tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post1754910230854925469..comments2024-02-11T18:16:53.445-08:00Comments on Janov's Reflections on the Human Condition: The Simple Truth is Revolutionary: On Unified Field Theory in PsychologyArthur Janovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16709863014923629409noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-25220482821128848472014-01-04T17:17:49.935-08:002014-01-04T17:17:49.935-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17037739596029950859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-68545142765592437372010-06-14T09:56:40.626-07:002010-06-14T09:56:40.626-07:00Andrew: If we are to have a level playing field yo...Andrew: If we are to have a level playing field you need to read my books Primal Healing and The biology of Love. then we can discuss. artArthur Janovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18009571728800026496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-14050355291235405752010-06-14T03:25:56.107-07:002010-06-14T03:25:56.107-07:00Hi again Dr Janov,
Off topic, but I want to ask t...Hi again Dr Janov,<br /><br />Off topic, but I want to ask the question:<br /><br />I know you have mentioned that there are some neurotics who can tolerate a certain drug without dying, whereas a 'normal' could not.<br /><br />Do you think this applies on the emotional level to some degree as well? Does neurosis also serve to galvanise the system to tolerate further abuse but without further damage? <br />So, for example, after you have recieved a series of emotional shocks so that that 'damaged' part of yourself shuts down, can that part of you (that has been put off line) in turn no longer be further damaged (as much), regardless of future shocks?<br /><br />Any thoughts?Andrew D Atkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-28468974288121434962010-06-14T03:08:15.656-07:002010-06-14T03:08:15.656-07:00Hello Art Janov,
I was just reflecting on this......Hello Art Janov,<br /><br />I was just reflecting on this...<br /><br />I think 'Primal' (Janovian trauma-imprint theory) is in effect a "unified field theory" of psychology for the simple reason that it comfortably correlates with biology and psychology (human motivation), and of course it makes excellent sense in relation to itself, as a psychological system, and in my view excellent sense in terms of evolution - that is, we can understand why it should have come to be for adaptive purposes. <br /><br />I don't know of any other theory that does this at all. I can't even imagine how another theory could make sense like primal theory does.Andrew D Atkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-62074572999915306732010-05-31T01:31:09.780-07:002010-05-31T01:31:09.780-07:00Ben: Speaking of erudite people. I am going to st...Ben: Speaking of erudite people. I am going to start a new semester of training for all those interested in September. Thus far all students tell me they are and were fascinated. Lots of CDs and films to see. art janovArthur Janovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18009571728800026496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-24499805581743510202010-05-31T01:30:25.646-07:002010-05-31T01:30:25.646-07:00Ben: I never heard of the book, Ben. But I will lo...Ben: I never heard of the book, Ben. But I will look it up. I never heard of the Hoffman process. And I only did the blog cause my wife insisted on it for over a year. Finally I ceded to her wishes and I am glad I did. I now realize that there are so many erudite people out there. It is most reassuring. Going to Paris tomorrow. art janovArthur Janovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18009571728800026496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-8799024291778665812010-05-31T01:27:32.141-07:002010-05-31T01:27:32.141-07:00Sieglinde: Sorry it sounds bad but I try to tre...Sieglinde: Sorry it sounds bad but I try to treat those who merit it. I cannot treat a pedophile because I think it is a major crime, destroying someone's life. Most of the psychotic women I have treated have been sexually abused, incest as a child. It is horrific. art janovArthur Janovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18009571728800026496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-23249371674688262322010-05-30T16:26:26.774-07:002010-05-30T16:26:26.774-07:00Dear Dr Janov, A British psychologist called Olive...Dear Dr Janov, A British psychologist called Oliver James appears to subscribe to many of the principles you expound in your books (a bit of a renegade too, by all accounts), especially with regard to raising young children well, aged 0-3. 'How Not To F**k Them Up' is his latest book, which is just about to be published.<br /><br />In an article for The Times newspaper a week last Saturday, he mentioned personally undergoing 'The Hoffman Process' recently. Upon further investigation, this modality is much closer to Primal Therapy than conventional cognitive approaches, because it is focused on childhood experience and feeling unresolved emotional issues. Are you familiar with this, and if so; what do you make of it? Sounds like PrimalTherapy-Lite to me, but surely that must be far preferable to CBT? It appears to be widely available as well.<br /><br />Ben, England.<br /><br />PS: Creating this blog was a masterstroke - did you anticipate that it would become a forum for erudite discussion, via the comments facility?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-7685141973586014532010-05-30T11:10:34.955-07:002010-05-30T11:10:34.955-07:00Sieglinde,
I think it behooves us all to remain o...Sieglinde,<br /><br />I think it behooves us all to remain open to the idea that no matter how far we think we may have come, we are not necessarily better than those "others" in whom we can identify this neurosis and that neurosis. If we find ourselves thriving on "the difference", then it is a signal to look again. Without humility there can be no real change. That's how I see it.<br /><br />Cultivate a taste for weeds, and chew often, and with company.<br /><br />WaldenWaldenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10764833480863624204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-85719271433161821862010-05-29T18:43:51.538-07:002010-05-29T18:43:51.538-07:00Dr. Janov,
According to the Justice Department, a...Dr. Janov,<br /><br />According to the Justice Department, an estimated one million children in the United States are abused yearly in the production of child pornography, a $3 billion business annually. <br />This one million speaks only of child prostitution, not including all other child abuse.<br /><br />A clinical social worker and executive director of Hedge Funds Care, Preventing and Treating Child Abuse said: “I wish I had an answer for Judge Weinstein’s plea that we treat rather than imprison this type of pedophile, the viewer of child pornography. But there are no known acceptable and effective treatments. And until we have such a cure, and since this is a crime, then jail is the place where they belong.”<br />http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/opinion/l28porn.html<br /><br />My question is, how much can PT help child molesters?<br />SieglindeS. W. Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12087227301358286386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-9676999567782451242010-05-29T13:48:04.397-07:002010-05-29T13:48:04.397-07:00Since the blog theme is; "Unification Theory&...Since the blog theme is; "Unification Theory" I'll throw in my two cents worth:-<br /><br />A unification theory is a theory (idea) that makes 'sense' of EVERYTHING.<br />But understanding is the booby prize, because it settles NOTHING.<br />Making sense signifies the 'mind' integrates what's going on, without an inner conflict in the thinking process.<br />Theorizing (ideas, thinking) are only what neurotics indulge.<br />In order to transcend neurosis we need--SADLY--to have a "Unification Theory of Everything."<br />There's only one way IMO to transcend neurosis--prevention.<br />Therein afterward, we can just LIVEJack Waddingtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06427501529242639591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-77747607766731695952010-05-29T11:48:31.098-07:002010-05-29T11:48:31.098-07:00Kaz: for those who had teddy bears etc during chi...Kaz: for those who had teddy bears etc during childhood it rewakens many memories. artArthur Janovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18009571728800026496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-64456795324792512062010-05-28T15:14:28.492-07:002010-05-28T15:14:28.492-07:00Dr. Janov, quick question: How do the stuffed anim...Dr. Janov, quick question: How do the stuffed animals at the Primal Center work, I don't think I read any mention of stuffed animals anywhereKazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00688350964818932862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-84539575329386056932010-05-28T05:06:32.278-07:002010-05-28T05:06:32.278-07:00Patrick: you are right. It cannot be franchised a...Patrick: you are right. It cannot be franchised although I have had offers from businessmen. Obviously we would not consider it. It is a precious gift for the patient and us. We nurture it carefully and never commercialize it. artArthur Janovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18009571728800026496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-61874674091870189602010-05-27T23:49:59.028-07:002010-05-27T23:49:59.028-07:00Hi Will, good to hear from you again. I don't...Hi Will, good to hear from you again. I don't really understand your argument. I don't see how it could be harmful to pursue a unified field theory. It is nothing more than an attempt to understand how everything connects.Richard Atkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13587935146938446604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-17287793789148643232010-05-27T16:54:56.898-07:002010-05-27T16:54:56.898-07:00Dr. Janov, thanks.
Richard: “for those who never c...Dr. Janov, thanks.<br />Richard: “for those who never change”, is exactly my point. The question is, why they don’t want to change? What is holding them back? A deep underling fear of not being loved, not getting their need fulfilled? When fear dominates, all reasoning fails. <br /><br />The National Center for Health Statistics estimates that 1 in 3 babies in the United States are delivered by c-section. Some health care experts believe that many c-sections are medically unnecessary. https://www.marchofdimes.com/pnhec/240_1031.asp<br /><br />If we look at the movie Nils Bergmann produced we understand why natural birth is absolutely and not only for the babies immune system. The same reason applies to after birth care and feeding: http://www.kangaroomothercare.com/research.htm (the movie can be a big trigger)<br /><br />The question is, how many mothers are willing to do these most necessary steps for their child? Only a mother who is in tune with herself, who is not controlled by fear. <br /><br />Emanuel: is it really a “pessimistic view”? <br /><br />macor22: This is what I’m asking: “What was the "Original Neurosis", then passed on from generation to generation?” <br />I have found three generations of neurosis in my family. Nearly the same pattern of abuse, domination instead of love and respect, neglect and rejection was handed down like an heirloom. The sad part is, two of my brothers continued the childhood imprint. <br />SieglindeS. W. Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12087227301358286386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-58514333107854783492010-05-27T15:48:11.453-07:002010-05-27T15:48:11.453-07:00Well, I said yesterday that I would perhaps furthe...Well, I said yesterday that I would perhaps further contribute to this important topic by explaining Wilhelm Reich's Unified Field Theory in the realm of "psychology" (which , for him ,like for Dr. Janov, is really a holistic psycho-biology ), and his Unified Field Theory of the Universe; but , after re-reading some stuff by him last night, it would be impossible to adequately summarise here, and I also don't think I understand it well enough. But, if anyone is interested anyways in what Reich had to say , here are a few leads . In the realm of "psychology", and especially with respect to his philosophy of science, all his books deal with these topics of course.His theories, in my opinion, are very similar to Dr Janov's, but Dr Janov disagrees. We will let each interested person come to their own conclusions about the differences and similarities between Reich and Janov (personally, I think they are both geniuses with amazing insight into human beings; I say this objectively, not to flatter). <br /><br />Reich was a cross-disciplinarian par excellence because he had to be , given the data he was collecting on human beings and their neuroses from various angles, and data on various other living systems. With respect to his Unified Field theory of the Universe (he did not call it that), he claims to have discovered an energy called Orgone which pervades the whole universe as a substratum, and which has a definite quality in living systems. See his " Ether , God and Devil" for an elaborate explanation. Now, most people would be asking by no: how come other scientists have not discovered this Orgone Energy? Good question, of course.Reich was a scrupulous scientist and his experiments are there to be replicated, and practically no one has done so. I don't know personally if this energy exists since I have not replicated his experiments. Reich claims to have been able to "accumulate" this energy in what is called an Orgone Accumulator ( a concentrated form of the energy ). Again, I have never been in one, but most people who have been in them report the same effects on various living and non-living systems. On human beings,for example, most report a pleasurable expansion of their selves, bodies, and various psychological and physiological effects. Reich presented his Orgone data to Einstein, and the latter did not refute Reich, but he did not follow up on the data either.Reich also used this orgone accumulator in his treatment of cancer patients, as an adjunct to his his bio-psychotherapy of these patients, and the results seem significant. See his tome "The Cancer Biopathy". Reich, by the way, came to the same conclusion as Janov about some cancers; the cause: MALIGNANT DESPAIR.<br /><br />Well, that's enough. As I said, this stuff is complicated , and I don't know if I can really do it justice.<br /><br />Marcomacor22https://www.blogger.com/profile/00652948318839690382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-70973774475166288542010-05-27T10:50:25.846-07:002010-05-27T10:50:25.846-07:00Hello all,
I recognize Sieglinde's message as...Hello all,<br /><br />I recognize Sieglinde's message as being one of hopelessness and finality. Among the items of futility lie science and knowledge. Dr. Janov asks if we agree.<br /><br />No, I don't agree. While it is true that knowledge by itself is not strong enough to counter deep instincts of survival, there are dynamics to look at other than just the most obvious and direct ones. For instance, Sieglinde notes that knowing about the benefits of breast feeding does not make reluctant mothers do that. This is true. However, in a larger scope, the knowledge that has circulated in the last twenty or thirty years in this area has now infused the mainstream to the extent that breast feeding is widely accepted in public and recommended by the medical establishment. This rise in support of breast feeding means that many on-the-fence cases will be swayed for the better, even while the stubborn ones will remain. The numbers matter. It means a different percentage of breast fed individuals reaching professional and voting ages at some point, leading to positive feedback effects both in this particular area of infant care and other areas of infant care, and perhaps in yet other unanticipated places. And so on. If the next generation is measurably more gentle than the current one, then even if the delta is tiny, there may be an important movement afoot. This is evolution itself.<br /><br />I'd like to point out something that may not be obvious. Primal Therapy bootstrapped itself in a place where no such therapy existed before. In order for that to happen, there had to be a functional application of knowledge, new and old, being applied by people who at that time and by any measure would have to be considered neurotics. The individual course of therapy itself includes the ability to learn your primal style (that's knowledge too, not just feeling) and apply it in the face of well learned habits and powerful forces to the contrary bubbling up from below. Yes, there is a way to use knowledge for good, and knowledge is not doomed to a status of feebleness.<br /><br />Will, I really liked your piece on science. I love the balance that you bring when you comment here.<br /><br />WaldenWaldenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10764833480863624204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-74396535534160509882010-05-27T10:23:34.213-07:002010-05-27T10:23:34.213-07:00I remember reading an article as a young man that ...I remember reading an article as a young man that quoted research work done by clinical psychologists. I had slowly started becoming aware that there is something seriously amiss in the way children were being “reared”. (One does not rear a child, you let it grow)<br /><br />I was upset and angry at the gross stupidity of these so-called “scientists” . The article described how clinical psychologists had determined that children needed eight hugs a day.<br /><br />My god, I angrily joked with everyone. “What would happen if they got nine hugs a day? Or god forbid, what if they only got seven, or perhaps seven-and-a-half?” . <br /><br />I had arguments with some friends who were doctors, about all of this. Listening to them going on and on about how we don’t really know what children need because the studies have not been done.. etc., made me sick to the stomach. <br /><br />I said to myself and anyone who cared to listen: “I bet if you had to tell clinical psychologists that children need love, they would first have to take 50 children, expose them to “love” , and then another 50 who would not be so exposed, (double blind study) for ten years and then evaluate them, and only then would they be able to agree or not.”<br /><br />Is science still mired in that awful mindset? With exceptions, I think so. Radio and television talk-show “experts” disgorge the most inane ideas and arguments about human psychology - witness Dr. Phil - although I have noticed that the word “feelings” - ala Art Janov - has popped up here and there. They still know nothing. <br /><br />Obviously, these researchers cannot simply accept the beautiful simplicity of nature and evolution. As a young man, I needed some sort of a standard, or blueprint by which I could <br />measure things. I turned to wild animals. Bingo. Free animals always do right by their offspring. Do they need science? Have they read books on child-rearing?<br /><br />Sieglinde, although I am also saddened by the present state of human suffering, I do not think that our genes have been radically or permanently altered, simply because all or most newborn babies have the ability to cry. In my opinion, as long as a baby can cry, there is the possibility that, given the right circumstances, it can be helped to get rid of its pain. What is also sad is that the right help is not universally available at present. The damage comes after conception, as recently pointed out by Art. For some, the damage comes and continues throughout their lives. We have to educate parents about the fact that babies need to cry their pain out right from birth. We need to educate young couples about natural and non-violent birth, as described by Frederick Leboyer. We also have to teach the entire world how to listen and to let people cry. Sadly, Primal therapy cannot be franchised in a nilly-willy fashion around the globe. It is all very sad because the suffering is so universal and immense. PatrickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-10852984581913431512010-05-27T09:38:24.684-07:002010-05-27T09:38:24.684-07:00One of the world's very best physicists who al...One of the world's very best physicists who also is very passionate (uniquely so) about trying to counteract activities (of people) that stifle progress by/within the process of Science (am referring to Lubos Motl), has made me aware that there most likely already exists a mathematical-theoretical framework that approximates (what can most realistically be meant by) a TOE. <br /><br />Even though an important part of this mathematical framework ("string/M-theory") has recently been shown to throw new and more deeply revealing light on inorganic chemistry I doubt that "string/M-theory" (or any other mathematics) will ever be used to re-formulate the 'evolutionary philosophical type' principle that I might have caught a glimpse of and have tried to express precisely textually.<br /><br />This insight (that I have tried to express) has its roots in the indisputable truths contained or implied in Art's primal theory. That is, what primal needs of individuals are, and approximately how a 'massive enough' negation of any such need or needs must necessarily initially be handled and obviously can and in many individual cases are subsequently automatically "developed around" in order to be individually and often also reproductively survived. <br /><br />The only thing that I might have added is the realization that the role of *such predicaments'* in the phylogeny of fauna is to in tandem (in combination) with evolutionary pressures of "opportunity type" form naturally selective scenarios to the effect of creating a (not so strange) attractor in the direction of AEVASIVE (ambiadvantageous evolved...) adaptations. <br /><br />This principle does (ultimately) pertain to the (by string/M-theory indicated) in some ways infinite and in some other ways 'infinitely constrained' Multiverse's apparent capacity to generate sufficiently Earth-like biospheres (at least one such!).<br /><br />As some of you might be able to see(?), I was not just enthusiastically (and AEVASIVEly) plaiting together my explanatory philosophical terminology _as a joke_ (which I of course partly also did), and for it to turn into nothing but a joke. <br /><br />For example, I also enjoy being able to say (with some degree of logical/rationally derived sense) the follow fun thing: <br /><br />When a (the) TOE of physics is philosophically combined (not mathematically mixed) - or is seen to complement as in "seen to be a peripheral part of" my (of course only very marginally my) or any other similar enough ultimately encompassing (but even so not devoid of explanatory power) evolution pertaining philosophical take on "What Is going on", then one have something that can be described as a framework for a "Foremost Overview Of Truth" or 'FOOT'. %}Pbefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12801125543334132971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-6974294486503447012010-05-27T01:08:41.812-07:002010-05-27T01:08:41.812-07:00Will: You are clearly a professional. Yes? othe...Will: You are clearly a professional. Yes? others opinions? art janovArthur Janovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18009571728800026496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-77735863232833630652010-05-26T21:13:42.764-07:002010-05-26T21:13:42.764-07:00CBT: Project Management Disguised as Science
I wa...CBT: Project Management Disguised as Science<br /><br />I was visiting my mother in a rehab hospital today and found myself talking with a social worker educated in the state where I live (CT). She majored in psychology there. I said to her, "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy", nodding and smiling and enunciating clearly. She said "Yeah, that's all there is." I said "whatever happened to Primal?" She said, "Insurance companies won't pay for it. For insurance companies to pay, you have to be able to show progress at regular intervals. If a patient does not show progress at regular intervals, then insurance stops paying." I had heard something similar from a physical therapist (about physical therapy and insurance) only minutes earlier. But the conversation continued... I said "But what if the psyche doesn't actually work that way?" She nodded enthusiastically and said "Yeah, exactly." I commented that the depth/feeling therapies seem to have been pushed aside, but that I had had such therapy decades ago and found it helpful. This brought additional affirmation from the social worker. Hmmm, we weren't in conflict.<br /><br />Following this conversation, I found myself thinking of Art Janov and the so-called "cognitivists", and I realized I was very confused now as to exactly who they are, as this was apparently not one of them?<br /><br />Yo Richard, why don't you raise a ton of money and start an insurance company with...a difference?<br /><br />Just sayin'...<br /><br />WaldenWaldenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10764833480863624204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-25977683375175418462010-05-26T16:08:21.999-07:002010-05-26T16:08:21.999-07:00Yes, I would agree with Sieglinde. Her observation...Yes, I would agree with Sieglinde. Her observations about the current state of humanity beg the question as to what happenned far in our past that most of mankind has become so neurotic. What was the "Original Neurosis" , then passed on from generation to generation? Other living things are not crazy like we are (unless they have contact with us).It's all pretty strange and puzzling...<br /><br />Secondly, with respect to the fact that knowing intellectually why we behave has no effects on our behavior: I think about that often while I read Dr Janov's books, because , of course, reading his books is mostly a head trip. One would then have to do Primal Therapy to get any real benefit. Since I have no intention of doing that (not because I am not convinced), I wonder if I am wasting my time reading his books. But I continue to do so because it is so FASCINATING to read them (sayeth Mr Spock!). <br /><br />Back tomorrow possibly with my explaining Wilhelm Reich's Unified Field Theory , based on the presence of apparent primordial cosmic Orgone Energy in living and non-living systems....unless there are objections here to my mentionning his theories...and unless I find myself unable to summarise his complex theory.<br /><br /><br />Marcomacor22https://www.blogger.com/profile/00652948318839690382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-18428372348207451572010-05-26T11:47:30.643-07:002010-05-26T11:47:30.643-07:00I am going to be a bit of a party pooper here beca...I am going to be a bit of a party pooper here because I dont think a Primal Field Theory is necessarily a good idea. But before I give a reason why I think that it needs pointing out that scientific disciplines are growing closer and this is part of a wider realisation of how biology, psychology and neurology are underpinned by evolution itself. Darwin's theory is the greatest force for unifying different fields and it is doing so as we speak. But it takes time for data to be collected, observed, hypothesized, theorized, tested, deductions drawn, re-tested ad infinitum. Science is a slow process and this means that it is sometimes behind where we want it to be and behind where we know it should be. But the alternative situation is one where people rush and make hasty intuitive connections that turn out to be dead ends. Indeed, when we consider how inadequate Freud's 'theory of man' is today in the light of new scientific discoveries we can see the danger of premature hopes. Indeed, where theory is incorrect it can actually hold up real progress because new thinking becomes stifled. (How much time and how many patients were not treated properly because people clung to Freud's grand theory?) The scientific method, as seemingly incoherent and disparate as it seems ensures that new ideas and chance discoveries do emerge even if this occurs in a sporadic and seeming chaotic way. Once the aim is for complete unification or harmonisation then surely that might be seen as a form of neuroticism. Science is a never ending story and there is no end in sight. <br /> However, Primal theory does already play a role in helping to establish greater unity within the field of psychology. (NB: There are actually 53 separate fields of psychology at last count!). It seems to me that Primal Theory is part of a greater movement in psychology that began with the decline of behaviourism (itself a reation to an intrapsychic approach towards the 'isolated' individual self) and the increasing consciousness that there is no individual divorced from his context, that the person is always part of the interpersonal, that we are raised and embedded in what Winnicott called a 'holding environment'. To my mind Primal Therapy is about helping people emerge from the pain they are in by feeling it and integrating it. This is itself an evolutionary process of transition from one physical state to another and it is in creating this movement that PT links to biology and neurology too by recognising man as evolving animal. Indeed, psychology has recognised this inner evolutionary process in the work of Piaget and Kohlberg amongst others. Most recently the constructive developmental approach has sought to develop it further (see The Evolving Self, Kegan, (Harvard 1982) (especially pages 122 to 124 which extremely strongly echoes Dr. Janov's position in my view and well worth a read too). <br /> What I am trying to point out is that science is moving in a good direction but it will always be up to us as individuals to interpret its data. Why should we expect any greater unity in science than what we find in society at large. But that doesn't mean there aren't good people out there doing really good things which are producing strong convergences in different fields. But lets not rush to convert convergence into unification just yet - it wouldn't be scientific!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3420173096635836108.post-69597835814538941452010-05-26T08:52:27.577-07:002010-05-26T08:52:27.577-07:00The "natural human being" may not exist ...The "natural human being" may not exist anymore. Or they will be expelled to reservations like Huxley's Brave New World, though we would call them eco-communities. If people are conditioned / raised to obey authorities, then anyone not being an authority has a very slim chance of being heard. When my youngest sister was pregnant, I put Leboyer's book "Birth Without Violence" on the table. My mother freaked out and made it clear my sister shouldn't read the book. Not because my mother had read it, but because delivering a baby is something only the medical establishment can advice on. For them childbirth is like going to the dentist, you don't experiment yourself and you don't take advice from anyone who is not a dentist. As a man I had no right to tell a woman what to consider before delivering a child. That's my experience.Dennis Rodiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09721730236869745380noreply@blogger.com