The Pre/Trans Fallacy

前超謬誤

quoted from SEX, ECOLOGY, SPIRITUALITY by Ken Wilber.
© 1995, 2000 by Ken Wilber. By arrangement with
Shambhala Publications, Inc., Boston, http://www.shambhala.com/

摘譯肯恩‧威爾伯論前超謬誤 

自從開始論述前理性(或前個人)覺知狀態與超理性(或超個人)狀態兩者的不同─我所謂的前超謬誤─以來，如今我越來越相信這種理解對於掌握高層(或深層)意識狀態或真正的靈性意識狀態的本質絕對是關鍵。
    前超謬誤的本義其實非常簡單：由於前理性狀態和超理性狀態，以其各自的型態，都是非理性的，所以在未經修練的人看來，都很類似，甚至於根本都一樣。但是前與超一開始混淆不清，便會發生以下兩種謬誤：
第一種就是，把所有高層狀態或超理性狀態貶抑為低層或前理性狀態。在這裡便把(譬如)真正的奧秘經驗或默觀經驗看成是退化或反挫到嬰兒期自戀狀態、無二海洋狀態、未分化狀態，乃至於原初自戀。這一點，不折不扣，正是佛洛伊德在The Future of an Illusion一書當中採取的途徑。
    按照這種簡約式的解釋，理性是個人與人類集體發展最大與最後的奧米加點(omega point)，一切進化的最高水位線；理性以上或以外或更深之處再也沒有什麼脈絡存在。這樣，人要不就活得很有理性，要不就是有精神官能病態(佛洛伊德的「精神官能症」概念基本上是指任何阻滯理性知覺力浮現的東西─這一點相當正確,但是卻不周全)。既然高層脈絡並不真實或並不真的存在，那麼不論何時發生什麼真實的超理性情事，就會立即將之解釋為「退化」─退化至前理性結構(前理性結構既是唯一允許的非理性結構，當然也就是唯一接受解釋用假設(explanatory hypothesis)的非理性結構)。這一來就把超意識貶抑為潛意識，使超個人崩塌為前個人，又把高層意識的浮現詮釋為是低層意識入侵。這樣，在他們，理性世界空間就不會(因為「玄異教泥濘黑潮」─佛洛伊德對榮格做了如此離奇的解釋─而)動搖，於是大家都鬆了一口氣。
    反過來在另一面，如果你贊同高層狀態或奧秘狀態，但是還不懂有前與超的不同，那麼你就會把前理性狀態往上「抬舉」，看成某種超理性榮光(譬如把嬰兒的原始自戀看成mystico unio(神秘結合)當中的無意識蟄伏狀態)。當然，榮格及其追隨者採取的往往就是這種途徑；因此他們不得不把未分化的，實際上根本缺乏任何整合性(integration)的狀態解讀為深層超個人狀態或靈性狀態。
依抬舉派(elevationist)的立場，他們認為超個人及超理性的神祕結合狀態才是最終的奧米加點；而且，由於自我理性(egoic-rationality)確實總是傾向於否定這種高層狀態，所以他們認為自我理性乃是人性各種可能性的低點(low point)，是一種低下(debasement)，是罪(sin)及隔離(separation)、疏離(alienation)的肇因。既然認為理性是反奧米加點，是巨大的反基督(anti-Christ)，於是他們便把任何非理性的東西都收拾起來，供在那裏，一體視之為直接通往神性的路徑；其中包括的，很多自然是嬰兒的，退化的，前理性的，任何可以驅除那可疑又可厭之理性的東西。「因為它荒唐，所以我相信」(特圖里安(Tertullian))─抬舉派 (每一種浪漫主義皆有的絲縷不墜之一緒)有這樣的口號。

        佛洛伊德是貶抑派，榮格是抬舉派─正好是前超謬誤的兩端。重點是，他們兩人都是半對半錯。很多精神官能症的確是固著或退化到前理性狀態；這種狀態犯不著抬舉。另一方面，奧秘狀態確實也是存在的，超乎理性(非在其下)；這種狀態無可貶抑。
    近現代大部分歷程─當然是從佛洛伊德(以及馬克思及路德維希‧佛伊爾巴赫(Ludwig Feuerbach))以降─世人皆盛行以貶抑派立場看待靈性─但凡是靈性經驗，不論事實上是如何高度的發展，一概解釋為往原始及嬰兒思想退化。然而，後來我們卻又好像反應過度，從六零年代開始就一直陷在各種抬舉派狂熱中(比如─但不限於─新時代運動)。人的任何所做所為，不論是怎麼起頭的，不論真實性如何，一概抬舉為超理性與靈性的榮光─要獲得這種神奇的「擢升」，只需要具備一種資格，那就是你的所作所為是非理性的。但凡是理性的，都錯誤；只要是非理性的，都是靈性。
        神性確實是非理性的；但他是超，不是前。他超越理性又包含理性，不是退化而排除理性。進化的每一個階段都有其(往往是破壞性的)侷限、壓抑、扭曲；理性自不例外。但是我們已經知道，每一個層次固有的問題只有在下一個發展層次才會解決(或「稀釋」)；解決的方法不是退化到前一層次─在這一層次只能不理會問題。所以，這是理性的神奇，又是理性的恐怖:理性引進了巨大的，新的能力及答案，卻又帶來了其特有的問題，唯待超越到較高的超理性領域才能夠解決。
       可嘆的是，很多抬舉派運動其實都不是在理性之上，而是在理性之下。他們認為自己是，也宣稱自己是在爬真理山(Mountain of Truth)。然而在我看，他們其實已經滑倒，跌倒，正在快速的往山下滑去。他們興高采烈的在進化山坡往下急溜，都已經失控了，卻還說那是在「追逐福佑狀態」。地面以極速對著他們迎上來，他們卻很勇敢的把這個和衝擊點對撞的進程說成是即將到來的世界轉化(world transformation)新典範。有人懷著在高速公路看到二十輛汽車撞成一堆那樣的興致看著他們即將和地面對撞，他們只覺得這些人「很令人遺憾」；我們拒絕加入這場冒險，他們便哀傷的把頭別過去。然而，真正靈性的福佑，無限量的至福，卻是在山上，不是在山下。

註：「前超謬誤」的詳細論述請見eye to eye一書。

 

Ever since I began writing on the distinctions between prerational (or prepersonal) states of awareness and transrational (or transpersonal) states - what I called the pre/trans fallacy - I have become more convinced than ever that this understanding is absolutely crucial for grasping the nature of higher (or deeper) or truly spiritual states of consciousness.
The essence of the pre/trans fallacy is itself fairly simple: since both prerational states and transrational states are, in their own ways, nonrational, they appear similar or even identical to the untutored eye. And once pre and trans are confused, then one of two fallacies occurs:
In the first, all higher and transrational states are reduced to lower and prerational states. Genuine mystical or contemplative experiences, for example, are seen as a regression or throwback to infantile states of narcissism, oceanic adualism, indissociation, and even primitive autism. This is, for example, precisely the route taken by Freud in The Future of an Illusion.

In these reductionistic accounts, rationality is the great and final omega point of individual and collective development, the high-water mark of all evolution. No deeper or wider or higher context is thought to exist. Thus, life is to be lived either rationally, or neurotically (Freud's concept of neurosis is basically anything that derails the emergence of rational perception - true enough as far as it goes, which is just not all that far). Since no higher context is thought to be real, or to actually exist, then whenever any genuinely transrational occasion occurs, it is immediately explained as a regression to prerational structures (since they are the only nonrational structures allowed, and thus the only ones to accept an explanatory hypothesis). The superconscious is reduced to the subconscious, the transpersonal is collapsed to the prepersonal, the emergence of the higher is reinterpreted as an irruption from the lower. All breathe a sigh of relief, and the rational worldspace is not fundamentally shaken (by "the black tide of the mud of occultism!" as Freud so quaintly explained it to Jung).

On the other hand, if one is sympathetic with higher or mystical states, but one still confuses pre and trans, then one will elevate all prerational states to some sort of transrational glory (the infantile primary narcissism, for example, is seen as an unconscious slumbering in the mystico unio). Jung and his followers, of course, often take this route, and are forced to read a deeply transpersonal and spiritual status into states that are merely indissociated and undifferentiated and actually lacking any sort of integration at all.

In the elevationist position, the transpersonal and transrational mystical union is seen as the ultimate omega point, and since egoic-rationality does indeed tend to deny this higher state, then egoic-rationality is pictured as the low point of human possibilities, as a debasement, as the cause of sin and separation and alienation. When rationality is seen as the anti-omega point, so to speak, as the great Anti-Christ, then anything nonrational gets swept up and indiscriminately glorified as a direct route to the Divine, including much that is infantile and regressive and prerational: anything to get rid of that nasty and skeptical rationality. "I believe because it is absurd" (Tertullian) - there is the battle cry of the elevationist (a strand that runs deeply through Romanticism of any sort).

Freud was a reductionist, Jung an elevationist - the two sides of the pre/trans fallacy. And the point is that they are both half right and half wrong. A good deal of neurosis is indeed a fixation/regression to prerational states, states that are not to be glorified. On the other hand, mystical states do indeed exist, beyond (not beneath) rationality and those states are not to be reduced.

For most of the recent modern era, and certainly since Freud (and Marx and Ludwig Feuerbach), the reductionist stance toward spirituality has prevailed - all spiritual experiences, no matter how highly developed they might in fact be, were simply interpreted as regressions to primitive and infantile modes of thought. However, as if in overreaction to all that, we are now, and have been since the sixties, in the throes of various forms of elevationism (exemplified by, but by no means confined to, the New Age movement). All sorts of endeavors, of no matter what origin or of what authenticity, are simply elevated to transrational and spiritual glory, and the only qualification for this wonderful promotion is that the endeavor be nonrational. Anything rational is wrong; anything nonrational is spiritual.

Spirit is indeed nonrational; but it is trans, not pre. It transcends but includes reason; it does not regress and exclude it. Reason, like any particular stage of evolution, has its own (and often devastating) limitations, repressions, and distortions. But as we have seen, the inherent problems of one level are solved (or "defused") only at the next level of development; they are not solved by regressing to a previous level where the problem can be merely ignored. And so it is with the wonders and the terrors of reason: it brings enormous new capacities and new solutions, while introducing its own specific problems, problems solved only by transcendence to the higher and transrational realms.

 
Many of the elevationist movements, alas, are not beyond reason but beneath it. They think they are, and they announce themselves to be, climbing the Mountain of Truth; whereas, it seems to me, they have merely slipped and fallen and are sliding rapidly down it, and the exhilarating rush of skidding uncontrollably down evolution's slope they call "following your bliss." As the earth comes rushing up at them at terminal velocity, they are bold enough to offer this collision course with ground zero as a new paradigm for the coming world transformation, and they feel oh-so-sorry for those who watch their coming crash with the same fascination as one watches a twenty-car pileup on the highway, and they sadly nod as we decline to join in that particular adventure. True spiritual bliss, in infinite measure, lies up that hill, not down it.

[Note: A more detailed description of the pre/trans fallacy can be found in Eye to Eye.]