Transpersonal Psychology as a scientific Field; Friedman (2002).pdf

8/14/2019 Transpersonal Psychology as a scientific Field; Friedman (2002).pdf

1/13

Transpersonal Psychology as a Scientific FieldHarrisFriedman

Saybrook Graduate School and Research CenterSan Francisco, California, USA

The importanceof the development of transpersonal psychology as a science is considered.Arguments from romanticism,scientism, and constructionism that challenge this possibilityare countered. A distinction is drawn between the field of transpersonal psychology as ascience and the broader area known as transpersonal studies that may legitimately usescientific or nonscientific methods. The concepts of transpersonal phenomena andtranscendent noumena are delineated, the latter being seen as outside of the purview ofscience. The benefits of embracing a scientific approach are contrasted to a number ofepistemological alternatives. The scientific approach is forwarded for its potentialcontribution towards providinga unifyingparadigm for the discipline of psychology and forsolving crucial problems in the world. hope that this presentation challenges the readerto more deeply examine the role of science in transpersonal psychology.

r nsperson l psy hology has neverdeveloped a coherent scientific frame o freference,and despite numerous attemptsto adequately define it (e.g., Lajoie Shapiro,1992;Walsh Vaughan, 1993),still suffers fromserious ambiguity regarding its scope andappropriate methodology. As a result, littleprogress in understanding transpersonalpsychological phenomena from a scientificperspective has occurred since the founding ofthe field. In this paper,consider the importanceof specifying transpersonal psychology as ascientific field and propose some strategies tofurther its progress as a science.

Reasons to Restrict the FieldofTranspersonal Psychology to Scienceh r are three pragmatic reasons why thestudy of transpersonal psychology should beunambiguously restricted to scientific approaches.

First, transpersonal psychology was clearlyinstituted as a field that was meant to be part ofthe larger discipline of scientific psychology. Themajor founders of transpersonal psychology wereclearly invested in extending the rigorous scientificdiscipline of psychology beyond the conventionalboundaries of psychoanalytical, behavioral, andhumanistic psychology.Their purpose was not toabandon science, as exemplifiedby the statementin the first issue of the major publication whichinitially launched the field: TheJournal ofTranspersonal Psychology is concerned with thepublication of theoretical and applied research,original contributions, empirical papers, articlesand studies in... (Sutich, 1969,p. 16).Thereafter,a number ofdiverse content areas were listed,butclearly a scientific agenda was presented.1Second, since the discipline of psychology isclearly identified as a science by the majority ofpsychologists and also by society as a whole, thefield of transpersonal psychology explicitly lays

Th e InternationalJournalofTranspersonal Studies, 2002, Vol. 21, 175-187 175 2002 by Panigada Press


2/13

claim through its name to be part of that scientificdiscipline. Likewise, the rewards of scientificstatus accrue to transpersonal psychologythrough its association with psychology. Forexample, professional psychological services areprovided in a context that is legitimized byvarious governments based on the rationale thatscientific standards are being used in suchpractice. Legitimization entails specific benefitsto practitioners as provided through licensinglaws. A practitioner operating outside thescientific framework inprovidingapplied servicesoffered through a professionalpsychology licensewould be perceived as violating this implicitcontract. It is well established in law thatpsychologists who use approaches that are notscientifically justifiable can be sanctioned forprofessional discipline such as loss of theirlicenses to practice. There may also be civilpenalties, enforced through malpractice action,and even criminal penalties for a licensedprofessional operating in a nonscientific fashion.Furthermore, if nonscientificapproaches were tobe allowed as a legitimate part of professionalpractice by applied transpersonal psychologists,a situation of inequity would be created thatwould discriminate against other practitioners,such as religious healers, who might use similarnonscientific methods yet not be allowed acomparableprofessionallicense and itsprivileges.(Even in academic and scholarly arenas,transpersonal psychologists enjoy benefits due totheir attributed scientific status, such as inreceiving greater public acceptance asauthoritative experts.) Consequently,argue thatto allow practices that are notscientifically basedwithin the field of transpersonal psychology isneither legally nor ethically defensible.Third, and most importantly, consider thedevelopment of a scientific transpersonalpsychology crucial for human survival and thebetterment of life. Relegating the field to thecollection and reportage of unscientific folktraditions presented in a journalistic fashionwould at best be superfluous since such sourcesare abundant and have little likelihood ofhelping humanity in any progressive way. If thefield is used to promulgate any specific religiousor spiritual folk traditions, under a falselyassumed scientific label, the deception could bedamaging in manyways, includingthe possibilityofundermining further scientific development of

the field. believe that the best hope for lastingsolutions to many of the grave problems faced byhumans, and the earth itself, at this time lies inpsychological rather than technicalprogress.Forexample, although pressures of escalatingoverpopulation in third world nations could beeased through further attempts towardincreasing agricultural output, as throughgenetically enhanced crops, this type of solutionis likely not to prove sustainable but only topostpone overpopulation breaking points.Psychological solutions, such as changing coreattitudes toward reproduction that are currentlyembedded in religious belief systems, are likelyto be more effective than technical solutions tothese human-based problems. Furthermore, thetype of psychological solutions required for thesecrucial problems of contemporary adaptation,bothhuman andplanetary,cannot be adequatelyaddressed solely through the limitedconceptualizations offered by mainstreampsychology but require, instead, transpersonalconsiderations. Only transpersonal psychologyallows for innovative avenues in which scientificapproaches can address many of the mostpressingproblems that threaten our very survivalas a species and the survival of our planet.And,beyond mere deficit motivations, a scientifictranspersonal psychology is required for theoptimum development of our human potential.To throw away the unique promise offered bytranspersonal psychology through rejecting theproper role of science in the field would be notonly irresponsible but tragic.

In summary, based on the historic roots of thefield, the ethical and legal implications of itsconnection with the discipline of scientificpsychology, and the importance of the field forhuman survival and betterment, transpersonalpsychology should be bound to a scientificcommitment. Those who wish to abandon scientificapproaches to pursue their transpersonal workshould be unfettered as longas they use a broaderterm, such as transpersonal studies, to describetheir work. But those who elect to associate theirwork with the field of transpersonal psychologyneed to be aware of the implications of theirchoice. In particular,those who disseminate theirown religious or spiritual beliefs through theirprofessionalwork shouldnot present themselvesas transpersonal psychologists.

176 The InternationalJournalofTranspersonalStudies, 2002, Vol 21


3/13

Objections from Romanticism,Scientism, and Constructionism avingadvocated that transpersonalpsychology be restricted to the realm ofscience,will focus the discussion nowondirectlyconfronting the positions of those who are hostileto the possibility of a scientific transpersonalpsychology. For simplicity, three opposingpositions that abel as romanticism, scientism,and constructionism will be explored.The view identifiedwith romanticismposes thegreatest current threat to the development of ascientific transpersonal psychology since so manypeople of this persuasion are attracted to the field.The romantic movement has long opposed thescientific approach in all spheres. Most advocatesof romanticism seem to cast doubt upon both thevalue and possibility of a scientifically basedtranspersonal psychology by offering broadcritiques such as that science is inherentlyreductionistic or deterministic. To be fair, somewho are less extreme argue cogently that theapproach of romanticism provides initial ways toexplore important realms that are not yetamenable to scientific approaches,such as poetic,intuitive, and visionary states (Schneider, 1998,p. 284) but do not fully disregard the utility ofscience. accept that, while these methods ofromanticismmay not meet the criteria of science,they may still be legitimate and worthwhilescholarly efforts within what could be calledtranspersonal studies; however, they should notbe viewed as transpersonal psychology. Thepositions of romanticists thus range from thosewho outrightly dismiss any applicability of scienceto the field to those who posit a more moderateview that science may one day be useful toinvestigate the transpersonal realmbut currentlyis inadequate fo r the task.The former type of romanticism poses asevere challenge to the field. There are those, forexample,who take such romanticismas a licenseto naively accept, and promulgate, questionablebeliefs and practices that havenot been criticallyevaluated from a scientific perspective. Such astance provides a variety of benefits: Clinicalpractitionerswith this attitude, for example,mayrely on whatever happens in a psychotherapysessionwithouthavingto tax their skills byusingrational treatment strategies or takingresponsibility for outcomes. Thus they may

comfortably serve, or exploit, their clients withoutany accountability, at least until the regulatorsand litigators arrive. In addition, romanticismcan lucratively be used to sell questionabletranspersonal workswitness the numerousludicrous books and seminars marketed to a naivepublic. It seems that including the terms spiritor soul in such work increases its marketability.Responsible transpersonal psychologists needto consistently and rigorously examine theappropriateness of includingextreme romanticismwithin the field: For example, should astrology beincluded in transpersonal psychology? Eventhough systems of astrology are filled withnonscientific assumptions and fail to demonstrateany consistent evidence of validity, numerous so-called professionals openly promote this folksystem in their teachings, writings, and evenprofessional practice. strongly advocate thatscientific studies on astrology, such as exploringthe antecedents and consequences of belief inastrology, are appropriate material for a scientifictranspersonal psychology. Likewise, it isappropriate to continue to scientifically explore thevalidity of systems of astrology, although thinkthat the lack of evidence thus far is such thatserious investigators would likely not want toinvest their time further in this direction. But itis deplorable to write or teach about astrology inany way other than as an unsubstantiated folktradition and especially to use astrology as part ofa licensed psychological practice. This abuseexemplifies one practice steeped in romanticismthat isunfortunately toleratedwithin transpersonalpsychology. Astrology and similar, nonscientificpractices should not be sanctioned as a legitimatepartof the field.The myriadofotherpseudoscientificapproaches used by those who embrace extremeromanticism within the field of transpersonalpsychology should also be held up to scientificstandards or be excluded from the field.A difficult issue that should be addressed inthis discussion is the way in which traditionalreligions are handled. For example, manyWestern transpersonal psychologists seem tohave rejected their own religious traditions andhave become enamored of seemingly moreexotic traditions. It can even be claimed that atpresent the field of transpersonal psychology canbe largely characterized as the Western practiceof Eastern religions in a pseudoscientific guise.But why should traditional beliefs or practices

Transpersonal Psychology as a Scientific Field 177


4/13

from some other culture with little or nosupportingempirical evidence be given any specialcredence? The same can be said for pastoralcounseling in the predominantlyJudeo-Christiantradition in the West.This argument is notmeantto deny the importance ofbeliefsystems and theircultural relevance in effective psychologicalpractice. The point is that science, including itsapplications in professional practice, should notbe tied to any particular religious or spiritualtradition although it can clearly be usedappropriately within the context of such atradition. Inaddition, traditionsmightbe sourcesof fruitfulhypotheses for beginningto scientificallyexplore within transpersonal psychology, but askeptical scientific attitude should prevailunlesssupport is evidenced.Finally,ntendno disrespectfor those in any religious or spiritual tradition aslong as they do not try to characterize theirtradition as science and do not try to stop scientificinquiry, as exemplified by a recent challenge byadvocates of creationism to the teaching ofevolution in Kansas, USA.A romanticism that lacks discrimination inregard to numerous prevailing folk beliefs andunsubstantiated claims has unfortunatelyproliferatedwithin transpersonal psychology.Thishas encouraged a perspective in which rationalscrutiny has been placed in abeyance to the degreethat there is no difference perceived between,metaphorically speaking, gold and pyrite, not tomention denying that feet may be of mere clay.Thus many transpersonal psychologists haveunfortunately taken the positionofaffirming thateverything claiming to be spiritual,particularly ifit is from anEastern tradition, isgold.Butbelievestrongly we can and must distinguish gold frombaser metals and, even more importantly,simpleclay. The Sufi aphorism that there would not becounterfeiters if there were not real gold appliesto the huge numberofromantic approaches in thefield that suggest at least the possibility of valuein the transpersonal area.Excessesof romanticismmay have some role in the larger scheme of things,but only scientific discrimination can allow us toreliably and validly distinguish what is of valuefrom what is not. Likewise, romanticists whodogmatically embrace only one specific tradition,seeing gold only within that tradition, need toconsider that other traditions may also containgold and even that their own tradition may alsocontain baser elements.

In dramatic contrast to the rejection of the fieldby advocates of extreme romanticism, there isalso a strong rejection by those who advocate aposition of scientism which is characterized byan attitude that outwardly appears similar to theattitude of science but is actually dominated bya rigid and closed-minded view. Scientism is nota legitimate aspect of the scientific approach perse , since openness is a core scientific value thatis complementary to skepticism; insteadscientism is a perversionof science that has beencorrupted into a parochial ideology. Scienceshould never be an ideology but an approach toknowledge grounded in respect for understandingexperience. It is unfortunate that some adherentsto scientism have dismissed the entire field oftranspersonal psychology as fundamentallyirrationaland therefore not amenable to scientificapproaches. Ellis (1989) has written the bestexpression of this misguided rejection oftranspersonal psychology through engaging incatastrophic thinking, a type of cognitive errorhe made famous. In his book, he regards thetranspersonal perspective as havingno value forscientific psychology andhe views transpersonalpsychology as thoroughly dangerous. Those whoembrace scientism andreject the field in this way,however,err through confusing the lack of criticaldiscrimination and the excesses among thoseembracingextreme romanticismthat is endemicin transpersonal psychology with what the fieldcould actually achieve. Their conclusion is notrealistically based on any limitation inherent intranspersonalpsychology as a science per se, onlyon fear of the consequences of unbridledromanticism (not totally unwarranted given theproblems rampant in the field).ind it fascinating that bothromanticismandscientism, appearingantithetical on the surface,fundamentally agree in prematurely rejectingthepossibility that transpersonal psychology can be

a science. The romanticists need to consider thefutility of romantic speculation not based onempirical observation. They should ponder theprospects of their efforts helping to bring in anunfortunate New Age a New Dark Age. Andthose who embrace scientism need to consider thenarrowness of their approach in the light of thescientific value of openness as opposed to anoverly closed-minded skepticism.Neitherof theseprotests against the applicability of science to thefield can be substantiated and, therefore, a



5/13

science of transpersonal psychology cannot be soeasily dismissed.Another threat to transpersonal psychology sbecoming established as a science stems from thepostmodernmovement known as constructionism,a term frequently prefaced with adjectives suchas social or cognitive (e.g., Gergen, 1994). Thisapproach emphasizes that human knowledge isalways constructed in some fashionby knowerswho bring along personal baggage. Thus allknowledge, including scientific knowledge, isperceived as an artifact having no realindependent existence. Furthermore, thisconstruction always is seen in a context limitednot only bymaterialconstraintsbut mediatedbyculture, that is, those who control social poweralso control the way in which knowledge isconstructed. Therefore, knowledge is alwaysrelative; there is never an absolute truth, onlylimited, constructed viewpoints that arenecessarily equivocal.

The assumptions of constructionism are, inthemselves, useful observations about thelimitations inherent in all claims to knowledge.However,one unfortunateresultof constructionismis that all viewpoints are held to be equallyvalid.This eliminates science as the defining methodfor pursuingknowledge and even the value ofanyknowledge.

As applied to the field of transpersonalpsychology, assumptions from constructionismmay be exaggerated in a particularlyproblematicway. For example, the recognition of limitationsto knowledge widely accepted in the physicalsciences (e.g., the Heisenberg uncertaintyprinciple)has eroded the unquestioned authorityof the scientific method in general. Constructssuch as consciousness and free will that areassumed relevant to all human sciences havefurther undermined the legitimacyof traditionalapproaches to science as applied to the disciplineof psychology. It is argued that the limitations ofscience in the materialworld are eclipsed by themagnitude of the additional limitations sciencefaces in dealing with the greater complexityinherent in the humanworld. Finally, in the fieldof transpersonal psychology, science is oftenblatantly dismissed as irrelevant,particularly inrelation to arguments based on transpersonalconcepts that openly defy basic scientificassumptions. For example, one such scientificassumption is the presumed requirement of the

independence of subject and object in any validobservation or experiment. This assumption isbrought into question, however, by constructssuch as transpersonal self-expansiveness(MacDonald, Gagnier, Friedman, 2000;Friedman, 1983) in which the individual isconceptualized as possibly surpassing limitationsthat allow for any absolute subject-objectdichotomy. Thus the uncertainty recognizedthrough the Heisenbergprinciple inall of scienceis magnified by the unique concerns of human,as opposed to natural, science and then is furtherincreased in the transpersonal field, bringingdoubt as to the ultimate worth of science intranspersonal psychology. Constructionism,bolstered by these types of legitimate concernsabout scientific limitations,provides an especiallypotent challenge to the hegemony of science intranspersonal psychology, as well as a challengeto science in general.Severalalternativepositions to constructionismcan contribute to this discussion. One is to clearlyposit that aspects of reality can be known,at leastto some degree, in ways that are no t justcognitively or socially constructed. For example,there may be differences among language usersfrom different cultures as to how they mightdiscuss the ways to climb a mountain.Nevertheless, the mountain appears to solidlyexist as an independent reality regardless ofhowit is described linguistically: Thus significantrelativism from the perspective of constructionismmight primarily involve the meanings ofassociated reality, not the reality itself.Remember the Zen saying, Firstthe mountainsare just mountains; then, they are no longermountains; and in the end they are mountainsagain. One interpretation of this is that aftercompletinga mystical journey in which reality isdeconstructed, reality should once more bereconstructed and realized in both levels of thatword. One might argue further, from a realistposition, that to deny the fundamental reality ofthe mountain, and its dangers, would befoolhardy and tantamount to death if one werecalled upon to climb the mountain. Despite thecurrent popularity of constructionism in thehumanities and among some in the socialsciences, realism is not only viablebut still is themain philosophical underpinning of most ofcontemporary science. Nevertheless, it has beenaptly pointed out that, A s we enter the twenty-

TranspersonalPsychology as a Scientific Field 179


6/13

first century,we psychologists are having troublewith reality Martin Sugarman, 1999,p. 177),particularly in the attempt to reconcile modernwith postmodern perspectives.Another alternative to the constructionistargument is the kind of positivism thatapproaches science as a language game oftheory buildingwhich may or may not relate toany ultimate reality. Sometimes this is calledpostpositivism when there are specific efforts todistance science from veridical ties to anyexternal reality. From this perspective, scienceshould avoid claims about truth and, instead,should only offer theories that progressivelybecome more elegant and closely related toempirical data through their refinement overtime. Truth, at least in relationship to anyunderlying reality, is irrelevant to purists fromsuch a perspective.What is relevant is the abilityof a model to be useful in the game of science.This strategy is illustrated by the classic scientificuse of the nullhypothesis,a clever ploy in whichscientists construct hypothetical alternativeexplanations to challenge their theoreticalformulations.The scientific method then proceedsby attempting to nullify or disprove thesealternative hypotheses. This method does notallow for directly trying to prove the validity ofhypotheses that support the theory beingentertained that would be attempting to affirmsomethingas true: Insteadattempts are made towhittle down alternative explanations so that thetheory offered becomes either increasingly morecompelling or is found to have problems and isrejected.The absolute truth of any theory is thusirrelevant and never proven through thisapproach to the scientific method: Instead, thesystematic rejections of null hypotheses provideincreasing circumstantial evidence to enablemore confidence to be had in the potentialusefulness of a theory. Furthermore, theexpectation is that a theory is always a work inprogress and will be revised as more becomesknown.All theory is therefore relative, a versionof our best understanding at the moment.In spite of the current popularity ofconstructionism in some circles, science based onsuch versions of positivism is still viable.Unfortunately, it is easy for those who readtranspersonal literature and are not conversantwith modernscienceexcept through transpersonalpop science to misconstrue the importance of

postmodernism in generalandconstructionism inparticular. Science clearly remains the dominantworldview and is not about to be replaced by aconstructionist revolution that would immobilizeit. In addition, most scientists do not engage inmuch philosophical reflection as they proceed indoingscience, since the scientific method providessuch obvious results. The process of most scienceis basically oblivious to the implications ofconstructionism; most scientists implicitlyembrace traditional scientific perspectives andavoid the nihilistic quandary of constructionism.That so many transpersonal psychologists havejumped on the constructionist bandwagon asjustification for abandoning science is trulycounterproductive. In my opinion, the extremenihilistic implications of constructionism willeventually be seen as an intellectual dead endsimilar to the sophist paradoxes offered by theancient Greeks that alleged to demonstrate theimpossibility of change. At the same time,constructionism has been useful in furthersensitizing us to potential bias issues, such aspower and position differences among scientists.Study in the field of transpersonal psychologydoes involve some specific philosophicaldifficultiesfrom a scientific perspective but, of course, allsciences struggle with their unique disciplinaryproblems.Even though constructionismprovidessome clear insight into scientific limitations, itdoes not demonstrate that science is irrelevantto transpersonal psychology and argumentsfrom extreme romanticism and scientism shouldbe outrightly rejected.conclude that, in spite ofthe challenges, finding ways to proceed with ascience of transpersonal psychology should beardently pursued.

Important Distinctions toFacilitate Scientific Progress inTranspersonal Psychology

Tofurther this discussion, an importantdistinction alluded to earlier needs to beformallyestablished,namely, that transpersonalstudies and transpersonal psychology are notequivalent. The former is a broadly defineddomain of inquiry that can legitimately include

a diversity of methods ranging from those of thehumanities to those of a variety of scientificendeavors. Psychology, on the other hand, isdefined by most psychologists as a scientific180 Th e InternationalJournalofTranspersonal Studies, 2002, Vol 21


7/13

discipline; except for a few humanistic andtranspersonal adherents who insist that includingalternative, that is, nonscientific, approaches isimportant for the discipline, science is widelyaccepted as the mainstay of the discipline. Apreliminary conceptualization of transpersonalpsychology that see as useful is to place it as afield of study and applied practice positioned atthe intersection between the broader domain ofinquiry known as transpersonal studies and thescientific discipline of psychology. Furthermore,see transpersonal psychology foremost as a fieldwithin the discipline of scientific psychology thatfocuses on those aspects of transpersonal studiesthat involve the individual, including thoughts,feelings, and behaviors as found in the individual'sbiological, cultural, social, and wider contexts.

In studies or applications related to suchtranspersonal phenomena, transpersonalpsychology can draw upon content common todiverse fields of transpersonal studies.As a fieldof psychology, however, it requires responsible useof the scientific approach, such as submittingtranspersonal folk beliefs to rigorous scientificexamination. consider all nonscientificapproaches to transpersonal material betterviewed as distinct from transpersonalpsychologyand classified,instead, within the broader domainof transpersonal studies. Likewise, transpersonalapproaches that arenot focused on the individual,regardless of whether scientific or not, are bestviewed as residing in other transpersonal fields.Unfortunately, the domain of transpersonalstudies is often confounded with the field oftranspersonal psychology. This has led to muchconfusion,whichope the distinctionhavedrawnclarifies. The present argument is not intended todelimit the methods usedby transpersonalstudiesinany way; further, it explicitly acknowledges thatmethods from that domain could be eitherscientific or representativeof other approaches ofknowing (e.g., hermeneutics) that are legitimatebut not within the realm of science. Nor is theargument intended to limit spiritual or religiousbeliefs or expressions, whether traditional or NewAge.Allof these pursuits can,of course, informandbe informed by transpersonal psychology in avariety of creative ways.Another way to facilitate scientific progress intranspersonal psychology would be to overtlyrecognize specific areas in which science mightbe irrelevant and bracket them from scientific

inquiry. For example, areas resisting scientificefforts since they are no t yet amenable toempirical exploration, as previously mentioned,could be appropriately explored by nonscientificmethods that are openly recognized as such. Thistype of exploration would then be seen asprescientific in the sense that it does not precludethe possibility that scientific approaches maylater prove possible.An extremely important area that has beenimmensely problematic to transpersonalpsychology is the transcendent. The transcendentis intertwinedwith most conceptualizations of thefield, yet see it as outside of the purview of allscientific approaches, now and in the future. consider it to be the ultimateholistic concept thatcan only be experienced, if at all, in a direct andunmediated fashion unhamperedby any specificlimitation. Since all concepts are inherentlylimited, they are inadequate vehicles forcomprehendingthe transcendent. All discussionsof any attributes of transcendence, for example,through using terms such as ultimatetranscendence in contrast to nonultimatetranscendence, break down as meaningless.Thetranscendent is beyond all conventional thoughtthat involves symbolic mediationbywords or anylimiting symbolic system and beyond all publicdiscourse including science. Thus any directexperience of the transcendent, such as unityconsciousness,would be accompanied by an override or shut-down of conventional thought duringthe time of the experience of transcendence. Inthis mode, a merger of subject with object wouldlikely occur such that the knower would cease,in any ordinary meaningfulway, to be a separateindividual. Since unmediated knowledge wouldbe , by definition, experienced directly and, whenthe experience was over, forgotten or vaguelycoded in some system of symbols, one whodisappeared as a separate beingin transcendencewould, upon reentry into the world of ordinarythought and discourse, have to rely onsymbolically mediatedmemory of that experienceafter the transcendence. Even if one were toremain connected with transcendent experiencewhile usinga symbolic system such as language,as an enlightened being might possibly be, thatuse would necessarily be filtered through thelimitationsof the symbolic system and would thusalso be limited. Thus conclude that science isrequired to be mute about the ultimate issue of



8/13

the transcendent since it transcends the symbolicprocess itself that is the sole vehicle of science.Amajor difficulty preventing scientific progress intranspersonal psychology therefore can beavoided through making a clear delineationbetween the concept of the transpersonal and thatof the transcendent, a distinction which hopewill lead to a productive reframing of manytranspersonal questions.This important distinction between thetranspersonal and the transcendent isnot original.Valle (1998), fo r example, contrasted transpersonalwith transcendent awareness. He describedtranscendent awareness as prereflective, or theground of consciousness without a subject-objectsplit, whereas he described transpersonalawareness as referring to experiences deeper orbeyond our ordinary ego sensebut not necessarilytranscendent. Transpersonal awareness stillcontains the content of self as a separate knower,in contrast to the transcendent which is radicallybeyond any limiting content, including rationaldescription, and thus defies direct scientificexploration.However, the transpersonal realm (excludingthe transcendent) remainsopen to scientific study,as does the indirect relationship betweenindicators of the transcendent and moreconventional concepts. Thus asking questionsabout the transcendent may be still within therealm of science as long as we recognize it isalways about the transcendent and notdirectlyaddressing it (e.g.,Howdoes havingtranscendentexperiences [or at least experiences people arewilling to label in such a way] change aspects ofa person s life? or How do different religiousconceptions of the transcendent relate to objectivecultural or environmental sources ofvariability? ).

The distinction between phenomena andnoumena, found throughout the history ofWestern philosophy, is applicable here in thatscience can directly study phenomena but notunderlying noumena. In this regard, sometranspersonal theorists might argue thatnoumena should be approached only through ahigher-level understanding than science canprovide (e.g., the eyeof spirit proposed byWilber, 1997).Alternatively, advocate that weexclude the transcendent from direct discoursesince we cannot make meaningful statementsabout it. This position is also congruent with the

beliefs of many Eastern and Western spiritualtraditions, such as the Judaic emphasis on theessential mysteryofGod s unknowabilityand theTaoist emphasis in the Tao Te Ching that thosewho speak about the Tao do not know of whatthey speak. There is also a long history of thistype of perspective in Western philosophy,goingback at least to Plato s famous cave metaphor,that similarly points out limits to what can bedirectly known.It is therefore imperative for a viable scienceof transpersonal psychology to clearly delineatethe transpersonal domain into two areas thathave been implicitly confounded by the field. Forclarity, am labeling these as transcendentnoumenawhich are beyond the scope of scientificstudy, and transpersonal phenomena which areamenable to scientific study. Juxtaposing theterm transpersonal with the term phenomenais meant to establish reference to anontranscendent and non-noumenal area of thetranspersonal domain. This distinction providesthe important advantage of pointing to thepossibility of rigorous scientific examination oftranspersonal phenomena while bracketing themetaphysical morass of the direct roleof science,or rather lack of role, in regard to thetranscendent. The transcendent no longerremains confounded with transpersonalphenomena and thus the questions beyondscience regarding the transcendent can befruitfully ignored by a scientific transpersonalpsychology. tshould be explicitly restated,however, that phenomena related to thetranscendent, like all phenomena,can be studiedby science while the transcendent itself can onlybe scientifically studied indirectly throughsecondary indicators. Thus, approaches towarddeveloping a science of transpersonal psychologythat explicitly excludes the direct study oftranscendent noumena provides a firmer basisfor scientific progress. Of course, transcendentnoumena can still be the focus of transpersonalstudies that utilize nonscientific methods, suchas comparing poetic depictions of transcendentstates.It should be noted, however, that there is away for science to provide an indirect commenton the transcendent. Even if something cannotbe directly shown, it may be delineated througha process of pointing out what it is not. Since allthat materially exists may be seen as existing



9/13

within time and space, the realm of thenontranscendent can be symbolically placed ona map of space-time such as used in theconstruct of transpersonal self-expansiveness(Friedman, 1983). That which transcends thismap may be implied by its absence. This type ofresidual approach to the transcendent can beheuristic and is a core feature of the constructof self-expansiveness. This strategy towardapproaching, but never fully grasping,transcendence is similar to that in which somemeditative traditions stress disidentifying theselfwith all limitations, resulting in what is leftbeing that with which one cannot disidentify, theresidual of the transcendent. From a moreconventional perspective, as calculus can beused to make successive approximations toapproach the true measure of the area under acurve, so can a transpersonal approachgradually be like an asymptote andmove towardthe transcendent while never quite achievingthat goal. In my opinion, though, to grasp thetranscendent in any meaningful way wouldrequire abandoning science and directlyexperiencing transcendence. Thus a science oftranspersonal psychology, though not dealingdirectly with transcendence, can elucidate therelationship of the transcendent to the world ofspace-time in which humans typically dwelland about which humans can meaningfullydiscourse. Furthermore, a transpersonalpsychology limitedto the domainof transpersonalphenomena, while excluding transcendentnoumena, can be potentially amenable to scientificstudy and capable of yielding beneficialapplications. Transpersonal psychology sorelyneeds a revolution in perspective,one that allowsfor transpersonal psychology to be responsiblygrounded in scientific approaches. hope theexplicit delineation offered here moves the fieldin such a direction.Finally, think it wise, from a scientificperspective, to remain agnostic about thetranscendent, even as to whether it can bemeaningfully said to exist since it is beyond anycategories, even the most fundamental ones ofexistence and nonexistence.Abandoningall directspeculation about the transcendent would be aproductive scientific strategy. Those who operateunder the banner of transpersonal psychologywhile engaging in speculation about thetranscendent or, worse, endorsing one system or

another that allegedly develops transcendentqualities as part of their professional practice,should be regarded as outside the domain of thefield. Of course, no religious or spiritualapproaches to the transcendent need to bequestioned as long as they are not promoted aspart of the field of transpersonal psychology.EpistemologicalConsiderations

To grasp more deeply the need for a scientificperspective in the field of transpersonalpsychology, it is helpful to attend to how we knowanything the field ofepistemology.Transpersonalpsychologists who reject science as useful in thediscipline are implicitly relyingon other strategiesfor obtaining knowledge. These other strategies,including their benefits and limitations, need tobe made explicit. Science, as one way of knowing,is characterized by its emphasis on empiricism,that is, relyingon information from ou r experienceas a criterion for affirming knowledge. Ourexperience may be based upon external sensoryinput,as isusuallyemphasized in science,but alsocan be basedon internalsources ofexperience suchas proprioception. Our experience can also beextended throughcommunication with others andthrough technology, including simple technologysuch as standardized self-reportprocedures usedin conventional psychometric instruments.However,there are other ways ofknowingthatmay or may not be more useful than theempiricism of science, depending uponcircumstances. For example, following anauthority such as a wise guru can be anexpedient means to obtain valuable transpersonalknowledge. This may be especially useful if itinvolves knowledge that may not yet bescientifically available.Science itselfhas sometimes been criticicizedas authoritarian because those who have notbeen initiated into the fold really cannot evaluatethe veracity of its claims. However, at leastpotentially, individuals can replicate orempirically observe for themselves any processof science and draw their own conclusions,although it might take years of training to do so.Of course if the observation requires anenormously expensive piece of equipment, it isan option open only to the scientifically elite.Fortunately,science is competitive,and those whoassert any claim typically have an ample supply



10/13


11/13

of inspiration for scientific exploration: forexample, they can be scientifically used toproduce potential hypotheses for empiricaltesting through science. To be able to rely onconcepts based on experience, regardlessof anyauthority figure or long-held tradition orindividual intuitions,provides a uniqueopennesscharacteristic of science. And because sciencebenefits from cumulative knowledge and isinherently self-correcting, the continuousdiscovery ofnew knowledge may or may not alterwhat was previously believed.2

As previously discussed, some transpersonalpsychologists are strong adherents toromanticism and blatantly reject the scientificapproach as too narrow to be useful totranspersonal inquiry. However, James (1890/1950), one of the pioneers of psychology, arguedfor a broad, open approach to science that cananswer this concern. He called his approachradicalempiricism and, over a hundredyears ago,clearly addressed much of the contemporarycriticism that rejects the applicability of thescientific method to the field. share his view ofthe need for a radical empiricism that can allowresearch into a broad range of experience.Specifically, science may appropriately includeinnovative approaches that allow for exploringdeeply private experiences or even those thatrequireplacingan observer in an altered state ofconsciousness. In this regard, even aspects ofcertain states of meditation that can be enteredonly through years of following an esoteric pathcan be brought into the objective and consensualdomain of scientific scrutiny through the use ofappropriate methodologies. For example, Tart's(1975) state-specific theory of science allows forabroad view of scientific approaches that includessuch techniques as gathering dataduringalteredstates of consciousness.His state theory approachto science is an excellent example of howinnovativeyet rigorous approaches to science canfruitfully be used to explore transpersonalphenomena that were previously thought to beunamenable to scientific research. Although thistype of scientific approach might requireresearchers to devote years toward mastering ameditation technique in order to research a typeof transpersonal phenomenon, it is not sodissimilar to the years of mastery required byresearchers in areas of conventional science.

Conclusions

IT is important to consider some of the beneficialimplications that could come with success indeveloping a scientific transpersonal psychology.The discipline of scientific psychology as a wholehas been struggling throughout its short historyto develop a unifyingparadigm (Yanchar Slife,1997). believe that the transpersonalperspective is the most comprehensiveperspective possible for psychology and couldprovide such a paradigm. Similarly, Cortright(1997)wrote,Transpersonalpsychology is in theunique position of being the only psychologicalapproach to human experience that can be morethan just integrative but fully inclusive... (p.242). Ifthe field oftranspersonal psychology couldabandon its currentpostureof ambivalence, ifnotovert rejection, toward science, it could progressbeyond being an isolated and narrow endeavorto having a real impact on the larger disciplineof psychology. Transpersonal psychology shouldtherefore be actively concerned with contributingto the development of mainstream, conventionalpsychology and not remain content with itsmarginalizedstatus within the larger discipline.More crucially, a scientific transpersonalpsychology could have major consequences inproductively addressing the massive crisesrampant in our contemporary world. Krippner(1998) expressed this theme well: There is anurgent need in today's fractious world forintegrative transpersonal perspectives, especiallyif presented in ways that are self-criticaland ableto be linked in contemporary scientific andpractical concerns (pp. x-xi . Returning to itsscientific roots is the only path for transpersonalpsychology to take in order to make such neededcontributions.Furthermore,acceleratingadvanceswithin science, such as sophisticated newneurotechnologies applicable to studyingconsciousness, are increasingly opening innovativeand exciting scientific avenues for exploringtranspersonal psychology. A redirection back tosciencewould bothallow transpersonal psychologyto gain acceptance as a legitimate enterprisewithin the larger community of scientific efforts,includingthe discipline of psychology, and allowfor its responsible application toward humanbetterment.Perhaps no field identified with the disciplineof psychology has openly accepted so many



12/13

nonscientific approaches as has transpersonalpsychology. Wilber (1998) has aptly expressed thecurrent state of the field, as follows: There aremany who see all too clearly the sad shape ourfield is in. They tell me about it all the time. Theyare truly alarmed by the reactionary,antiprogressive, and regressive fog thicklycreeping over the entire field (p. 336). Without arededication to science, the field is unlikely toprogress or earn acceptance by the scientific andprofessional communities and, accordingly, it islikely to eventually stagnate and disappear, itsultimate impact on humankind being slight.Transpersonal psychology could be either totallyforgotten or remembered only as an obscurefootnote ina few ofthemore comprehensive historyof psychology books. Sadly, this is generally itsstatus now in mainstream psychology. Iftranspersonal psychology,however,were to returnto its original vision and fully embrace a renewedcommitment to science, it could become not onlyscientifically andprofessionally viablebut also oneof the most important assets to the survival ofhumankind and its continued evolution.Simply stated, the path transpersonalpsychology will follow will be determined bywhether its scientific proponents activelydemonstrate renewed commitment towardcreating a responsible science or, instead, allowthe field to lapse into the default status of merelybeinganother superfluous New Age movement orworse, a sham promulgating Eastern religioustraditions under the false pretenses ofbeingpartof the discipline of psychology. We are at achoicepoint: if transpersonal psychology fails tomore fully embrace science and thereby ceases toexist as a field, its disappearancewould createanunfortunate void since no other field is so welloriented toward forging the necessary scientificperspectives to directly address pressing globalproblems. In contrast, if a renewed commitmentto science were to occur, competent theorists andresearchers would be attracted to the challengesabundant in this field. do not know of any fieldmore worthy, nor in need, of intense scientificefforts. am also convinced that, if concertedscientific effortswere to be made in transpersonalpsychology, the resulting advances could havegreatpotential fo r improvingthehumancondition,even for preserving our planet from destruction.As we go about destroying our own planet withour material success (excess), the roots of any

salvation for our species and our world can befound only in the firm realization of theinterconnectedness of ourselves and allhumankind to our ultimate ground of being.Transpersonal psychology can provide such a focusfor this realization. hope that transpersonalpsychologists will become involved in a deeper andmoresystematic examinationaboutwhat the fieldpromotes and where it is heading in order toprovide an additional impetus for its redirectionto science. Ultimately,believe that scientificprogress in the fieldwill leadnot only to increasedtranspersonal understandingbutmay even lay thegroundwork for larger numbers of us to directlyexperience transcendencewhich, indeed, goesbeyond what science can directly grasp,but towardwhich science can possibly point.

NotesThis article is partiallybasedon the following:Friedman,H. (2000). Toward developing transpersonal psychologyas a scientific field. Paper presentedat the Old Saybrook2 Conference, State University of West Georgia,Carrolton,Georgia,USA.1. The complete statement of purpose reads as follows:The JournalofTranspersonalPsychology is concernedwith the publicationof theoretical and applied research,

original contributions, empirical papers, articles andstudies in meta-needs, ultimate values, unitiveconsciousness, peak experience, ecstasy, mysticalexperience,B-values,essence, bliss, awe, wonder, self-actualization,ultimate meaning, transcendence of theself, spirit, sacralization of everyday life, oneness,cosmic awareness, cosmic play, individualand specieswide synergy, maximal interpersonal encounter,transcendental phenomena; maximal sensoryawareness, responsivenessand expression;compassion;and related concepts, experiences and activities.As astatement of purpose, this formulation is to beunderstood as subject to optional individual or groupinterpretations, either wholly or in part, with regardto the acceptance of its content as essentiallynaturalistic, theistic, supernaturalistic, or any otherdesignated classification.

2. As an aside, it is undeniable that many haveintentionally defrauded others for monetary or otheradvantages in the transpersonal arena, not to speak ofthe dogmatic intolerance in this area which has causedmuchhuman suffering.herefore maintain strongly thatscience, as an open system with built-in checks andbalances, is sorely needed in transpersonal psychologyto protect consumersofbothknowledge and services fromexploitation. In fact, think it is needed more intranspersonal psychology than in any other field.



13/13

ReferencesCortright, B. (1997). Psychotherapy and spirit: Theory and

practice in transpersonal psychology. Albany, NY : StateUniversity ofNewYork Press.Ellis,A. (1989). Why some therapies don t work: The dangersof transpersonal psychology.Buffalo, NY : PrometheusBooks.

Friedman,H, (1983).The Self-Expansiveness LevelForm:Aconceptualization and measurement of a transpersonalconstruct. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 15, 37-

Gergen, K. (1994).Realities and relationships: Soundings insocial construction. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology. New York:Dover. (Original work published 1890)

Krippner, S. (1998). Foreword. In D. Rothberg S. Kelly(Eds.),Ken Wilber in dialogue. Wheaton, IL: Theosophi-ca l Publishing House.Lajoie,D. , Shapiro, S. I. (1992).Definitions of transpersonalpsychology: The first twenty-three years. Journal ofTranspersonal Psychology,24, 79-98.Martin, J., Sugarman, J. (1999). Psychology s reality debate:A 'levels of reality approach. Theoretical andPhilo

sophicalPsychology, 19 , 177-194.MacDonald, D., Gagnier, J., Friedman, H. (2000).

Transpersonal self-concept and the five-factor model ofpersonality:Evidence for a sixth stable dimension of personality.Psychological Reports,86, 707-726.Schneider,K. (1998).Toward a science of the heart: Romanticism and the revival of psychology.American Psychologist, 55 , 277-289.Sutich, A. (1969). Some considerations regardingtranspersonal psychology.Journal of Transpersonal Psy-

Tart, C. (1975).States of consciousness. New York: Dutton.Valle, R. (1998). Transpersonal awareness: Implications forphenomenological research. InR.Valle (Ed.),Phenomeno-logical inquiry in psychology: Existential andtranspersonal dimensions (pp. 273-279). New York: Plenum Press.Walsh, R., Vaughan, F. (1993). On transpersonal definitions.Journal of Transpersonal Psychology,25, 199-207.Wilber, K. (1997). The eye of spirit:An integral vision for aworldgone slightly mad. Boston:Shambhala.Wilber, K. (1998).A more integral approach. In D. Rothberg S. Kelly (Eds.), Ken Wilber in dialogue (pp. 400-402).Wheaton, IL:Theosophical Publishing House.Yanchar, S., Slife,B.(1997).Pursuingunity in a fragmentedpsychology: Problems and prospects. Review of GeneralPsychology,1,235-255.

50.

chology, 1(1), 11-20.


Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	cambiador-de-mundo
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Transpersonal Psychology as a scientific Field; Friedman (2002).pdf

Documents