RE: [ConstellationTalk] What was it you wanted?

From: "Dan Booth Cohen" <danbcohen@xxxxxxx>
To: <ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:17:50 -0500

Dear Franz What was I smoking??

Your question to Deborah, May I ask which correspondence you see between
´field´ and ´alchemy´? struck me like a boom on the side of the head and
knocked me overboard.  The question is one I have lived with since my teens
and you are probably the first to ask for an answer.

Welcome aboard, mate.  I am refreshed from my brisk swim off the side of the
boat.  As Dylan sang,

We can start it all over
Get it back on the track,

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Franz Kalab
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 4:43 PM
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ConstellationTalk] What was it you wanted?

Dear Dan and all,

What <http://www.bobdylan
<http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/what-was-it-you-wanted>
.com/#/songs/what-was-it-you-wanted> was it you
wanted?

The mode of conduct ´within here´ surprises me. It makes me feel like
stumbling into and disturbing a cosy ´in-group
<http://en.wikipedia ;<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroup>
.org/wiki/Ingroup> ´ at warming and sunbathing itself in
its own highflying ideas, words and accompanying emotions, maybe
compensating else. Consequently, I wonder how even only to ´read´ your mail.

The only person here on CT, which kindly welcomed me in answer to my
self-introduction and at the same time acknowledged that I opened myself
with sharing a personal view on the work, was Deborah. She responded with
personal content to personal content that I as a newcomer had ´risked´
sharing. I answered her and opened myself to converse with her.

Chris Walsh also welcomed me when he added me to CT again. Thats it. Maybe
some mail was lost in cyberspace? I have yet received no welcome here from
anyone else, no hi, no howdy, nothing.

You, dear Dan, entered the public conversation between Deborah and me and
appeared to hang on to a minor detail, just one word that I had mentioned to
her even only in brackets. Seemingly it triggered something within you, and
you maybe just saw another opportunity to show to me and the group what you
know. So as not to overwhelm CT readers, you also pasted a small portion
of something that you wrote before. How much than must you know...

To be honest, neither yours nor the groups conduct towards me so far can
much trigger my interest for it, yet. I may be very interested in the whole
of what you got after a little while and in a somewhat changed context. I do
not doubt your academic achievement, competence and popularity in certain
circles. Yet what does it mean to me who just arrived and just had said a
kind of hallo? Are you aware of how your and the groups conduct can come
across, for example cross-culturally like in my case? Does it matter to you,
Dan, and to the others?

Compared to how people behave towards one another on other lists, and in
particular towards newcomers, the behaviour I experience here on entering
appears to me, I am sorry to say so, astonishingly poor, uneducated, almost
... rude. I have not experienced such on any other list before.

As for me, CT and its parts, me inclusive, may consider why it treated a
newcomer like me just as happened. If we do, lets not blame Bush or Obama.
Smile. Could an individual and collective self-reflection about such an
unspectacular issue, raise an awareness that might serve future newcomers on
CT, CT as a whole and each of us individually, on still other lists and
blogs, existing and upcoming, and maybe even lead to inviting still others
to join, and make others want to join? Or is it already cosy enough here?
Could such a seemingly simple and unspectacular thing as conscious conduct
maybe even serve the whole of the systemic constellation movement and its
further development?

As constellators have high flying hopes, ideas and emotions about
contributing to improving humanity, as I found expressed here since I
entered, and treat an evident single human being like I am treated here on
entering, I wonder how long anybody will care to even only listen to
constellators. How would it be, if highly educated, distinguished, popular
and intensely spiritual constellators could be aware, also outside of the
venerated systemic constellation act, of also what can be nearest at hand,
of something maybe as earthly and unimposing as an outstretched hand of just
another ordinary human being?

Being a European male, born and raised in Vienna, having lived, studied and
worked on three continents in various nations and cultures, internationally
and multi-culturally most of my life, seventeen years within multinational
firms and organizations of US origin, employing the web professionally and
privately since twenty years, I can still appreciate a minimum of form and
conduct, politeness, tact, courtesy, even chivalry. Fortunately, such is
still wide spread and common among many humans of different races and
cultures who share this globe, among which I find myself usually. Though, it
also is threatened in various ways...

I vote for ´first things first´, sure on an international and multi-cultural
platform and list, in particular on one about systemic constellations. I am
committed to good conduct within ISCA-network <http://www.isca-
<http://www.isca-network.org/> network.org/>
, too.

With very kind regards, a hopeful and winning smile and

with a very warm Shalom from the heart of the historic Amsterdam Jewish
quarter De Jordaan,

Franz

From: ConstellationTalk@ <mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
[mailto:ConstellationTalk@ ;<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Booth Cohen
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:40 AM
To: ConstellationTalk@ <mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [ConstellationTalk] Sailing

Dear Franz and Deborah

I have been a student of alchemy since my undergraduate days in the 1970s at
Northwestern University. My professor, Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, had been a
high school science teacher in a small town in rural Arkansas. In her late
40s, she was inspired to expand beyond the boundaries of her circumstances
and ended up getting a Ph.D. in the History of Science at Cambridge
University. Her research topic was Newtons alchemical papers. These
papers had been removed from Cambridge at the time of Newtons death and
hidden for two centuries. The great economist John Maynard Keynes
discovered them. After examining these documents over a period of 10 years,
Keynes made his famous claim that Newton was not the first of the age of
reason. He was the last of the magicians. Dobbs was the first graduate
student to examine these papers in detail. My coursework with her was based
on her research.

As it applies to the study of Constellations, the difference between alchemy
and chemistry is that the former is based on the concept that there are two
inextricable qualities of knowledge of the universe: that which is revealed
by God through divine revelation and that which is obtained by observation.
The latter assumes that subjective knowledge is inherently illusory and
unreliable. I have written on this topic at length. So as not to overwhelm
CT readers, I will paste a small portion of text from one essay on the
general topic. This is a precursor to a discussion about alchemy, fields,
and Sheldrake.

Dan

There is no single history of psychology [in the United States], but three
prominent streams, each with their own lineages and epistemologies. These
are Academic Laboratory Psychology, Clinical Psychology, and Folk
Psychology. The distinction of three streams contrasts to a more unified
historiography. The standard textbook (Schultz and Schultz, 1992) notes
that modern psychology has tributaries that trace back to Greek and Roman
philosophy. However they assert that psychology as an independent formal
field of study did not emerge as a distinct entity until the last quarter of
the 19th century when speculating, intuiting and generalizing gave way to
the rigors of carefully controlled observation and experimentation to study
the human mind (p. 4). This application of precise and objective
methodologies, first developed in physics, chemistry and biology, has led to
the development of tools and techniques that have refined not only the
questions psychologists asked, but also the answers they obtained (p.4).

If answers obtained are functions of questions asked, one can begin by
examining the fundamental questions psychology seeks to address, or even
more basically, the language in which the question is spoken. Vico (2000),
in his 18th century opus New Science, delineates three archaic languages
that correspond to the three ages of history: the sacred language of the age
of gods, the symbolic language of the age of heroes, and the vulgar language
of the age of men.

Each language structures the questions asked and answers received according
to its particular orientation. If we overlay the three streams onto Vicos
matrix we can see they correspond to different ways of knowing.

The stream of laboratory psychology is concerned with the study of mind and
behavior using a positivistic reductionist methodology. The questions must
strictly conform to what can be learned from controlled experimentation. To
McCourt (2001), the soul is as extinct as a dry riverbed. Its origins are
traced from Aristotle to Descartes. Afterwards, the soul becomes a medieval
concept, having no more contemporary validity than bodily humors or the
ether of the celestial sphere.

This corresponds to the age of man in which the linguistics of myth has been
lost.

Clinical psychology speaks the language of the age of heroes. At this level
psychology asks three questions: What are we? Where do we come from? Where
are we going? When Kepler employed the scientific method of observation and
calculation to prove the heliocentric solar system, he not only overthrew
Ptolemaic cosmology, but the Genesis creation myth as well. The new science
of psychology created its own macrohistory giving humanity answers to the
basic riddles of life. Freuds Oedipus theory or Heideggers Dasein are
myths that organize the complex data of creation into a coherent narrative
form.

Folk psychology corresponds to the age of gods, using the language of
mystics and seers to help the individual move out of an ordinary mind into
the hieroglyphic modes of gods and angels. Unlike the scientists, who
willingly overthrew the religious world order, the shapers of folk
psychology, from Mary Baker Eddy to Ken Wilbur, were integrators who sought
to reconcile the scientific and spiritual world views.

The separation of psychology into three streams is not merely a function of
philosophical orientation. The relative merits of a pill, a couch or a
prayer as tools to treat mental health disorders can be argued in a lively
debate among peers. However, the waters of American laboratory psychology
do not run so deep because its proponents have won such a debate. It is
economics that dictates why only three percent of American Psychological
Association members identify as Humanistic Psychologists. Medications to
treat psychiatric illnesses generate $20 billion in annual sales revenue, by
far the largest component of the entire pharmaceutical market (National
Institute for Health Care Management, 2002). As Thompson (1981) observes:

As the lie commonly agreed upon, history becomes the apology for whatever
class is in power.From the raising of children through the techniques of
behavioral modification in the elementary schools to the philosophical
indoctrination of students in graduate schools, a class of behavioral
scientists has positioned itself at the strategic places of power in our
secular society.Small wonder when these social scientists write history,
they write only a history of economics and technology (p. 247).

In addition to these three eras, Vico warned of a fourth age, the age of
chaos. This would be a transitional stage when civil society collapses
under the weight of greed and barbarism and the course of history spirals
back on itself towards a new age of gods.

There now is a great divide between the mechanists and the mystics. One
camp of psychology is caught up in visions of total control; the other is
caught up in spiritual visions.

In this age, the three streams have overflowed their banks and churned the
waters white with confusion. The experimentalist, who seeks solace from
existential angst by manipulating the molecules of the brain, cannot fully
escape from the dark night of the soul. The transpersonalist, who gains
serenity in Tibetan chanting, struggles with mounting credit card debts. If
either speculating, intuiting and generalizing or carefully controlled
observation and experimentation could actually unravel the mystery of the
human mind, wouldnt psychologists by now have more fulfilling marriages and
better adjusted children than bus drivers or actuaries? It is tempting to
believe that one stream is preferable to another, but it is the nature of
this age of chaos that it continually thwarts our attempts to stand on solid
ground.

At its source, psychology is knowledge of the soul. Jung (1953), who spoke
the language of myth, cautioned against losing this original meaning, Learn
your theories as well as you can, but put them aside when you touch the
miracle of the living soul (p.4).

Beaumont (Hellinger, Weber and Beaumont, 1998) uses a stream metaphor to
illustrate this point. He tells of a young man who sat by a river and
wondered to himself where it came from. After a long search uphill, he
found the very source of the main branch. Just as he began to celebrate his
great discovery, it began to rain and tiny rivulets appeared. He followed
one these until he found its source. When he finally did, he renewed
celebrating until he saw droplets coming off a bird in a tree. He studied
the bird for a long time and finally declared its beak was where the stream
began. Once he got home he told the story of his journey and discovery
again and again to a growing number of admirers. After awhile his story
grew so popular that he no longer had time to visit the river. An old man
who loved him recognized the danger and asked him where the rain comes from.
The young man began setting a plan to measure the raindrops and follow the
clouds, but in realizing the futility of it all he became ashamed and jumped
into the water. The old man thought, Thats a good answer, my son. Dive
in, feel the current, let the river carry you. Its longing to go home,
flowing to the source (pp. xvi-xvii).

-----Original Message-----
From: ConstellationTalk@ <mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
[mailto:ConstellationTalk@ ;<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Deborah Breesnee
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 8:12 PM
To: ConstellationTalk@ <mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
<mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [ConstellationTalk] Sailing

Dear Franz, I am not familiar with Kampenhout, but perhaps you have inspired
me to explore these connections. There is much to be said for synchronicity!
Perhaps we will have more to discuss. Perhaps these words are just our
different ways of saying much the same things? And perhaps Sheldrake is wise
to skirt the issues of the psycho-social dimensions of life experiences, lol

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Franz Kalab <franz@kalab.
<mailto:franz%40kalab.nl> nl> wrote:

Interestingly I have listened to Sheldrake only a few weeks ago in
Birmingham, after having studied his A New Science of Life and The

Presence

of the Past. For my taste he could have dwelled much more on the meaning

his theory for the psycho-social dimension. An updated version of A New
Science of Life is to come out soon. I plan to carefully read it. I have
also read carefully C. G. Jung on transference and alchemy. I have an
understanding of the similarities between the concepts of archetypes and
morphic resonance.

C. G. Jung described alchemy's function for integration and individuation
to
those who practised it (like Newton J). The concept of morphic resonance
can
be compared to the concept of archetypes. In my experience, a field in a
constellation may be similar to and different from both. I regard
Shaldrake's field theory and Kampenhout's soul theory as possible frames

understand constellation work to some degree. During constellation days I
experience much mutual love between participants. I could agree to call
constellation one possible cauldron among many to experience love.

I still liked you to tell more about your findings on Sheldrake and Jung.

Kind regards,

Franz

From: ConstellationTalk@ <mailto:ConstellationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>