Hello Monika
I have been responding to your critique of pseudoscience for 45 years. In 1975,
I studied at Northwestern University with Dr. Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, an Isaac
Newton scholar. She was only the second scholar to be given access to Newtons
secret alchemical papers, the first being the great Cambridge economist John
Maynard Keynes. Her course revealed that there two pillars of modern science,
one observational and the other metaphysical. The metaphysical foundation is
materialist and reductionist-empiricist. This results in the belief that
consciousness is nothing but a consequence of complex arrangement of matter,
i.e., brain activity. This belief is neither proven, nor warranted.
What devolved into pseudoscience were the remnants of alchemy and womens plant
medicine. Having been persecuted, hung and burned for 4 centuries the
descendants of Europes witch hunts which slew upwards of 200,000 indigenous
woman struggle to maintain a coherent and sustainable metaphysics based on
the lost wisdom.
While many speculative methods flourish, an increasing number of open-minded
scientists are reaching empirically grounded conclusions that challenge the
mainstream majority view. They argue that we need a model of consciousness that
is nonreductive and recognizes that consciousness can have its own direct
access to reality through inner perception or radical introspection. These
offer valid access routes to deeper structures of reality.
In Constellations, we work with three phenomena which challenge scientism.
1. Representative perception
2. Systemic entanglement
3. Orders of Love
There are many Constellation trainers and facilitators who adhere to acceptable
scientific understanding without mystifying. Others, like me, are channeling
ancestors, receiving and transmitting non-local consciousness, and taking
support from plant, animal, earth, ocean and celestial resources. Our
metaphysics are admittingly at odds. I am convinced the evidence supports mine
and is vacant in regard to mainstream science.
I looked up Pseudoscience on Wikipedia, the authoritative custodians of the
academic/corporate worldview. Their list was made in the context of educating
the public about questionable or potentially fraudulent or dangerous claims and
practices. In one way or another all the topics impinge on scientific domains
or practices. Heres a very small excerpt of what is meant by pseudoscience.
* Astrology
* Feng Shui
* Acupuncture
* Alternative medicine
* Anthroposophy
* Applied kinesiology
* Aroma therapy
* Ayurveda
* Chiropractic
* Chronic Lyme disease
* Craniosacral therapy
* Energy medicine
* Energy therapy or healing
* Spiritual medicine or healing
* Functional medicine
* Homeopathy
* Osteopathy
* Traditional Chinese Medicine
* EMDR
* Hypnosis and hypnotherapy
I wonder why psychiatric medications for the treatment of chemical imbalances
in the brain did not make their list? Is it because of the wealth of scientific
evidence in favor of Zyprexa to treat depression? Or is the divide between
science and pseudoscience capricious and biased? I agree with you there must
be deeper and larger forces (not least financial) compelling manufacturers and
practitioners to propose unsupported explanations.
For 45 years, I have devoted myself as an activist and clinician by pursuing
ideas marginalized by culture, erased by history, and obscured by willful
ignorance. Maria Popova writes, It is in the margins of life as commonly
conceived by our cultures inherited parameters of permission and possibility,
that I have worked out and continue working out who I am and who I wish to be
a private inquiry irradiated by the ultimate question, the great quickening of
thought, feeling, and wonder that binds us all: What is all this?
Whatever our metaphysical quibble, Monika, I do not doubt you are pursuing the
same pathways to look inside and harmonize our inner and external worlds.
Warmly
Dan
From: constellationtalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<constellationtalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of drmdressler
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 1:33 AM
To: constellationtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <constellationtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [constellationtalk] Pseudoscience
Hello Dan and All,
First I would like to say that for some strange reason email replies at times
are truncated on this forum. Maybe freelist.org maybe yahoo, maybe gremlins,
maybe even me - I don't know.
In any case I would like to say Dan that I too re-read you comment and I didn't
see you saying anywhere that slavery was imposed by Christianity. This is also
relevant to your below comment as far as people do seem to have blind spots and
amazing misunderstandings. So by virtue of this forum my comments were
addressed at the many constellation facilitators who seem to have a
predilection to make very questionable assertions as to why constellation
works. Magical, dream like fantasy trips are absolutely part of the
Constellation / Psychodrama process and the healing journey. I am not disputing
that for a minute, on the contrary. But to mix all kinds of Multi Dimensional,
Quantum Genetic DNA pseudoscience into a rational argument undermines
acceptance and respect for the whole modality.
Now I had my two cents worth, and I do not expect any change. There must be
deeper and larger forces (not least financial) compelling practitioners to
propose unsupported explanations. My original invitation was to simply explore
this religious attraction to pseudoscience. I also feel Tania's soothing words
did have a stronger impact, without which people may not be willing to look.
Monika
-----Original Message-----
From: constellationtalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<constellationtalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Dan Cohen
Sent: Tuesday, 26 October 2021 3:08 PM
To: constellationtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [constellationtalk] Re: Pseudoscience
Dear Monika
I have read the subsequent posts on this thread with interest. There seems to
be a lot of confusion in the exchanges which I ascribe to a lack of precision
in your original post. You do not specify how your two questions relate to the
subject matter of ConstellationTalk. Our guidelines state: This is a platform
for engaging in collegial conversations about constellation practice as was
originally developed by Bert Hellinger and continues to be developed by
practitioners around the world. Without any reference to Constellations, how
do readers know Who you are speaking about? Are these Constellation
facilitators, our clients, the general public or broad cultural collectives?
Dan
You received this message because you're subscribed to the ConstellationTalk
email list. To unsubscribe, visit
https://www.freelists.org/list/constellationtalk or email ;
constellationtalk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
The list archive, going back to 2003, is at
https://www.freelists.org/archive/constellationtalk.
You received this message because you're subscribed to the ConstellationTalk
email list. To unsubscribe, visit
https://www.freelists.org/list/constellationtalk or email ;
constellationtalk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
The list archive, going back to 2003, is at
https://www.freelists.org/archive/constellationtalk.
