a shift from 'dominance' to an interpretation in terms of 'thinking type' labelling such as 'analytical people' vs 'intuitive people' or 'right-brained people' vs 'left-brained people'. Philip Goldberg (1983, p.116) has warned that "in some circles, brain orientation is threatening to replace astrological signs as the personality label of choice" He says that specialists consider the popular dichotomies attached to this area of knowledge as 'grossly oversimplified' and 'some are even flatly incorrect'. He quotes Springer & Deutsch (1989):

"The left hemisphere tends to deal with rapid changes in time and to analyze stimuli in terms of details and features, while the right hemisphere deals with simultaneous relationships and with the more global properties ofpatterns. And adds:

"This distinction, which is not universally accepted (1983) is often interpreted by assigning to the left hemisphere the labels 'sequential' or 'linear ', and to the right hemisphere the terms 'simultaneous ', 'holisitc ' or 'nonlinear'." (p.116) In the case of intuition:

"All we can safely say at this point is that intuitive experiences involve cognitive qualities that now seem to be associated with the right hemisphere, which is not quite the same as saying it is a function of the right hemisphere or that it resides in it."(p.117)

The same confusion also exists regarding creativity. With this in mind, and remembering to not be too literal in these matters, we can still use a simplified framework that distinguishes between 'left-mind' and 'right-mind' (not '-brain'). Some of these qualities are functions as neuro-science understands the term (eg, language related representation and spatial, imaginal representation), others have a more experiential tint associated with 'mind' rather than 'brain'. Deikman (1974) took this experiential point of view in reviewing a number of writings on the 'two minds', which all propose that "consciousness is experienced in two modes characterized by different and complementary ways of orienting toward the world, each serving different functions".

The term 'mind' in 'left/right-mind', rather than '-brain', reminds me to not attach literal localisation to the statements, and refers to experiential aspects as well as functional aspects in the brain. Table 8 summarises some of the most well-known characteristics generally associated with the two 'minds', but skips the popular and often erroneous distinction given in magazines.

Table 8: Some attributes of Left-mind and Right-mind, as gathered from the literature

In short, the 'left mind' is language based, dualistic, analytic. It functions on a cause-effect view of life that is reactive to an environment seen as separate. The 'right mind' functions on a holistic, connected mode that is fundamentally 'ecological' and ethical in nature because the underlying view of life is that we are not separate from the world (a systemic view), so everything we do matters.

Another set of dyads can be found in Samples (1976, p.15) who reproduces a table compiled b y Robert Ornstein (1986). These dyads of characteristics are derived from experiential ground, and so relative to two modes of knowing rather than directly to brain hemispheres, (Table 3.4.2 in Appendix 3.4) and are presented with the name of the thinker who proposed it. 'Rational mind' is his label for the left-mind, and 'metaphoric mind' is his label for 'right-mind'. I personally prefer the terms 'analogy' to 'metaphor' because it does not limit connections to a pictorial or story-telling form. Yet another set of dyads (Table 3.4.3 in Appendix 3.4), of a psychological nature, is presented by Epstein (1998).

My first guessing at the existence of these two ways came to me years ago, when I spent a year in Canada and learned English. I decided then that I wanted to live in an Anglo-Saxon country because that language allowed me to use what I called 'global' thinking, as opposed to 'analytical' thinking, a French specialty. I saw Anglo-Saxons as also more oriented toward relating to others than the individualistic French. Both felt necessary for my balance. Balance and integration were what I had begun practicing since my teenage years, through what I call 'nexialist' * thinking. I derived my present understanding of the two 'minds' from more recent experience as well, rather in the same way as Susan Schneier discovered after a month-long seminar at the Esalen Institute. She says:

"I suddenly experienced a shift in my awareness from a predominantly verbal, linear, rational, and every-day mode, experienced primarily in my head, to a high-imagery, holistic, pattern-oriented, and intuitive mode of experiencing located in my whole body. As my consciousness shifted, so did my experience of the world." (Schneier, 1989)

Her experience shifted from a 'profane', separative one, located in time and space, to a 'sacred' one, sensitive to energy fields, poetry and suffused with meaning. My own change was made of several shifts I operated thanks to my 'conscious experiencing' method. It led me to the same changes in experience, and to deeper 'meaning', but rather than calling it 'sacred' or 'spiritual', I prefer to call it 'higher', in reference to the unrealised potential of the human body-mind. There was also less emphasis on imagery and personal myth, which often felt like a 'side-track', a 'storying' of some more essential pattern, and more on integration of the former ways and on the new ways of perceiving and experiencing.

Schneier's article, 'The imagery in movement method: a process tool bridging psychotherapy and transpersonal

* Nexialism' is a term coined years ago, by A. E. Van Vogt, a science-fiction writer influenced by A. Korzybski. In my understanding, it is a way of thinking in which on extracts the essential (nexus) or most innovative ideas from a number of different fields (plurality). One then makes 'lateral' connections between them, and comes up with creative, original concepts, understandings or solutions. A 'nexialist' takes nothing for granted or for impossible. I now feel this represents the intellectual side of the kind of multi-dimensional, intuitive and experiential knowing the New Paradigm develops in the mind in the first shift, toward complexity. It shifts back and forth between complexity and the simplicity of 'nexus' ideas. The second shift is required to go further.

inquiry', describes a psychological tool for inquiring into one's multi-dimensional inner experience and for transformation. I prefer 'thought' tools of the kind Jean Houston favours. Schneier uses two expressions that fit my understanding: the shift involves new 'ways of knowing' and of 'relating to the world', ways that are unknown to the 'normal' adult before the shift. However, she also limits the creative results to ideas, fantasies and personal myths, not taking it to its largest meaning: co-creating the actual physical reality and life circumstances -creation-.

The general impression I gathered from this literature review is that a balance is necessary. The right mind, if unbalanced with the left mind, may fall into emotionally driven, magical and mythical worldviews and superstitious behaviours (a tendency that appears among 'New Agers'). The left mind, if unbalanced by the right mind, may become ungrounded, dichotomist, and selfish, either grandiose and self-gratifying, or stuck in powerlessness (a very general condition in our society). This fits my experience. As I have explained in chapters 1 and 2, the full shift involves a first movement from linear, fixed, separated thinking to 'connected', complex thinking and experience, but also a second, crucial shift, not acknowledged clearly, a paradoxical synthesis that integrates the two synergistically into an emergent new functioning. This shift can happen in various dimensions of experience. In my case, it happened in my thinking processes, as a first step. The New Paradigm mind approach integrates these two ways of thinking and has for a main feature the development of a sense of inner power. One no longer is victim of life or of one's own psychology, but acquires a sense of 'being part of the game', of having an active and meaningful role to play in the world. One acquires an ability to be comfortable with 'not knowing' in the determinist ways the conventional ego knows, although there is still 'knowing', but of a different sort.

`Spirituality', for the Westerner of present times, then becomes the way we have to make sense to ourselves of the life experience and the phenomena we experience 'in the mind' during this process of integration. It is a convenient lump label for what is mysterious to us (see 'A social ecological view of spirituality' in Appendix 3.1). Using the 'New Paradigm' framework I developed, the integration, applied to mind would be what I present in Figure 11.

But what does it 'feel' like to develop such a mind? Let's turn to the general public literature for this (and this also takes into account my own experience) to brush a more complete, intuitive portrait. This represents part of what I want to validate or invalidate through my inquiry.

The New Paradigm mind seems to seems be a kind of 'creator mind' (the function that interests me here). Adding spiritual meaning, I could almost say that the 'possible human being' that functions with a 'creator mind' is 'made in the image of God the Creator'. This 'Higher Self' is a fractal image of the typical image of divinity, within the person. Experientially it feels 'divine' because its capabilities are so extraordinary compared to our normal experience. They include a number of recognised 'powers' and apparently the power of 'creating our

local reality. It is also most probably only a first stage toward even more extraordinary 'states' of consciousness, which are not my focus here. It seems to be a way for us to make better use of our brains, of intuition and creativity, and of the body in an integration fashion. It seems to offer new ways to become better adapted to the world we live in and contribute to creating it in ethical, ecological, sustainable, caring ways.

CMulti-dimensional experience includes conventional thoughts (left + right), 5 senses,

inner kinaesthetic feeling-sensing, 'empathy' (as energy, with related psychological emotions), inner psychological experience,, etc.

(including conventionally defined 'experience' + non-ordinary meaningful experiences)

CMulti-dimensional 'thinking' is holistically: unformulated 'thoughts', ideas and images ('thought-forms')

Analytic and analogic/metaphorical at the same time, in multi-dimensional experiencing: +This allows a 'similarising' in the mind of the vision to be created in the world.

S.K.King calls 'grokking' this mental 'identification' to the object (creating the thought form to be actualised)

Causal + systemic, at the same time = a-causal / co-creation / potential of the present
situation: not a linear 'causality' but a logic of becoming as a choice between possibilities

Multiple selves as constructs used for various purposes + a core self or 'I' as Witness

~ Fixed + Soft boundaries of self = expandable boundaries and sense of self, but capacity to hold a fixed boundary at a certain time.

[it is possible that personal preferences toward the mental or the perceptual may influence the meaning and the actual experience]

A tentative view of the emergent multi-dimensional, 'complex-singular 'BodyMindSelf'.
(When the body is taken into account, 'brain-mind-self' becomes 'BodyMindSelf'.)

Psychologically, it synthesises or unifies the personality. As I understand it, the integrated higher mind builds on the uniqueness and talents of individuality, which it develops through a strong and authentic personality (that is, at least in the Western culture). Moreover, it also reintegrates the ancient, holistic oneness or connectedness, the empathic sensitivity to energies, and the sensitivity to present-moment reality. (The latter being important since, according to Robert Fritz (1984), we have to maintain a 'creative tension' between the present state of affairs and the vision to be actualised). The creator mind is characterised by a non-determinist uncertainty, in various forms including serendipitous processes, mystery of the unknown (not knowable as certainties by either parts of mind separately), but with a certainty of purpose, that the outcome will be beneficial. It also has a logic not only of complexity (from right-mind) but also of singularity (left-mind): it is able to resolve the apparent paradox of these.

I view 'New Paradigm mind' as a synergistic integration of left and right-minds, and so as more than the sum of the two. It makes use of both right- and left-minds at the same time, in more than a coordinated way: in a 'whole brain', 'integrated' or 'emergent manner. It is able to hold many trains of thought or domains of awareness at the same time: Houston has called this 'multi-tracking. This integration of 'thought' is doubled with a synthesis of personality and is said to be correlated with a connecting of the two hemisphere of the brain. (There is some brain research literature to be reviewed here). To access the 'reserves' of our brains (Krippner, 1996), a number of exercises are taught to help this 'brain synchrony', such as eye movements or bodily movements (eg. Houston, 1982, and the NeuroLinguistic Programming field). Other methods using sound and meditation are also used (eg. 'Contemporary High-Tech Meditation' of the S ynchronicity Foundation). Few of these findings are published academically, it seems. Many of these techniques have close similarity to many practices advocated in spiritual traditions (eg,Gurdjeff), some of them ancient.

Experientially, reaching the critical point that provokes the 'shift into high gear', the 'emergence', feels like... a 'brain-fry' (see EE#5 in Appendix 3.3). This critical point is reached when the difficulty to cope with complexity consciously in the sequential way of the left-mind becomes too great. A shift is required, to use unconscious, holistic processes to cope. Operating in that mode often feels like being 'accelerated' (Kun, 1993), or 'quickened' (Wilde, 1988) (see also EE# 6,in Appendix 3.3). It also gives a clear sense that 'this reality' is only a 'map' but 'not the territory' (Korzybski, 1933), and so can be changed and 'created'. It gives a clear realisation of the inter-subjective and 'co-arising' nature of reality, and gives access to many possible realities that can all find 'inter-subjective validation' (for example Casteneda, 1968, in anthropological appendix). This mode of mind can be used in many ways, including 'intellectual thought' of the higher 'discriminatory kind (as opposed to the conventional left-mind understanding in our culture) (see EE#7in Appendix 3.3).

More and more people seem to be undergoing this kind of shift, experiencing it in a multitude of individual ways, with a multitude of spiritual or other meanings, as attests the number of stories now being published on 'Awakening' experiences. This process of shift in the individual seems mirrored globally in our society: there is an opportunity for a fundamental transformation of our whole society (Bouchon, 1997b) as many writers have

pointed out, some say even for the whole of humanity, and this is apparent also at smaller scales, in human organisations and communities (Bouchon, 1998d).

3.4 THE TWO DIRECTIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE (PART IV)

The many dichotomies in the literature and in my experience had long puzzled me. Some of these opposed dyads correspond to the difficulty of dealing with paradoxes (causing the 'brain-fry' symptom). For example:

There are some more, which I cannot explain by either shifts 2 or 3. For example:

I have not elucidated this problem yet, although I suspect it has something to do with 'evolution'. I hope that chaos theory will help me here. In the mean time, I want to come back to the third shift of New Paradigm, which has important consequences. Let us look at the example of the two types of spiritual schools. I have summarised the two sides of this dichotomy, in the spiritual context of 'Awakening', in Figure 12:

Does not necessarily lead to 'Power of Creation' Does not necessarily lead to 'natural awareness'

The underlying ground of 'reality' as it is The many possibilities of 'alternate realities'

Figure 12.- Two complementary understandings of the characteristics of the 'spiritual' mind, based on
the New Paradigm framework

The two types of schools of spiritual practice have two types of goals: the sudden, 'enlightenment experience', or the permanent state of 'enlightened living'. They have philosophical arguments about which is the 'true' enlightenment, and so which kind of practice is best. These correspond, in my view to the third shift of New Paradigm.

I consider spiritual teachings in general are often very confusing because they are too metaphorical to be very useful in determining the next step of my learning so I can collaborate with the process. They are also often conflicting. We are told of striking experiences, that can 'transform' the person or not (for example Anthony et al. 1987, p.188 - quoted in Rowan, 1993, pp. 21-22) and of once-and-for all 'enlightenment'. We are also told of a less striking but more profound state of awareness of the present moment which changes attitudes to life, can be permanent, and is reached and maintained by 'mindfulness' (eg, Kornfield, 1993). It can also take the form of Maslow's 'plateau experience' (later Maslow: eg, Rowan, 1993, pp.46-50, and Cleary & Shapiro, 1995), 'a state which we can call on at any moment, in case of need' rather than 'a settled permanent state' (Rowan, 1993, p.24). The difference between the two kinds of evolutions of experience is often not clearly distinguished, and leads to controversies between spiritual masters as well as transpersonalists. Sanella, for example tells of Da Free John's (Adi Da) questions, which echo my own. The mystic had spent a lifetime looking for a childhood state he called 'the bright', exploring the possibilities of the human body-mind. He had found that

"Rudi 's (kundalini) yoga contradicted his own intuition that the spiritual process is founded on self-surrender rather than any effortful self-discipline," and "felt certain that that even the state of unqualified ecstasy he had repeatedly experienced... was dependent on the manipulation of the nervous system (referring to Kundalini). Therefore it could not possibly be the same as 'enlightenment' or God-realization, which is continuous." (Sanella, 1992, p126)

I had understood also that there are two ways: 'evolving the nervous system', which requires a high degree of

disciplined learning, or a surrender'. Rowan's depiction of transpersonal states (1993) is underlined b y this idea: "All the Zen people seem to go on about this same ideas - that enlightenment is a once-for-all-or-nothing thing. And they are just wrong about this. It is an oversimplication... What we (transpersonalists) are saying is that there is not just one thing called enlightenment, and either you have got it or you have not got it." (Rowan, 1993, p. 149).

Are Zen masters 'wrong' or do they only take a different point of view, or have they a different motivation? But then again, would they be 'right' in thinking they hold 'the' truth? I believe Rowan's remark about the multiplicity of forms of 'enlightenment' suggests the two forms I have just defined: Natural Awareness (requiring a surrender) and higher human potential (an evolutionary stage requiring much learning). But I would rather distinguish this from the issue of the instantaneous transformative breakthrough, which I believe is a different and independent issue: It is not clear whether 'breakthrough', and 'gradual' development or practice occur in one or the two types of awareness/consciousness, but although there are links, I see no reason to consider the two problems correlated directly.

3.4.2 The 'natural awareness' of the present': The singularity/simplicity distinction

At first, I called what is on the left of the circle, the mindful awareness of the present, a 'world-awareness' because it requires a de-focused attention, rather than sharp focus. One also has to 'relax into it' rather than try hard. When I read Thartang Tulku's (1977) name for it, 'Natural Awareness', I thought it was even more appropriate and adopted it, because this suggests that it is related to our being also animals: this relates to our 'ecological self'. With this kind of awareness, we have the same feeling as I imagine my cat does: contentment when lying in the sun. In human terms, this translates into the child-like joie de vivre we see in so many

spiritual masters... but also in children, and in many little individuated individuals with small needs, people of the land in particular, in simple people who are spontaneous and joyful. or in native people. Two people helped me get an idea of what this is like. A farmer, and a Hawaiian man, called Kalani, who belongs to a long line of shamans (but he has not received his training, yet).

Kornfield recounts an insight of the Buddha that refers to this natural awareness, bringing a joie de vivre :

"He remembered himself as a child seated under a rose apple tree... how in that childlike state a natural sense of wholeness and sufficiency was present. Seated as a child, he had already experienced the calm, clarity, and natural unity of body and mind he was seeking. After remembering this profound sense of wholeness, the Buddha changed his entire way ofpractice. He began to nourish and honor his body and spirit (as opposed to ascetic practices). " (Kornfield, 1993, p. 207).

Once established in a person's experience, this kind of natural awareness seems either accessible on demand (eg,Maslow's 'plateau') or a permanent state (eg,Da Free John). As Da Free John, I have also spent my life longing and looking for the joie de vivre of my early years. He correlates this directly to experiences of subtle energies because they were undissociable in his experience, but I believe these are independent variables.

Working with all these questions and concepts, and writing my thesis has brought me to a last minute distinction I feel I cannot leave out because it is crucial. The 'simplicity' of this Natural Awareness is of a fundamental, undifferentiated kind. It makes no separation. This is vastly different from what the Western mind might understand by the term 'simple'. The Western mind tends to separate things into discrete objects: it sees singular objects. Singularity is, in nature, very different from what I mean here by 'simplicity'. In consequence, the second, integrative shift of New Paradigm integrates singularity and complexity into a multi-level complex-singularity, which I see as equivalent to fully developed 'individuality'. Single, but connected. The third shift is different. It brings back an underlying awareness of simplicity, of no-individuation at all. These are the terms I will use from now on.

'Higher mind' seems to imply that we must go beyond systemic complexity, which is more a characteristic of a right-mind approach. With the 'second shift, appears an overlapping, integrating 'singularity' that appears 'above' the composite of complexity. What I call 'higher mind' seems to mean becoming able to see both this overlapping singularity and the complexity at the same time.

This process is shown clearly, in a transpersonal context of practice of awareness, by a question to the meditator in Rowan's 'open focus' exercise:

"Is it possible for you to imagine that at the same time as you are attending to the space and the sounds you can also attend simultaneously to any emotions, tensions, feelings or pains that might also be present (in your experience right now)?" (Rowan, 1993, p.87)

This inclusion of sensations, perceptions, emotions, thoughts, space etc., at the same time, into one single

heightened awareness of one's experience, both singular and complex, is the same process that I underwent in my 'complex eye movements' experience (see EE#8 in Appendix 3.3). It is a process by which I believe we can come to a truly holistic experience and understanding (including diversity-singularity and complexity).

Another way to formulate this complex awareness and exercise it is described b y Jean Houston:

"We seem to be unnecessarily shackled to a serial view of reality, moving doggedly in a single track until we painfully shift gears and continue our journey on another single track. In doing so, we belie our nature, our brain, and reality itself. For the world within and without is multiple, various, and simultaneous....

"The autonomous functions of the brain's neural networks could allow us to discriminate in full consciousness dozens, even hundreds of separate functions and ideas (as in) certain states of consciousness, especially those related to moments of high creativity or mystic perception...

"This is 'automatic' and does not seem to involve separate frames of conscious attention; it involves a gestalt of knowing and requires little mental effort, little conscious attention, to appreciate the whole in its many parts... We know on the subliminal level but have a difficult time in getting this knowing across the threshold of our consciousness." (Houston, 1982, pp. 72-73).

She calls this process 'multi-tracking' and the exercise she proposes involves bodily motor coordination. This 'appreciation of the whole in its many parts' is not only holistic, it also is being conscious of the parts as well. The gestalt contains both whole and parts, both the complex and the singulars. It is a result of the second paradigmatic shift. The 'multi-tracking' does not take effort, but requires exercises to learn. Trying to do this exclusively with the sequential left-mind is very difficult... and results in the 'brain-fry', which in my experience actually helps the relaxing into autonomous, direct apprehension (see EE#9 in Appendix 3.3).

In my model, complex, purely holistic apprehension is 'right-mind' thought. The ego, as we conceive of it in the West, is roughly equivalent to left-mind intellect and the psychology of the person. Without this individuated self-consciousness, this would be how ancient peoples perceived: it comes even before separating, left-mind individuality apprehension. This would be 'pre-personal' in Ken Wilber's terminology, and the separating, left-mind consciousness of being an individual (self-conscious reflexivity) is 'personal'. Conscious but only holistic apprehension would correspond to a putting of myth, storytelling and diversity at the pinnacle of human experience, or to the '~ew Age drift' to psychic experience, which requires holistic non-separation. This is 'right-mind' thought. This, Wilber considers a confused return to the undifferentiated pre-personal, and Rowan considers 'extra-personal'. I think there is a difference between the two ways of using complex-holistic apprehension: the conscious awareness of the holistic apprehension, trying to 'revert' separating individuality is not present in ancient peoples. Self-consciousness makes the difference in the modern person. So 'extra-personal' (beyond the personal) would be a better term. '~ulti-tracking', on its part, seems to be a sophisticated human skill of yet a higher order than the pre-personal, the personal-left-mind, or the extra-personal-right-mind. It is developing a new, conscious mode of experience, a higher skill that is not, apparently, accessible to the less individuated people.

Another aspect of the '~ew Age drift' is worth mentioning. It is my experience that many undiscriminating
'spiritual people' (or trying to be) fall into an indulging emotionality (the 'fuzzy and cuddly-but no-conflict'

syndrome). This attitude reveals a lack of personal integration, which I think has confused Wilber. I distinguish the evolution of 'thinking skill' as I described above from the psychological process of personality integration. I will come back to this. The 'Natural Awareness', on its part, seems to be a very simple process, accessible to anyone, anytime, if only one can remember what it was like to be a small child. One rekindles this awareness b y relinquishing organised thinking altogether, by surrendering. Psychologically, this may be felt as 'surrendering the ego', which uses differentiated left-mind thought.

The present work may seem like 'a lot of intellectual words' = It is, but it also has a function. If my framework has any validity, all this change in human experience is accompanied with a higher sophistication of our self-consciousness and of our thought processes. Just as a modern ego needs more explanations than a primitive communal person, a higher mind will require a yet more subtle understanding. I am undergoing the change myself, and I feel I need this more refined understanding. This complicated understanding is not a goal in itself, but I have found it a necessary step to undergo the change in full self-consciousness. The arguments published in journals are a witness to the fact that I am probably not the only one to feel this need.

I believe these distinctions are important because they explain the difficulty many people have with 'spiritual development'. It seems to me that the 'struggle' that it is for so many is in good part not inherent to the process as most believe, but is caused by our lack of understanding of what is involved. In trying to develop and maintain such subtle conscious awareness, of one kind or the other, we are confused b y spiritual writings that rest on metaphoric formulations not developed for the Western mind. (I do not dispute the adequacy of the knowledge itself, but its formulation) As a result, many put great 'effort' into 'trying' to hold the Natural Awareness of the present instead of relaxing into it, and do all sorts of difficult practices 'to reach it', as Da Free John did. Others try hard 'let go of ego' to become 'creator selves'Q without doing the ground work of practice required for multi-tracking and they put emphasis on an 'oceanic' kind of connectedness instead of putting intent into being constantly conscious of their complex and singular experience. Neither strategy works. I have experienced these difficulties and dilemmas: Was I supposed to relax and let go or adopt a drastic discipline? My choice to practice my method of 'conscious experiencing' rather than prescribed methods has led to the present work, and to some measure of success, at last. The rest of this paper will show how crucial it may be for our society to make such distinctions and, if they are later confirmed, 'intersubjectively' validated, to popularise them.

Why did I need to include this discussion in my work, which is not centred on mystical experience? Because these two complementary distinctions about 'mind' and 'spirituality' have led to my defining the 'third shift' of New Paradigm, and because they give a more subtle picture of our learning. This is also because the natural awareness of the present moment, of reality as it is, is extremely relevant to an individual's daily life, in interpersonal communication, in the creative ability. I now imagine the human being at this time in history as being in an exciting process of learning in two directions, and I want to determine whether both are necessary for the driving-creating-learning force in us to blossom (Figure 13). These two 'directions' have a direct relationship to how we manage our attention or focus.

The first I have called 'Direction A'. It corresponds to learning a number of inner skills of mind, which can be extended into learning about life energy, envisioning and about voluntarily effecting changes in the world, thus 'co-creating' reality. This leads to an active stance in life -- hence the label 'A', for creative action--. It corresponds to the spiritual teachings based on 'growing' our sense of self to finally fully and permanently identify with 'Higher Mind', the Transpersonal Self. It corresponds also to the spiritual practices related to the body. It leads to many extraordinary 'powers', or 'siddhis' as the transpersonal field likes to call them (a term from Hinduism / Vedanta) that are now slowly being acknowledged as the inherent potential of the human being (eg, Leonard & Murphy, 1992, and Murphy, 1995, Harman & Rheingold, 1984, Houston, 1982, Krippner, 1996). The breath particularly is considered intimately linked to the life energy (involved in emotions, sexual energy, and kundalini/shamanic 'power'), which is said to be required for creation, or 'manifestation'. This first direction leads to complex experiences in altered states of consciousness and plainly requires a complex 'mind training' and body discipline. This is the reason why I defined earlier the notion of 'BodyMindSelf' that needs educating.

These 'powers' may be misused. Many a spiritual tradition warns that the 'powers' attached to direction A are addictive (that is, for an unintegrated personality) and detract attention from the most important: the mindful present. A complete psychological integration of personality seems required for them to be used with ethical motivations, for the benefit of all. Psychological integration seems to belong to the realm of meaning, and to be independent from both higher mind development of direction A and 'awareness' of direction B. The self is what allows us to give meaning, to be 'self-conscious', and to be different from and have a 'higher potential' animals do not have. This psychological integration is often overlooked by New Age people, who confuse it with renewing their consciousness of attaching psychological emotions to body feelings. This accounts for the 'emotional indulgence' found in those circles, and has, in my view, nothing to do with any of the mind development described here. It is independent, necessary, and often overlooked, even b y some long-time meditators and some 'spiritual teachers'. Greater freedom and peace can be gained from this integration, even without direction A skills or direction B Natural Awareness. Here, in my view, Ken Wilber's (1977) spectrum mixes two parallel developments into one. His model was useful when it was devised, because it validated 'spiritual' experience to the same degree as psychological or cognitive experience, and showed there was a relationship between them -- but he assimilated them, did not differentiate between their characteristics. Many models have tried to remedy this, rather unsuccessfully, because they simply ignored some of the dichotomies that puzzled me. I believe it is time to refine this, b y seeing parallel developments in four spheres. As I will show.

The second direction of learning I call 'Direction B'. It corresponds to being aware of reality or 'the world as it

is', often formulated as 'being in the moment', or 'being here and now'. It represents being lucidly aware of the present situation as it is (not as filtered through beliefs and other thought patterns). Because this does not involve thought, it does not involve either any sense of 'I' and 'reality' as fixed 'things' to be observed as separate objects. One important characteristic of 'the moment' is that it changes: it is a process of becoming (a Taoist idea that is rather popular in transpersonal circles) -- hence the label 'B', for becoming--. Therefore, this kind of awareness also means being able to see the potential in the present situation --hence its usefulness for creativity--. It is very simple (although not easy to conceive of for a Western mind), it is available to anyone, any time we decide to be aware of it, if we only know how to access that awareness. (Experiencing it once, consciously, is a great eye-opener). It only requires to know about it, and to learn to relax the thinking activities of the mind (both left- and right-minded). (The breath that relaxes is useful here). It accesses perception directly, without the filter of intellect, and so is usually perceived as clarity. Strangely enough, it is often called 'clarity of mind' and I have experienced it as such (see EE#10 and 11 in Appendix 3.3). (I believe 'perception' still involves the brain, its primitive part, but not the cortex and 'thought' as such). It is non-personal, happens independently from any sense of separate self, before it rather than beyond it. If anything, I consider it 'prescendent' rather than transcendent or transpersonal. I understand it leads to the 'mindful enlightenment' that is reputed to feel so wonderfully 'ordinary', and so close to the way children experience their life. I suspect there are several ways to experience it, depending on the sense of self one has (which is a context, here), and on the state of development of 'subtle perceptions' (body context). It is characterised by the joie de vivre we all have known in our first 2 to 4 years of life and which we spend our life seeking again, in the form of 'happiness'. One saying, drawn from Buddhist tradition, epitomises this:

It seems to me that this second direction (B), toward mindfulness may be the easiest to reach... with proper reeducation. The other direction (A) requires much work and is not necessarily of interest to everybody. I do not see either direction as 'more important' than the other, and I suppose the addiction comes if the powers are accessible to an individual whose personality still contains many unconscious motivations. My sense is that a person probably needs to develop both, in order to access fully the possibilities of 'Higher Mind'. Nevertheless, direction A does not seem necessary for a person with little 'individuation' to have a feeling of 'being whole'.

I will discuss this later under the heading 'FlowA and FlowB', and its consequences on our self-defensive and manipulative behaviours at the end of this paper.

Rowan's discussion of Andrew Neher's doubts about the transpersonal (Rowan, 1993, pp.211 and 115) will help me show this value. Neher views many meditative experiences as simply a 'dehabituation' (meaning that familiar objects suddenly look unfamiliar and fresh to our perception) and Rowan considers them 'not transpersonal' if there is an 'I' (meaning a personal 'I', be it a Higher Self) experiencing this. Neher then describes a second kind, 'non-conceptual attention', also common in the types of experiences described as 'flow' in sports, performance etc., and Rowan sees these as 'transpersonal'. Personally, I see them as the same direct

perception of the moment, independent of mind, which we may have as a 'personal-ego-self', as a 'Higher Self' or 'Witness' or 'transpersonal self', or as no 'I' at all. It is the 'Natural Awareness'. I think the perceptual experience and the sense of self are two independent things and I would not accept Rowan's hierarchy here. But I do not accept either Neher's position which trivialises the non-conceptual attention of Natural Awareness and strips it of its meaning, and of the

desirability to cultivate it. I had such an experience (an ERE) as a 17 year old gymnast. While in a precarious position on a beam, my whole being went into autonomous mode, and achieved on that day a performance that was no mean feat, and was never repeated.

It probably saved my life or at least saved me complete paralysis. But this was not only a physical performance. It changed me.

I felt that day that there was an absolutely efficient natural mechanism in my body, aimed at survival. From then on, I never doubted again my ability to survive physically, or to cope with physical danger. I was not psychologically integrated, and my spiritual stirrings were being systematically crushed, but my view of myself was transformed forever. My childhood certainty in my physical capacity was restored and when, years later, I became somewhat disconnected from Nature and from my body, by living a fast city life in Paris, I found enough sense to see it and remedy that. Many city people do not, and feel totally lost.

To come back to the refinement of Wilber's model (the most comprehensive), I believe the past 20 years have struggled enough with many dichotomies to make it possible to now make new distinctions, seeing parallel developments in three spheres:

In the sphere of 'meaning' and 'self-consciousness', is the psychological personality that can be integrated. This is required for our ethical development and for the conscious development of both higher mind functions and the creative use of Natural Awareness. This corresponds to the central circle of 'self' in my New Paradigm diagram, Figure 2 in chapter 1 (reproduced here on page 50).

In the sphere of cognitive abilities (deemed to make use of the brain), we find the conventional intellect, but also the higher mind functions of the 'second paradigmatic shift' of mind, the direction A abilities (including 'direct knowing'), which are uniquely human. These make new use not only of the brain, but of the entire BodyMindSelf, and would include 'light' experiences, for example, as well as 'extra-personal', psychic perceptions.

In the sphere of attention and perception, we find the common 'consensus reality' which now appears to

constitute a great limitation. Direction B direct perception, or Natural Awareness, is a 'recovering' of something available to ancient people and to animals. But when it is rekindled with the aid of full self-consciousness, we have the 'third paradigmatic shift'. We become able to re-access direct perceptual experiences of levels of the physical reality we do not 'normally' see or feel, and to use them in creative ways.

I place creativity as one link between these spheres, and it involves 'spiritual love', understood as an inclusive and compassionate emotion (psychological meaning), that is also an empathic energy (BodyMind) and is also a direct awareness of the other (more to come in Conclusions).

I now have some more questions: Is Natural Awareness necessary for 'higher mind' functions to operate to their best potential of 'creation'?. Is it possible to have a clear consciousness of all parts and aspects of the multidimensional experience at the same time: the singularity of objects, the holistic complexity, the complex-singularity of emergence, and the underlying simplicity/essentialness/oneness of it all? I will explore these... later.

3.5 THE PRESENT, CREATIVITY AND FLOW (PART V)

Robert Fritz helps me make the connection with creation: In his book on creativity (Fritz, 1994/01984), he presents a pragmatic view of the relevance of perceiving present 'reality' adequately:

"The foundation of reality is the only place you can start the creative process." (p.145). "A clear description of reality is necessary input in the creative process." (p. 110) There is "no need to interpret the ultimate meaning of your situation" (p. 110) Interpretations are mind constructs which "obscure reality". "In the beginning of the creative process, there will be a discrepancy between what you want to create and what you currently have... When you begin to create, your creation does not yet exist, except as a concept. Part of the skill of the creative process is bringing what you conceive into being".

"The discrepancy between what you want and what you have increases or decreases during the creative process. As you more closer to final completion of the creation, there will be less discrepancy. ... If there is more discrepancy, there is more force to work with. If there is less discrepancy, there is more momentum as you move toward the final creation of the result." (p.110)

Fritz symbolises this 'structural tension' of the creative process b y this drawing:

Fritz gives the most important clue: "The skill of accurately observing reality can be developed over time and with practice." (Fritz, 1994/C1984, p. 151) but our "concept of reality may not be reality (itself)" (p.146).

This is a simple education of our mind into learning to 'see reality as it is', independently from our concepts (intellectual or imaginal) of what it is supposed to look like, of what we think it is. This is also a foundation of mysticism. Charles Tart (1991) has explained how we are limited b y the social consensus regarding what is accepted as 'real', calling it our 'consensus reality'. He has shown how our worldviews and beliefs limit the scope of our very perceptions, and how we can free ourselves from this through 'mindfulness' (Tart, 1986).

Tart's formulation is spiritual in essence. Fritz's is more pragmatic. This also appears in much motivational literature and NLP-based literature, under the form of Korzybski's (1933) now popular phrase: 'the map is not the territory'. This domain deals with changing our unconscious beliefs (of a personal nature) to change our life experience. Several NLP teachers I refer to here, once they question beliefs, have found themselves having to question cultural beliefs as well, and so the 'consensus reality'. The post-modernist stance questions social assumptions too. Braud & Anderson (1998) and Harman & de Quincey (1994) do the same for science: our theories, representations, hypotheses, models and maps are also consensus affairs, validated (or invalidated) b y consensus between scientists and so hold no 'absolute truth'.

If what we perceive not only of the social world but also of the physical world is limited b y our thoughts and beliefs, would it not make sense that what we know of it would also be limited and our influence on it as well? If we free ourselves from habits of perception, then it seems probable that, as we can drastically extend our field of knowing through intuition, we could also drastically extend the range of our influence on the external world through creativity. Creativity is known to require non-conformism to received ideas about reality, about what is possible or is not. This may be one explanation. All my readings in transpersonal psychology, mysticism, creativity and mind, leave these two options open, although none seem to dare affirm the possibility of the 'power of creation'.

This power of creation seems to dependent on our being able to see what we do not see 'normally'. I have demonstrated the theoretical possibility, but what of the experiential possibility? If there are a 'lower' and a 'higher' creativity, can I find corresponding experiences in more conventional settings? In common creativity, there is a parallel. Creativity is known to be based on connections, analogies, and metaphors. In my experience of fashion design, for example, this means being literally able to 'see' "in my mind's eye" what others do not see. (see EE#12 in Appendix 3.3). I looked at a person in the street, but 'saw' or 'thought I saw' entirely different clothes on that person. I went on creating them. In a more intellectual context, I experience this as being able to see patterns and imagine potentials others do not see. This phenomenon is documented in the literature. If the 'power of creation' is of the same nature as 'creativity', then becoming able to see the potential of becoming in any situation and extending our perception becomes a major task of education for the human being. This is so whether we are interested in inventive creativity capable of dealing with fast change, in scientific insight, in 'the

Fritz sees creativity as a tension seeking resolution. In the light of chaos theory, this seems a little too conventional a view. The term 'resolution' suggests seeking a stable equilibrium that could already exist or have existed in the past. Creativity has one strong characteristic: it brings novelty; the creation is a new order. Moreover, it also often has a "quality of 'otherness ', of being visited by a daemon or a voice" (Hallman, 1963, pp.19, 23) which suggests the autonomous quality of the organising, form-making, creative force.

But the form-making is not limited to the object of creation. Hallman (1963, p.24) notes that many writers such as Jung "emphasize creativity as a process of will affirmation, of individuation, of self-formation". He considers that the necessary condition of self-actualisation "identifies creativity with self-formation". (p.23). Here another aspect appears: the development of self that happens as we learn to master the art of creativity and the reciprocal development of creativity as we learn to master the self.

Sometimes called 'autopoeisis', this self-organising, self-forming, or self-creating force, which is also object-forming, can be found, as many authors in various fields have noticed, in nature ('morphogenesis', eg in Sheldrake, 1995), in the self, and in the human organisation. For example Dimitrov (1997a, 1997b, 1998) has studied the last two using chaos and complexity theories, which I believe will be particularly rich sources of analogies for my study. Czikszentmihalyi's (1992 and 1996), in a less formal way, also sees flow as a 'complexification' of consciousness, which is another terminology for self-formation.

Csikszentmihalyi introduced the term 'flow' to describe experiences that are now generally assimilated to Maslow's 'peak experiences'. The word 'flow' is one often used b y such experiencers to account for the feeling of effortlessness in the outstanding achievement or performance. Activities that occasion flow experiences 'provide a sense of discovery... push the person to higher levels ofperformance, lead to previously un-dreamed of states of consciousness. In short, (they) transform the self by making it more complex.' (Csikszentmihalyi, 1994, (c)1992, p.74 ) This complexification is equivalent to a personal growth. He offers a simple diagram (Figure 15) to explain why this might be so.

Figure 15: Flow: Why the complexity of consciousness increases as a result of flow experiences
(Reproduced from Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi, 19941(c)1992, p.74)

Flow results from a balance of challenge and skill. With a big challenge and too little skill, we feel anxious. If we are too skilled for the task at hand and do not feel challenged, we feel bored (or limited). B y setting goals that match our skills but are also somewhat of a stretch, we can trigger flow experiences and find ourselves performing outstandingly. In other words, we surpass ourselves. We have learned, increased our skill, and become able to do something we have never done before. One caution, however: the balance of skill and challenge is not a sufficient condition. It is the skills we think we have and the challenges we are aware of that will trigger or not the inner experience of flow -- which takes us back to self-consciousness, higher skill, and proper appraisal of present reality,. The notion of flow supports my distinction between the last two. 'Flow' seems to be a new response we are collectively learning to develop to respond creatively to our environment, extending our usual but automatic, unconscious choice of 'fight, flight or freeze'.

3.6 SKILLFUL CREATIVE MIND (PART VI)

With this picture in mind, 'spiritual practices' can now be studied apart from the meaning-making process they
represent, as the mind-and body training they also are. This is apparent in the expression 'skillful means',

translated from the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, which expresses that the meditator learns skills of mind, and of body. To a Westerner, it can be viewed as a toolbox contained within the body and mind 'we are given'. Leonard & Murphy (1995) wrote a book about these skills, presenting some practical ways to develop them. This is based on another, thick book (1992), in which he assembled an impressive amount of scientific evidence supporting the idea that our human potential is far greater than our society acknowledges. Some less known areas are worth investigating (Murphy, 1992, pp.604-605): (brain) hemispheric synchrony in EEG records (which can be facilitated using certain types of music), perceptual 'dehabituation' as indicated in EEG records (corresponding to the Natural Awareness). Houston (1982) also offers exercises to develop these skills. Some other skills, particularly useful from the point of view of creativity, envisioning and creation, were also presented by Harman & Rheingold (1984), Tad James (see websites list) and Kahili King (1985).

I have classified in Table 9 some of the essential skills of mind into two types corresponding to the two directions of learning defined earlier. A-skills are skills for creative action. B-skills are skills of being or becoming, of attention. A balance of both seems to be the more potent combination.

Table 9: Toolbox of the mind:
Some of the skills acquired through the two types of 'spiritual practices'

Educating inner perception ('journeying' for example, or 'listening inside')

Active: Creation (higher creativity)

Receptive: Intuition (Direct knowing)

Use of representation: imagination, symbols, analogies, metaphors, etc. (right mind), mental 'figures' (left mind),

Expanding outer perception into de-focused peripheral or all-round awareness

Non-action

'Just being'

Underlying all representation:

Existence of the 'gap between thoughts'

(Chopra, 1989, and EE#²)

multi-dimensional envisioning I suspect: Awareness of 'flash-thoughts' (EE#2)

Building up 'personal powers', from ego dimension of empowerment to Transpersonal Self dimension (shamanictype / siddhis) of intent-driven creation

Calling on the 'unconscious' for

- manifestation of dreams

- direct knowledge (intuition, accelerated learning...)

Surrendering the self, ego or Transpersonal Self, into organic effortless, effective living

Letting the BodyMindSelf

- do its self-healing job

- meet basic needs organically

In both cases of developing A-skills or B-skills, we go through certain mental processes:

Table 10 - Psychological and thought processes underlying 'psycho-spiritual development'

Hunt out cultural assumptions and replace old habits of perception, thought and emotion

Shift our awareness and meanings to resolve paradoxes (oppositions apparent because of dual thinking) Still relying on inter-subjective validation to assess the 'realness' of what we experience (world, or self, which helps becoming self-referential) [opposed to madness, where there is no validation]

Become self-referential and so develop faith or 'trust'

Integrate our personality psychology: with this come humane, ethical values

Become familiar with the lack of Aristotelian certainties and paradoxes

Detachment

Learn to play with our identification of 'self'.

I see both creativity and spirituality as opportunities for learning, and for evolving ourselves. But this learning is often a confused affair. The framework of the two directions defined above permits to picture how we can do our learning, as I show in Figure 16.

Rooted in 5 senses only Authentic self Rooted in empathy, feelings, emotions

Figure 16: The four directions of learning and change, based on the New Paradigm framework:
singular, complex, complex-singular and 'simple'

1.First, is the present state of affair in our society: one fixed, singular self, separated from all others, self-defensive, disempowered, competing, very 'mental' and rationalising -- the 'ego'. But some reflection on oneself soon shows that we change, and our identity grows. We discover that the 'self' is not something fixed, as our mechanistic view has it, but a mental process.

2.The notions of process and of change lead us to the opposite side of the horizontal arrow, to the right. In terms of learning, change, the movement toward complexity leads to community, connection, and collaboration. In the present context, this corresponds to the re-learning of how to use the right-mind, systemic functions based on connectedness and process, but with self-consciousness. This corresponds to the trends and huge

bodies of literature on mythology, archetypes and relationships, such as Hillman (1989), Campbell (1988) and Moore (1992). In philosophy terms, this is the province of post-modernist diversity, accompanied with the 'death' of the

single self. It is also the awareness of the many sub-personalities and roles we play (Assagioli, 1965). In transpersonal psychology, this is the domain of dreamwork (Mindell,1990), higher archetypes, 'past lives', 'inner guides', alternate realities, shamanic 'journeying', etc. The body comes also into the picture, with all types of bodywork. Emotions are central to this realm, which is displayed to exaggerate degrees in many 'spiritual' and New Age circles. Interconnection also plays a major role, as my work with network organisations has shown (Bouchon, 1988d). It appears in the form of learning to relate to others in new ways. This takes the form of 'connectedeness', 'relationship', 'intersubjective validation' (in methodology), 'acknowledgment', 'caring', 'compassion', etc. and is profoundly humane and meaningful. The person, here, is a very complex mosaic with many dimensions of experience.

But behind this complexity is our puzzling and essential humanity and our sense of 'I', our 'core' self, our 'center'. Mahrer's therapeutic methods for example, get a person in touch with that 'core self', which has a ring of truth, of genuineness, of deepest essence, it is the 'real me'. It is often called the 'authentic self' and roughly corresponds to Maslow's self-actualising self ('actualis-ing' because it is a process self, it is never finished actualising).

3.When associated with purpose, with the creative force, it becomes the Higher Self, a self that recognises patterns, purposeful patterns, expressed with spontaneity, through creativity. This represents a synthesis of both sides of the horizontal arrow, left and right, into direction A new skills. It is a unification of personality, in Wiliam James' terms. Assagioli formulates it this way:

"When this center has been experienced - which can come through the application of (an) exercise in self-identification- then it is possible to synthesize the different aspects from which one has dis-identified oneself. In other words, one becomes a self who uses the body, the feeling-apparatus and the mental abilities as tools, instruments." (Assagioli, 1993/(c)1965, p.122)

'Samsara': Is our daily reality something
gone wrong, mad, an 'illusion' to be overcome,

With the model above, it is both. We re-learn to perceive reality as it is, independently from thought, as small children do, but we do it consciously, and learn to use it to express the creative drive in the human being. Such conscious awareness is evolutionary.

Consciousness of self leads to seeing at the same time the whole horizontal spectrum: the complexity of human nature, of localised notions of fixed self that have become functional and context-related, but also the essential 'I', which is not separated as the old ego-self was. The Higher Self is a balance, a synthesis (while the core sense of self is a concept that shifts with whichever mode of being we choose to operate in). One

realises that we actually are lifelong learners. And one becomes a purposeful creator and knower. The separate sense of 'self' appears as a mental construction localised in time and context, that can be managed for the purposes of living.

Becoming conscious of the essential, core 'I', opens the door to the synthesis, and to learning the tools of our 'BodyMindSelf' in order to master the mental constructs, the self-concepts, the 'thought-forms', the dreams, and to learns to 'energise' them with emotions and breath, and to 'embody' and 'manifest' them. This represents one of the two directions mystical schools take, the esoteric and shamanic direction (A) towards redefining ourselves as a 'Higher Self', a 'Creator Self', and towards learning how to 'co-create' reality. It requires self-knowledge and self-mastery, and can take much time in learning. It is a highly individuated, 'complex-singular' Self that thrives on the wonder of creating and knowing/unknowing, of seeing chaos emerge into something brand new according to its conscious will or desire. The 'Creator Self' transcends both the single ego and the multiple identities, into a new, larger identity that is flexible.

4. But one cannot 'create reality' without an understanding of what 'reality' is about, what the 'connection' is. Here come all sorts of questions about the nature of 'reality', of 'dreams' and 'visions' and of the 'mind' that does the envisioning. And about all the tools of the 'BodyMindSelf'. To use these tools to create, the essential 'I', with its new identity as a 'Creator Self' needs to maintain a purposeful 'creative tension', and so needs a clear awareness of 'reality-as-it-is'. All these questions aim to bring this awareness about if it had been lost, as is the case in most Westerners. I am not sure that this rekindling is necessary for all people in all cultures.

One becomes aware that the essential 'I' is a meaning attached to a very basic process of becoming, in constant interaction with a world that is also in becoming and change. Both the I and the world hold a potential that is present in the now-situation, and which may become actual. This 'process' has little to do with an individuated human self, separate or complex, transcending or not, and more to do with animal's or children's way of simple 'being here and now', independently from thoughts, images, explanations or identities, for no other reason than the fact that they are here, now. I related this -- which I found in other people as well-- to my longing for this state when my mind has me transform pain into suffering, has me reproduce old bad habits or has me worry about the future. I am then nostalgic of my happy early childhood days, before I began being afraid of everything, before I began wishing I did not have a mind that asks so many questions. I envy my cat. This is not 'beyond' mind or time, but rather 'beneath' them. In this sense it would be more a 'pre-scendence' than a transcendence of self-concept. A 'pre-personal' state. The arrow of the diagram goes 'down', in the 'B' direction. This is the realm of the 'open state', the 'Natural Awareness', the 'ground of reality'.

Many spiritual practices involving the body are aimed at this perceptual re-sensitisation, or 'de-automation' or 'dehabituation', which has been recognised in mind research as well. If we use both directions, up (A) and down (B) for learning, with a nurturing attitude, we may undergo a reawakening the primitive ways of perceiving 'reality', but this time with an individuated consciousness, a conscious awareness of self as an individual with skill and desire to fulfil a creative purpose. If the attitude is a striving to 'get rid of' self-centredness, the practice

is ascetic and can be punishing. The Anglo-Saxon Westerner tends to choose the nurturing way because creative individuality is valued. The sports facilities of our society could be adapted to facilitate self-awareness rather than ego-centred distraction (music and mirrors in gyms...). Another dimension of education could be developed here for our children as well, that would save them the disconnection from Natural Awareness.

'Educating our mind', therefore, means developing skills of mind and body. Below is a representation of my understanding(s_ept.1998). I consider that each person has the opportunity to grow in the evolutive, integrative direction, but much depends on one's motivations, which themselves rest in the present psychological state and the set of values embraced. Rekindling the Natural Awareness, on the other hand, seems an important step for the whole of humanity if we are to stop destroying the planet and social fabrics that are our habitats.

An Aristotelian, analytical, left-mind schema would be: A right-mind imaginal schema would

	Singular	Complex
Singular	Singular-Singular ='reality as it is' magic	Complex =Right mind Organic, mythic
Complex	Singular	Complex-Complex =HigherSelf Mind (both or/and *at the same time)* *'experiential'* 'Creator Mind'
	=Aritotelian intellect (either/or)

If my framework and understanding find any validation in the future, they can be the basis for a more complete kind of education of mind and body, promoting the ethics that comes from conscious unification of the personality and from an awareness of our systemic nature. Much could be done to improve our general strategies for the education of children as well as adults and promote the 'authentic self'. Much could be done to

provide more understanding of the 'psycho-spiritual' process in terms of education of the BodyMindSelf, to support people who have become 'seekers' and get lost in New Age literature or the plethora of ancient sacred texts. This will constitute a goal of my socially involved socially involved work.

3.7 SYNCHRONICITY AND BUSINESS FLOW (PART VII)

When I speak of 'enlightenment' or 'powers', I am conjecturing, but I am qualified b y experience to speak of flow and of the obstacles to prosperity and to actualisation of one's potential in the world. Many authors (such as Maslow or Deepak Chopra) are confusing and contradicting, because they do not take into account whether a person is 'in survival mode' or has already met the needs of belonging to society (in particular a professional place with an income), an issue I have addressed before (Bouchon, 1997d) and how stressed they are. The picture I present below is a hypothetical one. It took shape in my experience and my intuition but is only partially confirmed. In my present understanding (sept. 98) (which will need to be tested and refined), there are two ways of 'creating reality', summarised in Table 12

Table 12: B-synchronicity, A-creative action
The natural, organismic mechanism and the function of Creation

'Pre-scendence":

Prior-to-mind, natural awareness of present !.Ensure basic survival needs:

survival, safety and basic belonging

(place in the world: social, ecological)

2.Ensure growth needs: basic needs for LifeWork and inner self-actualisation

Feeling:

Great calm, joie de vivre, love

'Transcendence': Unified Creator Self

Support expression of self:

!.actualisation of self (outer),

2.self-transcendence into Creator Self

Feeling:

exhilaration, excitement, love

One way is related to the 'down' direction 'B', and is spontaneous, un-requested 'synchronicity'. I see its function as the basic underlying role of the most primitive parts of our being: helping us to 'meet our needs', to survive (including health), be safe, and live efficiently within our local community (basic belonging). The Bsynchronicity kind is apparent in my 17-year old gymnastics experience. My mind had nothing to do with it: 'it' just took over when needed. I have found, over time, that this happens also with the most dire financial

situations. B-synchronicity is effective unconsciously, autonomously, and can be impeded by too much disconnection from Nature, from others (lack of care in particular), b y stress, b y culture and b y pressures from the social environment. When it is impeded (by ourselves or b y others on whom we are dependant in one way or another), we do not find solutions to steer away from abuses of all kinds, physical (including denatured food), emotional, and mental. Many of our society's problems seem to be of this nature. This 'pre-scendent' awareness, as I see it, gives us the fundamental feeling of safety that allows us to not function from fear but from trust, to

not be constantly 'in survival mode', self-defensive and manipulative. This natural mechanism seems to be 'acausal' because it is not directly related to a self that wills, directs, and thinks in sequential causal terms. It 'just happens' if we are not 'disconnected'. It has meaning because we do have a self or selves that need to see meaning, as I did in my 17-year old gymnastics experience. My mind had nothing to do with it: 'it' just took over when needed, but through it, I came to 'know I belong' in Nature, and to use natural settings to 'resource myself' when the world of people was too painful. I have found, over time, that the mechanism works also with the most dire financial situations, to save me 'going to live under the bridges' (where it is not safe). In some sense, this mechanism is present in anything that lives or works (machine). Otherwise, when something impedes its functioning drastically, chaos and decay set in, breakdown (including nervous: depression), crash, death. This accounts for the view of disease as a disharmony.

The mechanism has also, I believe, a second function: to support growth, which for humans means the creative force of the individual, the purposeful 'life calling' and expression of self. It seems we cannot become fully operational as Creator Selves without this function in full operation, which seems to be the case for many 'New Agers'. On its own, it works within a natural framework of sustainability, of a 'strict need' strategy, of economy of means, not with surplus abundance, and it does not take into account our Western habit of wanting to own things, this 'grasping' habit of the ego. One typical example is related in EE #13 (in Appendix 3.3). This natural, organismic, or systemic mechanism built into our BodyMindSelf functions unconsciously, whether we know it or not, better or worse depending on how much we interfere and disconnect. It functions to allow us a survival place, be it small, in the world. But we often confuse actual 'need', of a natural kind (food, shelter, safety, basic growth), with desires linked to civilised living, social living, and we do not acknowledge that this mechanism is there and works fairly well actually most of the time. So we feel unsafe, and act from ego-defensiveness and fear. Small children are still in touch with it and act from trust. If we can rekindle our awareness of it, we find trust and some form of 'faith', and we can let go of stress, which in turn allows the natural organismic mechanism to function better, for both health and outer needs.

The second way of 'creating reality' is much more conscious and dependent on will or desire. It is a means of 'expressing' our consciousness creatively. Its function is 'dream meeting'. It makes use of the ability to make up dreams, visions, and 'thought-forms' from our desires, and only comes with mastery of the tools of the 'BodyMindSelf'. In 'A-creation', the person feels he or she is influencing (not necessarily 'causing' directly)

personal outer life circumstances. This is what I call the 'power of Creation' (or co-creation). In their 'effortless' form, desires simply have as much reality as a person's 'actual' experience, and automatically call on the organismic mechanism which actualises them. For the 'creator self', creation can be consciously willed, which is different from directly 'caused'. The fruits seem to be the result of a purpose rather than a goal (even when it seems to achieve a goal set in advance) and depends on the values emphasised: the fruits are often not those directly envisioned.

Apparently, if combined with natural awareness, A-creation can give us access to super-normal 'radiant health', to 'perfect relationships', to successful LifeWork (that includes social recognition of the value of that work), etc. as expounded b y some New Age teachers who seem to have developed in both directions. These are the three basic areas where people have problems, usually in one mainly, that turns out to be the main area of their life learning. Each teacher focuses on that area, where he or she has done his discoveries, often assuming that it is 'the' fundamental issue in human affairs. And so they teach the techniques that worked for them, and talk about the kinds of results they gained. Taken together, they show an amazing picture of what is available to humans.

Spiritual traditions interested in creation tell us there is no theoretical limit to what can be achieved this way... Basically, the saying : "If you can think it, it can happen" applies, with the nuance of 'co-creation' rather than conventional causation. The limitations come from all aspects of our thinking. Our beliefs in what is possible or impossible particularly are extremely limiting. This explains the usefulness to the techniques of 'reprogramming the unconscious'. That is, provided they are not used as mere self-manipulation. Here spiritual meaning and psychological integration appear as important elements. They bring higher values of connection, love and altruism, and so the choice of sustainable desires and dreams. The 'size' of our dreams, if ethical, is related to the 'size' of the 'lifework' we feel drawn to do.

The A-creative function does not seem directly related to sustainability. Widespread and luxurious abundance is possible, as is black magic. Creation can be selfish, creation can be destructive, just as any other tool, and only the embracing of humane values will keep the ego-centredness of our desires in check. Creation can be accessed, apparently, at any level of sense of 'self'. Ancient peoples used it. Middle Ages peoples used it. American business wizards use it. This function also works with fears and beliefs and causes many of our difficult life situations. (see for ex. EE# 14 in Appendix 3.3)

Time will tell if this is a correct view, but it seems that the natural, organismic mechanism of the BodyMindSelf is the key to making envisioned dreams come true. Higher mind can form the visions, but it is the BodyMindSelf's mechanism that manifests them. Some of the courses I cited say 'it is the unconscious that does it'. This would explain why so many New Age or 'spiritual' people who know about the techniques to 'envision' or 'manifest' find that the creation does not happen. Without the awareness of the present situation as it is, the 'creative tension' is twisted: the feedback loops are misleading because the reality perceived is a mental

construction, not reality as it is. Without enough self-knowledge, what we 'manifest' is the image of the fears we hold in mind. For others, the dreams are there, and so it the present, but the 'visions' are ego-centred, and so the result self-aggrandising' or even hurts others or the community or destroys the environment. This is the case for much American business success. Part of my work will consists in determining what the pre-requisists are for the two types of synchronicity and what their relationship is, and how various factors influence their functioning.

Naturally, this distinction between A-creation and B-synchronicity is an arbitrary, intellectual one. In some cases (as in EE #15 and 16 in Appendix 3.3), it is difficult to label the event. In this instance, the photocopier I 'received' was something I needed for my work and had worked at envisioning. Yet nothing had happened for months. Then one day, it came, but not as I had expected: it was a loan because I was involved in working with others. In this instance, it did not meet my dream of owning it, and did not come when I first worked at visualising it. It came as a natural meeting of a need I had for my purposeful work and so also for my growth as a human being. So was it an 'A' or a 'B'?

This natural awareness has concrete effects. Harish Johari explains that in advanced yogic development (7^th chakra), the yogi finds that 'whatever he desires comes true, as does the ability to induce visions of the past, present and future.' (Johari, 1987, p.79) This is relating the finding of many people who are developing spiritually or creatively, that a certain degree of mastery brings series of synchronicities that meet our basic needs but also our desires and dreams without striving 'effort' on our part,. In my view Johari's statement covers both what I have called 'B-synchronicity' and the will-directed 'A-creation'. This is what Deepak Chopra has called 'effortless' living, and which I have called 'Business Flow' in the context of a professional life.

Observing people of the land and native people, I came, similarly, to imagine that there are two kinds of 'flow' states. Csikszentmihalyi described, for example, a mountain woman who kept goats and seemed to be in permanent flow, even though her life was very simple and repetitive. In my framework, such a person would have the primitive 'natural awareness' but a little-individuated personality and so would be far from a 'Higher Mind'. Her life, as described, or as I see it in other people like her, was neither highly creative nor oriented toward higher knowledge through intuition, but she had 'her place in the world', a fundamental trust, and was neither self-defensive nor manipulative. This I would term 'FlowB', as distinguished from the kind of flow that higher creativity or spiritual life can bring, as described in much of transpersonal literature, which I would term 'FlowA'. This distinction has led me to challenging seriously the notion of 'psychological development' as it is usually understood, that is, involving a necessary step of developing an ego that is dis-eased and disconnected, as we have it in the West. I discuss this in Appendix. 3.2.

It seems to me that the first task of our world is to re-establish the 'natural awareness' of 'FlowB' more than
focusing on accessing Higher mind and, as Wilber and some others used to advise, take everyone to fully

fledged 'spiritual awakening'. It is the loss of 'FlowB', in my view, that drives our world mad. An interesting question is to know whether a little individuated person can be taken from a 'FlowB' to a 'FlowA' developing a left-mind but without a separating ego. Our Western psychologies basically say 'no', but I am not so sure. If thiss natural awareness is what I believe it to be, it is something we have as children, whether we live in the West or in the rest of the world, and do not have to lose. In other words, the education we give to our children has a fundamental flaw we can rectify. Other cultures do not seem to go through the psychological agonies the 'ego' brings to the West. A child who would be educated free of the limitations of Western perception and thinking could develop a healthier, authentic personality, knowing who he or she is and wants to do in life (purpose), with efficient left- and right-minds, and with access to both types of flow or creative activity, and without the torments of an 'unconscious' shadow. Such people would be spared the agonies of 'midlife crisis' and 'spiritual emergencies'.

Given the usually well organised ways of Nature, it would seem rather unlikely that such pains should be 'inscribed in our genes'. It seems particularly important for us, collectively, to cultivate this kind of awareness, as it seems to be crucial for people to stop to fight and fear. I will discuss another crucial aspect of life that we need to cultivate, mutual validation, in my conclusions.

Fear and fight are epitomised in the syndrome of the 'survival drive gone mad'. John Wren Lewis is a professor of physics who turned to religious studies after a near-death experience that left him, he believes, spontaneously enlightened. He now devotes himself to finding a way to bring this liberating experience to others through less drastic experiences. His state seems similar to the 'plateau' experience Maslow described after nearly dying of a heart attack, which represents the natural awareness that can be called upon any time:

"After my rescue from death-by-poisoning in Thailand in 1983, I felt as if something like a cataract had been removed from my brain, and for more than ten years now, it has allowed me to experience a wonder and depth of aliveness in each moment in a way I had never dreamed possible...

Quite a few of us [Near Death Experiencers], including many like me with no prior mystical beliefs at all, have found ourselves living in a state of consciousness where 'egoic' preoccupartions no longer dominate life, though we have done nothing to discipline ourselves...

The mere fact that such mystical opening can occur without any spiritual discipline presents a fundamental challenge to the aristocratic or 'growth' model of enlightenment. And perhaps the most extraordinary thing is that I don't feel in the least bit 'high' or special. The state feels so absolutely natural...

It is as if the NDE jerked me out of a collective nightmarish trance where individuality seemed to mean

separateness and struggle to survive, when it is an arbitrary convention, like the lines on figures....

If this trance can on occasion be broken simply by close encounter with death, then it must be something like a malfunction, a hyperactivity, of the natural protective instincts that are meant to maintain the game of individuality by avoiding death as long as possible. Post-NDE lives offer evidence that these

instincts actually function more efficiently without the 'anxious thought for the morrow' that blocks out awareness of 'eternity now'. What we need now is to take all ancient traditions about enlightenment as hypotheses, and do real research into less drastic ways of soothing the hyperactive survival-drive." (John Wren-Lewis, interview,1992.)

The 'natural protective instincts' corresponds to my idea of an 'organismic natural mechanism' to ensure survival and growth. In this passage, notice the word 'growth'. After a couple of conversations with him, I can point out that he challenges the ideas of spiritual preparation through a regular practice, and of linear development, not the notion of growth in the natural world, of which we are a part. I have come to the same conclusion that this mechanism functions without relationship to thought. If our thinking stops us being aware of the present, we are unaware of the mechanism. It is my present understanding that stressing ourselves actually impedes the very functioning of this mechanism. Most of us respond to thoughts about past or future with stress, which takes our attention away from the present experience. The 'eternity now' Wren Lewis speaks of may simply be the time-less experience of the present (time being a construction generally attributed to left brain functions). It is therefore plausible that our habituation to high stress levels would be one way to formulate and explain the feeling I found in both my experience, and related by Da Free John, of 'something that blocks', within the psyche.

My framework was developed in the contemporary Western context and cannot be expected to suit other cultures or times. It does not yet take into account certain other factors, contains certain assumptions, and is aimed at practical benefits rather than philosophical explanations about the nature of mind or reality, benefits for certain kinds of people. It therefore is not meant to be read as a universal model.

S ynchronicity is a principle of acausal relationship between human thoughts and events. I have intentionally not reviewed literature on this concept at this stage because 'synchronicity' is a matter of psychological meaning (not my focus here) attached to events that have happened, and I wanted to explore the active phenomenon of creation directly in my experience. I will review and discuss the literature in the next stage of my work.

I would like to finish by reproducing two passages. Both express the uncertainty and magic of experiencing both singular-complexity and simplicity, The first highlights knowledge about the mind, and the second an attitude to transpersonal and spiritual experiences in the second.

"The mind is actually very peculiar and unpredictable. It manifests many different forms and faces... We might use many different words to describe the scope of its influence or to discuss its apparent functioning, but finally, it is very difficult to make mind tangible or to give it shape and to say solidly, 'This is exactly what mind is '.

"Mind is also very precious. The more deeply we investigate it, the more we can discover a most comprehensive, universal kind of truth-knowledge. The Buddha, the Enlightened Ones, the great teachers, and all those who have attained this knowledge first observed their own mind. They did not blindly follow someone else's ideas but explored their minds to greater and greater depth until they discovered that the most valuable possession we have in this world is the human mind."

"Steven Hendlin has argued that the best attitude for the transpersonal psychotherapist is 'don't know.

The 'Don't Know' attitude, based on the realization of impermanence, calls for a faith in the unknown, a faith in... the 'wisdom of insecurity'... Paradox is another form of '"don 't know"....Our task is to understand that the one who questions is not different from the 'who knows?' question itself. Our lives are the substance and answer to this question. But I might be wrong. You never know for sure. (Hendlin, 1984, p.12)" (cited in Rowan, 1993, p. 227).