Thanks you Dan for your help with radio interview link and for your sharing
about Constellations dillemmas.
I'd agree with those who say that there are different dimensions and
different fields; if one wants to discuss scientific foundations, should be
first discussed common fields/dimensions.
I don't feel very fluent in scientific paradigms but in my master thesis I
wrote quiet big work about psychological evaluation of evolution (in the
term of development) of personality of Thomas Merton, the biggest christian
mystics in XX century, based on autobiographical data (sorry, I'm
translating from Polish I don't know if that makes a sense). All theoretical
foundations to this analysis were in phenomenology and axiology, with some
psychological concepts of personality. In the beginning I had to discuss
limitations in positivist paradigm ruling science, and off course I wasn't
the first one who was discussing/criticising these limitations :)
This point shows that if we look for evaluation, we need a clear ground of
basic theory we are standing on. I wouldn't be able to make analysis of
these autobiography data with positivist paradigm. My work was one among
other works in my group, and other colleagues were doing similar things with
other people autobiographical data (it was adventure to discuss evolution
of personality of Tolstoy, Jung etc).
The same is with - for example - Jung approach. Is this science or not?
Well, depends on what measure we put into this. His concepts are clearly
phenomenological in nature.
And with other personalists like Frankl, Mounier, Bowne (how interesting is
Bowne's view! (from Vikipedia): "For example, against the argument that
persons are insignificant specks of dust in the vast universe, Bowne would
say that it is impossible for the entire universe to exist apart from a
person to experience it. Ontologically speaking, the person is larger than
the universe because the universe is but one small aspect of the person who
experiences it." )
I believe that we can describe phenomens as they are, and this is grounded
in science (however phenomenology is mot very much liked in science world).
If we still believe that philosophy is a father of all science.
It's very serious topic, Dan. And I wish to all of us to find a way to put
some grounds into constellations.
Maybe psychodrama, as similar concept and practice existing at the scene for
much longer - could give some light?
Regards
Hania Moser
Growth does not come from striving to be a better person. Growth comes from
allowing your ego's story to drop away. (author unknown)
2010/5/24 Dan Booth Cohen <danbcohen@xxxxxxx>
Here is an article I wrote following an exchange with the astrophysicist
Neil DeGrasse Tayson. It was published in my newsletter following a
Constellation story about a client with endometriosis. Here is a link to
the newsletter
www.HiddenSolution.com/0510.htm<http://www.hiddensolution.com/0510.htm>
.
I will be interested to read about how CT members answer these questions.
Dan
Are Constellations Paranormal?
With Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Rupert Sheldrake
Physicians see endometriosis as a physiological condition. The pain is
caused by the interaction of hormones, tissues, and nerves. Could imagining
and praying to Sami great-grandmothers and Viking warriors really affect
this patient's healing after 15 years of worsening pain?
About 80% of my clients report that after their Constellation the issue
they
present improved or resolved completely. Many cannot say that the
Constellation caused the improvement, only that things are definitely
better.
Our technological culture straddles a great philosophical chasm between
world views. One embraces spiritual visions of universal connection and the
other subscribes to strict materialism.
Is it possible to bridge the gap between proponents of collective
consciousness and critics who insist the mind is only brain function?
I recently exchanged e-mails about Constellations, representative
perception, and non-local communication with the preeminent
astrophysicistNeil DeGrasse <http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/>
Tyson.
I asked whether the non-local information I perceive in Constellations has
a
plausible explanation. For example:
* Standing as a client's mother, I felt the presence of an older
brother who died in infancy. The client insisted his mother had only a
younger brother, but a phone call with her afterward confirmed my
perception.
* Representing a client's sister, I said an obscure idiom. Shocked,
the client said it was her sister's signature phrase.
I have hundreds of similar experiences, as do others who experience
Constellations, whether facilitators, clients, or representatives. I
understand them as normal, if poorly understood, properties of human
perception. Occasionally, these are proven inaccurate, but most are
on-target.
What seems commonplace to me, is far fetched or even delusional to others,
including many of those engaged in the sciences. How is it possible for me
simply standing and feeling for "mother" to gain awareness of her long
deceased older brother?
Neil DeGrasse Tyson responded that my understanding of this phenomenon was
probably faulty, i.e., these hits were gleaned from subtle cues, educated
guesses, or were in normal proportion to the number of misses which I
dismiss or ignore.
According to Tyson, the hypothesis that someone's detailed personal data -
not resident in my brain -can be perceived or discerned in silence amounts
to a claim of supernatural powers. "The laws of physics compellingly argue
that we know all the ways that information can move from one point in time
and space to another."
He added that in all eras, certain humans have claimed the ability to
ascertain information that is not presented to the 5 senses. "The history
of
such claims over the past two thousand years is one of abject failure.
People who claimed non-materialist accounts of the natural world have
routinely failed in the face of properly conducted experiments."
The lack of credible supportive experimental data along with a well
establish set of theoretical laws, lead him to be extremely skeptical that
my examples are normal qualities of human perception.
How can I argue my subjective personal experience against conclusive
experimental research? As he notes, "The methods and tools of science have
wholly replaced our feeble five senses as tools of inquiry to the natural
world. So what something looks like to your senses is no longer the measure
of what is true in the physical world."
Being a left-handed, colorblind, Jewish heretic makes me well accustomed to
standing 3 standard deviations from the norm. However, that means eclectic,
not endowed with super powers. While these occurrences are incidental to
the
Constellation process, Tyson's responses give me much to weigh and
consider.
I reported my exchange to another scientist whose work I respect, Rupert
Sheldrake <http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html> . Over the last 30
years,
Sheldrake has built a large experimental database of tests of psi
phenomenon
that produce positive results.
He responded, "I think it's ridiculous to pin the argument down to the
well-understood laws of physics. We have no explanation even of biological
morphogenesis in terms of the known laws of physics, and less understanding
of consciousness. To assume that all these things will eventually be
understood in terms of laws of physics is an example of promissory
materialism. It's essentially a faith position and not one you can ever
refute by argument."
Sheldrake, Dean Radin, Gary Schwartz, and many other clinicians and
scientists are engaged in experimentation and theory building to create the
ground for these Constellation experiences to stand. An excellent source of
news and debate on these questions is Skeptiko.com
I fall back to an observation from Stephen Jay Gould, "Each of us has to
have a personal metaphysics. There are questions that are formally
unanswerable on which nonetheless every individual must take a position in
order to integrate various pieces of his life."
Science wrought to its uttermost becomes myth.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
