Triphasic Model of Ego Development

Triphasic Model of Psychospiritual Development

In 1910 Roberto Assagioli rejected psychoanalytic emphasis on childhood dynamics. He conceived of the idea of ‘psycho synthesis’, the capacity of the human being to integrate to increasing levels of wholeness. The mediator for this experience in the transpersonal `Self which reflects itself within consciousness and is experienced as our ‘personal self at one level, however with ‘synthesis’ it is possible to ‘reform’ the personality to mirror more clearly the transpersonal ‘Self. My understanding of the Triphasic model is just this, it’s about the level of ‘Self revealed at each level with certain challenges to be found, worked through and integrated.

Spirit becoming matter, ‘being’ in ‘form’, ‘informing’ is the first stage of our journey. Ken Wilbur (Wilbur, 1996) describes this process as a ripple in the fabric of Spirit that forgets its ‘Self and then falls back into its ‘Self, a journey of rising, and falling in, of, and back to its ‘Self.

The ‘pre-personal’ first stage development according to Wilbur is a state of ‘fall’ of ‘alienation’, the furthest point of separation, ‘unconscious’ which is a

point returned to again and again within development, to remain ‘unconscious’ to defend against the unknown and cling to the known. Wilbur also puts forward and agrees with Plato’s view of becoming one, instead of two, which is the expression of humanity’s ‘need’. And the reason is that human nature was originally one and we were a whole and the desire and pursuit of the whole is called Love.

When we work with our clients we explore and visit all three levels, the Prepersonal, Personal and Transpersonal. We may engage with our clients at all three levels in one session or visit particular developmental hurdles / needs for extended periods of time within the therapeutic space. At the `Prepersonal’ level we are attempting to meet our clients and their history as it relates to our context of ‘Self unfolding to its `self.

There is the existential dread of separation mirrored in the realisation of separation from Mother. Mother brings the breast but also takes the breast away; objects outside ‘affect’ what happens ‘inside’, this is the beginning of ‘projection’ and ‘splitting’. How the infant manages conflicting needs and unpleasant experiences that happen inside. When I sit with my clients I can experience them working to ‘Project’ certain feelings and experiences into me, sometimes referred to as ‘projective identification’.

These ‘objects’ need to be transformed and given meaning. Mother is the first transformational object (Winnicott, 1990). She transforms the ‘needs’ within the infant: holding, feeding, changing and sleeping. Mother provides through her relationship with the infant a ‘continuity of being’. The existential dilemma of duality, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ impacts on the development of ego structure within the self. This dilemma can be mediated by Mother provided the infant is met authentically and not wounded by Mother’s unconscious ‘needs’. A false self formation can result as a response to merging with Mother’s unconscious desires and needs, the features of this ‘false self formation are compliance and giving away our ‘No’ in an attempt to survive.

What emerges from this early period of ego-development is the experience of ‘separateness’ of a distraction from other. The child moves from undifferentiated consciousness, a sense of oneness, through its relationship with Mother which mirrors the one becoming two. The anxiety of separation, of differentiation of consciousness, in the world the realization of being separate, and developing a structure called personality, which is a response to the wounding of the ‘being’ in the world. This first experience of ‘Self returning to its ‘Self has many challenges to be found by the child. Piaget’s experiments with five-year olds clearly demonstrate the narcissistic grip and the absence of empathy. His experience relies on the experimenter offering a cube, red on one side and green on the other; the experimenter faces the red side and green side alternately to the child and on each occasion the child is asked which colour is being seen by the experimenter, the child always imagines that the experimenter ‘sees’ what the child ‘sees’. The child cannot project itself away from itself, what it thinks and sees is what ‘is’, there is knowledge of the other but no ability to empathise, to join the emotional, cognitive world of the other.

The issues that the client brings into therapy at this level are: unclear boundaries, acting out, denial, repression and splitting, avoidance of conflict, dependent on others for sense of worth, little sense of what is right for them.

At this level I as a practitioner am providing empathy, mirroring holding, the archetype of ‘good Mother’ and I will be looking for opportunities to introduce vertical interventions, to awaken the ‘observer’ capacity, an intervention may be “who is it that needs to act out like this?” awakening the quality of `distinction’.

I look for the ‘Will’ and where it may be frozen, the resistance to integration is the ‘limit’ of the client’s ‘Will’ configured around a wound or developmental need that still needs to be owned, accepted and worked through, so that awareness grows and the will is ‘free’ to experience more ‘choice’, which results in an expression of differentiation in consciousness, ‘Self becoming more `Self conscious’.

The ‘Personal’ self, the awakening of ‘I’, is the next developmental journey of `Self in the world, this aspect of differentiation is usually blocked and truncated in our clients. Our clients present the response to the wounding, a ‘false Self Winnicott (1990) formation, which lacks an authentic resonance in relation to self and other. The client and to a lesser degree ourselves as witness to the `Self unfolding in matter move away from the suffering of ‘alienation’ which paradoxically, is the very thing that we so desperately ‘need’, an ‘authentic’ response, a relationship to and with our suffering a surrender to it, an acceptance of our limitations. This is referred to as a ‘boundary experience’ as the limit of the personality formation. It’s not about breaking the ‘resistance’ but staying with it, letting it speak, it has served the survival of ‘Self in the world. We use the models in psychosynthesis to awaken the observer, the capacity to witness oneself. The ‘I’ of our clients builds identity from successive disidentifications becoming this rather than that, in a ‘conscious’ process by owning and integrating, split of aspects, the ‘parts’ that have been denied, the ‘authentic’ difference that is felt when our clients are able to say “I am me, this is me, and you are you”. We cling on hoping that there will be another way out, the child of history fears the experience of separateness of being alone in the world, the utter alienation of being separate. This separation feels like an ‘ego death’ Wilbur (1996) talks about this death as being absolutely essential to successive integrations within the personality structure. It is letting go of lower order structures, exclusive identifications that no longer serve the development of ‘Self. He talks about transcending through the expansion of love to a higher order structure. This experience of ‘death’ is felt at every level of development as the old forms are relaxed and identifications are made with new forms.

The Self as experienced as ‘I’ is faced with ‘differential pulls’. There are vertical pulls between levels i.e. matter, mind and spirit to ascend or descend and there are horizontals pulls to ‘preserve’ the identification or ‘release’ it. It is about consolidation, unity and integration of each developmental movement until the ‘I’ can once again face the ‘death’ of that level, release the identification and move on to the next developmental level.

Facilitating the awakening of my client’s ‘I’ function can be evoked in any session but generally I would call it the ‘middle phase’ of counselling as does Diana Whitmore (1991) in her textbook `psychosynthesis counselling’. She mentions the trials and pitfalls as the personal sense of self starts to experience `disidentification’ with the help of the therapist and by using the models of psychosynthesis. This phase of the therapeutic relationship can be challenging as the client clings on to the old forms and ways of being in the world. Old mind sets and maintaining cycles may be evoked and we may re-visit the ‘super-ego’ intrajects from our parents as we come up against of own potency our ability toself reflect and ‘think’ about ‘thinking’. To awaken the ‘will’ and experience choice activates the configurations of the child of history.

The external ‘unifying centre’ Firman and Gila (2002) as experienced by the client in the ‘form’ of the therapist needs to be internalised and integrated as an ‘internal unifying centre’. The projections the therapist has taken on in service to the client’s ‘Self’ need to be taken back as the client realizes that he is in fact master of his own house. This stage of the therapeutic affiance can develop along the lines of ‘right relations’ Assagioli (1965) whereby naming the difference between self and other (the client and therapist), the authentic response of the `being’ in the world can be engaged with, by using dialogue the ‘Hermeneutic’ relationship which is the symbolic intentionality of meaning and value can unfold between self and other. The therapist ‘holds’ the client as a ‘Thou’ not an ‘it or object, but a relational being, a ‘self unfolding to its ‘Self Bauber (1984). The relationship between myself and the client deepens as we relate to difference within the therapeutic space, it’s the very ‘owning’ of this separateness this difference that transforms the alienation, as the heart starts to open and the child of Self is revealed to the client. The process is usually two steps forward and one step back, as all of the anxieties of ‘ego death’ are evoked by awakening the client’s ‘No’ in relation to self and other, and our clients start to find their ‘Yes’ to themselves and to life.

We use the term psychospiritual to describe a psychology of ‘Self because spirit is available at all levels. It is the awakening of our selves to our essential natures as Psyche, Soma and Spirit come into relationship with each other there comes the ‘awakening’, a `psychospiritual awakening’ of the ‘I’ which with the ‘will’ as the `Self in action, brings greater differentiation of consciousness, which leads to an awareness of the experience of ‘Self as it is in the world at the level of ‘I’ and yet not of the world at the level of ‘Spirit’. This experience of ‘Self being in the world and yet not of the world is referred to as `Transcendent — Imminence’ Firman & Gila (2002).

The ‘I’ is ‘transcendent’ of content and process and yet ‘imminent’ within it, the central paradox to ‘being’ in the world, to be in it but not of it, is at the very heart of alienation, of the experience of being a self in the world, unfolding to itself. The client becomes aware through the work that he can take on successive `identification’ by using the ability of ‘Will’ to identify and disidentify to gain mastery over his internal world and experience more ‘choice’.

Wilbur (1996) explains spirit being in the world as a process of `Involution’ of the higher order being revealed within the lower, the lower is created from the higher as the process called ‘Involution’. The higher always transcends the lower and not vice versa.

“That is all of the lower is in the higher but not all of the higher is in the lower.” (Wilbur, 1996)

The processes of ‘Involution’ and evolution play themselves out over decades and millennia and also from moment to moment, starting from infinity and contracting away to the current level of adaptation.

“He Involves to the highest point he has yet to Evolve. This is why all meditation is called remembrance and recollection.” (Wilbur, 1996)

What does this all mean for our clients? The transpersonal, the `experience’ of more than, of the experience of a `Self in the world and yet not of the world. With the realization of what it means to be a ‘Self, the embrace of it is a willing co-operation with it, a surrender to it, acceptance of our limitations, as we start to co-create our experience by engaging our ‘will’ and ‘synthesizing’ the parts into more meaningful wholes. We start to manifest our potential, our identifications and attachments are challenged. We engage with purpose, meaning and value with engagement of the moral dilemmas, the ground is resacralised Evans (1997) the Self speaks through the existential givens of guilt and shame and the ‘I’ acts out of a psychospiritual ground. There is a redemption of ‘Self-betrayal’ as we start to experience the freedom to be a Self in the world and the freedom from structures within the ego and the super-ego itself. We surrender to the experience of uncertainty and are willing to embrace the unknown.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Assagioli, Roberto (1965) Psychosynthesis, Harper Collins

Bauber, Martin (1984) I — Thou, T & T Clark.

Doel, David (1990) The Perennial Psychology, The Lindsey Press. Evans, Juan (1997) Training Handout Institute of Psychosynthesis. Firman & Gila (2002) Psychosynthesis, a Psychology of the Spirit, Suny. Whitmore, Alana (1991) Psychosynthesis Counselling, Sage.

Wilbur, Ken (1996) Eye to Eye: The Quest for the new Paradigm, Shamshala.

Winnicott, D. (1990) The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment, Kamac Books.