Abstract
The current leading Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm falls short in accounting for a wide range
of data, warranting a more holistic and multidisciplinary paradigm This paper is a theoretical analysis of the current paradigm, as well as the emerging one. The classical leading paradigm is reviewed in historical context. The shortcomings and limitations of the current paradigm are described. Various books, selected journal articles, and personal observations are used to validate the necessity for a shift from the current paradigm. The emerging paradigm unites modern physics and consciousness research with ancient wisdom traditions. Fritjof Capra and Lawrence LeShan describe parallels between modern psychics and ancient wisdom traditions of the East. The works of Rhea White, Michael Harner, and Stanislav Grof are used to confirm the ubiquity and validity of holotropic states of consciousness. Grof’s Holotropic model and Hutchins’ Gnosis model are described as two of the many holotropically oriented models of the psyche. The support from these contemporary intellectuals sustains the argument for a necessary paradigmatic shift taken by transpersonal psychology.
Acknowledging Holotropic States of Consciousness in a New Paradigm of Science
The last three centuries of scientific exploration have been based on a paradigm dominated
by the work of a British scientist named Isaac Newton, and a French philosopher named RenĂ© Descartes . These two classical thinkers set the stage for most of the advancements in social science, natural science, and technology. The resulting framework of reality is one limited to (a) classical physics: three-dimensional space, absolute time, and matter reducible to fundamental building blocks; (b) physiologically based perception; and (c) biographically bound human psyche. In spite of all this, modern theorists and researchers are accumulating enough data to seriously question the foundation of all our scientific advancements. Their culminations call for a shifted paradigm of reality – one that is able to encompass Western science and Eastern wisdom.
Shortcomings of the Newtonian-Cartesian Paradigm
Classical Paradigm
Newton
Newton worked within the framework of a mechanistic universe made up of atoms—the
indestructible, fundamental building blocks of life. His contribution to this Greek-derived
atomistic model was a “precise definition of the force acting between the particles” (Grof, 1985,
p. 18). Newton recognized this force as gravity, and determined that is was directly proportional
to the masses involved, and indirectly proportional to the square of their distance. It was
understood as an instant intrinsic attribute of matter.
Newton also defined an absolute Euclidian three-dimensional universe that is constant and always at rest. Here, matter and empty space are clearly distinct, and time is unconditional and independent of matter. Stanislav Grof (1985b) stated that, “According to Newton, all physical
Newton also defined an absolute Euclidian three-dimensional universe that is constant and always at rest. Here, matter and empty space are clearly distinct, and time is unconditional and independent of matter. Stanislav Grof (1985b) stated that, “According to Newton, all physical
Acknowledging Holotropic States 3
processes can be reduced to movements of material points that result from the force of gravity
acting among them and causing their mutual attraction” (p. 18). Thus, Newton defined a
mathematically deterministic clockwork universe, where everything can be explained as
consequences of these fundamental physical mechanisms.
Descartes
The renowned and ground-breaking French philosopher, RenĂ© Descartes, also made an essential contribution to the leading paradigm. He formulated a fixed dualism between mind and matter. According to these assumptions, everything in the material world can be described objectively. This perspective maintains that the human observer has no influence on the observation. Grof (1985b) states that although it was the basis of the development of the natural sciences, one of the setbacks of this notion “has been a serious neglect of a holistic approach to human beings, society, and life on this planet” (p. 19).
Scientists owe much to the revolutionary discoveries of these two classical thinkers. However, we also owe them an explanation for distorting their messages. According to Grof (1985b), the notion of God was an indispensable part of the philosophies and world views of both Newton and Descartes. But the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm, which is the basic metaphysical assumption of common understanding, ignores all but the profane aspects of its originators. The models of many physicists from Newton to Albert Einstein included inherent implications about the nature of God, but they have never been mentioned in textbooks (Capra, 1985; Grof, 1985b). When taken out of context, entire models are skewed towards secularity.
(To be continued. Feel free to contact me for full citation of any works referenced)
Descartes
The renowned and ground-breaking French philosopher, RenĂ© Descartes, also made an essential contribution to the leading paradigm. He formulated a fixed dualism between mind and matter. According to these assumptions, everything in the material world can be described objectively. This perspective maintains that the human observer has no influence on the observation. Grof (1985b) states that although it was the basis of the development of the natural sciences, one of the setbacks of this notion “has been a serious neglect of a holistic approach to human beings, society, and life on this planet” (p. 19).
Scientists owe much to the revolutionary discoveries of these two classical thinkers. However, we also owe them an explanation for distorting their messages. According to Grof (1985b), the notion of God was an indispensable part of the philosophies and world views of both Newton and Descartes. But the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm, which is the basic metaphysical assumption of common understanding, ignores all but the profane aspects of its originators. The models of many physicists from Newton to Albert Einstein included inherent implications about the nature of God, but they have never been mentioned in textbooks (Capra, 1985; Grof, 1985b). When taken out of context, entire models are skewed towards secularity.
(To be continued. Feel free to contact me for full citation of any works referenced)
Hi there! Keep it up! This is a good read. I will be looking forward to visit your page again and for your other posts as well. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about family therapy in your area. I am glad to stop by your site and know more about family therapy.
ReplyDeleteThe distinctive feature of family therapy is its perspective and analytical framework rather than the number of people present at a therapy session. Specifically, family therapists are relational therapists: They are generally more interested in what goes on between individuals rather than within one or more individuals, although some family therapists—in particular those who identify as psychodynamic, object relations, intergenerational, EFT, or experiential family therapists—tend to be as interested in individuals as in the systems those individuals and their relationships constitute. Depending on the conflicts at issue and the progress of therapy to date, a therapist may focus on analyzing specific previous instances of conflict, as by reviewing a past incident and suggesting alternative ways family members might have responded to one another during it, or instead proceed directly to addressing the sources of conflict at a more abstract level, as by pointing out patterns of interaction that the family might have not noticed.
A family needs hands-on guidance from a therapist to be appropriately supportive and assistive in the treatment or recovery of a member of the family.
family therapy Massachusetts