Back in 585 BC, the mathematician Thales predicted mathematically the precise time of an eclipse. He concluded that all natural phenomena had rational causes that didn't depend on deities. This event, wrote astrologer Joe Landwehr in The Seven Gates of Soul (p.95), marked the beginning of the scientific revolution that would ultimately deny the existence of the soulful life.
Thales still drew inspiration from the world view he was trying to escape. He believed that the principle substance that governed nature and composed it's essence was Water. In his book on the 6000-year history of soul, Joe went on to point out that Thales is reputed to have said: 'All is water and the world is full of gods' proclaiming the omnipresence of soul that he had tried to rationalize away.
Joe, my partner, is a great sounding board for my thoughts and ideas, including those on aquatic bodywork and spa culture, though both fields are quite new to him. Like me, he has followed a rather unconventional career path - beginning in science and then finding it could not provide the answers to some of his deeper questions about the meaning of life.
Recently, Joe commented on my last post How to investigate aquatic altered states of consciousness. I have compiled his input below since I think it provides a valuable and interesting extension of the issues raised there. I encourage you to join in too by commenting below either post or Email me here.
'Without quantifiable measurement, science is lost', notes Joe but so much that is important in healing or therapy cannot be measured or quantified.
Comments on the issue of research supporting effective therapy from Joe Landwehr:
Water is not only a bridge between energy and matter, but also between the conscious and unconscious minds, the rational and the emotional, waking state reality and altered states, and the subjective and objective realms. Currently science does not know how to bridge this gap.
In fact, science seems rather uncomfortable with the unconscious, the emotional, altered states and the subjective. I think at core, the fear is one of drowning in deep water, where the individual scientist has less control, and must surrender to the flow of a larger process.
Until this fear is addressed, science will try to swim upstream with one arm tied behind its back!
Evidence-based medicine [EMB] appears to be a concession by science to the subjective nature of the therapeutic experience. The definition you [Sulis] quoted [see previous post] states: 'EBM recognizes that many aspects of medical care depend on individual factors such as quality and value-of-life judgments, which are only partially subject to scientific methods'.
This indicates that EBM is incomplete without taking the subjective context of an individual's own process - which may or may not conform to the scientific norm - into account. There is a place for inclusion of the more individual, anecdotal, and idiosyncratic dimensions of the research that would be relevant to more effective therapy.
Since the 1960s, there has also been increasing recognition of the subjective impact of the experimenter - in any scientific experiment - on its outcome. This is an observation that comes from the attempt to integrate findings of quantum physics into scientific research methodology.
The approach so far, however, has been to try to counterbalance the subjective impact of the experimenter through double-blind experiments, etc. This is fine, if you want to understand what reality is - if it is anything at all - without filtering it through human consciousness. But is this really the goal of therapy?
The researcher/ therapist does influence the outcome of the experiment. If the 'experiment' is a therapeutic intervention, this is (or can be) a good thing. Shouldn't the goal be more effective intervention through clarity of intent, close attention to subjective context, increased awareness of the impact of the therapist's mindset on the client, and intuitive flexibility in applying a broad palette of tools?
The bottom line is that you can't reduce good therapy to a formula, nor should that be the goal. So, when you suggest [see earlier post for the full list of suggestions] that in conducting research into these aspects [e.g. states of consciousness, subtle energy fields, psychosomatic reactions] of aquatic bodywork it would be valuable to:
Even in the stricter sense, kriyas do not produce the same results in everyone who does them. Some may be counterindicated for certain individuals, even when the expectation is that a certain kriya will address a certain condition.
It is not just the consciousness of the investigator that determines outcome, but the conscious AND unconscious exchange between the investigator and the 'subject'. It seems to me that EBM wants to either ignore this, or minimize it through developing standardized protocols. This may be more scientific, but is it really better therapy?
[And finally,] the corollary to your statement:
'those who practice in a more methodical and results-orientated way are unlikely to create a setting that allows for this deeper experience,'
is that:
'those who practice with the intent of invoking altered states, therapeutic imagery, or transformative experiences in their clients - with their consent and unambivalent participation, of course - will likely create a setting that does allow for this deeper kind of work.'
In fact, science seems rather uncomfortable with the unconscious, the emotional, altered states and the subjective. I think at core, the fear is one of drowning in deep water, where the individual scientist has less control, and must surrender to the flow of a larger process.
Until this fear is addressed, science will try to swim upstream with one arm tied behind its back!
Evidence-based medicine [EMB] appears to be a concession by science to the subjective nature of the therapeutic experience. The definition you [Sulis] quoted [see previous post] states: 'EBM recognizes that many aspects of medical care depend on individual factors such as quality and value-of-life judgments, which are only partially subject to scientific methods'.
This indicates that EBM is incomplete without taking the subjective context of an individual's own process - which may or may not conform to the scientific norm - into account. There is a place for inclusion of the more individual, anecdotal, and idiosyncratic dimensions of the research that would be relevant to more effective therapy.
Since the 1960s, there has also been increasing recognition of the subjective impact of the experimenter - in any scientific experiment - on its outcome. This is an observation that comes from the attempt to integrate findings of quantum physics into scientific research methodology.
The approach so far, however, has been to try to counterbalance the subjective impact of the experimenter through double-blind experiments, etc. This is fine, if you want to understand what reality is - if it is anything at all - without filtering it through human consciousness. But is this really the goal of therapy?
The researcher/ therapist does influence the outcome of the experiment. If the 'experiment' is a therapeutic intervention, this is (or can be) a good thing. Shouldn't the goal be more effective intervention through clarity of intent, close attention to subjective context, increased awareness of the impact of the therapist's mindset on the client, and intuitive flexibility in applying a broad palette of tools?
The bottom line is that you can't reduce good therapy to a formula, nor should that be the goal. So, when you suggest [see earlier post for the full list of suggestions] that in conducting research into these aspects [e.g. states of consciousness, subtle energy fields, psychosomatic reactions] of aquatic bodywork it would be valuable to:
- correlate these states with specific sequences of movement, stillness, breathing patterns, etc.
- demonstrate reproducible and lasting effects, defining what is beneficial (also neutral or potentially harmful)
Even in the stricter sense, kriyas do not produce the same results in everyone who does them. Some may be counterindicated for certain individuals, even when the expectation is that a certain kriya will address a certain condition.
It is not just the consciousness of the investigator that determines outcome, but the conscious AND unconscious exchange between the investigator and the 'subject'. It seems to me that EBM wants to either ignore this, or minimize it through developing standardized protocols. This may be more scientific, but is it really better therapy?
[And finally,] the corollary to your statement:
'those who practice in a more methodical and results-orientated way are unlikely to create a setting that allows for this deeper experience,'
is that:
'those who practice with the intent of invoking altered states, therapeutic imagery, or transformative experiences in their clients - with their consent and unambivalent participation, of course - will likely create a setting that does allow for this deeper kind of work.'
Thank you Joe!
To see more of Joe's writing, visit his new weblog for Ancient Tower Press.
In The Seven Gates of Soul, Joe explores the barriers to a true understanding of soul erected by
religion, philosophy, science, and psychology, while offering
insightful solutions. Part One examines the religious concepts of immortality
and sin, showing how these ideas interfere with the soul’s ability to
understand its journey as a neutral learning process, taking place in
the here and now. Part Two looks more closely at the
limitations of the rational mind, the scientific notion that our
understanding of truth must be objective, science’s insistence on
causality as an explanation for everything, and other implications of
the scientific worldview. Part Three tracks the history
of science’s influence on psychology, and shows how, liberated from its
scientific trappings, all psychological process is the reflection of an
intimately personal struggle toward spiritual awakening.
See also another water quote from Joe: Water is the most soul-like.
And finally, for a broader perspective, read Prairie dogs cry for water. The following is a quote from that post that relates to Joe's mention of the importance of the filter of human consciousness.
We have
neglected to realize that indigenous peoples have always had access to
the finest probe ever conceived, one that makes scientific instruments
coarse in comparison, one that all human beings in all places and times
have had access to: the focused power of human consciousness. - Stephen Harrod Buhner
