[written 1980 when I was 28]
is man's whole being, body, mind and soul. The I is a relative independent part of the Self. The deeper control of man, including the life of the I, comes from the Self.
The Self has to states of being: ab-sent and pre-sent. A normal I does not know itself (it's Self). For a normal I, the Self is ab-sent. Someone absent in the meaning of 'dropped into spells', is with it's own Self without knowing it. (Jes Bertelsen: Individuation, danish book, p. 291)
This experience 'to fall into spell', as most people have probably experienced - but without being aware of the experience of unity between subject and object, this is precisely the point of 'falling in spells': there is no awareness. Had there been awareness, one had not fallen into spells. - is as far as I can see just as a meditative state as samadhi, the difference is just none and 100% awareness.
Only after recovering from the shock of falling into spell - and that is a shock to our usual definition of reality where separation exists between subject and object, and we experience ourselves as separate from the outside world - we say to ourselves, 'Oh my God (!), I was sleeping, after all.' More correctly, it would be to say: 'God, my I was not there at all and my awareness was asleep.' For it is not the I that sleeps, but the witness.
The funny and interesting thing is, that most people have and often several times in their lives experienced the egoless state (in deep love, in the sexual orgasm, by falling into spells, in extreme danger situations, etc.), but if this is experienced with awareness, it is associated with so much anxiety, that if once you have experienced it, you will not go back to it again. This is the psychological cause of anxiety about orgasm, love, meditation, etc., but the original cause is socially determined.
We are afraid of this egoless state, because from early childhood we learn a certain way of perceiving ourselves and reality. Even before we can speak, the adults say a word - our name - that they repeatedly address us, when they want us something. And about themselves, they also use a word - father, mother, etc. In uterus and right after birth we are one with everything, but soon we learn to forget this way of experiencing and learning a new one.
A regression to the uterine state (as in therapy or in meditation) can give you a sense of this feeling of being one with everything, but only a revival, because the one experiencing is in most cases the I and not the witness. Most of my womb state revivals have not been meditative states, but an experience of being in a safe and peaceful environment. In practice in therapy it shows, that if the person is confronted with an excessive anxiety, he often regresses to the safe uterine state often at the speed of light to avoid the anxiety. And this does not solve the problem, even though the experience of the uterine condition is probably comfortable.
How could a small child tell his parents that it is nonsense, what you say. The child is depending on the love of the parents so it must play the game. Watts has written a lot about this phenomenon, how we in the dependent child-parent relationship are forced into different double-binds:
The social double-bind game can be phrased in several ways:
The first rule of this game is that it is not a game.
Everyone must play.
You must love us.
You must go on living.
Be yourself, but play a consistent and acceptable role.
Control yourself and be natural.
Try to be sincere.
(THE BOOK, p. 65)
Slowly, the child begins to experience himself as, for example, Michael, who is separated from others. A name has no value of 'use' for the person himself, but only for others, when to call or mention me. Whether they call with 'John' or 'Peter' is for irrelevant as long as I know, that they mean 'me'. And eventually through this hypnosis, I think I am identical with my name - The reader can imagine, how it would be like if everyone decided to use a different name for you.
But let's return to double bind. The concept of 'double-bind' was originally created by american psychiatrists, who in the study of communication in families with a member called schizophrenic found, that the 'schizophrenic' person had been exposed to countless paradoxical and contradictory situations, that were impossible to resolve within the limits of the playing rules in the family. It was no surprise, that the 'schizophrenic' had gone insane, it was natural.