Dan,
I'm so pleased you have found the Mirror Neuron discussion in TKF useful. I
would like to reinforce the point you made - quoting a couple of my
contributions to the discussion - that scientific hypotheses or theories,
whether in neurophysiology or quantum physics, can provide us only with
possibilities; they cannot explain the phenomena we observe in
constellation work. We have to be very careful not to jump between levels
of hypothesis or explanation. While the behaviour of mirror neurons
observed in monkeys can be accepted as fact (because it is reproducible),
what the neurons are doing for the monkey is conjecture. To extrapolate
from this first to humans, where individual mirror neurons cant be observed
for technical reasons, and then apply this hypothesis to a highly complex
activity like constellation work is very dangerous if we lose sight of the
various levels that have been crossed. It is fine to use such concepts as
ideas if they help to enrich our work but we must guard against falling
into the trap of thinking of them as explanations. I feel passionately
about this, which is what triggered the discussion in TKF in the first place!
And ironically given my scientific training and many years in research, I
have a feeling that I dont want explanations for the mysterious process of
representation in constellations - I am happy to accept it for the
marvellous mystery that it is and work with what we are given. Will knowing
why it works actually make us better constellators?
Although I rarely contribute to this group, I love reading the
conversations and am very appreciative of all who contribute!
Blessings
Jen Altman
