Syncronicity view field theory. The three fields

Synchronicity As Seen From Field Theory
The Three Fields

by Sinesio Madrona
Isabel Fdez. Hearn translated and collaborated

The writings of Jung, for instance on synchronicity, discuss these various kinds of experience, and, without giving up the earthy groundedness of the Gestalt tradition, Gestalt therapists might well become more open to talking about, and documenting, some of these phenomena.

Malcom Parlett [1]

Summary

Taking the gestalt theory of polarities as a base as well as the “creative zero point,” I will construct theoretical reflections anchored in the existencial, developing an interpretation of reality in three fields [engarzados entre si]: the first level, the organismic field formed by the mind-body duality; second, the organism-environment field formed by the organism and environment duality; and third, the meta-field formed by the duality or polarity between the organism-environment unity and the macro-environment.

I develop this theory as an attempt to translate into Gestalt terms the phenomenon of synchronicity studied by Jung.

Key words

Synchronicity, unity, duality, systems theory, field, metafield, symbol, meaning, transpersonal

1. Origins of the article

This article was born from an event that took place at the inaugural conference of the XI International Conference of Gestalt Therapy in Spain (Madrid, May 2009). The synchronistic interpretation of this led to a first versión (unpublished), that along with the years and interaction with various people, turned into the present text. My interest, among many other diverse interests, in Jungian psychology and quantum physics contributed to this attempt to explain the phenomenon of synchronicity from the field theory and from my conviction that the gestalt focus and the Jungian one are only apparently distant. Actually, the field theory, if it is explored deeply as it is here, can explain the phenomenon of synchronicity from a different perspective.

1.1 Conference Event and Its Synchronistic Interpretation

Those present at the Inaugural Conference (To Feel at Home in a Foreign Land: for a Fresh Culture of Differences in Gestalt Therapy) by Margherita Spagnuolo during the XI Gestalt Therapy International Congress in Madrid (May, 2009) witnessed how the halogen flood lamp illuminating the stage eventually heated an anti-fire water sprinkle nearby, profusely setting it off over many of the Congress attendants, some of whom were guests (see image).

That same afternoon in the Madrid Congress I gained awareness of the significance of this event, both at personal and collective levels. I felt the coherence of the situation, it made sense for me, all the elements structured themselves in a harmonious way and I was filled with the emotion of  a full comprehension. For me the ‘situational Id’ (Robine, 2004) or the ‘group emergent’ materially expressed-reflected by this incident was the following:  'an excess of fire brings an excess of water'.  In this context, Fire and Water are symbols of a conflict occurring within the Gestalt field in Spain, a conflict manifesting itself as the XI Congress unfolded. Let me clarify this. The symbol of Fire is yang: in the majority of symbolic systems (Taoism, I-Ching, Shamanism, Alchemy, GrecoRoman antiquity and North-European mythologies) it represents individualism, a focus on the isolated individual, strong intrapsychic energy, vitality, assertiveness, self-support .... The symbol of Water is yin; it represents the collective, a relational emotion, environmental support, a dialogic view, empathy...

My intuitive grasp, my construction of meaning built on what happened at the XI Congress and on my perception of the Gestalt field in Spain, was as follows: an excess of emphasis on the individual, self-support, self-responsibility, etc. in the previous decades provoked, in this particular meeting, an excess of what pertains to groups, collectives, field vision, environmental support, etc. Fire unleashed Water, both symbols representing the far ends of a non-integrated polarity. The situation was that of an International Congress being organised along the lines of thought and practice associated with the 'New York' group in a country – Spain– in which the 'Californian' approach is predominant [2]. It was a potentially explosive scenario, thus, to the point that the material elements in the field reflected it.

Although the theme of the conference was “The Union of Differences,” it was clear for me from the beginning (and confirmed by this synchronistic happening) that the unión was not going to produce itself, as I did in fact note throughout the development of the conference. This article is, then, above and byond what has already been said, an attempt to construct a gestalt theory in which many differnet schools and foci can fit –an attempt to work towards that unión.

2. Unity within Duality

This phenomenology experienced by the group provides me, as I say, with materials for theoretical reflection. The Gestalt theory of polarities comes in useful to understand how the above described situation worked. I am going to build theoretical reflections based on real living, and I will do it over the foundations provided by Friedlander’s (Perls, 1947-69)  theory of the ‘zero’ or ‘creative indifference’ point:

“The point of creative indifference or void or point of balance is a point from which the differentiation into opposites takes place, since all existing things are determined by polarities. The basic assumption is that the split that man creates in the world through his consciousness, which he experiences as inevitable and painful, i.e., the separation between me and the world, between subject and object, is merely an illusion. This can only be abolished by understanding the world from a zero point, the no-thing of the world, the absolute, the creator, the origin.” (Wulf, 1996) 

Any polarity, then, any duality, holds in its core, simultaneously, a unity, a totality, a Gestalt [3]. We are used to this, as Gestalt therapists – it can also be seen in the wave/particle duality of contemporary Physics. But duality+unity also become a unity, and this is the fundamental idea that will run through the development of this article, the one idea that might be the most difficult to experience and comprehend.

On the other hand we can consider that this unity-duality makes up a background in itself, out of which either of the binary poles alternatively emerges as figure. Any duality (masculine-feminine, good-bad, thought-feeling, spirit-matter, mind-body, organism-environment) can be seen this way, from the undifferentiated background it conforms. From this background sustained by the poles either of them will emerge according to the person’s consciousness, needs, interests, and the moment inherent in any situation.

From here on, when we are already conscious of this union (for example of our body-mind unity)  a new scenario is generated with new polarities (in this case our organism-environment duality). There is a movement of unification followed by an amplification of the environment and new discriminations. The human cons-ciousness, then, alternatively unifies and divides. And it is very important to understand the following, if we are going to operate in a field environment: reality is not divided. It is us who divide it to understand it mentally-experientially.

Hence when I say that any duality can be seen as, or can be seen from, a unitary background it conforms I am not implying that the person is conscious of this. I am only saying that this unity is there.  The person can live in one of the two poles of the duality, in a rigid mono-polar figure, and not see the unity: but this does not mean that the unity is nonexistent. This is quite obvious, but it will serve me to step ahead one more theoretical pace: the emerging properties of this duality-unity are in the consciousness we have of it.  When we talk about a totality or Gestalt we are talking about emerging properties, something beyond the elements involved. The emergent unifies, and the emergent is consciousness. This unification opens up new scopes of reality for us.

I want to give an example of this. A background composed of two poles pertains to a more integrated level of perception. We can look at the famous image of two faces with a goblet in the middle by focusing on the lines that define the images before these lines get to constitute either of the figures (Kuhn, 1962; p.180; X,6  provides the same example with a duck-rabbit image). Naturally this will require another type of attention/perception than the usual focalised one [4]. But in Gestalt we need to recognise as much the unified background as the individual figures and the relationship between them. There is a need to operate at both levels simultaneously: unity and duality. This is what we do in Gestalt, we learn to perceive in a very focalised way so as to subsequently and spontaneously unify.

As Tsuda (1975) says in his manual Aikido: “To act is to compromise oneself with one of the possibilities, excluding all the rest. [...] One goes  from the general to the particular. There is no action except in the particular.” (p. 70) (ad hoc translation from Spanish version, the underline is mine).

3. Systems, fields, and Newtonian orders.

Sustained on the basic ideas of the previous section, I want to clarify a couple of aspects which generate binary controversies in the Gestalt field.

3.1.  Systems and fields.

Although these two paradigms extend throughout different areas of human knowledge, I understand that systemic theories in Gestalt place emphasis on the structure of the field, in its binary nature. Field theories place emphasis on the field as-a-whole, as a unity. Systems theories in general are field theories, at least as presented by von Bertalanffy (1968), Keeney (1983), Wheeler (1991), and Yontef (1993), among others. Other researchers like Latner (1983) and Carmen Vázquez (personal communication), consider in turn that there exists an insoluble conflict between the systemic and field visions, and in fact define the systems view as Newtonian. From my point of view the systemic approach would be focusing on the different figures that appear in a field, that appear from a background,  and their structure. But at no time fails to consider the field as a whole. It's a question of focus.

From my point of view the very moment we start trying to describe the field, the moment we open our mouth to begin such a description, we are already within a dual reality, we are in a structural perspective, within a systems theory. Language can only operate by divisions. The most we can do is 'talk directly' about the field experience in the style of the irresolvable paradoxes of Zen.  Irresolvable for the divided mind.

This is a conscious experience, affording us at very precious moments a perception of the inextricable unity of every dichotomy at the same time that we see its duality as its structure. It takes a lot of discriminative power to be at once in the unity and in the duality. The experience of unity is so absorbing (as are many experiences of the body) that it completely overrides, in the majority of people, the mind. This leads to negating even the existence of the mind, and seeing the mind as an impediment to unity (and on one polar unconscious level, it is). I affirm that this is not the case (Madrona, 2012), that the experience of unity does not imply a true notion of non-duality if in that notion we reject and refuse to integrate a “mind” as unworthy of it. The recognition and rejection of the “mind” is itself a monumental contradiction in the affirmation of the non-duality. It converts the non-duality into an unrecognized  polarity, instead of into the unity it pretends to be.

3.2.  Newtonian and Systems Approaches.

The difference between both perspectives, which as I see it are sometimes confused by Latner (1983), basically resides in the fact that a Newtonian approach won't see the unity subjacent to every duality. It won't see the field structure that generates a polarity. It won't see the dialectics the poles unleash, the Tao they generate… and thus will have to opt by one of the extremes excluding the opposite one. It is the same controversy in the previos section: a systems approach does see such a totality, such a field, and hence it is regarding the field from a binary position. It is acknowledging that duality generates, and is, a unity.

4.  Synchronicity.

All these theoretical preparations have brought us to the kind of unity-duality I specially wish to deal with here: synchronicity. I would like to show that synchronicities are essential to any theory based on a field paradigm, such as Gestalt is. Any synchronicity will exactly reveal the unity-duality dynamics I have been depicting. the divided mind.

I think that synchronicity is essential to reality. It is not merely those strange a-causal events parallel to a given situation that surprise us so much. Synchronicities are an essential element of reality and also of consciousness.  The vast majority of times we don’t register them because they pass unnoticed, we only realise something uncommon has happened when their presence becomes quite notorious. What we usually do is discard, we stay at the Newtonian level of reality, we shrug. I think as Gestaltists I don’t think we can afford this luxury. Our most essential way of functioning is integrative. Any element with significant emotional burden that appear in our field of attention are indicating something. My proposal, shared with many others (Marlo & Kline, 1998; Peat, 1987) is that all reality functions synchronically. There is a unifying movement, simultaneously in the material reality and in our consciousness. This union yields emergent qualities. An example would be the synchronic functioning of the different organs in our body. We can consider reality as a gigantic organism in which all organs (human, animal, vegetal and mineral) function synchronically. I will leave it here for the time being.

In order to enter this complex question theoretically, first I am going to need to deploy my vision of the field, its different levels, and the way they intertwine into each other forming a dynamic structure. I will also provide the necessary phenomenology.

5. The field concept. Three fields.

With this theory/phenomenology I present here my attempt is to resolve and integrate polar conflicts: between theoretical/a theoretical approaches in the praxis of Gestalt, and between systemic/field approaches in Gestalt theorising. I popose viewing reality composed of three fields. The intertwining, the nesting, between the different field levels happens through recursive processes that unleash experiences and dynamics carrying us from one field to another, more ample, that encompasses it. In theory this happens through spontaneous swinging between unity-duality, figure-background. I will strive to be as clear as possible.

5.1. Keeney, the pattern, the self.

From the notions that duality is the operational form of unity, that unity-duality form a unity, in sum that polarities are the way reality gains its structure, I found that Keeney (1983) had magnificently resolved the conflict between systems and fields (this was before I was acquainted with the works of Goldstein, 1934; Wheeler 1991; Yontef 1993, and others – the idea surfaces at many points within the Gestalt field and its roots). Keeney belongs to another line of thought dealing with the same background perplexers as us in Gestalt from a different angle (Whitehead, 1927-28; Bateson 1972; Maturana & Varela 1987; plus  Spencer-Brown, von Forrester and others). This outlook links with Cybernetics and Biology, its thought runs under a totally different outer appearance, but I find it complementary with Gestalt, and that they both add richness and dimensions to each other. 

Keeney (1983) starts off from a cybernetics or systems perspective (with an eye on the interrelation of separated elements) to arrive into a field vision-perception-experience along a process of increasing integration. This author acknowledges duality (the Newtonian, what he calls a ‘linear-progressive epistemology’) and unity (a ‘recursive epistemology’, we would call it a field epistemology). He  very clearly describes both.

The structural-dynamic formula with which Keeney resolves the disaccord between fields and systems is analogous to my own solution I had been developing since decades ago (Madrona, 2011). Thus I value Keeney’s findings as extremely lucid to aid my own comprehension. He provides an extraordinarily ample model that can be applied to any reality, human included. I will try to describe it here by building on the theoretical grounds of Gestalt.

Keeney’s concept of pattern, for example, central in his descriptions of recursive processes, is exactly what is described as the interpersonal self in Gestalt therapy theory (Perls, Hefferline y Goodman, 1951, PHG from now on). Keeney’s pattern is wider, it is a concept that can be applied to any field interaction, be it at quantum level, physical, chemical, biological, social, eco-systemic or others. It is more general, then, than the concept of self; it describes homological situations across all reality, with which parallelisms can be established from the specific area of  Psychology. The interpersonal self would be a special case of Keeney’s pattern. It is important to understand this in the light of future theoretical reflections around synchronicity.

And so, following Keeney (1983), I propose we think about reality and consciousness as a hierarchy of recursive orders, or in terms more proper to Gestalt, as the formation of “meaningful wholes, at ever higher, ever more inclusive levels” (Wheeler, 1991, p. 125). There are as many reality and epistemological levels as we wish to create; each integrates, and nests, the previous ones.

In the field unity there are dialogic and dynamic processes happening permanently at every level of integration, every global gestalt, or every recursive order.  And within every one of them: "... it is the organization of facts, perceptions, behaviour or phenomena, and not the individual items of which they are composed, that defines them and gives them their specific and particular meaning." (Perls, 1973, p.2). Every unit is, in turn, an element of a wider unit (Wheeler, 1991).

In this way we can talk about several recursive orders of an incrementally global field. In other words, there is a dynamic interrelation between the structures/ elements at each level. Each level reaches towards, or entwines with, the adjacent wider level, necessarily through the integration of opposites from the original level. This is a temporal-dynamic process that can be seen throughout Nature and in all areas of human knowledge.

The field is one, but it is also structured.

In this way, in a Gestalt context, and for theory-practice purposes, we can consider dividing reality into three field levels, and we could organize them following the same arrangement of the organism-environment field (PHG, 1951) [5].

5.2. First field: the organismic field

In Gestalt terms, we can see the unitary organism from its elements. The organism would be the field formed by the body-mind unity, at a first level of discrimination [6]. We can see the body-mind totality as a background on which body and mind outline themselves alternatively. I will point at the notion that a contact-boundary exists between body and mind, but I will not develop this here.

And so the first level of organisation of reality for Gestalt therapy theory , I propose in this paper, would be the body-mind unity, which I will call the organismic field. At this level the intrapersonal integration is at stake. This is a field I haven't seen exactly or explicitly mentioned as such in Gestalt literature. It implies considering everything intrapsychic as a field –an ‘internal’ field, however contradictory this might sound. It is quite obvious and I have no doubt that Wheeler is talking about this when he says: “... a therapy based on analysis of the structure of contact, between self and environment, and by extension within the self as well, among various subsystems of thought, feeling, or action.” (1991, p. 56, the underline is mine).

A field is not an object (it is not THE organism/environment field per se, as if we were talking about an entity). It is a relational function, a new and different way of seeing reality, that does not focus on objects, but on relations and on cable-less fluxes of information. Consequently we can apply this field outlook to any area of reality, and talk about an internal organismic field. A contexture in which the different egos (‘organic’ as with Schnake, 1995 – and psychological) are looked at as internal functions (‘inner society’) which play roles parallel to those different people play in the organism/environment field (‘outer society’). Both, the organismic field, and the organism/environment field, reflect each other. Or in Parlett’s  (1991) words: “There is no sharp cut-off between "internal" and "external"; the unified field is the meeting place of the two.” (p.6 of www. kgicph.com).

Here we could talk, then, of an ‘intrapyschic self’, of a pattern between mind and body, which would resolve many a controversy around the notion of self  - whether it is intrapsychic or dialogic. I mean, we can incorporate Keeney’s views into the Gestalt world and assume the reality of the  self as a pattern to be seen in any manifestation of a dynamic system polarised binarily.

In this way the body-mind, the psychosomatic totality, becomes the foundation of reality as seen from  Gestalt; over this foundation the rest of field levels can be construed, as I describe below. In this first organismic level self-support and individualism are paramount.

5.3. Second field: the organism-environment field and the Singularity Principle

The next level of organisation is the organismenvironment, the field of the organism/environment unity. This is where the interpersonal integration of the field unity is processed, this the self in PHG (1951). The body-mind organismic unit forms a Gestalt or totality, and this unity places itself spontaneously as polar to the environment, in a new binary level. The background becomes ampler (Wheeler, 1991) in order to allow this more extensive duality to happen.

Here we would be dealing with the organism-environment field as an objective dynamic event (pattern),  not as a personal construction, as in Latner (2005) or as a phenomenon generated by the organism, as in Robine (1997). I suggest that if we talk about a personal construction or a phenomenon generated by the organism this would pertain to the previous level we have  just seen, that of the body-mind organismic level. It is true that an interpersonal field is experienced by a person, and in this sense it is subjective and organic. But it is also possible to perceive the interpersonal from an objective positioning, as a field, independently from the load of subjectivity with which we embark in it. For example in a group, one thing is the objective analysis of the group's  dynamics, and another the subjective reaction of each component (Chidiac, 2011).

Subjectivity is the personal perspective –intrapsychic– of phenomena taking place within the field; objectivity is the very fact in itself that such phenomena make up a unified field,  no matter their subjective nature (their concrete embodiment, Keeney nomenclature, 1983). Here relevance lies in the actual fact that a relationship is happening (the pattern, the self). The process –the reality in itself that a process exists– is always the same (it is objective, thus), its particular contents (subjective) are multiple. In sum, what is objective is that there is a process of exchange or co-construction of information, what is subjective is that this information becomes particularised at each moment; but both realities, subjective-and-objective, happen together as any phenomenology unfolds. They are both of equal  importance to construct a totality.

I feel it is hard to incorporate this from a Gestalt point of view because precisely our basic  therapeutic job is to restore subjectivity when it has been usurped by "objective" introjects. But the objectivity I am describing here goes beyond any cultural introject. It is a view from a field level and thus the only important thing is relations-among-elements, not the individualities in a Newtonian sense.

Objective and subjective are one more epistemological discrimination, an operational duality that calls for a unitary vision.  To oppose them and to be partisans for either one is to disregard Friedlander's zero point  integrative vision (Perls 1947-69). Also, to ignore that this epistemological discrimination embodies a function in that it clarifies and differentiates reality for us, is equivalent to denying any possible unity. Thus any subjective vision of reality will soon  demand of us that we seek the opposed objective view, because there's always going to be one; and vice versa, any objective view always seeks its subjective component (Kuhn, 1962, 1977). Or in Lewin's terms, a system of general laws does not exclude a concrete treatment of each individual case (Lewin, 1951). This is the essential phenomenological method, the essential ‘bracketing’ or ‘epoché’ (Yontef, 1993). Nothing to do with cancelling the subjective. We enhance the subjective in Gestalt, we seek to make it sensitive, so that it allows free space for the manifestation of what is objective and interpersonal. Then they might come together, the subjective and objective, into an awareness of totality.

As Parlett (1991) specifies when he advocates the Singularity Principle, each organism/environment field is unique. What is common and objective, I would add, is the fact in itself of the field, the phenomena of co-construction of the field, the self in process. In my view, if we don't pay tribute to this subtle distinction, we will be mixing in a bungle the organismic  field (intrapsychic) and the organism/ /environment field, we will be confounding two different recursive orders (Keeney, 1983). I understand the Singularity Principle, at any rate, to be completely operational when applied to the organism/environment field, but it would be anchored within the subjectivity inherent to the organismic field, in its singularity and uniqueness. There lays its root and its meaning. Thus what Parlett (1991) manifests as the Singularity Principle would happen when both fields, organismic and organism/environment, overlap. I suggest that maybe through this theory I am now presenting a clear distinction could be drawn between the "internal" and the "external" mentioned by Parlett (1991, see quote above), and investigations, for example, into the mechanisms of introjection, projection and confluence could be further carried out.

As I said before the organismic field is based on self-support and individuality while the organism-environment field is based on environmental-support and dialogic.

5.4. Tirad field: the metafield

And finally I propose a third field level so as to integrate synchronicity and comparable phenomena. Knit into the field levels I have just described I suggest that in Gestalt therapy theory we can perfectly postulate the existence of a recursive order or field level further beyond the interpersonal organism-environment field. I will call it the metafield, and it is composed by every possible organism and every possible environment.

At metafield level an exopersonal integration of reality takes place, meaning  any reality that is cultural, generational, socio-economic, historical... –and here we would still be partly within the interpersonal self–; but also an integration of the parallel realities of any other existing intrapersonal or interpersonal field and any other environment, be it in the near proximity or not, be it human, or not [7]. We are defining a level of exopersonal relations in the metafield. In this way the metafield structures itself around macroenvironmental-support and synchrony. The other two levels remain nested into this one, never discarded.

The process, even if increasingly complex, always follows the same recursive (Keeney , 1983) and tending to wholes (Wheeler, 1991). Each field encompasses and nests the previous one. In sum, the metafield includes every possible organismic and organism/environment field, and for that reason, every possible environment, from quantum to universal levels, across every present situation, no matter how apparently remote from us. And in each of these multiple fields there are patterns reflecting the current processes among constitutional elements which become integrated into unities-totalities manifest at different successive orders.  When Wheeler states  “... the ability to move between and among  different systemic levels –intrapsychic, interpersonal, whole-system– in the same language” (1991, p.153) he is  referring to culture; I take it to a dimension in which wider & more integrated systems are contemplated, such as the metafield.

Now I will present all this from a phenomenological point of view.

6. Phenomenology of the three fields

What I am going to narrate here is the precise moment in which the unity at each level reaches consciousness. I can only recount what follows using a dual language. I won’t be able to convey to the readers the exact sensations I or the other people lived through in each of the narrated unitary experiences – these belong to the Singularity Principle. I can hope that each reader has had experiences of the kind, unifies what I can only narrate separately, and gets a grasp of what I’m talking about. I hope that the implicit human experience will be recognized from each personal and unique position in the field.

6.1. The organismic field

The experience within the organismic field (bodymind) is well known by everyone in Gestalt. I don’t think there can be anybody living and practicing in this field who hasn’t had this first level of experience in which our body ‘talks’ [8]. I guess all Gestaltists have  experienced that first moment in which ‘mind’ realises that ‘body’ has a voice; that first moment in which one listens to one’s body in amazement; that first awareness experience causing us an impact we will never forget; that first experience of unity.  We’ve lived through this many times in therapy room and training groups.

Funnily enough this first realisation happened to me away from the therapeutic setting. I was already training in Gestalt, and I had just recently learned to cycle. My ‘mind’ wanted to fulfil the cycling itinerary we had programmed. My ‘body’ did not. At a certain point I ‘listened’ to my body.  I realised my body (motor-emotional-sensorial) was trying to catch my attention. For the first time I consciously allowed myself to be convinced. I did what my body was seeking to do. I forced my mind’s pretensions & desires into the background, I refused to follow them. I consciously gave way to my body’s expression. I quit the excursion. I underline consciously because bodies have always sought and gained expression, whether we realised or not. This first realising, this first awareness, is the experiential nucleus on which the whole of Gestalt therapy is built – and the whole conception of reality that derives from it.

6.2. The organism-environment field

The organism/environment field implies phenomenologically perceiving a self that does not ‘belong’ to the individual.  This self exists in common with the environment, so there are forces that intervene which are ‘extraneous’ to the organism,  and thus one cannot say that one’s organism can determine what will happen next in the process of expression of this shared self. To perceive and develop this self is as singular an experience as the perception of ‘body’ at the organismic field level [9].

I continue as an example narrating my personal experience above. I was cycling with my wife and in-law siblings. We had collectively decided upon a certain itinerary but the group wanted to shorten it.  I would have continued alone, I had done so many times, but in this occasion the group’s desire  –besides my body’s– had a say in my final decision to accept reducing the excursion’s length. I decided by coordinating both my organismic field and the organism/environment field. That day I was only aware of the negotiation between my ‘body’ and ‘mind’. I didn’t realise how the group’s self intervened until time after, when I got to be vividly familiar with the interpersonal self experience. Only then could I discriminate, retrospectively,  how the group self gained expression then and there, how my wife’s preoccupation about me continuing alone was also a factor in that interpersonal self influencing my decision.  My body and the group had to forge an alliance to change my mind.

And so, our perception of the interpersonal self is at stake at this organismenvironment level. A co-created self that does not belong to the individual. A self that is –from an individual’s point of view– something to a degree autonomous, having ‘its own interpersonal word’, like ‘body’ has it’s own when we stop to listen. To listen to the ‘word’ of the interpersonal self is as important an experience as when we listen to that of our own organism, as in the previous field level – with a subtle qualification.  The organism-environment’s  self is an experience that brings us out of our body, our being, our organism. It is an identity we share with the environment. We are in the territory of Buber’s (1937) I-Thou dialogic ‘basic word’. Or in Marie Petit’s words: “Regarding that inexpressible moment, it is something I sometimes experience, it’s a kind of an absolute marvel.... [...] It’s so startling that –for me– there are no words to talk about it, it has to be lived through, exclusively...”  (quoted by Schoch, 2007, p. 98; second part,II,2,2; ad hoc translation from Spanish version). Or as stated by Delacroix (2006): “I think both of them, softly, without realising, slide into a state of amplified awareness, into a light trance.” (p.428; Epilogue,1,4,1; ad hoc translation from Spanish version). The fascinating narration by Delacroix that ensues of their shared self experience is too long to be brought here. Stawman (2011) describes the depth of this co-construction in terms of moving from empathy to comprehension.

The emergent properties stemming from the interpersonal field need to be experienced fully by participants to make any sense.  At the same time, the observation of this shared self requires – almost always–  a certain predisposition of our mind, a certain imaginative capacity to contain its symbols and images. This is, a placement of our conscious attention also on/within the organism/environment field, rather than exclusively on/within the intrapsychic field. In short, we accumulate both fields,  we nest one into the other, as much in experience as in theory. At this level, the spontaneous merging of binary instances, as I described above, is between organism and environment.

6.3. The metafield

Now we see the phenonmenon at the level of the metafield, which is where the phenomenon of synchrony is more clear. Now not be very difficult to comprehend-experience the metafield, as we shall have already abandoned an ego-centered position to embark upon the interpersonal.

A more radical ‘externalisation’ happens with the observation-experience of synchronistic phenomena. They are, so to speak, a self in-between the individual/group on one side and on the other, the world at an exopersonal level. Synchronistic phenomena are only perceived from a certain position that concedes objects, people and events around us, specially at crucial moments of our maturation, ‘have a voice’ at a subtle level of non-ordinary perception, beyond the usual  intrapsychic or interpersonal perceptions which will assign them only anecdotal value. As we have seen, the nature of the interpersonal self is something beyond the individual, further-away, yonder & off one’s own organism: something that needs to be focused on from a position which is not self-centered, from an eccentric position (eccentric in the sense of ‘having a different centre’, not of alienation: a deep organism-environment communion happens in such interpersonal experiences). In the case of the metafield, we are talking about analogous processes, about an eccentric configuration, but within a wider scope compared to the organism/environment setting. The clue here is a greater remoteness between the elements sharing field information.

In Gestalt terms we could call this experience a massive organism-environment awareness. Something of the kind recalled by Nobel Laureate Barbara Mc.Clintok in her autobiography as having happened to her during her maize cytogenetics research:

“I came to realise that the more I worked with them [chromosomes] the more they were getting bigger; and that when I really got to work with them, I wasn’t outside, I was there. I was part of the system. I was there with them, everything growing in size. I was even capable of seeing the inner parts of the chromosomes –in reality, it was all there. I was amazed, because it felt as if I was with them, as if they were my friends .... As you place your attention on such things, they become a part of yourself. You forget about yourself.” (Fox Keller, 1991, p. 176 of Spanish version).

We can get to perceive   –to know–  that any element in our environment might be symbolically ‘talking to us’ at a moment of special transcendence during our process of maturation. We don’t necessarily have to have a sublime experience each time this happens, but instead we can just realise it is happening, and pay enough attention to unravel what the ‘message’ is. But yes, as with the perception of the interpersonal self, synchronicities always elicit significant emotion and wonder.

So in my experience-signification of the synchronistic incident during the Inaugural Conference at the Madrid Congress I didn’t force myself into any intentional processing of it of any kind (normally I do not concentrate my attention on the detection & processing of such events – it would be absurd and impeding, the same as for poets to try and force poetic inspiration). I experienced listening to the synchronic ‘word’ of what had happened in the same way as I experience any perception coming to the foreground in my awareness continuum during regular therapy sessions, as something noticeable that was not there a moment ago. At the same time, I gained such an awareness because of an inner attitude of mine – here and in many other scenarios– of trying to achieve coherence and harmony within myself and in my relation with the environment. This attitude definitely is an intentional action I engage in, and a responsibility I bear. 

Insofar as we experience an awareness continuum of the organismic field this is based on belonging in the bodily-emotional-mental; insofar as we experience an awareness continuum of the organism-environment field this is based on belonging in the humanised proximity, dialogical and co-created. Likewise the wider continuum of the metafield can yield perceptions, awareness, and meanings that prompt us to discover and become aware of other selves we form with wider environments ‘far removed’ from the perceiving individual, and definitely beyond the organism/environment scope. Those would be based on a sense of belonging in the whole world around us. This metafield level of contact could be considered one more case of the organism-environment contact.

Following with the cycling example above, for me the whole situation would have acquired a transcendent metafield quality beyond the intrapsychic & group setting if –simultaneously to my decision of quitting, or a short while after– something unforeseen had underlined my action, for example if the whole sky had unexpectedly and suddenly gone grey, windy, and stormy, something really uncommon for such a season of the year, prompting us to return indoors as quickly as possible. Then the moment’s significance would have gone further that the organismic and organism-environment question, it would have revealed to me, in connection with some vital issue, a significant communion between my personal decisions and the world’s ambience.

6.4. Further synchronicity examples

I’d like to present a few more examples of such a kind of exopersonal situations.

Robine recounts (1997, p.311 of Spanish version) that a lady in the therapy room “...was abundantly talking about her exhaustion caused by the numerous intrusions of her offspring and grandchildren, who were suffocating her life by being invasive. It was a lovely summer evening and a particularly intense sun ray illuminated her face (...) She only had to move her seat a few centimetres away to escape the sunbeam which was causing her terrible  squints”.

This obvious situation of 'solar intrusion' could well have been prompting the therapist with a cue to her problems, a possible unfinished Gestalt with her father or any figure of strongly masculine traits; the Sun usually represents a mighty masculine figure in most symbolic systems. In this case the event would have synchronically expressed the source of the problem, well beyond the personal and interpersonal. This example can still be arguable, though, because in the state of this lady any ‘casual’ environmental intromission would have  received the same response from her.

I will still present another example of obvious synchronicity in which the Sun also intervenes. I had a lady in therapy who said to me many times during our sessions I had brought light to her, helped her shed light onto her own knowledge of herself, illuminated her inner darkness she sometimes described as a dark cleft...   She once went on an excursion with a group, and one of the spots they unexpectedly visited was a 60m.-deep natural fissure. She adamantly refused to descend with the group as she suffered from severe claustrophobia. At a certain point the whole group had already been down and gone elsewhere near when she, standing alone at the opening, impulsively decided to descend on her own, without a torch. The place was totally deserted. She went in, and started her descent into the pitch black depth, at which point the covered sky above must have cleared just enough to allow one only clearly defined sun beam enter vertically into the hole, reaching quite a depth. Thanks to this providential light she could now climb down into the depths without risk of tripping over. She told me what a magic moment it was for her, what a cathartic experience, how she experienced her fears physically, and how she had me present all the time as a protective figure, symbolised by the sun ray. This sun ray persisted during all her way back up and only diluted-away just as he reached the top of the pit.  Subsequently during her therapy sessions she referred to this event as being deep and symbolic in her life –full of meaning, we could say in Gestalt terms.

I think this is a good example of synchronicity, with all the ingredients. It exposes, as happens many times, a recurring theme in each of the three field levels: intrapsychic (clarification process of her inner darkness); interpersonal (illuminating therapeutic process) and exopersonal (sunbeam literally entering a real cleft during an excursion).

Based on this experience and the therapy as a whole, this consultant changed his perception of his life and left the routine job in which he felt enslaved and started a profesional activity more suited to his training and aspirations.

7. Everyday’s astonishment

The awareness that the macro-environment is confluent with an important moment one is living through adds a dimension to one’s personal process, linking it with the totality. The metafield in the last example provides the consultant with an opportunity to materially live through her fears, and she takes advantage of it, impelled by her own wise and irrational physicality. The whole experience configures itself not as a decision an ‘I’ makes (acording to the concept “I” of the PHG, 1951), not even exclusively as a question of an organism/environment self (her therapeutic relation with me as a background for  the situation). The situation is also backed up by the metafield, manifested in the entrance of this sun beam right into near  the bottom of the pit. The inner experience is in harmony with the global field, and this global field is ‘supporting’ this person’s moment. There is no possible better legitimacy, no better support, no better alleviation. Self-support intertwines with interpersonal support in the immediacy environment, and  this totality is confirmed by the natural world.

Synchronic events can be as important as the dreams or great visions Jung (1950) talked about, only that being material events they are more obvious in the eyes of everyone. They can yield personal significance but also, and frequently, interpersonal or collective. They can even reflect the state of a whole culture.  A group synchronicity or a cultural one will express a self through the perception of –or through contact with– one individual who is alert to the exopersonal ‘word’ and can pass it on to the collective. I now propose, therefore, that the incident during the Inaugural Conference of the XI Congress can be seen as a 'total field' or metafield generated by the very existence of the XI Congress, by the large numbers of people congregating there around a common  interest in Gestalt, and by the historical atmosphere of the Gestalt in Spain.

8. Subjective attention reveals objective facts

I expose the synchronicity theme in this way knowing that for current Newtonian and individualistic visions of Gestalt, prevailing in many theoretical and therapeutic contexts, ‘pregnant women will see pregnant women, and soldiers will see soldiers’. This subjectivity and this biased focus of attention do happen, they are implicit in the Singularity Principle of the field. But apart from issues related to improbable probabilities which have been already studied (Peat, 1987 first chapter, 'Seriality' section) (how long must one wait to see a thin sunbeam penetrate a deep clef on a cloudy day?) the fact is that precisely it is the subjective attention that reveals the objectivity of a synchronic event unifying both realms (inner-outer synch/unity). As we know the objective-subjective dichotomy, among other dichotomies, is a result of an epistemological act. To define situations in terms of an 'I' separated from the world is to define them in Newtonian terms. It is us who divide an unitary reality in our need for orientation and action. Unfortunately once divided we forget we were the ones who did it, and believe the separations are 'real' (Keeney, 1983; Peat, 1987; Zohar, 1990). We are victims of our own necessity. So the whole question resides in our being conscious of this bias, this need of ours. This is what Wulf (1996) suggests in the quotation above. Such self-awareness is basic not only to process a synchronic event but for any other human act, emotion or thought.

9.    Limits of the synchronistic perception

Synchronic perceptions can be seen as apparently 'superior' to other perceptions in other fields, from a hierarchical point of view. The fact is that individuality and self-consciousness are recent achievements of the human species and from this perspective they are considered 'superior', more evolved than synchronistic thought, which is deemed as superstitious and clinging onto a superseded past. But reality is also circular instead of only linear, as the Cartesian-Newtonian thought will put it.  If we do not possess a firm self-identity we will fall into an emotional state leading to all sorts of superstitions, but if we do not experiment ourselves as included in the wholeness of life we will be isolated and spiritually impoverished. The balance between self-consciousness and a consciousness that submerges itself in the totality is subtle, leading to a recursive process that will look at things from beyond this duality. This has to do with confluence, but I will look into it elsewhere.

Put differently: “Likewise a mind that is obsessed with synchronicity, [...] will concentrate upon global patterns and meanings at the expense of analysis and concentration on the meanings of details of space and time and material structures” (Peat, 1987, p. 179). In sum, synchronic thought ought not to forget analysis and the exploration of concrete situations, the structure of reality in its narrower scope. Accordingly a spiritual non-dual approach ought not to forget, as it regularly does, that duality is essential to non-duality (Madrona, 2011). Likewise a field approach ought to consider that structure is an inherent element in the nature of the field.

10. Conclusion

The reality is that all is “one seamless field” as Latner (1983) affirms and “a great flowering and bustling confusión” as James (1981) says. This way of seeing reality leads us to the necessity of introducing a field in which the material and the conscious are united (Peat, 1987) and both act in unison: the metafield. The experience of that “seamless field” is a unity and as such, we cannot describe it without breaking it. However, it is necessary to describe it in order to understand it with a part of our self, the “mind,” which also forms a unit with feeling and experience, and that description does not presuppose a break of the field if we are conscious that it is only a description, a map which guides us towards the experience and gives us lucidity, but is not the map itself.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Carmen Vázquez and her team for their acceptance of the mental-theoretical. I am indebted with Rosa Venturini's task group. With these women I was able to liberate abundant creativity that was blocked within me. I am also grateful to Isabel Fernández for her careful translation and her many contributions, thanks to her this paper is more comprehensible. I am in debt with those who have read the Spanish and English versions of this article, for their comments and contributions.  I also appreciate the feedback given to me by the BGJ peer review team improving previous versions of this paper.

Author: Sinesio Madrona Rodenas; Madrid Complutense University degree in Psychology, 1979; Psychoanalytic training and practices (prof. Cencillo, FILIUM); training in Rogerian and Gestalt therapy with Antonio Guijarro;  Gestalt therapist trained at the EMTG (Escuela Madrileña de Terapia Gestalt - Madrid Gestalt Therapy Training Centre), 1999; board secretary for ATRE (Asociación Transpersonal Española - Spanish Transpersonal Association) 2002-2004; member of the AETG (Asociación Española de Terapia Gestalt - Spanish Association of Gestalt Therapy);  along with his therapeutic practice he has published, given speeches & congress lectures.  Researcher of an evolutionary theory of human consciousness.
Contact: sinesiomr@gmail.com

Another article by this author: http://english--versions.blogspot.com.es/2015/05/the-paradox-as-means-of-comprehension.html

References

Bateson, G. (1972, tr. 1998). Pasos hacia una ecología de la mente. Buenos Aires.Ed. Lohlé-Lumen. //

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York. Chandler Publising Company.

Buber, M. (1937, tr. 2002). Yo y Tú. Buenos Aires. Ed. Nueva Visión Argentina // Buber, M. (1937, tr. 1970). I and Thou. N.Y. Touchstone.

Cavalieri, P.A. (2001). Del campo a la frontera de contacto. [From field to contact border]. Ed. Margherita Spagnuolo Lobb (2001) in Psicoterapia de la Gestalt. Barcelona. Ed. Gedisa.

Chidiac, M.-A. (2011). To infinity and beyond ... the hot seat, in British Gestalt Journal, 2011, Vol. 20,  nº 1, pp. 42-51.

Delacroix,  J-M. (2006 tr. 2008). Encuentro con la psicoterapia. Santiago de Chile. Ed. Cuatro Vientos. //

Delacroix, J-M. (2006) La  Troisième Histoire, Saint-Jean-de-Braye. Eds. Dangles.

Fox Keller, E. (1985 tr. 1991) Reflexiones sobre Género y Ciencia. Valencia. Ed. Alfons el Magnànim. // Fox Keller.E. (1985) Reflections on Gender and Science. Yale University Press.

Grof, S. (1985 tr. 1988). Psicología transpersonal: nacimiento, muerte y transcendencia en psicoterapia. Barcelona. Ed. Kairós. // Grof, S. (1985). Beyond the Brain: Death, Birth and Trascendence in Psychotherapy. State University of New York Press, www. sunnypress.edu.

Jung. C.G. (1950, tr. 1982 [1963]). Símbolos de transformación. Barcelona. Paidós. // Jung. C.G. (1950). Symbole der Wandlug. Zurich. Rascher.; Olten. Walter-Verlag AG.; fourth edition of  Wandlungen und Symbole der Libido (1912). // Jung. C.G. (1956). Symbols of transformation, a revision of Psychology of the Unconscious, (1912), Collected Works, Vol. 5, ISBN 0-691-01815-4.

Keeney, B. P. (1983, 2ª reimpresión 1994). Estética del cambio. Barcelona. Ed. Paidós. // Keeney, B.P. (1983), Aesthetics of Change. New York. The Guilford Press.

Kuhn, Th. S. (1962, tr. 1971). La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. Méjico. Ed. Fondo de Cultura Económica //  Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1st. ed.Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, Th. S. (1977, ec. 1982). Objetividad, juicios de valor y elección de teoría, en La tensión esencial. Méjico. Ed. Fondo de Cultura Económica // Kuhn, T.S. (1977). The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-45805-9. Article: Objectivity, Value Judgement, and Theory Choice.

Latner, J. (1983) This is the Speed of Light: Field and Systems Theories in Gestalt Therapy, The Gestalt Journal, vol. VI nº 2.

Latner, J. (2005) The Speed of Light Revisited, Gestalt Review

Lewin, K. (1951, ec. 1978). La teoría del campo en las ciencias sociales. Buenos Aires. Ed. Paidós. // Lewin, K. (1951) Field theory in social science; selected theoretical papers. D. Cartwright (Ed.). New York. Harper & Row; ©by Tavistock Publications Limited with Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited

Loy. D. (1998 [1988], ec. 1999) Nonduality. N.Y., Humanity Books  //  Loy, D. (1999). No dualidad, Barcelona, Ed. Kairós.

Madrona, S. (2011). Lo racional y lo experiencial [Rationality and Experience]: http:/ /gestaltnet.net/ fondo/nuestros-textos/lo-racional-y-lo-experiencial-la-ciencia-llega-al-espiritu.

Marlo, H. & Kline, J.S. (1998). Synchronicity and Psychotherapy: Unconscious Communication in the Psychotherapeutic Relationship; in Psychotherapy: Theory/Research/Practice/Training Volume 35, Issue 1, Spring 1998, Pages 13-22

Maturana, H. y Varela F. (1987, tr. 1990) El árbol del conocimiento. Madrid. Ed. Debate. // Maturana, H. and Varela, F. (1987). The Tree of Knowledge. Boston. Shambhala Press.

Parlett, M. (1991) Reflections on Field Theory. The British Gestalt Journal, 1991, 1, 68-91; p.13 of www. kgicph.com/files/t1/malcolmparlettreflectionsonfieldtheory.pdf

Peat, D. (1987, tr. 1988). Sincronicidad: puente entre mente y materia. Barcelona. Ed. Kairós // Peat. D. (1987) Synchronicity: the bridge between matter & mind. New York. Bantam Books.

Perls, F. (1947-69, tr. 1975) Yo, hambre y agresión. México. Ed. Fondo de Cultura Económica.// Perls, F., Ego, Hunger and Aggression (1942, 1947) ISBN 0-939266-18-0

Perls, Hefferline y Goodman. Terapia Gestalt. Excitación y crecimiento de la personalidad humana. (1951, tr. 2002). Madrid. Ed. Sociedad de Cultura Valle-Inclán. Los libros del CTP. // Perls, Hefferline & Goodman, (1994 [1951]) Gestalt Therapy, Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality,  The Gestalt Journal Press, Inc.

Perls, F. (1973, tr. 1976). El enfoque gestáltico & Testimonios de terapia. Santiago de Chile. Ed. Cuatro Vientos. // Perls, F. (1973) The Gestalt Approach & Eye Witness to Therapy, Science and Behaviour Books, Inc.

Robine, J. M. (1997, tr. 2005). Contacto y relación en psicoterapia. Santiago de Chile. Ed. Cuatro Vientos. // Robine, Jean-Marie (1997). Plis et Deplis du Self. Bordeaux. Institut Français de Gestalt-thérapie.

Robine, J. M. (2004, tr. 2006). Manifestarse gracias al otro. Madrid. Ed. S. de C. Valle-Inclán. Los libros del CTP. // Robine, Jean-Marie (2004), S´apparaître à la occasion d´un autre.  Bordeaux. Institut Français de Gestalt-thérapie.

Schnake, A. (1995; 2008, 10ª edición, aumentada). Los diálogos del cuerpo [Body Dialogues]. Santiago de Chile.  Ed. Cuatro Vientos.

Schoch de Neuforn, S. (2000 tr. 2007). La relación dialogal en terapia gestalt. El Ferrol. Sociedad de Cultura Valle-Inclán. //  Schoch de Neuforn, S. (2000). Un dialogue thérapeutique. Ed. L’Exprimerie.

Stawman, S. (2011). Empathy and understanding, in British Gestalt Journal, 2011, Vol. 20, nº 1,pp. 5-13.

Tsuda, Itsuo (1975, tr. 1992). La Vía del Desprendimiento, Escuela de la Respiración,  Manual de Aikido. Madrid. Ed. Eyrás. // Tsuda, Itsuo (1975). La Voie du Dépouillement. École de la Respiration. Cahier de Aikido. Paris. Ed. Le Courrier du Livre. ISBN 2-7029-0001-1.

von Bertalanffy, L. (1968 ec. 1979). Perspectivas en la Teoría General de Sistemas. Madrid. Ed. Alianza // von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General System Theory. N.Y. George Braziller, Inc.

von Franz, M.L. (1964 ec. 1984). El Proceso de Individuación; comp. Jung C.G. El Hombre y sus Símbolos. Barcelona. Ed. Caralt. //  von Franz, M.L. (1964 ed. 1990). The Process of Individuation; ed. Jung C.G. Man and His Symbols. London. Arkana Penguin Books.

Wheeler, G. (1991, tr. 2002). La gestalt reconsiderada. Madrid. Ed. S. de C. Valle-Inclán. Los libros del CTP. // Wheeler, Gordon  (1991),  Gestalt Reconsidered: A New Approach to Contact and Resistance. Cambridge, MA. Gestalt Inst. of Cleveland Press. ISBN 0-88163-248-1

Wheeler, G. (2000, tr. 2005). Vergüenza y soledad: El Legado del Individualismo. Santiago de Chile. Ed. Cuatro Vientos // Wheeler, G. (2000). Beyond Individualism, Towards a New Understanding of Self, Relationship, and Experience. Cambridge, MA. GIC Press.

Whitehead, A.N. (1927-29, tr. 1956). Proceso y Realidad. Buenos Aires. Losada // Whitehead, A.N. (1978 [1927-28]). Process and Reality: an Essay on Cosmology; Gifford Lectures 1927-28 . New York. The Free Press.

Wulf, R. (1996). The Historical Roots of Gestalt Therapy Theory; in Gestalt Dialogue: Newsletter of the Integrative Gestalt Centre, New Zealand, Nov. 1996; http  ://www gestalt.org/wulf.htm

Yontef, G. (1993, tr. 1995). Proceso y diálogo en gestalt, ensayos de terapia gestáltica. Santiago de Chile. Ed. Cuatro Vientos. // Yontef, Gary M. (1993), Awareness, Dialogue and Process. Gouldsboro, ME. The Gestalt Journal Press, Inc.

Zinker, J. (1977, tr. 1996). El proceso creativo en terapia guestáltica. México. Paidós. //  Zinker, J. (1977). Creative Process in Gestalt Therapy. N.Y. Brunner/Mazel.

Zohar, D. (1990). La conciencia cuántica. Barcelona. Ed. Plaza y Janés & Muy Interesante.  The Quantum Self: Human Nature and Consciousness Defined by the New Physics. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.

[1] Reflections on Field Theory. The British Gestalt Journal, 1991, 1, 68-91, p. 13 en www.kgicph.com

[2] I am using NY and CA as tags,  knowing that they excessively simplify a complex reality, as Yontef (1993) points out. However, our human tendency to polarize makes these figurative tags, whatever their names, useful at certain levels of discussion/comprehension - as with any other polarity.

[3] I understand that a Gestalt, in its definition as a totality, refers as much to a figure that is a totality emerging from a background; as to a figure-background totality (a background containing a figure, and this 'pregnant' background will be figural when considered over an ampler background, as we will see along this article).

[4] It will also yield a new kind of vision, blurred, more abstract, of the kind of a Francis Bacon painting for example, or a Fernando Zobel in his late stages (http: // www. fernandozobel.com/artist_paintings2.htm).

[5] The order in which the fields appear in this paper is conventional and didactic, a linear vision of the process: if we focus on the development process of a human being from birth the first one would be the organism-environment field; if we focus on the generation of life in the womb the first one to consider would be the metafield; but this would be a matter for another article. In a circular vision of the process there is no before and after, it is all simultaneous and cyclic. What we need to keep in mind then is that we are talking about one and the same global field, even if we analyze it from three different angles. The linear and the circular add up, yielding a spiral that integrates them.

[6] As part of the human growth process consciousness needs to discriminate and artificially separate the organism field level from the rest of field levels, and then deny the bonds. We can stay fixed at this separative stage or we can advance towards the acknowledgement of totality, the latter being an attitude that impregnates our times (Wheeler, 2000).

[7] I am referring to the vegetal, animal and mineral environments as holders of consciousness from the very moment that we, in our singularity, humanize the world around us and register how it then provokes consciousness for us. We extend the signification of our humanistic Psychology also to our non-human environment when we humanize it.

[8] I integrate emotion, feeling, sensation, and motor aspects in the notion of 'body', everything that is not rational/mental.

[9] The same way there are ineffable experiences we cannot accept  when ‘mind’ does not comprehend what ‘body’ is experiencing (Grof, 1985), the experience of an interpersonal self is also difficult to perceive and accept; hence its description tends to generate quite an amount of scepticism.