Audit for elevationism
Check whether something you call spiritual is a pre-rational comfort that has been given a higher name.
Why it works
The elevating form of the fallacy treats everything non-rational as higher. In Wilber’s reading this is the error he attributes to Jung; his own earliest model, which he later revised, had pictured spiritual growth as a return to the undivided oneness of the newborn. The pull toward it is understandable: a regressive state can feel warm, total and free of doubt, which is easy to mistake for transcendence. Naming the possibility directly gives a person a chance to see it.
How to do it
- List the beliefs or practices you treat as spiritual, especially the ones you turn to when things are hard.
- For each, ask: does this help me face the situation, or does it mainly make the situation feel unnecessary to face?
- Ask: would I accept this kind of reasoning — signs, omens, "it was meant to be" — if someone used it to make a decision that hurt me?
- Keep what survives the questions; mark the rest for the slower test of how it plays out in daily life.
Evidence
Wilber’s 1982 abstract describes the error of elevating prepersonal events to transpersonal status. Jakonen (2009) reports that Wilber uses Jung as the illustrative case of this elevationist version, and that Wilber revised his own early model, which had cast development as a return to the newborn’s oneness. The audit questions apply that idea and have not been tested. (anecdotal)
Assigning the elevationist error to Jung is Wilber’s interpretation; Jungian and transpersonal writers, including Washburn, read early and deep layers of the psyche more positively. Comfort is not a fault in itself — the audit is about naming, not about giving up whatever soothes you.
Sources
- Wilber, K. (1982). The Pre/Trans Fallacy. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 22(2), 5–43.
- Jakonen, J. P. (2009). Beyond postmodern spirituality: Ken Wilber and the Integral approach. Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis, 21, 92–109.
Common mistake
Turning the audit into contempt for everything non-rational. That swaps elevationism for its mirror image, the reductive error, rather than discriminating between them.
Practice this with IX Coach
More practices for Ken Wilber’s Pre/Trans Fallacy, Made Practical
- Check whether an experience includes reason or bypasses it
Ask of a non-rational experience whether it still has room for your reasoning, or only works when reasoning is switched off.
- Audit for reductionism
Check whether you are dismissing an experience only because it does not fit rational explanation.
- Test an insight by what it does in ordinary life
Judge a non-rational insight by its effects on your conduct and relationships over months, not by how it felt at the time.
- Get a second view from someone who knows both sides
Talk the experience through with someone who can reason carefully and who also has real contemplative experience.
- Name the X before you judge
Work out which capacity an experience is "pre" or "trans" to, so the question becomes concrete.
- 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.
Related concepts
- Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory (AQAL), Made Practical
Five elements for catching what your view of a situation leaves out, held as a map rather than a truth
- Non-Dual Awareness, Made Practical
Effortless mindfulness and the recognition of open, aware presence
- Holons, Holarchy and “Transcend and Include”, Made Practical
Growing past who you were without throwing away what that person could do
- The Dark Night of the Soul: John of the Cross
John of the Cross’s map of spiritual desolation and the practices that navigate it
Free to reuse under CC BY 4.0: cite or embed this practice · more practices graded Practitioner experience