Thanks Vinay.
Ursula and I have been talking lately about the perspectives of Humberto
Maturana expressed in his book, 'From being to doing' available from Carl-Auer.
I think he is a gem.
He says, 'We believe that we know, without knowing that we are believing.'
Another is so obvious as to be overlooked, 'All observations are made by an
observer.' Regardless of how objective something appears, there is no escape
from the subjective perspective.
Film images are always subject to the perspectives and intentions of the camera
person, editor and film maker. A pejorative title like 'The silent scream'
states the intended emotional effect of the film before it has been viewed.
Using the term murder referring to abortion seems to me to be taking a strong
moral position with implied judgement, condemnation and punishment. All life is
predicated on killing. A head of lettuce gives its life when we eat it.
It may be tempting to create a one-to-one correspondence between abortion and
cancer, but I am more willing to believe that physical symptoms are complex and
often have multiple causes, sometimes from very deep in the past of the system.
Thomas
On Aug 1, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Steve Vinay Gunther <spirited@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I was just watching a video of Hellinger in Taiwan. He works with a case
where he posits abortions took place, and makes an association with that and
the presenting issue of cancer.
He compares abortion to murder, and cites the work of Bernard Nathanson, who
after performing many thousands of abortions, made a movie using ultrasound
footage of fetuses that were about to be aborted. He 'showed' the fetus
moving away from the instrument and 'screaming'.
Now, I subscribe to the general constellation view of abortion, as a
problematic and difficult dynamic in family systems, and certainly something
that creates subsequent problems.
But I do wonder about his use of this reference. I researched it, and its not
quite as scientifically valid as it is emotionally impactful. It was
critiqued for the manipulation of the film images, and for the authoritative
'scientific' pronouncements and interpretations which are not necessarily
validated by the data.
So for instance, brain neurons do not exist prior to 4 weeks in utero. And
the 'scream' is could also be a common movement that foetuses make, yawning
for instance.
Now, just because they don't have neurons, I believe they still have a rich
experiential life, closely connected of course to the mother's state of
being.
But I don't like it when things are presented as solid science, when they
have a strong interpretive element which speaks with authority not
necessarily rigourous…even if I agree with the conclusions!
Part of the effect is another authority- Hellinger - quotes the original
'authority', and then that continues to become an authoritative 'fact'. I
think that transparency and responsibility are important in such
communications….
I am interested in other peoples' perspectives on this.
Vinay
