Mon 24 Feb 92 8:15
By: Robin Gober
To: ALL
Re: Intergration
----------------------------------------------------------------------


When we last left Doc. Rogers he was faced with how to resolve the
conflict of viewing a subjective experience as an experientialist or
scientist. I see a lot of things in this debate that can be useful to a
Contactee. As a Contactee I know, as William James stated that these
experiences can be very real and very authoritative. I also that as a
thinking Contactee, sometimes, I like to be able to view the the
experience objectively as well. I think Rogers gives some very good
guide lines on how to go about this.

"A Changed View of Science

[...] Gradually I have come to believe that the most basic error in the
original formulation was in the description of science. I should like,
in this section, to attempt to correct that error, and in the following
section to reconcile the revised points of view.

The major shortcoming was, I believe, in viewing science as something
`out there,' something spelled with a capital S, a `body of knowledge'
existing somewhere in space and time. in common with psychologists I
thought of science as a systematized and organized collection of
tentatively verified facts, and saw the methodology of science as the
socially approved means of accumulating this body of knowledge, and
continuing its verification. It has seemed somewhat like a reservoir
into which all and sundry may dip their buckets to obtain water--with a
guarantee of 99% purity. When viewed in this external and impersonal
fashion, it seems not unreasonable to see Science not only as
discovering knowledge in lofty fashion, but as involving
depersonalization, a tendency to manipulate, a denial of the basic
freedom of choice which I have met experientially in therapy. I should
like now to view the scientific approach from a different, and I hope,
a more accurate perspective.

Science in Persons

Science exists only in people. Each scientific project has its creative
inception, its process, and its tentative conclusion, in a person or
persons. Knowledge--even scientific knowledge can be communicated only
to those who are subjectively ready to receive its communication. The
utilization of science also occurs only through people who are in
pursuit of values which have meaning to them. These statements
summarize very briefly something of the change in emphasis which I
would like to make in my description of science. Let me follow through
the various phases of science from this point of view."

_On Becoming a Person_ Carl R. Rogers Ph.D. 1961

"The Creative Phase

Science has its inception in a particular person who is pursuing aims,
values, purposes, which have personal and subjective meaning for him.
As a part of this pursuit, he, in some area,`wants to find out.'
Consequently, if he is to be a good scientist, he immerses himself in
the relevant experience, whether that be the physics laboratory, the
world of the plant or animal life, the hospital, the psychological
laboratory or clinic, or whatever. This immersion is complete and
subjective, similar to the immersion of the therapist in therapy,[or
the Contactee in the encounter]. He senses the field in which he is
interested, he lives it. He does more than `think' about it--he lets
his organism take over and react to it, both on a knowing and on an
unknowing level. He comes to sense more than he could possibly
verbalize about his field, and reacts organismically in terms of
relationships which are not present in his awareness. Out of his
complete subjective immersion comes a creative forming, a sense of
direction, a vague formulation of relationships hitherto unrecognized.
Whittled down, sharpened, formulated in clearer terms, this creative
forming becomes a hypothesis-- a statement of a tentative, personal,
subjective faith. The scientist is saying, `I have a hunch that such
and such a relationship exits, and the existence of this phenomenon has
relevance to my personal values.' What I am describing is the initial
phase of science, probably its most important phase, but one which
American scientists, particularly psychologists, have been prone to
minimize or ignore. It is not so much that it has been denied as that
it has been quickly brushed off. Kenneth Spence has said that this
aspect of science is `simply taken for granted.' Like many experiences
taken for granted, it also tends to be forgotten. It is indeed in the
matrix of immediate personal, subjective experience that all science,
and each individual scientific research, has its origin."

_On Becoming a Person_ Carl R. Rogers Ph.D.

"Reality, our good buddie!" --Robin Gober

"Checking With Reality

The scientist has then creatively achieved his hypothesis, his
tentative faith. But does it check with reality? Experience has shown
each one of us that it is very easy to deceive ourselves, to believe
something which later experience shows is not so. How can I tell
whether this tentative belief has some real relationship to observed
facts? I can use, not one line of evidence only, but several. I can
surround my observation of the facts with various precautions to make
sure I am not deceiving myself. I can consult with others who have also
been concerned with avoiding self-deception, an learn useful ways of
catching myself in unwarranted beliefs, based on misinterpretation of
observations. I can, in short, begin to use all the elaborate
methodology which science has accumulated. I discover that stating my
hypothesis in operational terms will avoid many blind alleys and false
conclusions. I learn that control groups can help me to avoid drawing
false inferences. [The same way I use information from other recovery
groups on topics like trauma, P.T.S.D.,Codependants, and Religious
Addiction] I learn that correlations and t tests and critical ratios
and a whole array of statistical procedures can likewise aid me in
drawing only reasonable inferences. Thus scientific methodology is seen
for what it truly is -- a way of preventing me from deceiving myself in
regard to my creatively formed subjective hunches which have developed
out of the relationship between me and my material. It is in this
context, and perhaps only in this context, that the vast structure of
operationism, logical positivism, research design, test of
significance, ect. have their place. They exist, not for themselves,
but as servants in the attempt to check the subjective feeling or hunch
or hypothesis of a person with the objective fact. And even throughout
the use of such rigorous and impersonal methods, the important choices
are all made subjectively by the scientist. To which of a number of
hypotheses shall I devote time? What kind of control group is most
suitable for avoiding self-deception in this in this particular
research? How far shall I carry the statistical analysis? How much
credence may I place in the findings? Each of these is necessarily a
subjective personal judgment, emphasizing that the splendid structure
of science rest basically upon its subjective use by persons. It is the
best instrument we have yet been able to devise to check upon our
organismic sensing of the universe.

_On Becoming a Person_ Carl R. Rogers Ph.D.

"The Findings

If, as scientist, I like the way I have gone about my investigation, if
I have been open to all the evidence if I have selected and used
intelligently all the precautions against self-deception which I have
been able to assimilate from others or to devise myself, then I will
give my tentative belief to the findings which have emerged. I will
regard them as a springboard for further investigation and further
seeking. It seems to me that in the best of science, the primary
purpose is to provide a more satisfactory and dependable hypothesis,
belief, faith, for the investigator himself. In regard to the findings
of science, the subjective foundation is well shown in the fact that at
times the scientist may refuse to believe his own findings. `The
experiment showed thus and so, but I believe it to be wrong,' is a
theme which every scientist has experienced at some time or other. Some
very fruitful discoveries have grown out of the persistent disbelief,
by a scientist, in his won findings and those of others. In the last
analysis he may place more trust in his total organismic reactions than
in the methods of science. There is no doubt that this can result in
serious error as well as in scientific discoveries, but it indicates
again the leading place of the subjective in the use of science.

Communication of Scientific Findings

Wading along a coral reef in the Caribbean this morning, I saw a large
blue fish -- I think. If you, quite independently, saw it too, then I
feel more confident in my own observation. This is what is know as
intersubjective verification, and it plays an important part in our
understanding of science. If I take you (whether in conversation or in
print or behaviorally) through the steps I have taken in an
investigation, and it seems to you too that I have not deceived myself,
and I have indeed come across a new relationship which is relevant to
my values, and that I am justified in having a tentative faith in this
relationship, then we have the beginnings of Science with a capital S.
It is at this point that we are likely to think we have created a body
of scientific knowledge. Actually there is no such body of knowledge.
There are only tentative beliefs, existing subjectively, in a number of
different persons. If these beliefs are not tentative, then what exists
is dogma, not science. If on the other hand, no one but the
investigator believes the finding then this finding is either a
personal and deviant matter, an instance of psycho-pathology, or else
it is an unusual truth discovered by a genius, which as yet no one is
subjectively ready to believe. This leads me to comment on the group
which can put tentative faith in any given scientific finding."

_On Becoming a Person_ Carl R. Rogers Ph.D.

"Communication to Whom?

It is clear that scientific findings can be communicated only to those
who have agreed to the same ground rules of investigation. The
Australian bushman will be quite unimpressed with the finding of
science regarding bacterial infection. He knows that illness truly is
caused by evil spirits. It is only when he too agrees to scientific
method as a good means of preventing self-deception, that he will be
likely to accept its findings. But even among those who have adopted
the ground rules of science, tentative belief in the findings of a
scientific research can only occur where there is a subjective
readiness to believe. One could find many examples. Most psychologists
are quite ready to believe evidence showing that the lecture system
produces significant increments of learning, and quite unready to
believe that the turn of an unseen card may be called through an
ability labelled extra-sensory perception. Yet the scientific evidence
for the latter is considerably more impeccable than for the former.
Likewise when the so-called `Iowa studies' first came out, indicating
that intelligence might be considerably altered by environmental
conditions, there was great disbelief among psychologists, and many
attacks on the imperfect scientific methods used. The scientific
evidence for this finding is not much better today than it was when the
Iowa studies first appeared, but the subjective readiness of
psychologists to believe such a finding has altered greatly.[Much like
the subject of Contact/Abduction] A historian of science has noted that
empiricists, had they existed at the time, would have been the first to
desbelieve the findings of Copernicus. It appears then that whether I
believe the scientific findings of others or those from my own studies,
depends in part on my readiness to put a tentative belief in such
findings. One reason we are not particularly aware of this subjective
fact is that in the physical sciences particularly, we have gradually
adopted a very large area of experience in which we are ready to
believe and finding which can be shown to rest upon the rules of the
scientific game, properly played.

The Use of Science

But not only is the origin, process, and conclusion of science
something which exists only in the subjective experience of persons --
so also is its utilization. `Science' will never depersonalize, or
manipulate, or control individuals. It is only persons who can and will
do that.[as in cults] That is surely a most obvious and trite
observation, yet a deep realization of it has had much meaning for me.
It means that the use which will be made of scientific findings in the
field of personality is and will be a matter of subjective personal
choice. -- the same type of choice as a person makes in therapy. To the
extent that he has defensively closed off areas of his awareness, the
person is more likely to make choices which are socially destructive.
[As in a Contactee closing off feelings of anger, pain or fear]. To the
extent that he is open to all phases of his experience we may be sure
that this person will be more likely to use the findings and methods of
science (or any other tool or capacity) in a manner which is personally
and socially constructive. There is, in actuality then, no threatening
entity of `Science' which can in any way affect our destiny. There are
only people. While many of them are indeed threatening and dangerours
in their defensiveness, and modern scientific knowledge multiplies the
social threat and danger, this is not the whole picture. There are two
other significant facets. (1) There are many person who are relatively
open to their experience and hence likely to be socially constructive.
(2) Both the subjective experience of psychotherapy and the scientific
findings regarding it indicate that individuals are motivated to
change, and may be helped to change, in the direction of greater
openness to experience, and hence in the direction of behavior which is
enhancing of self and society, rather than destructive. To put it
briefly, Science can never threaten us. Only persons can do that. And
while individuals can be vastly destructive with the tools placed in
their hands by scientific knowledge, this is only one side of the
picture. We already have subjective and objective knowledge of the
basic principles by which individual may achieve the more constructive
social behavior which is natural to their organismic process of
becoming."

_On Becoming a Person_ Carl R. Rogers Ph.D.

"A New Integration

What this line of thought has achieved for me is a fresh integration in
which the conflict between the `experientialist' and the `scientist'
tends to disappear. This particular intergration may not be acceptable
to others, but it does have meaning to me. Its major tenets have been
largely implicit in the preceding section, but I will try to state them
here in a way which takes cognizance of the arguments between the
opposing points of view. Science, as well as therapy, as well as all
other aspects of living, [as well as being a Contactee] is rooted in
and based upon the immediate, subjective, experience of a person. It
springs from the inner, total, organismic experiencing which is only
partially and imperfectly communicable. It is one phase of subjective
living. It is because I find value and reward in human relationships
that I enter into a relationship known as therapeutic, where feelings
and cognition merge into one unitary experience which is lived rather
than examined, in which awareness is non-reflective, and where I am the
participant rather than observer. But because I am curious about the
exquisite orderliness which appears to exist in the universe and in
this relationship I can abstract myself from the experience and look
upon it as an observer, making myself and/or others the objects of that
observation.[I feel the same way about Contact encounters] As observer
I use all of the hunches which grow out of the living experience. To
avoid deceiving myself as observer, to gain a more accurate picture of
the order which exists, I make use of all the cannons of science.
Science is not an impersonal something,but simply a person living
subjectively an other phase of himself. A deeper understanding of
therapy (or of any other problem) [like Contact issues] may come from
living it, or from the communication within the self between the two
types of experience. As to the subjective experience of choice, it is
not only primary in therapy, but it is also primary in the use of
scientific method by a person.

[This is it,folks, the really good part]

What I will do with the knowledge gained through scientific method --
whether I will use it to understand, enhance, enrich, or use it to
control manipulate and destroy -- is a matter of subjective choice
dependent upon the values which have personal meaning for me. If, out
of fright and defensiveness, I block out from my awareness large areas
of experience, -- if I can see only those facts which support my
present beliefs, and am blind to all others -- if I can see only the
objective aspects of life, and cannot perceive the subjective -- if in
any way I cut off my perception from the full range of its actual
sensitivity -- then I am likely to be socially destructive, whether I
use as tool the knowledge and instruments of science, or the power and
emotional strength of a subjective relationship. And on the other hand
if I am open to my experience,and can permit all of the sensing of my
intricate organism to be available to my awareness, then I am likely to
use myself, my subjective experience, _and_ my scientific knowledge, in
ways which are realistically constructive. This then is the degree of
integration I have currently been able to achieve between two
approaches first experienced as conflicting."

_On Becoming a Person_ Carl R. Rogers Ph.D. 1961

Houghton Mifflin Company
Boston
ISBN: 0-395-08134-3
ISBN: 0-395-08409-1 pbk.

ENDNOTES: I placed all of my comments in [ ] I hated to interject
myself into the text but it seemed like the best way to make sure that
I stayed on topic. I believe most readers are smart enough to have
caught those connections without my help.

take care!


Cori,
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23