Talk:Transpersonal psychology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Transpersonal occupations

Does anyone know what kind of fields one can go in with transpersonal psychology? Does the NHS recognize a need for transpersonal psychologists for instance? What ultimately do people end up doing after studying for their degree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.108.220 (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What can one do? Well, it's more of a personal development [thing], this [transpersonal psychology] is. One can always be a kind of Guide to/for other people, I suppose. So I would think it'll be helpful for Social Work of any kind, including Counseling, Psychotherapy, Psychiatry, and the likes. Mostly anything Psychology- or Humanity-related I guess. Be an [professional] Actor or Director or whatever. Artist-y stuff.

Here's a good relevant [to your inquiry] example of a career/job/profession most directly related to 'transpersonal psychology': http://www.catherineauman.com/

Hope that helps !

--fishly (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Other transpersonal studies

I have added a link to the a category entitled "Transpersonal Studies" to provide a context for this article, by indicating that there are transpersonal disciplines besides transpersonal psychology. ACEO 19:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Introductory Discussion: Science and the Transpersonal

Although I didnt intervene in the text (and think that other, more scientistically oriented approach is a welcome balance), a few things need to be said.

psychology of religion only partially intersects with TP. TP is concerned mainly with mysticism, and various PoR didnt give (at least it's not their central aim) satisfactory "maps of mind/spirit". TP is (for instance, Stan Grof or Assagioli) concerned with "universals" in transegoic existence, while the majority (say, more than 80%) of PoR stuff is still within ego bounds (from TP viewpoint)

also-physiological psychology and neurophysiology (PP) do not care much about the field of TP. "Altered states" for them, in fact, even do not exist. See for instance:http://skepdic.com/altstates.html

so, before changing the article further, I'd suggest at least 2 things: more serious and detailed criticism of TP from scientistic viewpoint (social and other branches wont do- and 'los transpersonales' only scoff at them. With success, because, as I see: TP is a growing presence, and, if not academically respectable enough, enormously more influential in everyday culture. One should just check amazon sales of Ken Wilber or Alan Combs (The Radiance of Being). Probably the most serious critique of TP would be a very simple observation: guys like Ken Wilber or Stanislav Grof (but not Assagioli or Maslow) are essentially not psychologists, but philosophers, or, more specifically-metaphysicians.

Later....M H (5 December 2003)

Probably the most serious critique of TP would be a very simple observation: guys like Ken Wilber or Stanislav Grof are essentially not psychologists, but philosophers, or, more specifically-metaphysicians.

• This is quite a biased statement. What psychologist is not also a metaphysician? Freud? Skinner? Piaget? Lacan? --goethean - (17 March 2004)

• My own view here is that Wilber could be seen as a theoretical psychologist (in the context of TP; Wilber has obviously made contributions applicable to other fields). He is obviously not an empirical psychologist, in that he doesn't engage in empirical research (unless you count his own extensive personal experience); however, just as physics has its experimentalists and theoreticians (with the latter trying to interpret and build models drawing on the data of the former) there's no reason why psychology shouldn't have theoreticians also. To call Wilber a 'philosopher' wouldn't be incorrect, in that many of his concerns draw on issues relating to various branches of philosophy, but his primary interest is in enhancing the capacity for human development - clearly a psychological motivation in my view. DoctorMartin 04:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with the scientistic critique suggested by MH is this: why should the, by definition, narrow "scientistic" viewpoint be privileged over the transpersonal one? TP as I understand it is concerned not with the study of mysticism, which is a philosophical endeavour, but with the study of the world as seen through transpersonal eyes. This study includes the science practiced from a TP perspective, as well as, and just as importantly, the phenomenology of the TP awareness. It is this TP awareness that such a psychology must take as its starting point. And since it must, then its course of study will necessarily be different from a scientistic one. How could a scientistic critique of TP be of any use? A scientistic critique of science is of no use! There is nothing unscientific about TP psychology -- Maslow (one of its founders by the way) was a consummate scientist AND philosopher -- but there is also nothing scientistic about it, which is a good thing. Moreover, there is nothing scientistic about the science that Einstein practiced. I mean this, of course, of TP as it is intended -- a psychology, not a mysticism in the soft sense of the word. JMF - (31 August 2004)

• Stanislav Grof M.D., Ph.D., was Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, and Chief of Psychiatric Research at the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, and contributed to an exceedingly large body of pioneering research that has most certainly helped shape our current understanding of consciousness and modern psychology. --Thoric 17:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Robert" Tart, not Charles?

This is a simple factual question about the entry. It refers to the schools of Maslow and Robert Tart. Could the author have been referring to Charles Tart? While Charles doesn't exactly have a "school" of thought around his work, I haven't been able to find anything on a Robert Tart. Can you clarify? Thanks, NMG - (11 October 2004)

• Evidently you are correct, an anonymous user made the change on 24 February2005. --Blainster 11:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• FYI CORRECTION: In one of his numerous capacities, Charles Tart is associated with the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology as a core faculty member. ITP was founded by Robert Frager and Jim Fadiman. RW 11 May2005

Forces in psychology

Transpersonal psychology is a school of psychology, considered by proponents to be the 'fourth force' in the field (after the first three: psychoanalysis, behaviorism, and humanism).

There seems to be some conflict over what is first- and second-force psychology. From what I learned, first-force psychology is everything, mainly academic and research oriented, before Freud's psychoanalytical theory. The second-force psychology would be Freud's method on using clinical and case studies. --Janarius 30 June 2005 03:36 (UTC)

• The line is perhaps incorrect. Transpersonal psychology is a (distinct) part of the non-Freudian humanist tradition, developing after the fashion of Maslow. In that case the three primary forces would be pre-Fredian, Freudian, and behavioral. Is this categorization into forces really that common, though? --Tarnas 30 June 2005 07:06 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure about the categorization, something for psychology historians, but i'll look into that. I argue that behaviorism would fit nicely into pre-freudian because of the methodologies used are considered empirical and reproducible (refer to first entry). Buuut, I'm not going to do anything irrational until there's some certainty.--Janarius 1 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)

Large re-edit

I have done a re-edit of the text to make it more comprehensive. I would take the opportunity to point out that large portions of this article is still unsupported by bibliographical references. The lack of formal references gives the text a compromised encyclopedic tonality. If the original contributor could provide more academic reference-material to the sections on criticisms and consciousness that would be fine.

--Hawol 5 July 2005 13:26 (UTC)

Problematic Wikipedia categorization: New Age

I am questioning the placement of Transpersonal Psychology under the Wikipedia category of "New Age" since many of the fields leading authors, among those Rowan (2005) and Sovatsky (1998), have discussed several problematical aspects of New Age semantics.

Reference:

Rowan, John (2005) The Transpersonal: Spirituality in Psychotherapy and Counselling. 2nd edition (Routledge 2005)

Sovatsky, Stuart (1998) Words from the Soul : Time, East/West Spirituality, and Psychotherapeutic Narrative (Suny Series in Transpersonal and Humanistic Psychology) New York: State University of New York Press

--Hawol 7 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)

• I agree very much with the above point. In fact, an important challenge transpersonal psychology faces in becoming well-established as an academic discipline is precisely to differentiate itself from the 'New Age'; it therefore seems mildly perverse to classify it under this category (even though I can see the likely reasoning behind this classification) DoctorMartin 03:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that the article is listed in the 'New Age' category. I'm not clear from this page whether there was there any final decision taken about whether it should be removed from this category or not, or whether it should be reopened for debate ? Jablett (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Although a TP goal may be to differentiate itself from New Age theory, it is a long way from achieving this goal. The point of the tag is to guide Wiki users. If a wiki user is looking for info on New Age theory, then they are likely going to be interested in this page. Dkriegls (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing section on the transpersonal view of self

All transpersonal psychologies, whatever their differences, share one basic theme: they claim that human beings possess a supraegoic centre of consciousness that is irreducible to any known state of empirical, or ordinary consciousness (sleep, waking state, ...). This root of consciousness (and human existence, for some schools) is frequently called "Self" (or "Higher Self"), in order to distinguish it from "self" or "ego", which is equated to the seat of ordinary everyday waking consciousness. However, they differ in the crucial traits they ascribe to the Self:

The supraegoic root of consciousness (the Self) survives bodily death in some transpersonal schools; for others, it dies with the body. For some, the Self is dormant and latent; for others, it is ever watchful and precedes empirical human consciousness. Some think that Self is mutable and potentially expandable; others aver that it is perfect and completely outside of spacetime, and that only "ego" is subject to temporal change.

---

Although this section (above) is highly relevant to the study of Transpersonal theory it tends to become a bit vague, mostly because it suffers from a lack of bibliographical references.I am however willing to re-include the section if we can identify these different transpersonal psychologies according to their different views of the Self. --Hawol 14:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• That whole section could be cut down to be more concise, but I don't see why it should be erased. Wikipedia articles don't need sources in the same way a reseach paper does, so that fact that a section lacks bibliographical backup doesn't mean it's inappropriate. It's nice to have sources, but not necessary, there's no pervasive precedent for it. Probably the thing to do here is to prune sourceless material into more managable segments and then search for source material that comments on—supports or contradicts—the already-written article copy, rather than erase it wholesale for lack of sources. --Tarnas 17:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with the notion that academical knowledge is not the only source of knowledge and that a lot of knowledge comes from sources outside an academical context I strongly believe that it is important to cite credible references when discussing a controversial topic. Even though the field of Transpersonal Psychology is a maturing field (as exemplified by its introduction into several institutional settings) that has contributed important insights to the the fields of psychology and psychiatry, it is still considered a controversial topic among some commentators. I therefore believe that it is crucial that the presentation of the field is elaborated with insights from academic discourse. I'm not saying that every sentence should cite a reference, only that it is preferrable if the overall context can be grounded in academic discourse or debate. I would therefore advise that the removed section, even though it contains important insights, is given some kind of academic grounding. If the article had been adressing a less controversial topic I would have been more wiling to include bibliographically unsupported material. I hope you can appreciate my position. I also believe that this practice is in tune with Wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources --Hawol 13:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• That makes sense. I don't consider transpersonal psychology controversial but I can see that it is to some, and that well-cited material would better dispel the urge to erase it as mumbo jumbo. But like I said, condensing unsupported copy is probably better than just erasing it, and in the meantime an effort should be made to find sources. Maybe I'll do some of that soon. But what's up with restructuring this discussion page so much? --Tarnas 20:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response to these problems related to the use of references. I believe we can find a solution to the situation so that the removed section can be re-integrated in the article. I believe the article has potential, and I believe that it is possible to present the field of Transpersonal Psychology to new readers in a credible and comprehensive fashion. I will therefore support the contribution of source-critical information that both reflect the support, and the criticisms of the field. --Hawol --193.216.89.146 20:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

once-born and twice-born

What are "once-born" and "twice-born" referred to in the article? Can someone add an explanation, or create an explanatory article? FT2 15:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see that these distinctions need a further elaboration. According to Alexander (1980) (see reference section) the distinction is as follows:

Transpersonal psychology views itself as an emerging "fourth force" in psychology which explores areas not currently examined within the contexts of behavioral, classical psychoanalytic, or humanistic psychology. Generally speaking, its proponents argue that we in the Western tradition must break the molds within which our views are formed and recognize that it is possible to expand our consciousness in such a manner as to exist more happily and healthily than has hitherto been possible for the majority of us. From James's point of view, this idea of consciousnessness as primarily good falls within the "once-born" category of individual. Psychologically, he observed, such persons can function quite well in 'the world, despite the fact that they fail to take evil adequately into account. For James it is the "twice-born, " or "sick soul, " who embodies the most comprehensive understanding of the nature of existence—a judgment which he makes, not on psychological grounds, but on the basis of philosophical assumptions.

This distinction is actually a bit complex, so instead of working it into the article I will try so simplify Alexanders critique of the (supposed) failure of early Transpersonal psychology to discuss the reality of evil.

--Hawol 12:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Translation of this article deleted in German Wiki

The interwiki links says that the article transpersonal psychology exists in the german wiki also. This is no longer valid. I translated this article into german. But the translated article was deleted in the german wiki by the administrators. It was argued that the article does not fit wikipedia quality standards. If so, shouldn't this article here be deleted also ? Any opinions ? Are there any inter-Wiki standards ? --Aquis 21:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, first of all. If this article does not fit the Wikipedia quality standards, then those standards must be very strict. I'm not quite sure what they mean by wikipedia quality standards. The article includes references from peer-reviewed journals and academical titles, as well as a critical section presenting the critics of Transpersonal Psychology. Both aspects are included in order to ensure that the article presents a balanced point of view. I believe those two points are crucial to the integrity of the article. --Hawol 13:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What it probably means is that the German Wikipedia is even more ideologically-driven than the English one, which is very depressing. Transpersonal psychology is a phenomenon that is accepted by the mainstream. It is described in undergraduate psychology books. So there is no basis for deleting this article, and an attempt to delete it wouldn't succeed. — goethean ॐ 16:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Strict (or ideologicaly driven): Yes that was also my impression and I tried to argue but it didn't help. "does not fit wikipedia quality standards" was my summarisation/synopsis here to avoid to translate the entire discussion. The main arguments were: "is esoteric/new age", "not scientific" and "Lemma/Definition: is not given" what means it is not explained in the first 3 or 4 sentences like: "Transpersonal Psychology is ...". Those who can understand german can read the discussion on my user page: Aquis. There was also an unsuccessful request for recovery. --Aquis 18:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Being not scientific or too new age has nothing to do with getting a wiki article. It has to do with being something real that needs a non biased description. Perhaps the field is not existent as such in Germany and your translation needs a "this is an American Thing" sort of bent. I would also add that you should get your translation checked by a non-biased translator (not making claims on you, just giving advice). Dkriegls (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am baffled by this discussion. I can only suppose some of the discussants don't read German. The article is there. It is short, clear, coherent, neutral (=not idealogically biased) and based on references that show its about an established field in Germany. It has the enormous merit not to indulge in the "many coinfusions and controversies still surrounding the field" (see line below). All in all: a better service to what Wiki wishes to become than other versions. --81.84.222.98 (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just looked at the article in the German Wikipedia and saw that it does indeed have an article on transpersonal psychology, albeit one shorter than many articles in the English Wikipedia. I tried to add that William James was the first psychologist to use the term "transpersonal" but I am not sure that my edit got saved - if it did not, it is probably a good thing because my German is not very good (English is my mother tongue). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

External links

Given the many confusions and controversies still surrounding the field of Transpersonal Psychology, as recently illustrated by the removal of the article from the German wikipedia, I believe it is best to reserve the External Links section for academical references. I have therefore removed the link to the Star Stuff site. --Hawol 15:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Institutions of higher learning

I have removed the following institutions from the main page: John F. Kennedy University (US), Saybrook Institute (US), Naropa University (US) and Liverpool John Moores University (UK). Although scholars associated with these institutions have been affiliated with Transpersonal psychology, I have not yet investigated wether these universities actually have academic programs in Transpersonal psychology. Therefore I am removing this information until we can establish that the mentioned institutions have a stronger connection to the transpersonal paradigm. --Hawol 15:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hawol, I can confirm that Liverpool John Moores university certainly has an academic program in Transpersonal Psychology, in fact they arguably have the strongest UK programs in TP. In addition to undergraduate courses, they provide a very strong Masters degree in 'Consciousness and Transpersonal Psychology', and also supervise PhD research. The head of department - Professor Brian Lancaster - is the first UK professor to hold a chair specifically in transpersonal psychology. Lancaster was also until recently chair of the Transpersonal Section of the British Psychological Society. His colleague Dr Michael Daniels is also a significant figure involved in the academic development of TP in the UK. Here is a useful link: http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/Psychology/80007.htm. I'll therefore reinstate LJM onto the list.DoctorMartin 22:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Liverpool John Moores University did have a Master's in Transpersonal Psychology, but it has now closed down. There is still a Master's in Transpersonal Psychology at the University of Northampton. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right I'm afraid - a great loss as it was a vibrant program which was both academically and spiritually powerful. Requiascet in Pacem. DoctorMartin (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Confusing

I think the article is confusing. The intro needs a complete rewrite; it uses vague terms (transcendent, self-development, ego-boundaries, humanity's highest potential, fourth force, psyche) and reads like a nonsensical philosophy discussion. It should clearly state what transpersonal psychology is. Pcu123456789 05:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you found the article confusing. Would you please describe in more detail exactly which sections you found confusing and why? I think this would enable those who would like to help clarify the page to better address your concerns. Also, I would like to add that for me the terms you mention from the intro are not vague at all but rather very specific and meaningful.Sarahstoune 08:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's useful to get your feedback on this, though I'm inclined to agree with the above user that the technical terms such as 'transcendent' are pretty well accepted within the field of spirituality, theology etc.. Some of the other terms you mention, 'self-development' 'ego-boundaries' 'psyche' are all standard terms within psychology generally, not just transpersonal psychology. All of the above terms do actually have fairly precise technical definitions within the fields of psychology and theology. They may seem 'vague' if you don't know the definitions, but exactly the same criticism could be made of technical terms in other disciplines - e.g. in physics terms such as 'entropy' 'high energy physics' 'quarks' might seem unclear if you don't know the definitions. However, I do think your comment deserves serious consideration, as it could well be a sign that this article - although possibly helpful for someone with a background in psychology - may not be so accessible for the general reader. I do have some sympathy with the criticism that you feel you don't have a clear statement of 'exactly what transpersonal psychology is' - though this is notoriously difficult to provide in a way which isn't overly simplistic. In general conversation I sometimes say transpersonal psychology is "very roughly" the psychology of spiritual experience - but this not only begs the question of what 'spiritual' is, but is also rather incomplete for other reasons. However, I do think that the article as a whole does give a reasonable flavour, even for the more general reader, about what constitutes the field of transpersonal psychology - especially the 'research interests' heading. But perhaps some contributors could consider ways of making the article (or parts of it) more accessible to the general reader (while still of course keeping those contributions which are perhaps aimed at a more specialist audience). DoctorMartin 11:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

References format

A definite improvement would be if the references in the article used the citation templates so as to be hyperlinked to the corresponding entries in the "References" section. So much easier for the reader: you can click on a ref to see what it is, then the browser's back button takes you back to the text. As things stand, you have to scroll down, locate the ref, then find your way back to where you left the text. Too much like a paper article :)

Try this: [1] ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for related project group

I wonder how many people who read this article will be interested in my proposal, which you can find on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COUNCIL/P#Transpersonal_Studies? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Movement

This isn't really a field of psychology, since it has so little empirical evidence to back it up. I don't think it should be listed as a major subfield of psychology at all, its kind of like a black sheep of the psychology family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crubes 08:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.251.101.107 (talk)

I'm afraid I have to disagree! Certainly in the UK transpersonal psychology these days is fully accepted as a valid field of psychology within the professional body, the British Psychological Society. There are several UK professors of transpersonal psychology, well-established Masters Degrees and people doing PhD research in the field within well respected psychology departments. I agree some aspects of transpersonal psychology aren't easily supported by experimental evidence (though others are - e.g. the increasing body of evidence as to the clinical efficacy of mindfulness meditation). But one of the fastest growing aspects of psychology is the increasing importance of qualitative research evidence - for example, discursive psychology. It is actually impossible to get a psychology degree qualifying for further training as a psychologist in the UK now unless you have done a degree which contains training in qualitative as well as quantitative research. There is significant empirical evidence using qualitative data which supports aspects of transpersonal theory (as well as those aspects supported by experimental evidence, such as the one I mentioned above, and the many experimental studies examining the effects of different types of meditation, for example). So I don't think there's any reasonable case for removing transpersonal psychology as a subfield of psychology. DoctorMartin (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Transpersonal experience

The article Transpersonal experience has been tagged for notability and sourcing since October, 2007. I am making this comment in April, 2010, so presumably if anyone could have developed it to the point where it was notable, or at least added one single reference to support it they would have done so in the intervening 2 years. So I have changed it to a re-direct to Transpersonal psychology. Of course if anyone feels like rewriting it to a real article they have my support. Trilobitealive (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What on earth is this stuff about Lord Sri Akshunna, whose English is apparently far from perfect anyway? This comes without any introduction, and is at most hearsay, presuming that such a person exists: the Wiki on him is similarly obscure or esoteric. Again, why should he be privileged as a commentator? I write as one with experience of clairvoyance; clairaudience; telepathy; clairsentience, precognition and Samadhi, presently finishing degrees including psychology at the University of Canberra, also a Golden Key Hon. Soc. member, so i am not a total buffoon or sceptic: but this is not good enough! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchimself (talk • contribs) 05:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That "Transpersonal Experience" redirects here, perhaps a section by that name is in order. Is not something of a generally accepted list of TP experiences in existence-- from an academic psychological perspective?

I note that ecstasies were mentioned, but not visions; OBE's are in the "see also" but have my doubts about the relationship, whereas I could support a NDE as such an experience which is also included in the listing. I can foresee the pitfalls (or, perhaps, landmines) of such a list within his article, but as the proper place for such a list redirects here...

Ideas?

I'll start: I submit that the "Transpersonal Experience" article be resurrected, and include a list of experiences appropriate to the field of TP Psychology and headed as such (with the understanding that other perspectives may include different lists within that article as needed).

--cregil (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Foundational work of R.M. Bucke

The article's section on Development starts with the following two sentences:

"Amongst the thinkers who are held to have set the stage for transpersonal studies are William James, Carl Jung, Abraham Maslow, and Roberto Assagioli (Miller, 1998: 541-542.) Research by Vich (1988) suggests that the earliest usage of the term "transpersonal" can be found in lecture notes which William James had prepared for a semester at Harvard University in 1905-6."

I believe mention of the contributions of Richard Bucke (Richard Maurice Bucke) should be seriously considered along with James, Jung, Maslow, and Assagioli. Have a look at the Wikipedia article in order to recall who this nineteenth-century Canadian psychiatrist was and what his life work entailed. In The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James quoted a draft passage that Bucke soon edited and included in his own famous book Cosmic Consciousness. Bucke's writing was quoted often in the early transpersonal psychology literature (1980s & '70s). Joel Russ (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Bucke ( Richard_Bucke ) should probably be mentioned, yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.246.237 (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This page has been praised

I have just been at the 2011 conference of the Transpersonal Section of the British Psychological Society, where this article was praised! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So that is good to know - that an article has been praised by a member of a body which would represent people knowledgeable about subject! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Transpersonal Psychology can be defined as Parapsychology - that's why quacks like Charles T. Tart and David Fontana have embraced it with open arms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.15.206 (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi 95.148.15.206, the Talk page is for discussing the article. In what way would you like to change the article? Lova Falk talk 13:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's to do with spiritualism, the article and subject matter should be transferred to parapsychology, it's on the verge of quackery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.15.206 (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to transfer the content of this article to the Parapsychology-article. Transpersonal Psychology is an independent field of study, with different epistemological tools than Parapsychology. There is even a Textbook of Transpersonal Psychology and Psychiatry (Published by Basic Books), an Institute of Transpersonal Psychology, a peer-reviewed Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, and a Transpersonal Psychology Section within The British Psychological Society.--Hawol (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur completely with everything that Hawol has said. Transpersonal psychology is a very distinct field from parapsychology, they are not at all the same in their focus and methodology. (And the fact that you used the term 'spiritualism' to describe transpersonal psychology shows I'm afraid that you have a very limited grasp of what this discipline encompasses). I should also add that I find some of the comments above rather offensive. If you have substantive critiques to make, by all means make them, this is how human knowledge is extended. But merely throwing the term 'quack' at individuals you disagree with, is simply offensive, particularly when applied to those two individuals above. I have read enough of Charles Tart's material to respect the quality of the mind behind it. And as for the late David Fontana, he was very widely respected indeed by professional psychologists from all disciplines (in the UK and worldwide). He played a significant role in the governance of the UK professional body, the British Psychological Society (of which he was a Fellow), was a full professor at Cardiff University for many years, and made substantial contributions to educational psychology, the psychology of religion, and transpersonal psychology. By all means put forward substantive criticisms, if you wish, and develop a dialogue. But simply throwing the name 'quack' at such a highly-respected academic does you no credit. DoctorMartin (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Embedded lists

I don't see any problems with embedded lists in this article anymore. I propose to remove the tag.--Hawol (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree - I support your proposal Depthdiver (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

section "Use of Buddhist concepts", some thoughts

Quote: --- Use of Buddhist concepts From the standpoint of Buddhism and Dzogchen, Elías Capriles [89] [90][91] has objected that transpersonal psychology fails to distinguish between the transpersonal condition of nirvana, which is inherently liberating, those transpersonal conditions which are within samsara and which as such are new forms of bondage (such as the four realms of the arupyadhatu or four arupa lokas of Buddhism, in which the figure-ground division dissolves but there is still a subject-object duality), and the neutral condition in which neither nirvana nor samsara are active that the Dzogchen teachings call kun gzhi, in which there is no subject-object duality but the true condition of all phenomena (dharmata) is not patent (and which includes all conditions involving nirodh or cessation, including nirodh samapatti, nirvikalpa samadhis and the samadhi or turiya that is the supreme realization of Patañjali's Yoga darshana). In the process of elaborating what he calls a meta-transpersonal psychology, Capriles has carried out conscientious refutations of Wilber, Grof and Washburn, which according to Macdonald & Friedman [92] will have important repercussions on the future of transpersonal psychology. ---

This part seems very confused to me. The use of terms such as "transpersonnal nirvana" and "the neutral condition [...] kun hzhi" seems hasardeaous. 1: To my knowledge there is in no way concept of "transpersonnal Nirvana" in Buddhism. Nirvana is at first, a personnal experience. So how could such experience be truelly transpersonnal ? The experience of Nirvana by two behing could be the same experience and so there is a comon experience which is a transpersonnal factor but it is not to condition sine qua non for a true "transpersonnal Nirvana" *** 2: If this experience of Nirvana could be "located", like stocked, in the transpersonnal space, the problem is not it's existence or it's non existence but it's accessibility. Having the ingredients and even the recipe to cook a cake doesn't tell you where is oven or how big it is. Thus, mixing a concept of "Transpersonnal" and "Nirvana" has nothing to do with Buddhism view but has to do with analitycal philosophi. It is like trying to compare two painting by only considering their weight. It has nothing to do with the art of painting. 3: Mixing a Buddist view (wihch is, here, not related to a modelisation) with a transpersonnal modeling, has to be done with correct links which would effectively link the two things in a correct way. If you try to link a tailoring thread with a needle by rolling the thread around the needly, you won't be able to tailor anything. 4: Dzogchen IS NOT Buddhism! Mixing the view of Dzogchen and the view of Buddhism is terribly wrong in most cases even if they share some common points and may be linked one to another, they are not the same "matters". Anyway, if trying to make links (which would be out of both Dzogchen and Buddhism tradionnal (and historical?!) perspective) it is eventually possible to create a kind of brigde which could be of some use for other perspectives of view:

About: "and the neutral condition in which neither nirvana nor samsara are active that the Dzogchen teachings call kun gzhi" From the Dzogchen perspective, (resumed) Nirvana is present since the beginnings but the consciouness needed to experience Nirvana is not recognised, thus Nirvana could be searched "in the socks" or "in the skies", without the correct consciouness to experience it, there would be no possibility to experience it. Thus, kun gzhi is also a state where the consciouness needed to experience Nirvana is not active. Said another way, kun gzhi is also a kind of ignorance. At least, ignorance of the knowledge and/or (and, or, or and&or!) experience of the consciouness which is needed to experience Nirvana. Knows that even if such consciouness manifest it is not necessary permanent! Thus, if Nirvana could be experienced by luck while for a little time the consciouness needed is here, if this consciouness is not stable, Nirvana would disapear quickly!

About "kun gzhi is a condition [...]"in which there is no subject-object duality but the true condition of all phenomena (dharmata) is not patent [...]"": Here again, the problem is also about not having the right tool to meet a phenomena. But the sentence quoted here is like saying "there is electricity anywere in the univers"... Well okay, but without a volt-meter what's the point ?

Thus what relate to kun gzhi and Nirvana or (what i understood to be) a "transpersonnal Nirvana", relate to the cause of non Nirvana. Here is (philosophicaly said) "once again", the trouble of the reflections but also where stand the key point. I may (possibly) explain a bit if comments and critizisms to this text show interrests anyway, may be i was really out of topic but if not the case: the mixings made in the quoted paragraph are totally out of any traditionnal and knowledgeable understanding. It looks to me like trying to play with anything and all and hoping to create the philosophical stone with such ingredients poor into a mixer for instant results. Technically, such alchemy always end up with a soapy goo.

If anyone dares to link the Rigpa state with the Jhana states uncorrectly, may this entity be oath bound for 50k years of Philosophical teachings and tradionnal practices!

-ODVL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.0.185.176 (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this section (Capriles and criticism) could possibly benefit from a re-write. I don't know wether the original contributor of this material is still in touch with the article, but if so I encourage him/her to simplify the criticism of Capriles in terms that are more understandable to the layman, or a person not familiar with the sophisticated interpretations (hermeneutics) of Buddhism. That said, the original input, which is (after all) based on credible sources, is appreciated.--Hawol (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Worse than confused, it's inappropriate, and as it's been six years since Hawol commented here, I moved "Use of Buddhist Contents" into 'Other Criticisms" and took out all the bits about the details of Buddhism, at least as described by Capriles. The most important part is that there is criticism that Buddhist concepts are misused. The original unsigned comment above, analyzes disagreements one by one, but 1. I'm not sure whether the issues are just the article section's author, or Elias Caprile himself. 2. I don't see Caprile's notability besides the fact that he wrote these critical books from a (Tibetan?) Buddhist perspective. There is no reason to go into the details here, especially since they are all from the perspective of Buddhism, with no refutation by tranpersonal psychologists. I kept the citation from Harris Friedman and Douglas MacDonald, which makes the general mention of Caprile's Buddhist criticism notable, but not the details. It is only as notable as the "Other Criticism" Tumacama (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

discipline distinguished by its unique underlying theory not unique objects of study?

IMHO non transpersonal psychologists (as well as lay people) are well aware of phenomena of religious conversion, peak experience, altered states of consciousness etc. They just explain these in "reductionist" terms that don't involve spirituality, transcendental, life force and other modern shamanism under cloak of science; preferring terms like motivation, sensory overload, double bind etc. So transpersonal psychology seems notable and distinct in their inquiries' theoretical framework rather than their object. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be overlapping interests with other disciplines...I agree. Ferrer actually integrated a lot of insights from Religious Studies into his Transpersonal theory in his landmark book "Revisioning Transpersonal Theory". --Hawol (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"cloak of science" sounds derogatory. Actually almost all of psychology uses "black box" ideas, including Personality- and they do that kind of science in the form of statistically analyzed questionnaires. The scientific method-bound Behaviorism has been rejected almost entirely from clinical psychology, with perhaps the exception of severe autism. Cognitive Behavioral approaches, including therapy CBT, were formulated specifically rejecting Radical Behaviorism, and insisting on taking into account unmeasurables like Cognition,(sometimes very specifically cognition). Until there's measurable evidence on how neurochemical and electrical impulses translate into thoughts and/or feelings; "motivation","cognition", and so forth are no more scientific than "soul" or "lifeforce". I accept your overall point that other psychologists tend to use more reductionist, and materialist terminology, I simply reject the premise that their approaches depend any less under a "cloak of science".

In this context, I'm sorta defending Transpersonal Psychology, but at the same time, I am insisting the the entire field of Psychology is suspect. Most science only accepts statistical significance at 5% (A p-value less than 0.05 (typically ≤ 0.05) is statistically significant. It indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis, as there is less than a 5% probability the null is correct) Whereas Psychologists accept 10%, a p-value of 0.10, otherwise the majority of findings would have to be thrown out! In contrast, Transpersonal psychologists generally reject more of the very premise of the scientific method. While "non-transpersonal" psychologists are "aware" of altered states, peak experiences and religious conversion (I assume you meant a conversion from atheism or agnosticism), they do not design experiments in these subjects. The don't address these subjects, because they cling to the hypothesis that much of the mind (and therefore spirit) is contained in neurological processes, While these processes cannot be measured today, they assume in the future, if perhaps far future, they will be. The result is that Transpersonal psychologists ARE notable and distinct in subject matter, as well as theoretical framework. Tumacama (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you make some good points very well here, and I largely agree. While I would agree about problems with reliability of experimental evidence in psychology (and social sciences more generally), I do have to take issue with the comment that 'Most science accepts statistical significance at 5% p value whereas in psychology it is 10%'. I've taught on one of the UK's largest degree programmes in psychology for 25 years, and I can definitely assert that psychology too as a discipline also holds the significance threshold at 5% (i.e. p-value less than 0.05). There may well be some individual researchers who use a looser threshold, but it's certainly not the threshold experimental psychology generally holds to. Notwithstanding this, there are some serious questions in experimental psychology about the repeatability of apparently 'well established' results, so psychology does have questions to answer. But it's not a p-value of 10%! Apart from this one issue, I thought your points were very well made, and I am pretty much of the same mind. I might add - to develop one of your points further - that the materialist viewpoint that neurological processes which can't be measured today, are assumed to be measurable in some possibly distant future, is itself a faith position. It's remarkably easy for scientists - well everyone really - to end up with a set of beliefs which harden into a fundamentalist religion based on blind faith - rather than science as a method of enquiry, completely open as to outcomes, driven only by evidence. (Of course what counts as 'evidence' is a key epistemological distinction between most transpersonal psychologists and a mainstream materialist scientist). DoctorMartin (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)