Hi! Mostly just letting you know that I'm still alive and posting! I have a short thing to say then I'll go type that scientific werewolf blog as promised.
But first, a little statement about what I believe!
"Look on this,' she said, and she waved a wing, and as she waved her wing there fell from it tiny motes of colour in a curtain that became a river far in the distance below them. And the river was in torrent, its waters crying out their eagerness so loud that Joli could hear them even from far up here. And all the waters of the river were charging like hungry younglings towards a great waterfall, whose noise was louder that the wrath of any Mountain-That-Roars there ever has been or ever could be, so that now as Joli gazed upon it he could no longer hear the eager cries of the river's spating waters behind it. And at the foot of the waterfall, away from the tumult, there was a great deep pool, broader than any pool there ever has been or ever could be, deeper than any pool that ever has been or ever could be, and stiller than any pool there ever has been or ever could be...'Life,' said Alyss, 'is the line of the waters across the very crest of that waterfall. No droplet of water can remain there for more than an instant, for that is all that mortal existence is: an instant. In the time that the waters remain on that crest you can tell no droplet separate from any other droplet, and afterwards they become all one: all of them, all together, are the great still pool, the pool that is greater and stiller than any other pool there ever has been or ever could be.
'Now see how foolish are the waters of the river, which are also the souls waiting to be brought into existence, for they clamour eagerly for the instant that they are at the crest of the cataract -- for the moment, shorter than the wink of a star in the night sky, when they may move about the World -- and yet they dread the foreverness they will spend in the great still pool, the pool that is greater and stiller than any other pool there ever has been or ever could be.'
'And yet are the waters of the river not also wise as well as foolish to clamour so eagerly?' said Joli. 'For that one instant at the crest of the cascade is worth all the foreverness thereafter in the pool.'
Then did the small dragon who was greater than any Greater look at him sternly.
'Their folly,' she said, 'is in dreading the foreverness in the great still pool, that is greater and stiller than any other pool there ever has been or ever could be.'
Bob Eegleton and John Grant in Dragonhenge, spelling and emphasis preserved.
This is an excerpt from a arrestingly beautiful art book that is also an experiment in archaeology of dragons. It's a really cool book, but this particular passage catches my heart and really captures the point at which my understanding of religious or spiritual people breaks down. If you've read some of my previous blogs, then you know I'm atheist, but it'd be vain to assume you have so I'll give a quick explanation here for review. (That and I've refined my beliefs, as I think I was more agnostic the last time I posted about it here)
I am an atheist, logically because I don't believe in souls, thus no soul-keepers, and emotionally because I can't imagine a loving god who wouldn't interfere in something like genocide, but finds a parking spot for a follower. I want to understand what causes people to believe, so I engage in my favorite past-time: bugging people with hard questions and comparing their answers to mine and other peoples' answers. Thus, I can understand most of the arguments believers use for belief in God, whoever he is, whatever he's like.
Most answers tend to fall into three categories:
a) I believe that God has worked in my life/the wonder of the world is evidence of God
b) I've verified some historic events from the bible with outside sources/done some research otherwise
c) I was raised in a Christian home/the bible
I bold a) because it is THE choice answer of the people I've spoken with. I'd say, over 80% say that exact wording. (It’s really kinda creepy. And I don't mean 80% of people who give that answer; I mean 80% of those I've ASKED)
You should know that my sample is localized to University of Georgia at Athens, and primarily Protestants of the Methodist and Presbyterian varieties.
I understand feeling like something's looking out for you because your day/week/(or in my case)life has worked out well.
I understand feeling completely humbled by the inconceivable awesomeness of the seeming perfection of the physiology of a flower, or a frog, or the limbic system working with the frontal cortex to produce a unique person.
I understand trusting what your parents have told you about the world.
However, some of the people I spoke with asked me something along the lines of 'why are you still alive? You don't have a purpose in life'. I truly don't understand were they're coming from here. (I'd be delighted if someone giving this a read would clarify) I have moments in my life where I sit up and look around and say to myself, 'Self, I'm so happy that I'm alive, now, in America, allowed to study science even though I'm female, in a world that is better understood than ever, with cool people to talk to, and great parents, and I love it, and I love the people I'm getting to spend this time with.' My 'reason for living' is all the cool stuff and people I'd miss out on if I died. This is where the quote above comes in. I love life in every way. When I am hurting, it means I'm not in a still pool, but here, and interacting with another droplet, and that means that any hurt I'm slogging through is worth it. Even if a suicidal thought enters my brain, it’s immediately followed by a protest listing all of the things I still have to do before I die.
I love to try new stuff. (Provided it's not illegal or dangerous, of course) I get lost on dinky little country roads in the middle of the night on purpose, because I like driving down new roads and finding my way home. I order the thing on the menu I can't pronounce. I bug complete strangers about their spiritual and political beliefs.
But, there are two things that I truly fear: not experiencing something wonderful( like love ) and becoming decrepit. The idea from growing too weak to care for myself chills me with a hair-raising terror. My mother's friend was in a nursing home for over a year, and I hated to go with her to visit because the place was palatably coated with overwhelming despair. I never want to be in a place like that again, for any reason.
'Their folly,' she said, 'is in dreading the foreverness in the great still pool, that is greater and stiller than any other pool there ever has been or ever could be.'
I don't fear death at all. Part of the reason I don’t understand religiosity is that I have no desire to 'live' for all eternity because I'm going to want a rest when I die. I'm just gonna do the best I can do to live like this is the only life I have, and I have stuff to with it do before I sleep.
In fact, I'd really like to turn the question back on the people who ask about my purpose; because they often believe that paradise waits for them, just a breath away. Why are they still here? Isn't their life empty that they don't appreciate soft rain, or a tight hug, or the fact that there are something like 20,000 species of beetles? I, who believe in oblivion after death, have much more claim to wanting to cling to life, regardless of quality, and yet, I'm the one with plans to sign a DNR form.
Beliefs are fascinating and this world (especially Georgia) needs people like you to uproot and examine them. It is easy to imagine purpose, especially when the splendor of nature or personal drama fills you with deep emotion. We've evolved to jump to conclusions because hesitation was more dangerous than gullibility. In the modern world the reverse is true, and it takes uncommon mental discipline to reflect on these things and see that the world is utterly indifferent to your fate.
(love your username, btw)
That's a very interesting comment about our evolutionary predispostions. Richard Dawkins (in The God Delusion) has written about possible evolutionary 'misfirings' that cause the continuation odd beliefs, if you'd like to see more.
About bugging people, I'm trying to model as best I can after Socrates. He advocates having congruent beliefs in order to have a healthy soul.
Thanks for comenting! :D
____________
haHA!
I read it last summer, so it probably influenced my comment. Lots of plausible anti-religious arguments that rely more on common sense than proofs and stats. At times it comes off as sloppy and it doesn't stack up against similar works such as "Why I Am Not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell (another British author, my literary hero, writing 50+ years ago) in terms of eloquence, but a solid read nonetheless.
Your method of bugging strangers sounds kinda like Sam Harris' idea of "conversational intolerance", where you throw out the respect traditionally given to religious belief and treat them like any other beliefs. Its one thing to confront ideas in a forum (as Blackout does so well), but in real life the social stakes are higher. You have to be careful not to sound like a crazy ideologue (even if you sort of are one) and know when to drop a subject.
but from your post I assume you have been on the site awhile? Nice to meet you, and I agree with afungus amongus, you have a unique voice. Hopefully you'll visit us a little more frequently :).
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
"...this particular passage catches my heart and really captures the point at which my understanding of religious or spiritual people breaks down."
The whole river/cataract/still pool analogy reminds me of a book by Stanislov Grof titled: The Holotropic Mind.
http://www.erowid.org/library/books/holotropic.shtml
I do not have the book in front of me, but a brief quote from an interview gives a sense of part of his argument and conclusions:
"Over three decades of systematic studies of the human consciousness have led me to conclusions that many traditional psychiatrists and psychologists might find implausible if not downright incredible. I now firmly believe that consciousness is more than and accidental by-product of the neurophysiological and biochemical processes taking place in the human brain. I see consciousness and the human psyche as expressions and reflections of a cosmic intelligence that permeates the entire universe and all of existence. We are not just highly evolved animals with biological computers embedded inside our skulls; we are also fields of consiousness without limits, transcending time, space, matter and linear causality.
Having started this research as a convinced materialist and atheist, I had to open myself to the fact that the spiritual dimension is a key factor in the human psyche and in the universal scheme of things. I feel strongly that becoming aware of this dimension of our lives and cultivation it is an essential and desirable part of our existence; it might even be a critical factor for our survival on the planet."
http://www.darkfiber.com/atheisms/atheisms/grof.html
He takes an eerily similar visualization and quite a bit more and reaches a different conclusion. The book is a remarkably lucid read, and would probably interest you, judging by the thoughts you have expressed in this blog.
"a) I believe that God has worked in my life...I bold a) because it is THE choice answer of the people I've spoken with. I'd say, over 80% say that exact wording. (It’s really kinda creepy.
I wonder what you find so creepy. Is it the apparently very common experience of God or your not sharing this experience? Or something else?
---
"In fact, I'd really like to turn the question back on the people who ask about my purpose; because they often believe that paradise waits for them, just a breath away. Why are they still here? Isn't their life empty that they don't appreciate soft rain, or a tight hug, or the fact that there are something like 20,000 species of beetles? I, who believe in oblivion after death, have much more claim to wanting to cling to life, regardless of quality, and yet, I'm the one with plans to sign a DNR form."
Perhaps I'm just dense, but why do you assume spirituality reduces ones appreciation for beetles and hugs? Aren't you dehumanizing religious folks a bit?
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw
...and has never successfully published a paper in any peer reviewed scientific journal that would actually support his frankly nutty theories which he calls "transpersonal psychology." What little of Grof's published material on the subject that you might find floating around originates from The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, which of course was founded by...you guessed it...Stanislov Grof.
The reason that Grof's statements sound similar to the exhortations of the religious is that his ideas are similarly without any evidentiary support, and thus requires the same sort of irrational leap when he seeks to explain them.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"Stanislov Grof is neither a respected scientist nor atheist..."
Certainly not respected by those that share your bias, and by his own admission only an Atheist before the research he describes. Your prejudicial terminology (nutty) describing those that you disagree with and arrogance in telling them what their religion must be remain consistent.
---
"The reason that Grof's statements sound similar to the exhortations of the religious..."
Actually they are reminiscent of the passage of fiction (quoted at the beginning of this blog) using a metaphor of water for consciousness. As usual your prejudice has interfered with reading and reasoning. The ubiquitous fields described by quantum physics take the place of water in the book.
I don't think Grof has any intention of being religious, though his conclusions do have a synergy with a 'god consciousness' or new age Gaia type shared oneness. He does spend a good deal of the book exploring many primitive traditions (Are you not a, formerly, ordained priest of such a tradition?) around the world that are similar to or use the altered states of consciousness in ways that Parallel his experiments. So, a comparison to several 'exhortations of the religious' is also provided by the author as opposed to any accidental similarity you describe.
I hope that you can have some insight eventually into how your vitriol is as far from rational as that which you are trying to oppose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Grof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpersonal_psychology
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw
...one must first do something that is worthy of respect, and in scientific circles that usually includes publishing papers for peer review and seeing one's work subsequently stand up to close scrutiny. There are people in the world who unfortunately will glom onto the examples of people like Grof because his whacky ideas just happen to coincide with their own equally nutty beliefs, but that sort of agreement doesn't earn one respect in the scientific community. That sort of respect comes inevitably when one's ideas are supported by methodologically sound research and objective evidence. Grof has neither.
As for my "vitriol," you can call it what you like but the fact is that I have very little patience for quacks, and even less for religiously motivated quacks. The bottom line is simple...either your source HAS performed methodologically sound research that supports his ideas and HAS published those studies in a respected scientific journal for peer review, or he has NOT. If he has NOT, then he isn't a respected scientists. And as your own source points out, "there is no scientific evidence to substantiate these claims."
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"do something that is worthy of respect, and in scientific circles that usually includes publishing papers for peer review and seeing one's work subsequently stand up to close scrutiny."
Do you mean peer reviewed papers like these?
http://holotropicbreathwork.ning.com/page/page/show?id=2182480%3APage%3A...
Or this brief bio:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Stanislav_Grof
Do you honestly think anyone that is a head of research for a prominent medical schools Psychiatric research department has not published peer reviewed papers?
Personally, I wouldn't place too much credence to any line of inquiry simply because many peer reviewed journals publish papers on the subject. I'm sure that since your prejudice is not served by these peer reviewed articles you will have no problem disregarding them in this case as I do.
The fact is the book mentioned is reminiscent of the passage quoted. No more no less. If you are of the opinion that any line of reasoning, experimental results, or conclusion is inaccurate you might mention which one. Otherwise you are just a anti-religious bigot yelling "nutty" "quacks" and saying nothing of consequence.
As revolutionary ideas go, like liberal ones, most will end up discredited. Grof's speculations have been better received than Semmelweis trying to get surgeons to wash their hands. Only time will tell if he is eventually seen as a great visionary, or discredited as thoroughly as the peer reviewed morons that only recently 'cured' homosexuality with shock therapy.
"There is but one indefectibly certain truth, and that is the truth that pyrrhonistic scepticism itself leaves standing, — the truth that the present phenomenon of consciousness exists."
- William James
1) None of the journal articles you linked to are on the subject of transpersonal psychology, which of course the quack theory for which I criticized Grof.
2) Fiziologija Cheloveka is a journal of physiology, not psychology, which would make it unlikely that they would publish articles on a psychological theory, anyway.
3) Could you perhaps find an article in a Western medical journal, so that we can read the peer reviews in their original language? I would expect that the "head of research for a prominent medical schools" in the United States would have his work published in at least some English Language journals.
4) The California Institute of Integral Studies is hardly a "prominent medical school." Your source claims that "CIIS is an accredited member of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)," but this is false. I checked WASC's website, and could not find a listing for this school.
5) Even your own source states, "there is no direct evidence of Grof's psychoanalytic orientation, nor of the theory he espouses and markets."
Would you like to try again?
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"Would you like to try again?"
Endlessly,
As for #1 you have only just specified, but if you look for articles I'm sure you will find them on that branch of research as well.
#2 what about the other articles on that list? Never mind I'll give you dozens more to ignore.
#3 http://www.stanislavgrof.com/articles.htm
is the source for:
http://www.stanislavgrof.com/pdf/Publications_List.pdf
10 pages of articles most of these are in Czech prior to 1967. After that there are a few in English for you.
#4 From his Bio:"In 1967, he was invited as an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore, Maryland United States, and went on to become Chief of Psychiatric Research at the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center."
#5 the quote you mined, ignoring Grof's response, is actually from "(Mark L. Howe and Mary L. Courage, 2004; also see Spanos, 1996)" and refers to a specific (birth trauma memories) that you also found damaging enough to your case to not include.
I find it a bit funny to be defending this author since I certainly do not share all of his views, or even have a strong opinion on most of them. Combating your irrational slurs is my only goal.
"There is but one indefectibly certain truth, and that is the truth that pyrrhonistic scepticism itself leaves standing, — the truth that the present phenomenon of consciousness exists."
- William James
As for #1 you have only just specified, but if you look for articles I'm sure you will find them on that branch of research as well.
Can you read? I said very specifically above that, "Stanislov Grof is neither a respected scientist nor atheist and has never successfully published a paper in any peer reviewed scientific journal that would actually support his frankly nutty theories which he calls 'transpersonal psychology'." I must point out again that your own source has verified this fact.
#2 what about the other articles on that list? Never mind I'll give you dozens more to ignore.
None of the articles on that list were published in any respected Western, English-speaking journals. I cannot speak defintively to what is published in a language which I do not read. Considering that the "English translations" of these articles appear only on Grof's own marketing-based website, I find their crediblity to be suspect.
#3 http://www.stanislavgrof.com/articles.htm
is the source for:
http://www.stanislavgrof.com/pdf/Publications_List.pdf
10 pages of articles most of these are in Czech prior to 1967. After that there are a few in English for you.
You'll have to do better than that. YOU are the one claiming that Grof has published legitimately peer reviewed articles in support of his quack theories. Thus YOU need to be the one to point to the specific articles. I went through the English language articles from your first list, and as best I can tell none of them fit the bill. The second list was similar, listing articles that were either A) not about transpersonal psychology or B) not published in a respected peer reviewed journal. The second list was much more extensive, however, so there could be one that I missed, but based on the other evidence I think this is unlikely. It is also interesting that you have to go back more than 40 years to find even the questionable list of articles that you cite. If transpersonal psychology were a legitimate filed of study, there would be CURRENT peer reviewed articles in respected journals about it. That your sources are neither peer reviewed nor current is quite telling.
#4 From his Bio:"In 1967, he was invited as an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore, Maryland United States, and went on to become Chief of Psychiatric Research at the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center."
Grof's research at the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center (1969-1973) was focused on the psychological effects of LSD. He was not able to gain any significant support for his pet theories of transpersonal psychology, which led him to leave that institution in favor of the Esalen Institute, where his research would not be subjected to strict academic scrutiny. He did publish papers during his time at the MPRC, but those papers were relevant to his LSD research, and did not present any evidence in support of his "research" into transpersonal psychology.
#5 the quote you mined, ignoring Grof's response, is actually from "(Mark L. Howe and Mary L. Courage, 2004; also see Spanos, 1996)" and refers to a specific (birth trauma memories) that you also found damaging enough to your case to not include.
I find it a bit funny to be defending this author since I certainly do not share all of his views, or even have a strong opinion on most of them. Combating your irrational slurs is my only goal.
Well, we already know that you have a personal grudge, fueled no doubt by your on-going poor performance in our sundry discussions, but the fact in regards to THIS subject remain the same, regardless. Grof is still marketing his unscientific treatments that are based around his unsupported "research" into transpersonal psychology. Marketing unsupported treatements is not the behavior of a respected scientist, and even less of a doctor.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
...when you begin with an agenda to smear and distort.
The work he did investigating the effects of LSD earned him the positions you make light of. That work was in no way discredited, rather it was made illegal by the war on drugs. You also glossed over work on Adrenochrome, Thioperazine, the influence of family on Schizophrenia, alternative treatment of Schizophrenia, Interaction of psychotic patients, etc. Collectively this work was judged by a board of doctors (far more qualified to judge than you or I) to be enough resume hire him as head of research. Do you claim MORE expertise than they?
I am not championing ANY psychological school or theory. Just objecting to character assassination. Since you wish to change the subject though I'll go there.
OK let's switch to your mischaracterization of Grof's role in Transpersonal Psychology:
He did not start it alone, he is not even some sort of central figure with the exception of being the first president of the association 40 years ago. Others ARE currently working in and applying it. As one would expect a 78 year old man (Grof) has done no research in that or any other area recently.
Some of these folks might object to your characterization of the field as Grofs' invention:
"the field developed through the works of such authors as Jean Houston, Stanislav Grof, Ken Wilber, Michael Washburn, Frances Vaughan, Roger Walsh, Stanley Krippner, Michael Murphy, Charles Tart, David Lukoff, Vasily Nalimov and Stuart Sovatsky."
"Currently, transpersonal psychology, especially the schools of Jungian and Archetypal psychology, is integrated, at least to some extent, into many psychology departments in American and European Universities. Institutions of higher learning that have adopted insights from transpersonal psychology include The Institute of Transpersonal Psychology (US), California Institute of Integral Studies (US), John F. Kennedy University (US), University of West Georgia (US), Atlantic University (US), Burlington College (US), Essex University (UK), Liverpool John Moores University (UK), the University of Northampton (UK), Naropa University (Colorado), Pacifica Graduate Institute (CA), and Southwestern College (NM). There is also a strong connection between the transpersonal and the humanistic approaches to psychology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpersonal_psychology
Since you are a critic here is a head start rebutting more of what I didn't say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpersonal_psychology#Criticisms_of_tran...
I do note with interest that my current signature quotes' author, William James is credited, among others with being inspirational in the concepts of Transpersonal Psychology. Maybe you think he was a 'quack' as well. I can't claim to be much of a fan of Dr. Grof, but I am a fan of James. I would enjoy discussing HIS ideas if you are interested.
---
"Well, we already know that you have a personal grudge, fueled no doubt by your on-going poor performance in our sundry discussions"
I thought I was 'winning' at this. Surely you are about to confess your sins at any moment.
This grudge theory is a bit strange. Don't you know I love you?
---
"Grof is still marketing his unscientific treatments that are based around his unsupported "research" into transpersonal psychology."
I might be able to assume that you were merely ignorant if you had not already begun this exchange with so freakishly hostile an attack.
He does market treatments under the trademarked name "holotropic breathwork" NOT "transpersonal psychology". I assume that few differences exist, after you file off the serial numbers, between Yoga breathing techniques, transcendental meditation, auto hypnosis and this breathwork. However, like you, I am not sufficiently interested to find out. Unlike you I do not have an agenda that leads me to make false accusations.
Another advantage I have over you in this area is that I have actually read a book by Grof. Maybe you should try learning a little instead of rejecting what you do not know.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
...that Grof's decent into quackery has undermined his credibility, but the fact remains that he continues to pedal his unscientific theories of "a cosmic intelligence that permeates the entire universe and all of existence." The quote which you used in support of your own ideas is not part of Grof's older and less radical research. The fact remains however that Grof's ideas...specifically the ones you cited...are NOT a part of any legitimate body of work, are NOT supported by any scientific evidence, and have NOT led him to a position of respect in the scientific community.
Others ARE currently working in and applying it. As one would expect a 78 year old man (Grof) has done no research in that or any other area recently.
Okay...so where "ARE" the research papers on the subject of transpersonal psychology being published by "Others" in respected scientific journals?
That's really what all of this boils down to...evidence, or rather the lack thereof. I mean, you keep going on and on about everything EXCEPT the central issue, which is of course the evidence behind the theory which you NOW state that you aren't defended, but which is in fact the source of the quotation that you used to support your earlier point.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"The fact remains however that Grof's ideas...specifically the ones you cited...are NOT a part of any legitimate body of work, are NOT supported by any scientific evidence, and have NOT led him to a position of respect in the scientific community."
That is a predictable evaluation. His early work did give him whatever standing he had/has in the psychological (I think scientific is over generous) community. That same research is the basis for the direction he took in his 40s which you object to. The book I mentioned "The Holotropic Mind" cites his own research, and that of others. How well the cited research supports the conclusions is certainly open to ample doubt, but he does provide 'scientific evidence'.
In the end his conclusions are worthless unless they lead to useful treatments. Do you have any 'proof' or even evidence that he is incorrect?
I would be shocked if you shared his conclusions concerning the nature of consciousness. From your previously stated opinion that thoughts and emotions cannot be described as spiritual things, you would have a lot of conceptual objections to the language itself.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
"Holotropic Breatwork" which is one of the main subjects of Grof's book is a pseudoscientific technique. It is listed as a quack therapy on Quackwatch, and even Grof has admitted that, "Our own experience with this technique has been limited to experiential workshops lasting up to four weeks. We have not had the opportunity to subject it to rigorous evaluation in controlled clinical studies..." (LINK) I'm not interested in reading a book about a therapeutic technique which has not been properly subjected to scientific scrutiny. My interest is dulled even further by the body of credible literature which I have read in the context of this discussion, which indicates that Grof's theories are not scientifically sound.
In the end his conclusions are worthless unless they lead to useful treatments. Do you have any 'proof' or even evidence that he is incorrect?
Your question belies the inherent weakness of your position. The burden of proof in a logical discussion lies with the claimant. If Grof's theories are correct, then the burden is on him to perform the research and publish it for peer review. Those theories can then be subjected to rigorous scrutiny and proved or disproved according to the evidence. On a more immediate level, the same thing is true. It isn't my job to dis-prove the credibility of your whacky sources (although I have pretty much done just that, already). It falls to YOU to support YOUR claims with evidence which will convince others that YOUR evaluation of Grof's work is correct. Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy and will not suffice to strengthen your pseudoscientific appeals.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Chillbill,
I find the phrase 'God has worked in my life' creepy because the wording is consistantly identical. Frankly, it reminds me of a cult. Not to mention that so many of the examples are exactly the kind of good luck I experience without prayer.
I read your debate with blackout and though I can see how my quote would remind you of the idea of oneness, I was concentrating on the idea that life is a tiny flash in the existance of an entity, but it's still worth clamoring for, the pool metaphor just came with as baggage.
I do think that attributing something amazing to a spiritual cause belittles it and takes the wonder out of it.
I wrote this entry because I feel strongly that religious belief limits our progress, directly by driving a wedge between people who would otherwise get along fine (like my parents and I) and indirectly by reducing our faith in what humans can achieve. Alternatively conceited and humble, we place ourselves in a catagory separate from all other life on earth, and then attribute genius to something outside our species, like god or aliens. Look at some of the theories of the origins of the pyraminds in Egypt. It's as if we can't believe we can be so smart as to line monuments up with cosmological markers. Saying that human conciousness is the by-product of some cosmic intelligence enviscerates that which makes us human. Why are we special then? Because a spiritual force selected us? But why did it choose us and not, say dolphins? However, if you take a secular look at it, it clear that each factor of our intelligence derives from some consequence of our being social, dextrous, and omnivorous, and the requirements and advantages of each aspect.
On the other hand, I have never heard of a western religious doctrine that says anything positive about being human. According to the texts, we are sick, evil, and unceasingly seeking new ways to destory ourselves. Life is a pit stop at a town dying of a failing economy and moral decay, and all we can hope to do is not track too much filth from the gas station through the pearly gates.
I'd rather try to find people in the town to communicate with, instead of trying to avoid them by virtue of where they live.
Yes, I assume that spirituality reduces one's appriciation of life, but how can one really enjoy earth when all their thoughts are supposed to be directly beyond it?
____________
haHA!
I just want to add a little bit of MHO. Life is mysterious, and there is much we don't know. Before I came to this site I thought I had some ideas about it's Origin. This site has challenged me to make some sort of logical case for my favored Conclusion. To be honest, I have none. All I have are my fantasies, and self selected acquaintances who will support my position.
I am not interested in validation unless it is brought by Truth. Therefore I proclaim a personal "Hold" status on my theory of God, which is ever evolving and changing as I live my Life. I have no personal stake in the answer to the question, but I feel I deserve to know the Truth. Therefore, I refuse to stand in direct Opposition to the idea, as well as blind Acceptance.
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
In order to love the Truth, you do not have to own it.
"There is but one indefectibly certain truth, and that is the truth that pyrrhonistic scepticism itself leaves standing, — the truth that the present phenomenon of consciousness exists."
- William James
and the Truth also owes us nothing. It is our job to seek it out and be able to recognize it when its there.
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard