PART I | PART II | PART III | REFERENCES

Spiral Dynamics

Most recently, Wilber (1999) has integrated into his model the pioneering thought of Graves and the continuing research of his students, Beck and Cowan. This approach, called spiral dynamics by Beck and Cowan, involves a concept of human development that roughly parallels, yet in some ways adds to, Wilber's model. According to the spiral dynamics model, the first several levels of development are subsistence levels characterized by first-tier thinking, culminating in postmodern/humanistic perspectives. Following development through these levels, the individual undergoes a quantum leap in consciousness development with the emergence of being levels and second-tier thinking. In each subsequent level of first tier thinking, a person can understand previous levels yet falls prey to "pathological" or "domination" hierarchization: perceiving previous levels as invalid and failing to recognize one's own level as part of a yet-larger whole. Only in second-tier thinking can one see each previous level as crucial to the overall spiral of development and also access and reactivate previous levels as circumstances warrant.

First-tier thinkers strongly resist any perspective other than their own, including second tier perspectives. Seeing their own perspective as the only valid one, they acknowledge neither the necessary function of previous levels nor the integral possibilities of subsequent levels. Wilber's emerging focus is an attempt to overcome this impasse by exploring various means of transformation in the intentional, behavioral, cultural, and social quadrants.

Helminiak's Model in Light of Integral Psychology

Readers, now apprised of the Integral Psychology (Wilber, 1999a) perspective, hopefully are prepared to understand our observations that follow regarding Helminiak's (2001) model. On several points, our integral perspective and Helminiak's are in agreement. We agree that spirituality is personal, yet not merely in Wilber's intentional quadrant, as Helminiak implied, but also in the behavioral quadrant; and not merely, as Helminiak said, a social institution (social quadrant) but also a manifestation of culture (cultural quadrant). We also agree that spirituality is an inherent human phenomenon, thus, falling within the domain of psychology and, consequently, that psychotherapy must account for and address spirituality. In addition, we agree that individuals/clients experience and express their spirituality in a variety of ways, including theistically, nontheistically, and even ways that they themselves would not describe as spiritual per se; integral psychology accords with Helminiak's approach in including, but not requiring, attention to theist considerations. Beyond these points of agreement, from the integral perspective, Helminiak's model seems very limited.

Various Conceptual Issues

Regarding the relative position of mind and spirit, Helminiak (2001) proposed that spirituality is merely a "mental phenomenon" -- a "dimension of the human mind" (p. 1) -- and that spirit is "within the human mind" (p. 7). Contemplatives across the world and history -- perennial philosophers, including Wilber (2000) -- have contended differently: that spirit is the ground of all and also that it is fully realized as such only at an ultimate level of development, including yet well beyond the personal sphere of mind. Thus, in the sense that spirit is the nondual source or ground of the nested spheres of human development, it is a precedent to, rather than a product of, mind. Also, in the sense that the personal spheres of development holonically support development of the "larger," more inclusive transpersonal sphere, mind is a prerequisite yet only a partial aspect of spirit -- the transpersonal domain -- rather than spirit being an aspect of mind. In our view, spirituality that is reduced to a dimension of the human mind is rendered small, indeed. Thus, in our view, mind is both a manifestation of and a part of spirit -- not vice versa .

Regarding the existential/humanistic perspective, Helminiak (2001) defined spirituality as "what some people turn to after they have worked through their basic issues or...what people in desperate need rely on to give them strength" (p. 3) that "can be legitimately addressed as [an]...aspect of psychology apart from theology and religion" (p. 2), that addresses "the 'big questions' of life--who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going? What does life mean? What is worth living for?" (p. 3) which constitute existential concerns -- "nothing esoteric or unusual" (p. 9). We agree that his approach is "humanistic" (p. 7) and "existential" (p. 9) and that existential dread often serves as a gateway to the spiritual domain.

However, from the integral perspective, a humanistic, existential perspective is not uniquely spiritual and is inadequate to address the spiritual domain. In Wilber's (1999a) model, the existential domain is found at the outer limits of the personal realm of development, just short of the qualitatively different transpersonal domain. Helminiak (2001) did briefly mention that the cultivation of spirituality "would result in an on-going way of living and/or extraordinary experiences associated with enlightenment or mysticism" (p. 7). However, he did not elaborate on these phenomena described by contemplatives the world over as involving transcendence of some of the very precepts Helminiak considers central to spirituality: "intelligence" and "rationality" (p. 9). How can the cultivation of rationality spawn experiences and a way of life that are transrational? On a related note, Helminiak argued that his transcendental precepts are self validating, in that, to critique them is to invoke them. However, from the integral perspective, the entire domain of rational discourse belongs to the level of reason -- the personal spheres of development; although they are highly appropriate within those levels, they are not inherently spiritual.

Helminiak (2001) also asserted that "spirituality names the committed pursuit to become the best one can be" (p. 7) and that "spiritual practices are geared toward enhancing inner experiences" (p. 28). From the integral perspective (Wilber, 1999a), the goals of self-improvement and experiential enhancement belong to the domain of spiritual translation. However, the self-transcending dimension by which Helminiak himself defined spirit pertains, in the integral perspective, to spiritual transformation. Helminiak not only failed to discriminate between these two processes but actually entangled them. Translation fortifies the self and its experiences; transformation aims to dismantle and destroy the sense of separate self. In Zen, enhanced "inner experiences" are called makyo (Ma -- devil; kyo -- the objective world). Although they are not inherently "evil," they can powerfully divert spiritual seekers who are "ignorant of [the] true nature [of these experiences] and [who are] ensnared by them" (Yasutani Roshi in Kapleau, 1989, p. 42). Chogyam Trungpa referred to the pursuit of such experiences as "spiritual materialism" (1973, p. 13). From an integral perspective, what Helminiak's spirituality is "geared toward" actually interferes with his definition and defined goal of spirit: self-transendence.

Another problematic area is Helminiak's notion that the human spirit "would rest content only in some ideal fulfillment of knowing everything about everything and loving all that is lovable" (pp. 8-9). Numerous spiritual teachers, including Avabhasa (1985), Eckhart (Fox, 2000), Kapleau, (1989), and Maharshi (1985), have admonished that enlightenment, or liberation, does not entail omniscience and, indeed, that the highest levels of transpersonal development are independent of knowledge of the phenomenal world (Wilber, 1999). The phenomenal world -- the relative realm of conditions -- is ever changing. Thus, even if one were to know everything about everything, in the next moment things are different. Were the historical figures of Gautama or Christ to appear today, they would not know how to surf the net or heat a Pop Tart. Their realizations pertained to That which is Absolute rather than to phenomenal conditions themselves. Moreover, the notion that spirit would rest only when "loving all that is loveable" implies that some phenomena are not inherently deserving of love. Again, from the perspective of the most inclusive structure of the integral model, all phenomena are recognized as temporary manifestations of spirit, inherently deserving of love and compassion though not necessarily deserving equal acceptance.

Regarding theism, Helminiak (2001) asserted that the human concept of God is often merely projection and, therefore, unreliable. He also cited Wilber's assertion -- and, we might add, the collective assertion of contemplatives across history and cultures -- that the innermost consciousness of humans is identical to the absolute and ultimate reality of the universe. Helminiak seemed to have concluded that this assertion also is a projection and, therefore, is incompatible with his spiritual psychology. For people who have not directly realized the Absolute, this issue becomes a question of authority. For ourselves, we find greater authority in the collective wisdom of the world's saints and sages, and we consider the exclusion of that wisdom to render any spiritual psychology incomplete, even potentially harmful.

Usefulness to Mental Health Professionals

We believe Helminiak's (2001) model will not be very helpful to mental health professionals (MHPs) who are not already proficient in spiritual matters. Take, for example, his approach to validating aspects of spirituality. Referring to a client's belief in God, the need to have meaning in one's life, and so forth (translative spirituality), he wrote, "Insofar as these beliefs and practices facilitate the integration of organism, psyche, and spirit in the client, a therapist's support of them is actually fostering spiritual growth" (p. 18). How is an MHP to determine whether or not a belief or practice is facilitating integration or reinforcing pathology in the sense of Battista's (1996) offensive and defensive spirituality? We believe the integral model has provided far more guidance. One example is Wilber, Engler, and Brown's (1986) accounts of how Vipassana meditation loosens and breaks down psychic structure. Thus, for a client suffering from psychotic, borderline, or narcissistic disorders -- disorders involving an insufficiently organized sense of self -- recommending or affirming such meditation is contraindicated. This notion has been corroborated even by those unsympathetic with the transpersonal perspective (Yalom, 1989, p. 52-53).

We endorse Helminiak's (2001) attempt to establish criteria for evaluating the healthfulness of various spiritual/religious beliefs -- at least of clients in the prepersonal and personal spheres of development with little or no experience of the transpersonal. However, one of us (Holden) has been using a similar criterion for years which, compared to Helminiak's, she still finds more elegant: the old "1, 2, 3" National Association of Mental Health criteria of whether a belief or practice helps one 1) feel better about oneself, 2) have more harmonious relationships with others, and 3) carry out more effectively the tasks of daily life. In addition, from the integral perspective, once one crosses into the mystical domain of the transpersonal, criteria such as these remain valuable only to a point.

We further believe Helminiak's (2001) limited existential perspective could risk laying the groundwork for a counselor to do harm. One form of potential harm involves category errors, as when, for example, a counselor indiscriminately conceptually reduces a near-death experience to a consoling fantasy built into the human brain through evolution to comfort the person facing existential annihilation. Another form of potential harm in an exclusively existential view is that the counselor lacks a framework to offer a client who seeks to understand a transpersonal experience. For example, how can an existential perspective explain spontaneous physical healing or the complex phenomenon of spiritual emergency (Holden, VanPelt, & Warren, 1999)? "At stake," as Helminiak likes to say, is whether to affirm a spiritual reality that is not merely existential: not merely "intelligent" but also intuitive and contemplative, not merely "rational" but also transrational, not merely "humanistic" but also transpersonal yet apprehensible to humans.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Helminiak (2001) made numerous claims to the novelty of his approach. But we believe Ken Wilber's (1999a) integral perspective already has accomplished the "novel" phenomena Helminiak described and has done so with greater elaboration, clarity, and specificity. The integral perspective has met "the challenge...to integrate organism, psyche, and spirit in a way that meets the exigencies of all three" (Helminiak, 2001, p. 13); has addressed "questions about...normative meanings and values" (p. 14) at not only existential (vision logic) but also nine other waves of development; is based in "experience and...various kinds of empirical investigation" (p. 16); has "cut across all religions and cultures...formulated the universally valid...unearth[ed] the...core of spirituality that the varied religions...foster" (p. 17); and has offered an "understanding of spirituality within which to situate the specifics of the client's religion" (p. 30 ) both in "generic, humanist, and normative analysis" (p. 30) as well as in the context of a complete spectrum of human development.

Helminiak's (2001) "coherent and comprehensive psychology of spirituality" (p. 29) lacks several features present in Wilber's (1999a) integral model. These features include coherent levels of human development; the dynamics of, facilitators of, and obstacles to transformation from one level to another; and psychotherapeutic techniques and/or spiritual practices to be employed or avoided at each stage.

Helminiak's (2001) admonition for counselors to validate any client belief or practice that integrates organism, psyche, and spirit is appropriate, from the integral perspective, if the client's goal is translative spirituality; but transformation often requires temporary disorganization, which Helminiak did not address. Helminiak's (2001) recommendation for counselors to reinterpret and/or reject various spiritually-related phenomena are appropriate, from the integrative perspective, for certain clients in certain waves of development; however, for those in other waves, such interventions are likely to be unproductive, at best, and counterproductive, at worst, which Helminiak did not address.

We believe Helminiak's (2001) model has some value for some clients in some of the personal waves of development. However, we believe Wilber's (1999a) integral model provides a more comprehensive framework for MHPs to work with the diversity of spiritual experiences, developmental levels, and issues that a full range of clients might present in counseling.

PART I | PART II | PART III | REFERENCES