Consider the spiral reading before calling it regression

Before deciding that resurfacing early feelings mean you are going backwards, weigh Washburn’s view that growth can loop back through them.

Why it works

Michael Washburn contrasts two pictures of transcendence: a "ladder to oneness" that moves straight to higher levels, and a "spiral to integration" that bends back on itself and involves regression at some point. In his model, development in the first half of life moves away from a deep source he calls the Dynamic Ground, and transcendence in the second half spirals back toward it — one chapter is titled "Regression in the Service of Transcendence". Holding this alternative keeps the pre/trans lens from automatically labeling every return of early material as failure.

How to do it

1. When early or childlike feelings come up during therapy, meditation, or a major life change, write down what is surfacing.
2. Ask the ladder question: is this pulling me away from capacities I have built?
3. Ask the spiral question: is this old material coming up so that it can be met and integrated, while my adult capacities stay available?
4. If adult functioning — sleep, work, relationships — is breaking down, treat that as a reason to get support now, whichever reading fits.

Evidence

Washburn’s 1990 abstract sets out the ladder and spiral conceptions and contrasts them on five issues, including whether transcendence involves regression at some point; it concludes the two are logically at odds. Wilber’s reply in the same issue argues the Jungian model can in essential respects be incorporated into his spectrum model. The SUNY Press description of Washburn’s book presents his spiral model as an alternative to Wilber’s structural-hierarchical paradigm. Daniels (2004) reports that Grof and Washburn treat prenatal experiences as legitimate sources of transpersonal experience. Fisher (1997), reviewing critics of Wilber’s work before 1995, argues their interpretations are often not substantiated while also calling Wilber’s critical style at times unnecessarily arrogant. (mechanistic)

Both the ladder and the spiral are theoretical models; neither has been tested as a predictor of how a given person’s experience will unfold. The debate between Wilber and Washburn is unresolved.

Sources

• Washburn, M. (1990). Two Patterns of Transcendence. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 30(3), 84–112.
• Wilber, K. (1990). Two Patterns of Transcendence. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 30(3), 113–136. (Reply to Washburn.)
• Washburn, M. (1995). The Ego and the Dynamic Ground (2nd ed.). SUNY Press.
• Daniels, B. (2004). The Trans/Trans Fallacy and the Dichotomy Debate. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 23(1), 75–90.
• Fisher, R. M. (1997). A Guide to Wilberland: Some Common Misunderstandings of the Critics of Ken Wilber and His Work on Transpersonal Theory Prior to 1995. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 37(4), 30–73.

Common mistake

Using the spiral reading to excuse any collapse as "deep growth". The spiral model still describes a movement toward integration, not a reason to ignore functioning that is falling apart.

Free to reuse under CC BY 4.0: cite or embed this practice · more practices graded Plausible mechanism