|
|
|
|
Subtle Energies and the Uncharted Realms of Mind Psychological & Political Concerns
George discussed the way in which the media also functions like a cultural immune system, rejecting ideas that are threatening to the current belief system. To illustrate, he told two stories that involved Time reporters sent to cover Esalen in the 1970s. Both reporters were impressed and excited by the work they witnessed and said as much to their editors; the editors promptly pulled them back to New York and wrote an article almost entirely based on old material in the file. The honest presentation of Esalen was too threatening to the opinion elites so they fell back on stereotypes, a safer but inaccurate approach. Nonetheless, George now senses a greater readiness in the culture for this kind of material, assuming we go forward with sobriety and grace. Wayne Jonas faced ideological barriers often in his role as the head of the Office of Alternative Medicine. He thinks the problem is far deeper than just the opinion elites. This research triggers deep fears, both in scientists and in the greater public. We will not be able to address the blockage until we can see clearly what the source of the fear is. In his opinion, we must balance the threat of revolution (which triggers more primitive fears) with the small steps of evolution. George echoed the wisdom in this, emphasizing the vital role of homeostasis in all complex systems. A certain amount of resistance to change is necessary for life to evolve; we are well served to acknowledge and celebrate this homeostasis rather than try to eliminate it. The challenge, though, is to play the edge. Fred Luskin's experience at the Stanford Medical School, working with forgiveness research, is quite different. In his experience, the media often act very surprised at his research, as if the idea that people can have control over themselves is quite new. He gets quizzical looks more often than outright rejection. The key point for him is that people must have their own individual transformative experience before becoming receptive to the kind of material discussed here. Beverly Rubik countered that many, if not most, mainstream scientists have had paranormal experiences but that they wall it off; it is too threatening, too ego-dystonic. Science encourages this compartmentalization of the self. She feels strongly about eliminating the "para" from parapsychology, which implies a degree of abnormality. These kinds of energies and events are perfectly normal and we should not be portraying them as weird anomalies. Such a stance perpetuates people's fears. She also believes that changes come through need. The reason anything is happening in these fields is because consumers are demanding it, mainly through the vehicle of alternative medicine. She no longer believes Kuhn, that sufficient anomalous data accumulates until there is a paradigm shift, but has shifted to a more grassroots view of change. Roger Nelson believes the root of much scientific fear is the fear of appearing silly. Silliness is akin to death. The prospect of being ridiculed by peers for accepting something that is not yet well understood sends most scientists scurrying for safety. Most would rather be wrong than be seen as silly. Wayne Jonas echoed this need to be part of a social group, and silly perfectly encapsulates the fear of ostracism. From a social psychology perspective, silly is undoubtedly worse than ignorant. Roger added a quote from Nobel physicist Phil Anderson, "If [psychic phenomena] are true, then we have to throw out science." This reflects a deep fear of the implications of parapsychology research, even though such fear exaggerates the impact. Regular science would just become part of a larger science, much as Newtonian physics became a partial subset, adequate within certain parameters, of Einsteinian physics. Fred Luskin queried the group as to whether there are studies of people who do make the transition between worldviews? Marilyn said that Noetics has just collected stories of 200 folks who had transformative experiences. In her mind, the real problem is the lack of a cohesive, plausible, and articulate new theory in which we can make sense of all this anomalous data. Russell echoed this feeling, adding that it is now largely a waste of money getting more data since the data already compiled is compelling. Rather, the real task ahead is to make a plausible theoretical framework, which in itself will alleviate many fears of being seen as silly and open the door to more specific studies.
|
|
|