Tag Archives: Milton Erickson

“He who is rich in virtue is like a newborn child…”

I left a remark insufficiently explained last post: “Your consciousness begins your physical life far less local to your body.” This is much more literally true than most people understand.

With Erickson it was a matter of observation — for example, he saw babies reaching out to touch their right hand with their right hand. You are not born knowing where “me” is, and you are not born physically coinciding with it. Your body begins as a marker — partly a cultural marker.

This is a good collection of papers by well-qualified individuals, although somewhat diffuse or even tentative. The history and literature of hypnosis and mesmerism is extraordinary…

But the modern perinatalist observations have confirmed this far more strongly. Grof has a lot, and another great resource is hypnotherapist David Chamberlain. See for example his paper in Leskowitz, ed. Transpersonal Hypnotherapy (2010). Here you find hypnotised clients seeing the moment of their birth and finding that they had great awareness of the surroundings, an awareness not completely local to the body. They describe “knowing I have to put myself in that baby body”. There can also be memories of full-blown OBE as a baby.

The mind at that stage seems very intelligent, as Erickson would predict of what will become the unconscious mind. One patient, Deborah, says for example: “I felt I knew a lot — I really did. I thought I was pretty intelligent. I never thought about being a person, just a mind… I saw all these people acting crazy [about her delivery as a baby]. That’s when I thought I had a more intelligent mind, because I knew what the situation was with me, and they didn’t seem to. They seemed to ignore me. They were doing things to me, to the outside of me. But they acted like that’s all there was.”

“Not a person, just a mind” — exactly what we mean by not being hooked in to the cultural and physical body. This mind knows a context culture does not. Hence the perceptiveness and objectivity. The baby is mind-aware but the adults are only personality-aware. Adults have gone through that twofold process of identifying with the body, then with the culture. The tiny infant has not. “They seemed to ignore me”, meaning, my real self, but also their real selves — this being equivalent as we’ve seen to being caught in a mask or “estrangement” from the underlying.

This underlying self really is a lot “smarter” which is why, if you can have a relationship with it and activate it, you become a much richer version of yourself.

Inner selves shouting for attention are related of course to younger subpersonalities and hence to parts of the mind shut out by the social realm. Clearing the walls that shut out those selves clears the tension and the blocks to those awarenesses, and that becomes a live relationship with the nonphysical. You interact with other forms of input. “Extra sensory perception” is a cliché, like all parapsychological terms once the public gets hold of them, but all it means is perception on the part of that aspect of you which is not directly hooked into the body. That turns out to be a lot.

The irony is that the hooking-in tends to leave a lot of energetic blockages, so a new and clearer relationship with the body is actually far better for the body itself as well. Normal egotistical relations with the body aren’t helpful to its health at all.

This goes all the way up to enlightenment which can create what some have called a “duplex personality”… more on that in the upcoming series.


Tao as Universal Unconscious Mind

Leafing through this great Havens book on Milton Erickson I was struck by this:

[W]hile on the Research Service of the Worcester State Hospital he interviewed a catatonic schizophrenic who manifested a variety of bizarre behaviours and beliefs which struck Erickson as familiar. Eventually he was able to relate them to those of several primitive tribes, a discovery which puzzled him greatly because the patient obviously was unfamiliar with the beliefs and rituals of any of these tribes. These and other observations of the spontaneous development of identical patterns of thought and behaviour among separate individuals throughout the world and throughout history led him to conclude that basic human thinking and emotion are very much the same from person to person in spite of individual and regional idiosyncrasies. In other words, he observed that the human mind has an incredibly wide but finite range of potential patterns available to it and that everyone has the capacity to function within any one of those patterns.

The particular patterns that any given individual adopts or manifests, he realized, are a result of limitations imposed upon this original pool of potentials by culture and by the individual’s unique experiential history.

This is just so it. Humanity is bounded but infinite — but cultural humanity is far more bounded. The schizophrenic was tapping into the underlying pool — who knows exactly how. But (as with Jung) the behaviour tipped Erickson off to the unlimited nature of human cognition free of the social. The need to have the social be “everything” is quite strong, but partly thanks to a weird childhood in which recovery from polio played a major role, and partly to his great natural oddness, Erickson never had that need and brought a very objective eye to human beings.

That eye is the eye of the unconscious itself. Havens:

Erickson’s fundamental orientation towards life, perhaps the central theme of his work, was that people must learn to recognize, to accept, and to utilize, what actually is in order to meet their needs, accomplish their goals, and satisfy their purposes. Rather than lamenting, distorting, or denying the unpleasant facts of life or fantasizing about an easier, more ideal reality, Erickson proposed that people must experience and acknowledge the realities of their situation and apply whatever capacities they have in order to cope as effectively or purposefully as possible with those realities.

That may seem obvious — it’s the classic wisdom and never outdated — but the point is that “we” are not merely what “we” think ourselves to be. Your consciousness begins your physical life far less local to your body. Much of the most interesting stuff in your mind is stuff you never really look at after you become localised. Hooking into the body you start to leave the non-bodily behind — and then you hook into a cultured body, and get caught in language. But just reach behind and unhook those, and you have things you had no “conscious” idea about, mental aspects that already understand life in a less biased way than you do, so you can lean on them. As Havens says:

His most general observation was that people have both a conscious mode of functioning and an unconscious mode of functioning. The conscious mind represents a prejudiced and limited perspective on reality which can result in various distortions and behavioral anomalies. The unconscious mind, on the other hand, is a flexible system of thought and awareness which perceives and responds to the literal or objective qualities of reality. It is relatively unprejudiced, is very intelligent, and contains a vast reservoir of previously acquired, experientially based knowledge and memories.

The relation of this to “spirituality” is for example: just think of everything as having an unconscious mind. You can learn to tap into it by these and all sorts of methods. In an STE you become conscious of it, including as a whole — hence “cosmic consciousness”.


The Way That Finds Itself

The Breakout Principle

If you are going to do it, it is actually not “you” who will do it — “it” will do itself. A big part of the skill taught by successful lineages is learning to watch neutrally as the process does the process.

This relates, on the level of ordinary psychology, to the Breakout Principle of Herbert Benson, in which you first put a lot of energy into the process of solving any problem — performance anxieties or creative blocks, life rearrangement or stress reduction, deep questions of purpose — then having struggled you let go of the process, stop, do something different, something repetitive usually, something in which “you” are not involved in the same way. It could be meditation, it could be needlework… he gives pages of things people have used including reading, shaving, drumming or folding laundry. Thanks to a mechanism we all possess, this causes you to be struck by a solution “breaking out” of previous thought patterns, a solution “from nowhere”.

Benson’s book in my opinion frankly is a little naff, but still very good to know. :) LATE EDIT: Just speed-re-read it and added more to the end of this post; if that inspires anyone to get the book it’s currently going for absolutely peanuts, especially on UK Amazon. (Maybe the rest of his stuff is worth a look too — Glenn cued off him in a lot of ways. He’s even got some of the biology which is such a big key. I’ve read Relaxation Response and it’s a good basic book with a pleasing attitude.)

I think this “Breakout” just may be the central human psychological mechanism. Yet there is so little on it in psychology — even transpersonal psychology, whose very name implies it. I think many people experience these signs as little peak experiences, which is how Benson analyses them. That connects to Maslow, but Maslow didn’t produce any method, where Benson does. I described one of my early Breakouts here on the ‘Box back in January, but didn’t even realise I was talking about a Breakout myself! I see now the description is exact, as bolded here:

I remember the moment I got my first blast of the actual Earth, from opening the base chakra plus doing a bunch of work with sexual energy. It was after I’d stopped meditating for the night and was engaged in something unconnected. Suddenly I felt it. The first words into my mind were ‘old and strong’. That was how I observed-experienced it unfolding…, bristling and deep, full of silence, strong, massively present and aware…

The Sequence of States in a Breakout

I think that moment of life in which something breaks through is a fundamental aspect of psychology which really goes places when you get deeper. At the stronger STE (Spiritually Transformative Experience) end of the scale, it leads to removing “oneself” from the equation altogether. Hence, “death”, hence “egoless” and so forth. That thing whose fortunes one has to keep track of amidst the baboon horde no longer binds. Although this is radical, I must mention that it is incredibly subtle too.

And it just happens. I like to remember what Glenn says:

Most of the religious writings with the exception of Patanjali strike me as poppycock. They describe the life, but not the practice that resulted in the life.

Path Notes of an American Ninja Master (1993), p. 41

Exactly — nor the process that this practice set in train. Preaching at people that they “should” remove their egos is probably fairly pointless — the word “should” is an ego word. My most beloved process is the Kundalini process, which long-term enables this neutrality exactly. In just the same way as we have “peak experiences” and “plateau experiences”, so we have peak STEs and plateau STEs. Kundalini sometimes announces itself with a big peak, but the plateau element is inevitable once awakened and comes from living with it for years. These changes are profound and are really what ‘ego death’ means.

There may be many true ways to do this and we know many involve Kundalini — possibly others don’t. (What is valuable is any way that works.) But I could never imagine a way which didn’t involve letting go to “it”. It does it; “it” is always doing everything.

An eloquent writer on the result is Philip St Romain, who is both Kundalini experiencer and Roman Catholic. Right away that tells us something about universality. I don’t know if he has taught Kundalini but he has certainly described it pretty well, and joins the group of those, like Gopi Krishna and Glenn, who were practicing something and then suddenly found ”it” happening. They didn’t know what “it” was at first and that is not an easy situation. In St Romain’s case the practice was prayer which perhaps says something about how sincerely most people pray by comparison :) and resulted in interesting stuff like the throat opening first. He writes:

One of the first things that happened to me, when in 1986 my prayer deepened, was a sense of having lost myself. The union between self-awareness and self-concept was dissolved, and without a self-concept mirror to gaze into, I no longer knew myself. I still had a self-concept; my beliefs and convictions about myself were still there… But the emotional bond with self-concept was severed…

Who was I? I realized that I was not my thoughts, not my memory, not my body… I sensed a response coming from my intuitive higher self. “Philip St Romain is dead!” came the word. “Quit trying to find him”…

Since then, the Egoic pole of consciousness has returned, only not as before. For although there is, with me, a very definite sense of “I”, this “I” is not the old mental-conceptual Ego. Now, the “I” is just an “I”… I have become increasingly aware of my attending self, or “I”, as pure attention itself. It often feels like the Ground Itself sees out of my senses, and when this happens, attention is realized at its Root. There is just the seeing…

Kundalini Energy and Christian Spirituality (1991)

This is an excellent description of death and rebirth into a different form of consciousness, the idea embodied in those myths I’ve mentioned before — Zagreus and Osiris, etc. The “Ground” mentioned is the “Dynamic Ground” of transpersonal psychologist Michael Washburn. The new “I” doesn’t get in the way so much, and doesn’t need to be got out of the way for “it” to happen through the person. This is the key. Note how the “ego death” just happened, naturally, which is why it can be so central in so many places. This is natural human functioning, of a certain kind.

Spontaneity is central to Kundalini — the bodily movements, the feelings, the perceptions, the natural results of wiring into the bigger version of oneself previously excluded by habitual attention only to what comes through the physical channels. All of this occurs.

I don’t see enough on spontaneity. Psychology doesn’t often understand its relevance and stamping it out of people is one of school’s first tasks. All moments of creativity and inspiration are spontaneities. This to me is what transpersonal psychology should be about, this psychology which goes “beyond the person”. Not so much with the maps based on comparing thinkings. I suppose that may be natural at the transcendent level — but how do you get there? I want more with the getting sleeves rolled up and finding these links. Spontaneity works on the ordinary level and then on non-ordinary levels. That makes it a principle with universal application.

Another master of generating Breakouts, Milton Erickson, shines when it comes to how rigidity grows in the natural frame of reference:

Eventually the entire conscious awareness of the individual may become restrictively governed or dictated by the very structure that originally developed to allow an increased freedom of response.

– Ronald Havens, The Wisdom of Milton H. Erickson (1985)

… which is why one needs to let go of that structure. But Erickson didn’t do what Benson did and give a range of formulae for one’s own breakouts, since his interest was purely clinical. He was a master at getting others out of their own ways, but didn’t see it as his job to give them a new map about what had happened. For Erickson all conscious maps are wayward, bizarre, rigid and complex, but the unconscious is simple, universal, and brilliant if allowed to work.

Of the world traditions, Taoism is the one that most values spontaneity — it has a term for it, ziran, which is fundamental since Laozi. Isabelle Robinet points out that ziran is the Te, the power, of the Tao itself, and represents “being natural in its highest sense”:

… ziran defines the way the world goes on by itself without anyone “doing” it… In human beings, ziran means being free from dependence on some other thing or substance [equivalent to self-actualised]… being natural… and being creative… To respect ziran one should not interfere (wuwei)… To act spontaneously is to have no intention of one’s own, to let the natural force that is within everything work freely…

Routledge Encyclopedia of Taoism, entry “ziran

It’s quite nice to see such an exact match. Whatever one says about religious tracts, once one has taken on board some of the functions of “it” in us, along with the process of transformation into “it”, a lot of Tao Te Ching turns out to be precisely about that process. Differences in translation can be interesting, here are two good ones…

Act without action, (wuwei)
And nothing is without order.

(ch. 3, Wing)

Act without contrivance
And nothing will be beyond control

(ch. 3, Lin)

The idea itself is everywhere you look in that book. “It” orders, “it” controls, “you” act without acting, without it being “you” acting.

Knowing what beauty is makes ugliness, do not take hold of the world and act on it (that is, let go), do not employ forceful strategies, what you seize you lose. Teach the practice of no words, the usefulness comes when you don’t make an effort, act without expecting, make use of what is not there, abandon strategy, allow yourself to become obscure, know the male but hold to the female and become the world’s stream, become the pattern itself, enter the substantial and do not be occupied with the veneer…

… just finished a dash through Benson’s book again. A good story I’ll give briefly: An ambitious attorney has a huge case that could make his career, gets incredibly stressed, and ignores all advice from Benson on how to reduce stress. As he rises for his summation he thinks he will “never get a word out”, yet delivers an excellent address with incredible crowd rapport by having a spontaneous breakout based on one simple thought: none of this really matters.

As Benson notes (p. 77) at that moment he abandoned control over his situation — a perfect reflection of the Laozi ideas.

“None of this really matters”. When you have been struggling, struggling for ever, is that statement not in itself a kind of death? The push and the stress have engaged the nervous system, telling it in effect that this struggle is all about staying alive — the sympathetic fight/flight response is entrained. When you let go of that, you realise that your attempt to control is not keeping you alive, that life itself is what is giving you life.

Deep spiritual experience is stronger than this and leads to permanent changes, as St Romain was describing. As Paul says, “Die every day,” and Soko Morinaga ups it to every moment. There’s a whole chapter on this in the rebuttal (now being digested by its first advance readers BTW, many thanks to them) because Webster carps on it.

“Stress” or arousal is good up to a point — then let go. Have this take place within a realm of quiet attention… etc.

For those interested, here are Benson’s basic ideas on triggering mechanisms (for use after you have gone as far as you can with the conscious struggle upcurve remember) — all these can lead to a Breakout:

1. Repetitive physical or mental activity breaking previous thought patterns.

2. Becoming immersed in some expression of your personal belief system.

3. Surrendering, “total abandon” (as with the attorney above).

4. Participating in an absorbing personal encounter.

5. Becoming deeply engaged in an altruistic activity.

6. Filling your mind with a dominant sensory impression — sound or sight.

These are fine places to start. You can combine them. Obviously qigong works real well. The full list of individual Breakout trigger activities is 3 whole pages of the book — pp. 40-3. As I say, copies are going for 11p on Amazon so if you want this, go for it.

Sometime I’m going to talk a little about that second item, the “belief system”, and various radical ways to think about that… a combination of philosophy and the ability to reprogram the nervous system can produce very interesting results. In the end I have always tried to avoid being a “true believer” because once independent you can get results from your own sets of symbols, provided you know where the bottom line is.

Advanced processual meditation goes further than Benson knows about which is where Glenn comes in, but the priming and the letting go can both be done in meditative states. That’s where the aforementioned observing/witnessing states come in, which allow “it” to happen because “you” are just the process of watching the process. The “preliminary stress” just means concentrated attention and qi.

As a final word, I know nothing about Eckhart Tolle but I just remembered something I’d seen once:

One night shortly after his 29th birthday, Tolle says he was in a state of suicidal despair [as he had been all his life BTW]. “I couldn’t live with myself any longer. And this question arose without an answer: who is the ‘I’ that cannot live with the self? What is the self? I felt drawn into a void. I didn’t know at the time that what really happened was the mind-made self, with its heaviness, its problems, that lives between the unsatisfying past and fearful future, collapsed. It dissolved.”

He pauses and reflects. “The next morning I woke up and everything was so peaceful. The peace was there because there was no self. Just a sense of presence or “beingness”, just observing and watching.” He laughs lightly. “I had no explanation for this.”

Classic breakout from lifelong struggle on the “who am I?” level, resulting in ego death seemingly. His way doesn’t seem Kundalini-orientated and he doesn’t understand there’s more to enlightenment than this “egoless state”, but his description precisely parallels St Romain’s. And his process is slap in the middle of the theory we have here. Which is what I mean about a universal principle!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 112 other followers