The existential-transpersonal debate on development of self beyond ego has reached an apparent impasse. An approach that focuses more on attitude toward self than nature of self may allow the conversation to continue.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Epstein, M.
(1995). Thoughts without a thinker. New York: Basic Books.
2.
Johnston, W. (Trans.). (1973). The cloud of unknowing. Garden City, NJ: Image.
3.
Koltko, M. E.
(1989). The humanized no-self: A response to Schneider's critique of transpersonal psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 29(4), 482-492.
4.
Kornfield, J.
(1993). A path with heart. New York: Bantam.
5.
Muzuka, E.
(1990). Object relations theory, Buddhism, and the self: Synthesis of Eastern and Western approaches. International Philosophical Quarterly, 30(1), 59-74.
6.
Schneider, K.
(1987). The deified self: A "centaur" response to Wilber and the transpersonal movement. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 27(2), 196-216.
7.
Schneider, K.
(1989). Infallibility is so damn appealing: A reply to Ken Wilber. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 29(4), 470-481.
8.
Walsh, R.
, & Vaughan, F. (1994). The worldview of Ken Wilber. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 34(2), 7-21.
9.
Wilber, K.
(1984a). The developmental spectrum and psychopathology: Part I, Stages and types of pathology. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 16(1), 75-118.
10.
Wilber, K.
(1984b). The developmental spectrum and psychopathology: Part II, Treatment modalities. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 16(2), 137-166.
11.
Wilber, K.
(1989a). God is so damn boring: A response to Kirk Schneider. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 29(4), 457-469.
12.
Wilber, K.
(1989b). Reply to Schneider. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 29(4), 493-500.
