Very old (“primitive”) sequences in dreams and with hypnosis

In “Chapter VI-B: The Development of Behavior Space” of “A Process Model (APM)” (Gendlin, 2018), there is a section titled “d) Pyramiding” that discusses very old (“primitive”) sequences:

In dreams and with hypnosis and drugs, the usual behavior space is narrowed so that it does not implicitly contain as much as it would in the waking state. We find that very old (“primitive”) sequences form then, and implicitly contain some (a variable amount) of the usual context of implicit sequences. In those states we can observe the familiar experiences still forming, and we can notice how many are implicit and focaled in ordinary experiences. (Gendlin, 2018, p. 102)

I would like to reflect on how the passage above about experiences in dreams and with hypnosis and drugs has been written in his preceding writings and try to sort out the correspondence between the terms used in each.

The “primitive” sequences were first mentioned in the section ’25. Extreme structure-bound manner of experiencing (psychoses, dreams, hypnosis, CO2, LSD, stimulus deprivation )’ in “A Theory of Personality Change” (Gendlin, 1964). In the writing of the time, however, those kinds of experiences were only negatively discussed as “Lack of implicit function”:

Dreams, hypnosis, psychosis, C02 and LSD, and stimulus deprivation share at least one factor, the curtailment of ongoing interaction. ... The implicit function ... of felt experiencing becomes rigid (not in process) or “literal” in all these conditions. In hypnosis, for example, when the individual is told to “raise your hand,” he will lift the palm of his hand up by his wrist. He will not, as when awake, interpret the idiomatic phrase appropriately (it means, of course, to raise one’s whole arm up into the air). ... That is exactly what “literal” means: the lack of functioning of other meanings which should inform our interpretation of a given set of words or events. (Gendlin, 1964, pp. 140-1)

The “primitive” sequences were first positively discussed in “Imagery, Body and Space in Focusing” (Gendlin et al., 1984):

When environmental interaction is greatly restricted (by sleep, drugs, deep relaxation, “altered states,”) the bodily process is narrowed. The usual totaling which makes the familiar objects cannot occur. Instead, very primitive ancient sequences that are always implicit, actually occur. Any outer event then comes into these. These experiences can be very valuable. The individual’s and the species’ pasts are implicitly part of the make-up of the usual objects. One finds out some of that vast richness when some usually implicit sequences visibly occur. But what one finds out is "not integrated," that is to say it is not totaled in the usual more inclusive process. So this kind of imagery is less whole than the usual kind. (Gendlin et al., 1984, pp. 263-4)

Two years later, in ‘Theory of the Living Body and Dreams’ in his book “Let Your Body Interpret Your Dreams” (Gendlin, 1986), our experiences were categorized as “unfinished, finished, and more than finished” (Gendlin, 1986, pp. 153-4), and these types of experiences were positioned as “unfinished”:

All experience involves crossing, but in dreams (and some other “altered states”) one can actually see the “crossing.” One can see it because the crossing is unfinished, still going on. ... In altered states the experiences are not the usual finished packages. The crossing is still going on. ... Under hypnosis, when told to “raise your hand,” the person moves one hand only from the wrist. This narrower way of interpreting shows that some usual relevances [*1] have not entered in, when we see and hear. The usual things have not finished forming. In deep relaxation and withdrawal the events are unfinished, still being shaped. (Gendlin, 1986, pp. 152-3)

Although “unfinished” events are different from ordinary experiences or experiences in which a felt sense has already been formed, “we can understand that what forms are just what you need, what is unlived or missing” (Gendlin, 1986, p. 155) and their unique significance has come to be explicitly stated.

Looking back at the evolution of his writings described above, the terms used in each writing correspond, as shown in the table below:

Footnote

*1) It should be clear that “some usual relevances have not entered in” in the quote above (Gendlin, 1986) is used in the sense of “relevance” in seven functional relationships in “Experiencing and the Creation of Meaning” (ECM):

Without a relevance feeling, from out of which the set of symbols is understandable, the symbols mean only their particular meaning. With this feeling present, the symbols can mean what they are intended to mean in this context, and can have their intended richness of reference to experience. (Gendlin, 1962/1997, p. 131)

References

Gendlin, E. T. (1962/1997). Experiencing and the creation of meaning: a philosophical and psychological approach to the subjective (Paper ed.). Northwestern University Press.

Gendlin, E.T. (1964). A theory of personality change. In P. Worchel & D. Byrne (eds.), Personality change (pp. 100-48). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Gendlin, E.T. (1986). Let your body interpret your dreams. Chiron.

Gendlin, E. T. (2018). A process model. Northwestern University Press.

Gendlin, E.T., Grindler, D. & McGuire, M. (1984). Imagery, body, and space in focusing. In A.A. Sheikh (Ed.), Imagination and healing (pp. 259-86). Baywood.