Talk:Holotropic Breathwork

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Holotropic Breathwork article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This page is almost a direct copy of the About Page on the external link given... what is the license on the source work?

I can see only a superficial resemblence. The article will use the same jargon words and so appear similar.

I agree to he merger of the 2 wikipedia articles Lumos3 15:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Merging pages

I have merged the page Holotropic into this page. Take note that there is some discussion on the other page's Talk page that might be of interest. I have also tried to reformulate some of the text so that it won't be seen as making unreferenced claims__meco 10:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion to NPOV criticism

The criticism section was neutrally worded, but the edit on 21 Sept by Lgib was not. Articles should maintain a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I have reverted to the earlier version, and noted the controversy in Line 1.Jedermann 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverted to NPOV criticism again. The criticism section is fully referenced at present. Lgib's paragraph is not, and appears to be an expression of personal opinion about why Breathwork attracts criticism. Discuss here first. Jedermann 13:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Following the anonymous edit on 20 October, I have reverted to NPOV criticism. More edits to follow in due course. The Communicator 17:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________

Some proposed references to flesh out the criticism section:

- Grof discusses at some length the way that he believes Holotropic Breathwork challenges traditional understandings of the physiological and psychological effects of the ‘hyperventilation syndrome’ in his article “Physical Manifestations of Emotional Disorders” (‘Exploring Holotropic Breathwork’, 2003, Kylea Taylor, editor, publ: Hanford Mead) see [1] for a summary. Since more than one of the criticisms cite the dangers of hyperventilation, this is a key area.

- The whole mystical experience vs psychosis/breakdown/brain disfunction argument probably needs teasing out in its own section, perhaps looking at Grof’s theory of ‘spiritual emergency’. There’s loads of stuff about this on the internet, but a starting point for NPOV might be ‘‘Spiritual Emergency’ – a useful explanatory model?: A Literature Review and Discussion paper” by Dr. Patte Randal and Dr. Nick Argyle on the royal college of psychiatrist’s website: [2]

- I think the final paragraph of this article is misleading. It appears to be a criticism of a research proposal for the use of MDMA in PTSD, on the basis that it is supported by people who practise Holotropic Breathwork, rather than a criticism of Holotropic Breathwork per se. The study referred to here, which does, indeed, reference Holotropic Breathwork in the research proposal, has been fully approved and is currently underway: see [3] Jablett 16:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've contextualised this paragraph now --Jablett 10:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
WP wants ascertainable and supported facts - these are provided in the Criticism section. Editors' opinions about critics' motives are at best Original Research, at worst POV: both are non-WP. Jedermann 16:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I have reinstated the offending paragraph, in view of the reference to HB as "a potentially dangerous form of severe hyperventilation". I think the reference to MDMA is also relevant, given Grof's own background in LSD and MDMA experimentation (until these were made illegal), and his link with Doblin (as made clear in the quote from Sampson). Given this background, HB should be seen in the context of psychedelic psychotherapy, and criticisms made of the latter may often pertain to the former. The Communicator 15:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriateness of the term 'controversial' in relation to HB

The use of the term 'controversial' seems unquestionable in the light of the following:

1. The decision of the Findhorn Foundation to drop HB in the light of the critical report commissioned by the Scottish Charities Office.

2. The negative press reports attendant upon number 1 above.

3. The critical remarks in a number of published books.

4. The evidently controversial way in which my original NPOV critical section has been edited and re-edited.

The Communicator 14:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Constant removal of the 'controversial' tag amounts to vandalism. Jedermann 15:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In this instance it is not agreed. The use of the term "controversial" demonstrates one of many flaws in the article, but we can use it as an exemplar:

1)The term 'controversial' was based upon limited examples, some expressing mere differences of personal practice and opinion. In the Findhorn example the writer ignores the fact that the Findhorn Foundation was already at logger-heads with the local Findhorn population before Grof did his workshop there.

That may be, but one of the most strident critics of HB (Kate Thomas) was not a native of Findhorn, and had only recently moved to the area because of the Foundation. Her criticisms had nothing to do with residing in the neighbouring town of Forres, but were based on her own experiences in the field of "metaphysics", as documented in her autobiography. Similarly, the report by Professor Anthony Busuttil had nothing to do with the residents of Findhorn or Forres. The Communicator 15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

2)Many of the critics quoted employ unorthodox practices. Accordingly, the criticism selected seems to reflect more a hidden "power politics" agenda borne by the writer.

Please clarify! What are the "unorthodox practices"? Your reference to power politics on my part is a supposition. The Communicator 15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

3)The term 'controversial' is more suited to use in a newspaper coverage. It is an emotive, parochial, loose term that has too many potential interpretations for good or ill and is on that account not suited to an encyclopaedic article.

See Controversy: "A controversy is a matter of opinion or dispute over which parties actively argue, disagree or debate. Controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements." As the above article indicates, many Wikipedia entries explicitly employ the term in their titles (e.g. Stem cell controversy). The Communicator 15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

4) The use of the term 'controversial' as bearing a negative bias in this instance becomes apparant in the whole tone of the article. For example, the article claims that Grof admits that HB is "experimental"", but fails to follow the main thrust of his point which is that it is experimental in the context of self-discovery. The article also attempted to make it appear by selective mis-quotation that Grof was privately conducting psychological experiments. This, at best, demonstrated a lack of familiarity with his approach and conflicted with information given elsewhere in the article.

The criticisms address HB on more than one level. From a scientific point of view, HB is experimental, and the context is not relevant. In the context of "self-discovery" HB is criticised by Castro, Shepherd and Thomas (and, by the way, implicitly by Meher Baba in God in a pill? - which strongly criticises the use of psychedelics for "self-discovery", before Grof was forced to switch to hyperventilation). The Communicator 15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The author (UTC?)employs negatively selective examples, misrepresentations and misquotations but does not give reasons, preferring to make it appear as if the article was written neutrally. Possibly, the only way that this can be resolved is to hand over the article to a University. Until then, the article will be replaced. (MAJ)

MAJ, your comments contain a number of inaccuracies (including the unwarranted accusation of misquotation), which I address below, under "Criticism section too long". If you have anything to say, say it here first, rather than vandalising the criticism section. Also, if you feel the article is unbalanced, you can augment the sections before and after the criticism section, most of which were not written by me (with the two exceptions listed below). For all of these reasons, I am reinstating Jablett's version of 29 December, which includes the reference inadvertently removed by you. The Communicator 15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Interest

Dear Steve Castro, aka The Communicator. "You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether or not your citation is an appropriate one, and defer to the community's opinion." See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Minehunter 12:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Minehunter, I am not Steve Castro, have not published any books, and therefore can declare that there is no such conflict of interest. Furthermore, I provided my own credentials some time ago (I note that you have not done the same) - I have added to that information today, which I hope will serve to distinguish me from Steve Castro and anyone else cited in the HB article. The Communicator 14:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
In which case, Communicator I apologise unreservedly. My credentials, or lack of them, are already posted below. I continue the dialogue below under Kevin Shepherd reference. Minehunter 16:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Shepherd reference

There is extensive discussion questioning the reputability of Kevin Shepherd's work, which is self published, on the following wikipedia page: [[4]]. I vote that the relevant paragraph and reference be removed.--Jablett 18:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I imagine that the Steven Castro works are similarly self-published too. Minehunter 14:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - see below. Thanks for the reference to [[5]], where I have posted the following data. Jedermann 15:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Jedermann, you seem very well versed in this subject. Thank-you for your diligence, although I have not changed my mind - a vanity publication is still a vanity publication, even if it does get picked up elsewhere. Could you throw any light on the interesting co-incidence that Kate Thomas's real surname, so I am informed, is "Shepherd"? Minehunter 13:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This subject has been dealt with by Shepherd himself in a recent publication (Pointed Observations: Critical Reflections of a Citizen Philosopher on Contemporary Pseudomysticism, Alternative Therapy, David Hume, Spinoza, and Other Subjects, Citizen Initiative, 2005, 210-11). The Communicator 15:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I know no more about HB than any reader of this article can glean - and considerably more since the criticism section was added to the original unreferenced sales pitch. Serious concerns about safety, efficacy, competence to practice, and commercial interests have been raised, and should remain till disproven. Interesting that proponents offer no evidence to counter the concerns, but just remove caveats and criticism. And now they're so desperate they're trying to personalize the issue, instead of debating the evidence. Jedermann 19:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Jedermann, For the record I am not a proponent of HB, and I am absolutely in favour of healthy debate, critiques etc. I imagine those who are proponents will seek to counter the critiques as best they can. I assume that some of the genuinely independent criticisms will stand on the page. However, I do have concerns when I suspect that repeated interpolations on an article are from a small self-serving clique of individuals. This does not make the concerns invalid of course, but it is skewing the debate. I can approach any high street bookseller and find either copies of books by S. Grof, or fairly easily order them. I doubt the same can be said of Castro, Thomas and Shepherd. It is not that I am trying to personalise the issue per se, but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it is becoming hard to believe that we are not witnessing violiations of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and entries that are not far off {db-bio}. I cannot produce evidence of a negative, but I am prepared to state unequivocally that no publication of mine is referred to in any way above or on the article page, nor have I ever published any work on the subject or made any prior Wikipedia edit on it save those above. If you can say the same then I shall continue to assume good faith. Minehunter 11:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Minehunter, please see my reply to you in the 'Conflict of Interest' section above. For the record, I originally undertook to add the criticism section to this article. This was my first Wikipedia edit, and I was not asked by anybody to do it. I have a longstanding interest in the subject. As a measure of my concern I might mention that in 1994 I corresponded directly with Prof. Busuttil and Doctor Watt on the subject, having read about their criticisms. I also corresponded with the Scottish Charities Office at this time, and other medical authorities in 1995. I retain copies of all this correspondence, as well as newspaper articles. There is no conflict of interest regarding my editing of this article, although I am obviously sympathetic to the critics' position. For me, this is an ongoing work. I think that the original article was economical with the facts, either published by Grof himself or by the critics. Since WP is becoming a first point of reference for many people, I thought that these facts needed to be made known. I have recently added some quotes from Grof himself. If there is anything good to be said for HB, let those who would defend it come forward. The Communicator 15:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Communicator (somehow ‘Dear The Communicator’ does not sound right), here is where I think we agree.

1) HB is ‘contoversial’.

2) Those who do support it could assist by providing supplementary information about its merits, and it is (I think we agree) a little surprising that so far they have not done so. Perhaps they are timid souls who are put off by our robust debating style.

3) There are without doubt professional criticisms to be levelled at the practice which deserve an airing in a serious encyclopedia.

Here is where I think we disagree.

a) So far as I know neither Castro nor Thomas are professional clinicians and their thoughts do not, in my view, merit lengthy inclusions in the article. I am not sure what to think about Mr. Shepherd. Whatever his merits it seems a controversial subject in and of itself.

b) As a critic of the practice you may hold views which are antithetical to it. As a contributor to an encyclopedia it should surely be the case that you place those views to one side and seek to create a balanced article. I believe the article is increasingly skewed heavily in one direction. In fairness you have added various quotes from Grof, but nonetheless I hope you take the point.

c) I would be more convinced that these criticisms were worthy of lengthy elaboration if they were recent, more noteworthy or not simply cautionary. All bar one of the critical references are ten years old or more. None are from newspapers, magazines, academic publications, or works offered by mainstream publishers. Even more impressive would be documented cases of actual harm to practitioners of HB, as opposed to the (perhaps quite reasonable) fears of the same.

I really don’t want to get involved in editing pages whose subject matter I am not qualified to discuss, or even especially interested in, but I hope you will bear the above in mind. I am doing my best to provide balance rather than input and potential edit wars, but award myself low marks so far. Minehunter 16:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Minehunter, thank you for your comments. You raise some interesting issues, and I will endeavour to respond in those areas where you find disagreement:
a) I don't think that criticism needs to be limited to "clinical" factors. After all, Grof has made all sorts of claims in connection with HB which are really of a "spiritual" or "metaphysical" nature. Moreover, beliefs of this kind are evidently held by those who choose to undergo HB. The criticisms by Shepherd, Thomas and Castro all address the subject at this level, as well as referring to the reports by clinicians. Thomas claims to have significant experience in this field. Clinical factors are important, of course, since they are scientific and therefore the basis on which bodies such as the Scottish Charities Office make decisions. As for the "length" of the inclusions, who is to say what is of relevance to an audience? WP is not constrained in the manner of a traditional paper publication. I have only written what I believe to be essential (and relevant) in order to do justice to the critics - some readers may appreciate that level of detail. I trust that the ongoing editing of earlier sections will make the overall article look more balanced. Which brings me to ...
b) I agree that the article is skewed, particularly with regard to length of sections. The original article (not created by me) was scanty. The whole thing needs to be expanded, but I have been assuming that this would be done by someone else (perhaps the originator). I have recently considered fleshing out the earlier sections myself, and I could probably do it (I possess a number of Grof's books), but it will take some time.
c) Just as the criticisms need not be limited to clinical factors, so the dates of "metaphysical" criticisms seem less relevant than those of clinical ones. After all, that is in their nature: if HB was spiritually bad ten years ago, then it remains so, and will remain so. For instance, in the 1960s Meher Baba strongly criticised the use of hallucinogenics, even for supposedly "spiritual" purposes. His statements were gathered together in a pamphlet entitled God in a pill? Those criticisms are as relevant today as they were then and, indeed, could be applied to Grof even in his HB phase (since we are basically talking about changes to brain chemistry here). Nevertheless, I do have more recent publications and I will get to them in due course. As yet, I am not aware of more recent clinical studies, but I will look into that.
On a more personal note, since you say that you are "not qualified to discuss, or even especially interested in" the subject, what brings you to this role? I'm not sure what you mean by your "credentials" - I have entered mine under my username.
See also my comments about self-publishing below. The Communicator 17:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Minehunter, My previous reply answered you before you questioned my good faith: "I know no more about HB than any reader of this article can glean". I would have thought that makes it sufficiently plain that I cannot have published on the subject, nor could I be any of the authors cited here. Nor am I a sock-puppet for The Communicator, who is as unknown to me as I am to him. My previous edits on HB are all listed on the history page, where you will see they are confined to clarifications, and removal of unreferenced opinions about critics and their motives. I have no idea what {db-bio} is, but I am amazed that an editor with ostensibly no editing history can be so confident about WP policy in this area. However, you misrepresent Kevin Shepherd, as he appears to have consistently been involved in self publishing, for reasons clearly stated in his books, not vanity publishing. His titles are easily available from Amazon.co.uk and Blackwells online. I stopped shopping for new books in bookshops long ago, but a phone call to my local Waterstone's revealed they do not have Grof in stock. Instead of worrying about the "reputability" of Kevin Shepherd, and a non-existent "self-serving clique" in this article, you need to consider the objectivity and connexions of aggressive attempts to prevent access to any and all historically-grounded, well-articulated scholarly criticism of highly controversial subjects, such as Sathya Sai Baba. Jedermann 11:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Jedermann, I accept your statements about yourself without reservation. On the other hand, I think the distinction you make between self and vanity publishing is not especially relevant. (Wikipedia itself states "Self-publishing is sometimes difficult to differentiate from "vanity publishing""). I find it hard to imagine that you are seriously suggesting that the works of Grof and Shepherd have a similar profile in the world at large.

I also draw your attention to WP:RS which says.

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book.
Minehunter, this is a complex matter. First, "difficult to differentiate" does not equate to "the same thing". Furthermore, having worked in bookselling and publishing for a number of years, I am well aware of the factors involved in publishing and marketing books. It is a commercial exercise, even in the case of academic publications. I am not denying that there is a level of professionalism associated with major publishing houses, but here, as elsewhere, a critical attitude needs to be maintained. WP notes some very good reasons for self-publishing, including the retention of editorial control. Returning to the authors in question, whether self-published or not, it is clear when they are expressing their own opinions, and equally clear when they are citing others. As far as I am aware, none of them claims to be an "expert" and, indeed, they all appear to be quite humble with regard to their abilities. Shepherd's books are unusual in content and I can well imagine how difficult it would be for publishers and booksellers to classify them. On the other hand, books about the tarot, the I Ching, astrology, UFOs, kundalini, etc. appear to have no problem finding large publishing houses, and large markets. Does that make them reputable? I don't think so. I can understand the reason for caution in WP, but it seems to me that some flexibility is required with regard to interpretation of the rules here. The Communicator 17:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The Communicator I entirely agree, and should have been more specific by referring to the Motives paragraph in Self-publishing, which underlines the need for the flexibility that you ask for:
"Publishers must be confident of sales of several thousand copies to take on a book. An otherwise worthy book may not have this potential for any number of reasons ...". Jedermann 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


{db-bio} is simply a speedy delete tag reserved for articles which are “about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject.” This, as you can see above, approximates my view on the series of references to Castro, Thomas and perhaps also Shepherd.

I am not going to deny that I have edited WP before with another user name. This is not ideal, but I take refuge in this policy. I fear you suspect that I may have been involved in some other controversy regarding Sathya Sai Baba. That is perhaps understandable in the circumstances, but I assure you I have not.

So, my apologies to you both if you feel you have been on the receiving end of unmerited ad hominem arguments. I suggest we try to proceed on the basis of continuing good faith. Minehunter 09:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I look forward to reading an account of the origins and development of HB, and a summary of the clinical research. Jedermann 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academic citations of KRD Shepherd

Google Book search, 22 Nov 06

The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi - Page 53 by Antonio Rigopoulos - 1993 "Kevin Shepherd refers Sai Baba's birth-date to circa 1850; ..."

Images of Women in Maharashtrian Society - Page 264 by Anne (EDT) Feldhaus - 1998 "... a Sufi who died in 1931 and whose tomb in the Pune Cantonment is still very popular as a religious center, is described by Kevin Shepherd in A Sufi ..."

Theologische Realenzyklopädie - Page 547 by Horst Robert Balz, Gerhard Müller - Religion - 2003 "Kevin Shepherd, A Sufi Matriarch. Hazrat Babajan, Cambridge 1985. ..."

It is clear that Kevin Shepherd's work is in good repute with academic researchers in Comparative Religion. Note that Google Book search can only search books that have been digitized by Google, and this list is therefore not comprehensive or definitive. Jedermann 15:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Experiment vs experience

Can we come up with a more accurate title for the section: "The experimental nature of Holotropic Breathwork"? HB has apparently not been researched using any experimental design in the scientific sense (correct me if I'm wrong). The colloquial use of 'experimental' (meaning, roughly, 'unresearched', 'unverified' or 'crudely empirical') can be confusing in a clinical context. Jedermann 13:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jedermann, I think I was following Grof in the use of that term (see the quote in the relevant section). Also, some of the critics have used it pejoratively. But I take your point: to some readers it may connote the technical sense of the word. I'm not sure if there's a better alternative. "Open-ended" (also used by Grof) doesn't seem to capture the critical sense of "experimental". Roget's Thesaurus suggests "tentative" or "trial": the former also seems to lack a critical edge; perhaps the latter is the best alternative. I'm open to suggestions. The Communicator 15:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Since Grof's own words are "ongoing research project and psychological experiment", perhaps the section could be called one of the following (including the quotation marks):
* Holotropic Breathwork as an "ongoing research project and psychological experiment"
* Holotropic Breathwork as an ongoing "psychological experiment"
* Holotropic Breathwork as an ongoing "experiment"
The Communicator 01:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest 'Relationship of Holotropic Breathwork to Research'. That way you could include the Grof 'experimental' comments, a summary of the research that comes up by typing 'holotropic breathing' into scholar.google.com (does anyone contributing to this page read Russian ?!), the use of the holotropic breathwork model in the psychedelic research protocol (which is referred to in the criticism section) and proposed research into holotropic breathwork and alcoholism (see http://www.johnemackinstitute.org/projects)Jablett 17:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

'Research in HB' is probably enough to encompass (a) HB becoming a trademarked therapy without formal research into its safety and efficacy, and (b) recent attempts to investigate it experimentally.

A crude search on PubMed for 'holotropic' found:


1: Andritzky W. Holotropic respiration therapy: new ways in psychologic pain therapy. Pflege Z. 2000 Apr;53(4):243-5. German. No abstract available.


2: Zaritskii MG. A combined treatment method for alcoholic patients using medikhronal, microwave resonance therapy and holotropic breathing. Lik Sprava. 1998 Oct-Nov;(7):126-32. Russian.


3: Grof S. Human nature and the nature of reality: conceptual challenges from consciousness research. J Psychoactive Drugs. 1998 Oct-Dec;30(4):343-57. Review.


4: Quinn J. Janet Quinn, RN, PhD. Therapeutic touch and a healing way. Interview by Bonnie Horrigan. Altern Ther Health Med. 1996 Jul;2(4):69-75.


5: Zaritskii MG. The use of holotropic breathing in the treatment of chronic alcoholism. Lik Sprava. 1996 Mar-Apr;(3-4):134-6. Russian.


6: Spivak LI, Kropotov IuD, Spivak DL, Sevost'ianov AV. Evoked potentials in holotropic breathing Fiziol Cheloveka. 1994 Jan-Feb;20(1):44-8. Russian. No abstract available.


7: Spivak LI. Altered states of consciousness during treatment of neurotic disorders (attempt to use holotropic breathing methods). Fiziol Cheloveka. 1992 Mar-Apr;18(2):22-6. Russian. No abstract available.


There will be other papers inevitably, since a properly devised search strategy would include many more search terms and databases, but the only research to come up on PubMed has been published in Russian or German (1,2, 5-7). 3 looks like a theoretical paper, and 4 is an interview about Therapeutic Touch. Jedermann 10:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I inserted a research reference on 29 December that was removed, I assume accidentally, as part of a reversion by MAJ on the same date. I believe it's unrelated to the section in dispute and I don't think there was anything controversial about it, so I have reinstated it. Jablett 10:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I also noticed that 'the adventure of self discovery' bit added by MAJ was removed by Communicator. It's the title of his book, so I've put it in quotes to make it clear that it's not POV. The word 'admits' originally used in this section is critically loaded, so I've replaced it with 'described'.Jablett 10:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Reinserted again. I'm assuming this has been accidentally deleted again (?) - if there's a problem with it, please let me know. As far as I'm aware it's the only research in English that specifically looks to compare the effectiveness of HB with psychotherapy. I have no expertise to be able to evaluate its validity as research Jablett 18:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, it's been removed again, and this time it seems to be deliberate. I have no desire to get into an edit war. The text is as follows: "Research by Holmes et al (1996) concluded that holotropic breathwork led to “significant reductions in death anxiety and increases in self-esteem” relative to traditional verbally oriented psychotherapy.", with the accompanying reference: "Holmes, S. W., Morris, R, Clance, P. R, Putney, R. T., “Holotropic Breathwork : An Experiential Approach To Psychotherapy”, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, Vol. 33(1), Spring 1996. pp. 114-120. 1996". Please discuss with me what the issue is here, and perhaps we can resolve it. Otherwise, I will reinstate again in due course. Jablett 10:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Jablett, I have not deliberately removed text or reference. Indeed, in my reversion of 30 December I noted your comment and deliberately reverted to your version with the following editorial note: "Reversion to Jablett's edit of 29 December, including reference added by him". Today, I noticed that my reference to Curry had been removed (perhaps inadvertently), but I reinstated this by copying the text rather than reverting, so this should not have had an impact on your own editing. The Communicator 14:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Communicator - I did note your careful editing. Thank you, I appreciated that. I think it was the anonymous editor that removed my reference. I'll give chance to respond and put it back in later. I can't shed any light on your Curry reference removal, I'm afraid. Will you be referring to it in the text - it looks interesting ? Jablett 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I have only come across the title so far, and I haven't found an online version. I will attempt to get a copy and add it to the text if relevant. The Communicator 12:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further discussion of criticism section

In relation to comments above, I think the criticism section is becoming so unwieldy that sorting it out remains a priority for this page. I'm concerned about the way that it is organised, and would like to propose a number of ways to break it down.

1. We could group the Findhorn controversy quotes into their own section, with an introductory paragraph. There's clearly enough material for this.

2. We could group remaining criticisms by type (hyperventilation, psychosis vulnerability etc.), so that those who want to add alternative views can do so.

and/or

3. Group by author.

At the moment, there is no obvious order and it looks as though we've simply artificially multiplied bullet points in order to strengthen the case against. What do other people think ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jablett (talk • contribs) 10:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC). Thank you HagermanBot - my mistake. not deliberate Jablett 10:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an obvious order, which is chronological, although you appear to have been unaware of this when you inserted a paragraph on 16 December! As for that paragraph, it amounts to a response to criticism by a Findhorn Foundation partisan, rather than criticism per se. As such, perhaps it should be put, along with other responses, in a 'Responses to criticism' section. Having said that, as a response it doesn't seem to add much to the debate. First, none of the criticisms actually refers to HB being "banned". Second, it speculates about the motives of two Foundation critics, rather than addressing the substance of the criticisms of HB.
As for the unwieldiness of the criticism section, I would only say that there is a lack of balance overall. This need not, however, affect the criticism section as it currently stands. Rather, I intend to expand the earlier sections, providing much more on the background to HB. This will create balance, as well as providing some context for the criticisms. The Communicator 14:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I will consider reorganizing the criticism section along thematic lines at a later date, as long as it doesn't interfere with the substance of the criticisms as they currently stand. For the moment, however, I'm content with the organization, and I will be adding material from more recent publications in due course. The Communicator 15:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I was genuinely unaware of the chronological order - sorry if I caused offence. Given that I think it's unwieldy anyway, the idea of the section continuing to expand as each passing year goes by wasn't my first thought!
The paragraph I inserted doesn't address the criticisms, as you say. It merely implies that Shaw thought that HB may have been made a scapegoat for Findhorn Foundation politics, which I thought was relevant. However, I agree with Lumos3 (below), so I've removed it as my contribution towards shortening this section, and also transferred the Grof medical response to a 'Responses to criticism' section as per your suggestion. Jablett 13:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jablett, no offence was taken! As far as I can see, the only issue is one of proportion, rather than overall length. I am unaware of any WP limitation on overall length of articles. Presumably other articles contain lengthy critical sections, where the subject is controversial (e.g. Sathya Sai Baba) - the difference being the relative length of the critical section. I possess seven books by Grof, which should be enough to complete the necessary task of expanding the earlier sections of the HB article. There is plenty of scope there for further information. Although I have some more recent critical material, I will endeavour to limit it to statements which offer original criticism, rather than repeating the substance of earlier remarks. Therefore, I don't expect it to get too much longer! If, after all that, the criticism section still appears out of proportion, then I will edit it myself. The Communicator 14:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Editing policy which says:

Perfection not required

It is wonderful when someone adds a complete, well-written, final draft to Wikipedia. This should always be encouraged.

However, one of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. This gives our approach an advantage over other ways of producing similar end-products. Hence, the submission of rough drafts should also be encouraged as much as possible.

One person can start an article with, perhaps, an overview or a few random facts. Another person can add a minority opinion. Someone else can round off the article with additional perspectives. Yet another can play up an angle that has been neglected, or reword the earlier opinions to a more neutral point of view. Another person might have facts and figures or a graphic to include, and yet another might fix the spelling and grammatical errors that have crept in throughout these multiple edits.

As all this material is added, anyone may contribute and refactor to turn it into a more cohesive whole. Then, more text may be added, and it may also be rewritten... and so on.

During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose. Of course, we don't have to like it; we may occasionally criticize substandard work, in addition to simply correcting it. It is most important that it is corrected, if it can be corrected. For text that is beyond hope we will remove the offending section to the corresponding talk page, or, in cases in which the article obviously has no redeeming merit whatsoever, delete it outright. The decision to take the latter action should not be made lightly, however.

The Communicator 14:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section too long

Way too much space is given to the Criticism section in this article. Word counts at 18 Dec are 739 on Holotropic Breathwork and 1554 on criticism of it. This violates Wikipedia Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. I think it should be edited down quite a bit to around 300 words . Even that is a high proportion of criticism for a balanced Wikipedia article. Lumos3 10:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Lumos3, as I have written in several places above, it is my intention to expand the earlier sections of the article, thereby achieving the desired result of balance. The original article was also very unbalanced. Not only did it not tell us much about HB, but there was no reference to the controversy surrounding the subject. I initiated and am mainly responsible for the criticism section, plus two of the earlier sections ('Reactions and contraindications' and 'Research in Holotropic Breathwork'). It is not my fault if others have not expanded the main article or countered the criticisms. However, I have enough material to do the former myself - it is simply a question of time. Therefore, my suggestion is to leave the criticism section as it stands - the other sections will be expanded. The Communicator 13:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
See also my reply to Jablett above. The Communicator 14:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re The Communicator's remarks :"It is not my fault if others have not expanded the main article or countered the criticisms." It is however your choice to spend most of your time pushing a critical POV which has created an absurd imbalance in the article. I look forward to this being remedied. In the meantime I have removed a portion of the criticism. Minehunter 12:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

An anon editor made quite a few changes. Communicator, I see that you're online. Take a look, a lot of the stuff is pretty POV. I changed things, but there was an edit conflict. I think the whole article needs references and a POV-check. xCentaur |  talk  14:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
To say that something is "pretty POV" (i.e. pretty point of view) does not seem to say much. Everyone naturally has a point of view. I created the non-existent criticism section (and two other sections), expressing myself in as neutral and scholarly way as I could, including full references. Since that time, it has been subject to amendments, by myself and others, and has evolved to its recent state. There has been much discussion, and I have accepted the most recent shortening of the criticism section (by Minehunter) in the interests of fairness, and pending my own revision of earlier sections of the article. All of this has been discussed. In view of this, I do not accept the edits of 28 December. If anything, they reveal a partisan POV which is hostile to my neutrally worded sections. The Communicator 15:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your tone. I meant that the recent anonymous edits were biased. The discussions above are visible to everyone, and I'm not blind. Don't dismiss someone's comments just because to you they "do not seem to say much". I was just trying to help out by suggesting that someone who knew abou the subject could weed out anything biased that anon-editor had put in. Good luck, good bye. xCentaur |  talk  15:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
xCentaur, I apologise if my tone was harsh. I actually misunderstood your comments, and I thank you for them. I was assuming that you had simply negated my first reversion, and were perhaps the editor of 28 December. I haven't checked yet to see what changes you made to the edits of 28th. Still, I think my reversion was justified. I would be interested to see any informative amendments you make to that. The Communicator 15:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


I sent the above response to xCentaur via Wikipedia email, and received the following reply on 30 December 2006:
"No problem, Communicator.
Stumbled across the page while patrolling for vandalism... it interested me because the concept of alternate conciousness fascinates me. Whether hallucinogen induced (ecstasy is a pill away) or self-controlled (lucid dreaming and the like) its always something I've wanted to understand better...
I see that the faulty edits have already been reverted. You've done a great job with the article, and for something thats had its share of controversy, its fantastic how its shaped up... Keep up the good work!
Cheers!
-xC"
The Communicator 03:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


I made the edit on 28 December. It appears as if the HB article had been written by someone who had a conflict of interest. The criticism section was the longest I have encountered in a wiki article and reflected strong bias. It also looked as though the writer was struggling for examples. The writer also failed to balance these with discussion and counter-examples in an appropriate context. The use of selected quotations taken out of context, and manicured examples also suggested bias. The intention of the article was to create an aura of danger; for example, the use of the term 'controversial', and a carefully chosen selection of so-called 'reactions' (indicating a medical bias) to HB which made an obvious play of the most vigorous of experiences and ignored the greatest range of physical experiences encountered in HB. See my comments on the term 'controversy'. The unbalanced nature of the article was apparant.

The article I substituted kept the format of the original and removed the many attempts to shock or persuade by inappropriate use of language. MAJ

My view, for what it's worth, is that I agree with MAJ's analysis in these pages of the criticism section, but I feel the rewrite displays overcompensation. Is there a reference available for "technique itself is taken up by a wide range of people in the healing professions, doctors, nurses, and therapists" ? - this is an important point, and maybe belongs in the main body of the article. "Notwithstanding that here, as elsewhere, criticisms have been isolated" may be accurate, but probably unneccessary, given the 'limited criticism' qualifier in the first sentence. "Holotropic Breathwork finds itself in a vulnerable position in that it is poised between the medical model and the more 'new-age' practices that have emerged in the last quarter century" is interesting, and could perhaps be fleshed out with examples(?). "inevitably incurred the wrath of a minority of the stalwarts of the mainstream medical view" is not neutrally worded at all, and should probably be removed. "While experiences can intrude into daily life, the context is not one of 'breakdown', but rather of personal growth" - this is presented as POV, but I suspect could be rewritten referencing Grof. Jablett 11:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


MAJ's comments contain a number of inaccuracies:
1. The article has not been written by one person, but at least two. I came across the original, which did not have a critical section. Since I have had a long-standing interest in the subject, which included correspondence with several of the parties involved, and was also a visitor to the Findhorn Foundation in the early 1990s, I added that section. Later I added "Reactions and contraindications" and "The experimental nature of Holotropic Breathwork" (which was changed to "Research in Holotropic Breathwork" after discussion).
2. I did not add the word "controversial". I believe Jederman did.
3. There is absolutely NO misquotation in anything I have written. I have all of the books and articles in my possession. As my biographical information (under username) indicates, I am a scholar with several years of editorial experience. I do not misquote. Perhaps MAJ would care to point out where he thinks I have misquoted.
4. Regarding the issue of the length of the criticism section, this has been much discussed, and I had accepted a shortening by Minehunter on 22 December, pending my own expansion of the main article. This is a work in progress, and I do not appreciate the wholesale re-editing of 28 December, without prior discussion, when all of this had been made clear on this Talk page. (I have generally accepted Minehunter's and Jablett's more moderate edits.)
5. As for balancing the criticisms "with discussion and counter-examples", that is not necessarily my role. Jablett created the 'Responses to criticism' section, and interested parties can use that to address criticisms.
6. Several of MAJ's comments reflect personal bias and mere supposition: "the writer was struggling for examples"; "manicured examples"; "intention of the article was to create an aura of danger".
As I have said above, in the section devoted to the term "controversial", for all of these reasons, I am reinstating Jablett's version of 29 December, which includes the reference inadvertently removed by MAJ. The Communicator 15:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

MAJ

I had better announce my credentials as a writer on HB. Although it is not my wish to write the HB article, the HB article as it stands appears as HB advert supplemented by over-stated inaccurate criticism. The article fails professionally on both counts. I am a chemistry graduate, and currently a mature student writing a post-grad dissertation in analytic philosophy. I have experience of breathwork and have spoken privately, and at length, to Grof on a few occasions. I have extensive knowledge of the pro's and cons of HB and have never been afraid to announce these. Although there are pertinent points in the criticisms, such as the need for an awareness of the occurence of unresolved issues in post-session periods, they have not been examined and we are left with the limited rationale of a truncated quote, occasionally overplayed and poorly contextualised. As such they are not really suitable in that form for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

There are some inaccuracies concerning my comments. It is obvious that the 'controversial' article on the whole is not for the most part written with a concern to present an 'encyclopaedic' article, or an awareness of the textual demands required by this format. My minimal changes, prior to a complete re-write attempted to redress the most obvious, and uninformed instances of bias. The article remains, in spite of that, deeply unsatisfactory and unsuitable for an encyclopedia. These errors stem mainly from textual inclusions from both pro- and ant- agonists of HB:

1) It seems obvious that the HB people have included their own material in the article which occasionally appears to promote breathwork, and that Wiki is being used as an advert for HB. This is not acceptable for an encyclopaedic article. These sections have been left largely untouched by the HB critic. This is possibly because that author has little knowledge of breathwork beyond pulling quotes from various sources, or that their removal would leave little of knowledgeable worth in the article. Although it struck me immediately that sections of the breathwork article had been written by somebody who wished to present HB as it is advertised in its literature, this presentation is rarely overplayed or inaccurate, but it fails to place HB in a social context, or any context at all. Perhaps it was this that prompted the author/critic to redress the balance, unfortunately by offering contextless criticism, when in fact what was needed was removal of the 'adverts' and a knowledgeable re-write. I will do this if I have time.

2) One of the writers appears to be concerned to present the leading impression through some lurid descriptions of HB. The pretext for the use of the term 'controversial'- taken for the most part from individual sources and 'manicured' quotes (- selective and taken out of context) - is one example of how a vague sense of concern, even danger, is being built up to counter the unprofessional excesses of the HB protaganists in using Wiki as an advert. Other instances include

a) "vomiting" and violent shaking are given prominent positions in the physical manifestations of breathwork, but this is more the case with LSD catharsis. Holotropic breathwork 'experiences' (the term 'reactions' does not entirely reflect the philosophy of HB)rarely include vomiting, and the majority of physical manifestations include simply lying still, and sometimes rolling, or dancing if there is space.

b) The author/critic misrepresented Grofs philosophy and approach. Grof's idea of 'experimental' is not so much the curiously forced idea that he is conducting unprofessional and technically suspect experiments in his workshops, but that the 'experimental' nature should be read in the context of an adventure of self-discovery. This makes all the difference. I can quote Grof here, talking in the context of holonomic integration '..in general self-exploration and personality transformation should be the primary concern as the critical and most easily available aspect of any therapeutic program' (Grof, Beyond the Brain, State University New York Press, p.380). 'In general' refers to the approach and philosophy of HB, and the exceptions refer to the occasional need to address a persons lifestyle and social position.

c) The criticism MUST be placed in a context. To do this the author must have knowledge of the models of psychotherapy, and of those models used by the critics, and be able to compare them with the medical model that is currently implemented in mainstream medicine. Without these attempts, or something like them, the criticism is merely a favoured selection of floating opinion, despite being sourced. It looks, and is, unprofessional.

d) The criticism is not balanced by counter-examples. It fails to note (or be aware of) the fact that doctors and nurses have been, and are, training as HB facilitators (Dr. Michael Weir former head of the Bristol Cancer Help Centre, Dr. Yahir Kabil, ENT, who introduced HB to the middle east, were two people I became acquainted with, there are many more. Some workshops consisted almost entirely of people in the clinical professions). Authors and scientists such as Karl Pribram and Rupert Sheldrake are indebted to Grof's work, and vice versa, and regularly quote him. I do not need to go on here, examples are numerous.

d) I was present at Grof's Findhorn visit. While the Findhorn community were happy to have Grof there, it was the continuing precarious relationship with the local Findhorn population (I had some personal experience of this)that caused them to withdraw any further invitations to Grof. This followed criticisms aimed against the Findhorn community that they were promoting LSD-type experiences.

I cannot let the article pass as it is. There is much I have not had time to consider here. Please make further changes, but I have had too much critical involvement with HB not to be aware of the articles excesses. The article I have substituted is merely a toned-down version of the current version. It retains the criticisms, despite the lack of context, and also retains the HB 'adverts', which while they are not excessive in tone are still not acceptable. Without these little would be left regarding content.

I suggest that the article should be removed altogether. It looks bad for Wiki as it stands, even after my limited alterations, but I think I have already taken what many may consider to be an undue liberty in making changes. That these changes address, albeit in a limited fashion, unprofessional bias and various excesses, will, I hope, not go unnoticed. I also make changes to my own grammatical excesses. I refer to the charge of overstatement in my reference to the antipathy expressed by many of the clinicians of the mainstream medical model to HB. Yet, while this antipathy is evident it is certainly not widespread enough to make it 'controversial'.

MAJ, good to have you on board. I hope you'll stay around and contribute to the debate long term. Like Xcentaur (below) I think it's worth perservering with. Please can you look at my comments above under "Experiment vs Experience" ?. I'm a cautious editor, only adding or modifying the odd sentence here and there, so I'd like to be certain whether or not my edit was removed because it was one of the 'unacceptable' comments you refer to above, or simply an innocent casualty of the wider edit. Jablett 18:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Why would you want to remove the article altogether when it is definitely notable? The very fact that this discussion is taking place indicates that there are editors that genuinely do wish to improve it. Your changes do make a difference. I'd like to request you to create a user account, otherwise possibly someone who doesn't know the history of the page might revert them. I'm sure we can reach a consensus here, please don't remove the article. Sincerely, xCentaur |  talk  22:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY DISPUTED I am disputing the neutrality of this article, given that the original text appears to be no more than an advertisement for HB, and that the subsequent rewording of several new sections (including the criticism one) by MAJ (a HB writer and practitioner, who has had personal contact with Grof) has imparted a decidedly sympathetic tone to the subject matter (e.g. that HB "finds itself in a vulnerable position"). I will maintain the "neutrality disputed" banner until the entire article has been rewritten with NPOV, whether by myself (see my updated credentials under my username) or collectively. The Communicator 14:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The opening criticism paragraph has reinstated an earlier version that was deleted because it tried to undermine criticism in advance, and contains unreferenced interpretations of why HB may attract criticism. It was deleted earlier for those reasons. See WP:OR. I've included an internal link to kundalini, also regarded as controversial - see the discussion archive there. And added a link to a (pro-HB) website that is informative about procedures and contraindications. [6] Jedermann 13:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY OF ARTICLE

MAJ


At the very least I am not convinced by UTC's neutral intentions here. UTC claims I am a writer of HB. Is UTC guessing or setting an unprofessional tone? This is my first outing as a writer of HB. UTC also repeats some of my own claims about the neutrality of the article (ref. 'advert') as UTC's own ideas, without acknowledging my contribution. This strikes me also as a little dishonest.

Elsewhere, I can only make these further observations:

By presenting a list of contextless quotes of criticisms, doubt regarding their source could persuade readers into thinking that these represented a groundswell of clinical and New Age opinion against HB. This was the rationale behind UTC's consideration that HB was 'controversial'. This strikes me as a journalistic ploy. UTC also fails to mention that HB is practiced by many clinicians and that some theoretical aspects of HB have entered into clinical psychotherapeutic methodology. I would like to know why, as the relative degree and nature of criticism needs to be assessed in the whole scheme and not left floating.

If UTC was at Findhorn why didn't UTC explain or have knowledge of Findhorn community's relationship with the local population and how that affected the outcome with Grof's workshops? Why did UTC not mention this in his criticisms of HB section? Was UTC at Findhorn? I am also concerned that his credentials have been 'updated'.

It is UTC's suggestion that to know something about HB is to disqualify a person from writing about it! I do not think that UTC is able to write knowledgeably about HB, he has offered no discussions related to the criticism section and seems concerned only to cast a controversial light on the project.

I suggested that UTC had misquoted. His quotes have been truncated or not been placed in context, and are without discussion or assessment, and sometimes placed in the wrong context. This amounts to misquoting.

Why did UTC place as a list of physical manifestations of HB the most lurid in prominent position? UTC seems to be attempting to persuade with the idea that frequency of occurrence of physical manifestations is mirrored by their order of appearance in UTC's text. UTC is misrepresenting physical manifestations of HB. Not least that some of them such as 'violent' shaking and vomiting are generally concommitants of LSD abreaction and comparitively rare in HB.

For these reasons, I think that UTC has been writing with hostility and some dishonesty. Writers do not need to be professional writers here, as long as they adhere to professional and ethical codes of conduct and writing. While there may be lapses that can be amended, I do not think that UTC is attempting to adhere to these standards. The neutrality of the article will be disputed as long as he is a contributor here, and as long as he is here I do not think that there will be a neutral article.

MAJ, you appear to be confused about some things. In the first place, UTC is not a username here, but rather refers to the "high-precision atomic time standard" employed by Wikipedia to log all edits. You will notice that the letters UTC occur in parentheses after the time, date and username of registered Wikipedia editors. Registered editors are asked to finish their comments with four tildas - these are converted into the username and UTC by software. For more on this (including an explanation of the order of the abbreviated letters), see Coordinated Universal Time. I notice that xCentaur requested that you "create a user account" (for your own benefit). If you did this, then (apart from being able to sign your comments properly) your edits of articles would be properly attributed to you, i.e. logged under your username, rather than an IP address (as at present). By the way, my username is The Communicator, and other regular contributors to this article have been Jablett, Jedermann and Minehunter.
I would also recommend that you check the history of the Talk (i.e. "discussion") page each time you intend to add comments, if you do not already do so, as you will then be able to see who has most recently added comments, and to which section(s), before you add your own. Forgive me if you are already aware of this, but I notice that you have not addressed my (30 December) responses to your points in the "Appropriateness of the term 'controversial' in relation to HB" section (e.g. my request for clarification of "unorthodox practices").
Turning to the points you have most recently raised, my description of you as a "writer of HB" was based on your own statement of 30 December (deduced from Talk page history) in "Criticism section too long". You opened your comments with the following: "I had better announce my credentials as a writer on HB". I had interpreted that as your saying that you were a writer on HB. That appears to have been a mistaken interpretation, but it is based on an ambiguity in your words. An understandable mistake, I think.
I don't think that it was necessary for me to attribute the 'advert' claim to you for two reasons. First, this claim had already been made by Jedermann on 23 November (in "Kevin Shepherd reference") when he referred to the "original unreferenced sales pitch". Second, anyone who reads the discussion carefully can see who has said what. There is no dishonesty here.
In the same passage Jedermann notes that it is interesting "that proponents offer no evidence to counter the concerns, but just remove caveats and criticism", a comment which I believe also applies to your recent editing. When I added my sections, I did not delete a single word of the existing article. Although this led to an imbalance, this has been well noted and commented upon. But did you read the discussion before you waded in and (anonymously) made such wholesale changes? Despite your rhetoric of neutrality, you have not improved the NPOV of the article, which now bears your own bias, as noted by xCentaur on 29 December: "An anon editor made quite a few changes. Communicator, I see that you're online. Take a look, a lot of the stuff is pretty POV. I changed things, but there was an edit conflict. I think the whole article needs references and a POV-check" (the "edit conflict" refers to the fact that he and I were both editing at the same time). Even Jablett (who is sympathetic to you) has expressed reservations about your editing (on 30 December), including that your "rewrite displays overcompensation". Also, you did not reply to his queries concerning references and examples. In the same passage, he pointed out that some of your wording was far from neutral. On 2 January, Jedermann edited accordingly (as he had done with another editor on 27 September and 4 October - see his comments near the top of the discussion page, under "Reversion to NPOV criticism"). I believe these comments also apply to your edits.
Your comments about contextualizing Grof's words are fair enough, although my quotes are accurate and properly referenced (whereas your editorial additions have not been backed up with any supporting references or examples, as noted by Jablett). I have now contextualized the references to reactions in the relevant section, and removed your unreferenced material. That section is now NPOV.
Your reference to "New Age opinion" above implies a gross misunderstanding of the critics I have quoted, a familiarity with the works of whom would reveal a vehemently anti-New Age stance. As I have pointed out before (e.g. my reply of 30 December to your fourth point in "Appropriateness of the term 'controversial' in relation to HB"), there are two levels to the criticisms: medical and spiritual. Thomas writes from personal experience, painstakingly documented in the 1000-page third volume of her autobiography. Shepherd, who has published several books on subjects in the history of religions, is highly critical of Grof's (generalizing and unsupported) claims about the spiritual background for the use of psychoactive substances and techniques. What is at issue here is precisely the "context of an adventure of self-discovery" to which you refer. Such approaches to self-discovery were strongly condemned by no less a figure than Meher Baba, whose transcribed statements on the subject were collected in the booklet ironically entitled God in a pill? As for medical opinion, that may be divided, as you say, but once I again I have provided authoritative quotes and references. You have not.
Turning to the next point, I did "have knowledge of Findhorn community's relationship with the local population" but that was definitely not relevant here. The Foundation suspended its HB sessions because of the report of an Edinburgh doctor (a Regius Professor, no less). That report was commissioned by the Scottish Charities Office, following a letter from Kate Thomas (who had only recently moved to the area, and whose criticisms had nothing to do with being a local resident, but rather with her concern about the nature of the HB process, based on her personal experience). Thomas had tried to deal directly with the Foundation on this matter, but with no success.
You needn't be concerned that I "updated" my credentials. That merely means that I added further relevant information to that already existing on my user page. There is nothing underhand about that. The history of the additions to my user page is available for all to see!
It is not my suggestion "that to know something about HB is to disqualify a person from writing about it". In fact, you were the one who said "the only way that this can be resolved is to hand over the article to a University"! Anyone can contribute to this article, but they should do so in a NPOV - that is what was at issue in my comment. In spite of all your "neutral" rhetoric, I believe that you have made the article less NPOV, a fact which has been noted by others, even when they are sympathetic to your position. That is why I added the banner disputing the neutrality, having tried to revert a couple of times after your heavy-handed editing. I have already declared my sympathy to the position held by the critics. That should be no obstacle to a NPOV, any more than being sympathetic to Grof's position. You said that you were writing a "post-grad dissertation in analytic philosophy", which might mean that you are unaware of the hermeneutic tradition in continental European philosophy (Gadamer and Ricoeur, for instance). From the perspective of such a tradition, a "conflict of interpretations" is a normal consequence of our situatedness in the world. But we also have a duty to expand our horizons and attempt to elicit the truth, to the best of our ability. What we have here is a conflict between two positions: that of the HB proponents, on the one hand, and that of the critics, on the other. The original article completely neglected the latter. I have been redressing that imbalance.
As for casting "a controversial light on the project", I have already pointed out that it was Jedermann who added the word "controversial" to the first sentence (see my reply to you of 30 December, in "Appropriateness of the term 'controversial' in relation to HB"). I defended him in this, when another editor removed it, and gave my reasons on the Talk page. Minehunter (who appears to be sympathetic to HB) subsequently agreed that the subject was controversial (see his comments of 27 November in "Kevin Shepherd reference"). You appear to be outnumbered!
I disagree with your defintion of "misquoting", which implies that I attributed to someone something that they did not say. I have accepted your more accurate comment about the context for quotation, and have started to remedy that.
The order in which I listed "physical manifestations" was the order in which Grof listed them, as indicated by the quotation marks. Perhaps you assume that I changed Grof's words. I do not do things like that.
The Communicator 17:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To readers here, I will attend to protocol ref username. Apols for confusion in that regard. MAJ

As far as I can see your decision to banner the article as 'neutrality disputed' was not based on anticipation of the criticisms held in the quotes by the use of the opening term "controversial" (controversial to whom and in what context?), nor by your extensive criticism section, nor by your unexamined (contextless) quoted criticisms, nor by the cynically presented selection of physical manifestations (where did you get them from?), but primarily by my use of the word 'inevitably'.

Why don't you remove the word? but note that 'inevitably' there will be criticism of HB because of its position in psychotherapeutic practices. This is not to say that they are necessarily without some foundation as I indicated. Criticism befalls all practices, but the decision to persuade that HB is worthy of the title 'controversial' was promoted by excessive, unbalanced, contextless criticism. This was your intention. Despite some amendments in that regard, suspicion remains. NB Your Findhorn assessment is still flawed for reasons I have already given..

I think that you came into this topic knowing little about it, but saw an opportunity to practice your skills at writing and to advance the affections you held toward other psychotherapeutic practices and spiritual outlooks, such as it seems those of Meher Baba. You were not subtle about it and I noticed. That the HB article appeared in part as if it was an advert, you took as the green light to make vigorous edits and make it not so much a source of knowledge, but make another advert and counter-foil against HB. You could not do otherwise, for you have limited resources in this topic.

You have to know about a topic before you can present quotes or write about it. Your earlier critical contributions seemed to indicate cherry-picking of the available literature with no attempted overview as to what degree these criticisms represented the totality of views. Accordingly, the criticisms you presented were anecdotal despite being sourced. I am also concerned that you think that HB is dangerous and that you have promoted this view in one way or another.

Because the 'controversial' status of HB has been questioned you now want to claim that the article itself is controversial yet you still contribute to it. I suspect that you are content to leave this article as 'neutrality disputed' if you cannot claim that HB is controversial. I am deeply concerned as to your motives here.


It's not my role to allay your concerns or suspicions about my motives. My role is to communicate information about a topic in which I have had a longstanding interest, and about which I possess considerable documentation (including ten of Grof's books). The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
So far I have seen little evidence of your intention to provide neutral information. Your personal views are strongly, vigorously, anti-HB as you have admitted. You present anecdotal quotes void of context; the Reactions and Contradictions section simply seems to be verbatim quote, again without understanding or context. MAJ.
In this context, "neutral" is your word, not mine. Philosophically speaking, I'm not sure that any information is neutral. The information in the critical section is certainly not neutral - it is critical. However, it is NPOV, in the Wikipedia sense, i.e. I have quoted and stated things factually, without putting my own spin on them. I'm not sure what you mean by "anecdotal". The quotes are from Grof, the originator and chief theorist of HB. You or others may add more context, if you think it necessary, and I won't interfere with it, so long as it is properly referenced and NPOV. However, your own speculations and interpretations of motives are not acceptable. (BTW, it's "Reactions and contraindications" rather than "contradictions".) The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
This information may be of interest to readers of the article, whether they be HB practitioners, would-be psychotherapeutic patients, spiritual seekers, scholars of religion, psychologists, sociologists, or whomever. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
In what context of 'interest'? You declare that "If there is anything good to be said for HB, let those who would defend it come forward. The Communicator 15:08, 24 November" MAJ.
There could be many contexts of interest. If I was a student of psychotherapy, researching HB, then I would want to know about the criticisms. If I was a prospective patient, I would want to know, not only about the criticisms, but also about the possible reactions and the contraindications, and for very practical reasons. And so on. The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I will accept valid criticisms of my editing and rectify the latter when the opportunity arises. I will attempt to improve the article by rectifying the poor editing of others, using skills I have acquired as a scholar and professional editor, and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to speculation. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
In what context 'improve'? Is this disingenuity?
No, it is not. The article was improved when Jedermann reverted (on 2 January) from your non-NPOV editing. I also improved it on 4 January, when I removed your unreferenced material from the "Reactions and contraindications" section. There is plenty of scope for further improvements. The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I already gave my reasons for supporting the use of the word "controversial", and Jedermann and Minehunter agreed with me. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The reason did not reach the standard of your own definition; and Jederman is taking your lead about HB. I use your own definition: "A controversy is a matter of opinion or dispute over which parties actively argue, disagree or debate. Controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements." There is certainly no large-scale disagreement about HB as you well know. You are mis-interpreting the definition by applying the parochial aspect to the global aspect. Why? MAJ.
I am not misinterpreting it - you are! You focussed on the "large scale" side of that dyad. I think that the dispute over HB falls very well within the scope of that definition. The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
My decision to dispute the neutrality of the article was entirely based on the non-NPOV which your editing imparted to it. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it is more the case that you had been found out that your hostile intentions to HB were being expressed through the article. Your neutrality disputed banner was a desperate manoevure. MAJ
Speculation about motives is just that: speculation. I am, like other readers, interested only in the facts. I will leave it to others to draw their own conclusions about your motives. The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not necessary that any of us BE neutral (which would, in any case, be impossible), only that we use a NPOV when we contribute to articles. As I am tired of pointing out, my initial editing was just a start. It was at least fully referenced, unlike your non-NPOV speculations about the motives of critics. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Your references were anecdotal and misleading. Without the context that I gave them they could be construed as a groundswell of critical opinion - which they were not. The fact that you wanted others to believe they were suggests you are working to an agenda. MAJ
Again that use of "anecdotal" - are Grof's own words anecdotal? Your "context" (such as it was) was completely unreferenced, and therefore amounted to an interpretation. By all means, add context, as long as you can back it up, as I did when I fleshed out the "Reactions and contraindications" section on 4 January. For instance, I could point out in the article that HB is entirely commercial and, from what I hear, very lucrative. But that wouldn't be NPOV. To create a section entitled "Costs of training", providing figures, would be NPOV. The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I was not obsessed by your use of the word "inevitably". Nor did I remove it. As you can see from the history of edits to the article, Jedermann made this change on 2 January, with the comment "rv POV distraction" (which I take to mean "reverted the POV distraction" - i.e. the non-NPOV created by your editing of the criticism section). The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I repeat - why don't you remove it? Is it because you need evidence for 'neutrality disputed'? MAJ
Quite simply because it hasn't been in the article since Jedermann removed it on 2 January, as I just pointed out! The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm amazed at your reference to a "cynically presented selection of physical manifestations", followed by "where did you get them from?" I answered this in the very last paragraph of my comments of 4 January (where I was replying to your earlier query on this same theme). This is not a good sign for your prospects as a "post-grad ... in analytic philosophy" or for your familiarity with Grof and HB! The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Why do you again refer to my academic background? And what is the source of your claim that I am a HB practitioner? MAJ
My reference to your academic background was an ironic gesture on my part - I have a weakness for that mode of expression. My source for that claim is your comment of 30 December (as deduced from the history log): "I have experience of breathwork". Perhaps you could elaborate on that experience, so we all know precisely what you mean. The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
To reiterate, the selection is not mine but Grof's, as indicated by the quotation marks, and all of my quotations are fully referenced. Just to spell it out further: those are the "physical manifestations" as given, in that order, by Grof, on page 196 of his 1988 The Adventure of Self-Discovery, a book which I have in my possession, and which I have read. In addition, I have now provided a broader context for the "manifestations". The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing to add to my earlier comments about the irrelevance of the Findhorn Foundation's relations with residents of Findhorn and Forres, when it comes to criticisms of HB. I believe YOUR assessment is flawed for the reasons I have given. Perhaps you could be more specific about your reasons for rejecting the reasons I have given for the irrelevance. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You still fail to note, and another author in the discussion has already indicated, that Findhorn withdrew Grof because they were subjected to pressures from the Forres community and the press. MAJ.
I assume you are referring to Jablett. Let's have a look at the facts.
On 16 December Jablett added the following to the criticism section: "In an interview in the Forres Gazette (2002), Michael Shaw, a Findhorn Foundation director, responds to concerns about Holotropic Breathwork arising from the Findhorn controversy. He says that 'Holotropic breathwork has not been banned anywhere. It was merely withdrawn from courses held at the Findhorn Foundation after it was used as a battering ram by people who held anti-Foundation views, such as the late Sir Michael Joughin and the author Steven Castro.'"
On 17 December I commented as follows on the Talk page: "it amounts to a response to criticism by a Findhorn Foundation partisan, rather than criticism per se. As such, perhaps it should be put, along with other responses, in a 'Responses to criticism' section. Having said that, as a response it doesn't seem to add much to the debate. First, none of the criticisms actually refers to HB being 'banned'. Second, it speculates about the motives of two Foundation critics, rather than addressing the substance of the criticisms of HB."
On 18 December Jablett replied: "The paragraph I inserted doesn't address the criticisms, as you say. It merely implies that Shaw thought that HB may have been made a scapegoat for Findhorn Foundation politics, which I thought was relevant. However, I agree with Lumos3 (below), so I've removed it as my contribution towards shortening this section, and also transferred the Grof medical response to a 'Responses to criticism' section as per your suggestion."
Now, elsewhere you have written: "I was present at Grof's Findhorn visit. While the Findhorn community were happy to have Grof there, it was the continuing precarious relationship with the local Findhorn population (I had some personal experience of this) that caused them to withdraw any further invitations to Grof. This followed criticisms aimed against the Findhorn community that they were promoting LSD-type experiences."
Where is the evidence for your interpretation? You are saying that Busuttil's SCO-sponsored report was not the deciding factor. Here is the evidence for my interpretation, all taken from contemporary newspaper cuttings and books in my possession: "A spokesman for the Foundation's administration department confirmed that they had requested temporary suspension of the breathing workshops following a report produced in the last few months by an Edinburgh forensic doctor into the effects of hyperventilation ... It was also confirmed that questions had been asked about the workshops by the Scottish Charities Office." (Elizabeth Taylor, "Sessions draw the last breath", The Forres Gazette, 13 October 1993). "A New Age community in Moray has cancelled a meditation course after psychiatrists and local doctors expressed alarm about potential dangers to participants ... The week-long course in so-called holotropic breathwork was to have started on 23 October in a mansion belonging to the Findhorn Foundation ... but the foundation's administrators decided to cancel when the Scottish Charities Office began an inquiry. It is understood that the SCO commissioned a report into breathwork which has expressed strong criticism. Meanwhile a consultant psychiatrist, given breathwork literature by The Scotsman, has expressed alarm." (Alan Forbes, "New Age meditation course cancelled on medical advice", The Scotsman, 14 October 1993). "... when the Findhorn Foundation made an appeal to the SCO in 1995 to resume the controversial hyperventilation practice - it was rejected" (Stephen Castro, Hypocrisy and Dissent within the Findhorn Foundation: Towards a Sociology of a New Age Community, New Media Books, 1996, page 102). These documents appear to support my interpretation. Can you provide any evidence to support yours, apart from hearsay? If you speculate that the tense relationship with local residents was the real reason for the withdrawal, then I could speculate that FF officials may have said that to cover up the embarrassing fact of the medical report. But that would just be speculation, wouldn't it! The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJ What is your interpretation? I am not impressed by extensive quotes when I can see that the quotes are selected to support the interpretations of someone who is radically hostile to HB. Your deceit is evident. Michael Shaw attended Grof's workshops. How would that amount to a rejection of HB by the Findhorn community which your article implied? Your claim that you are leaving out material or 'shortening' is your licence to removal material unfavourable to your fixed position.

Moving on to your speculations about my "limited resources in this topic", I would only point out to other (hopefully more objective) readers of this paragraph, that you have no way of knowing what my resources are. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJ If I have access to texts that I know little or nothing about then my personal resources are limited.

I have seen what you have written. Either you conveniently ignore context because of lack of knowledge or because it suits your aims. I don't have a reason for not thinking that it is in fact, both, because your later contributions appear laboured and are practically drawn verbatim with little or no context.
The evidence suggests that I have greater resources than you, as I can lay my hands on books, letters and newspaper articles at a moment's notice, and use them to support my editing. I have not seen much evidence of your resources. In addition, what I have written so far is a fraction of what I intend to write. The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJ. That response is not effective. Also, it is my intention to follow this article.

As for my thinking that "HB is dangerous", that is accurate. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I am citing that as indicative of a possible cause of a conflict of interest. MAJ.
Why would that be any more a conflict of interest than believing it to be safe, in the face of controversial books, articles, and a medical report? What about your conflict of interest, as someone with "experience of breathwork" who has "spoken privately, and at length, to Grof on a few occasions"? The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJ Who or what says that HB is safe? Have I said that HB is safe? Also, you may quote a medical report against HB, but you turn a blind eye to the fact that the report was opinion and anecdotal. You know that doctors have, and are using HB but to mention or acknowledge this is bad for your position. Are you saying that the medical profession is divided? The fact that an opinion is recorded does not make it any less an opinion. But you call it evidence. Your contributions work to journalese standards and are unprofessional.

MAJ You again suggest that anyone who has knowledge of HB should not write an article on it.

Others evidently think so too, including reputable doctors and those writing from a "spiritual" angle. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You have mentioned merely a few. What percentage do these represent of those that actually practice HB? are you saying that more doctors are against HB than for it? Where is your evidence? MAJ.
I did not say that. I simply don't know. Do you? Please provide evidence. The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJ If you don't know the extent or even the presence of the division in the medical community to HB then how can you claim that HB is controversial? But you are aware of this. I should not have to be pointing this out to you.

Hyperventilation is an extreme phenomenon, medically or spiritually (see Hyperventilation). As a self-confessed HB practitioner, perhaps you should reserve your concern for yourself! The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Where have I "confessed"? Where have I "confessed" this? What is "extreme" and in what way does hyperventilation display it? MAJ.
To repeat what I said above: my source for that claim is your comment of 30 December (as deduced from the history log): "I have experience of breathwork". Perhaps you could elaborate on that experience, so we all know precisely what you mean. The word "extreme" is defined by Merriam-Webster online as "1 a : existing in a very high degree <extreme poverty> b : going to great or exaggerated lengths : RADICAL <went on an extreme diet> c : exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected <extreme weather conditions>". The Wikipedia article on hyperventilation describes the letter as follows: "In medicine, hyperventilation (or hyperpnea) is the state of breathing faster or deeper (hyper) than necessary, and thereby reducing the carbon dioxide concentration of the blood below normal. This causes various symptoms such as numbness or tingling in the hands, feet and lips, lightheadedness, dizziness, headache, chest pain, slurred speech and sometimes fainting." The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJ Then I shall ask you again. How did you substantiate your claim that I am a HB practitioner? You are struggling in your definition of 'extreme' in the way that you used the word. It would be easier for you to admit that the term is emotive, and that this is precisely the way in which you meant to use it. Your attempted 'chemical' argument is circular. Hyperventilation has symptoms because hyperventilation is an (extreme) condition, and it is an (extreme) condition because hyperventilating has symptoms.


I continue to contribute to the article for the reasons given above, even if I disputed the neutrality for reasons also given above. I could easily reinsert the word "controversial" (which was not originally added by me), as could others. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You have given no reasons why you are contributing to the article that are conceivable given your contributions here. Are you promoting your affections to the principles of Meher Baba? MAJ.
I stand by the reasons I gave. I quoted Meher Baba because he has made relevant comments. The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJ Should you not add, as you added before "no less a person than Meher Baba ..." You do strongly adhere to his teachings against Grof and others like him, do you not? You have very strong feelings against people practising pschotherapeutic practices like HB do you not?

But that appears relatively minor compared with the substantial editing which needs to be done. For the moment I am content that readers can now see that HB is controversial and has been subject to criticism. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Which readers? I am not one them. And why is it important? There have been criticisms of your contributions before I came along. See below. MAJ.
Any readers. Hopefully literate ones! The Communicator 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJ I asked you which readers?

Your intentions, Communicator, are hostile, not merely biased, which can be rectified. I allege you have at least a conflict of interest. What are your affiliations to Meher Baba? They certainly seem more than accidental. I draw attention to the following:
"If there is anything good to be said for HB, let those who would defend it come forward. The Communicator 15:08, 24 November 2006"
"if HB was spiritually bad ten years ago, then it remains so, and will remain so. For instance, in the 1960s Meher Baba strongly criticised the use of hallucinogenics. The Communicator 17:18, 28 November 2006"
"Such approaches to self-discovery were strongly condemned by no less a figure than Meher Baba, As for my thinking that 'HB is dangerous', that is accurate. The Communicator 15:58, 6 January 2007"
"It is not my fault if others have not expanded the main article or countered the criticisms." It is however your choice to spend most of your time pushing a critical POV which has created an absurd imbalance in the article. I look forward to this being remedied. In the meantime I have removed a portion of the criticism. Minehunter 12:52, 22 December 2006"

sosmd.

Just to add 2 cents worth here from the ground up, so to speak. I am an MD, and a psychotherapits. My training has included classical Freudian psychoanalysis, behaviour modification, Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction, Addiction counselling, and I am certified in Holotropc Breathwork by Stan and Christina Grof.

The first stage of any scientific endevor is the simple gathering of observational data. This is fundamentally the stage HBW is at ast the moment. HBW sufferes from the same lack of scientific validation as many if not all forms of psychotherapy. However, it has been demonstrated that pshcyotherapy is beneficial, at least as beneficial as drugs for mild and mderate depressions, and that the principal determinanat of outcome is tralationship, or fit, between client and therapist. So to say HBW lacks scientific validation is accurate, but merely describes its present stage in the sceintific continuum.

With regard to HBW being dangerous, I have practised HBW for over fifteen years. In our groups, an unfortuante physical outcome has never occured. This is because there are clearly defined inclusion and exclusion criteriae established by Grof, and we follow them. If a practitioner does not, then that is because that practitioner is incompetent, not because the technique or its indications/contraindicateions are invalid.

One woman, with whom we worked very early on in our HBW career, did go into an unexpected Kindalini opening. In retrospect, I would perhaps not offer her HBW today, based on her initial interview and my accumulated experiecne. That eror is mine, not the technique's. Although her procedss has not been easy in the subsequent years, she has done well. It is however empahatically ubntrue that I was not properly trained by Grof to deal with a Kundalini opening. Thos familar witht eh history of breath work will be aware that Christina Grof has written exgtensiveley about her own Kundalini expereicences, and this writinf is am important part of the curriculum of HBW.


The rest of the client population with whom we have dealt over the past years, have done extremely well, and some have achieved recoveries from such things as personality disorders, addictions, major depressions etc. As an experienced psychotehrapist, I would classify HBW as by far the most effective technique among my armamentarium. It is not for everybody, but simply because it uses a technique which seems to the uninitiated to be outlandish, is not a reason not to investigate or employ it. After all, when Freud first had people lay on a couch and free associate, the technique was discussed in much the same language which is being used here about HBW.

I am unsure as to why HBW seems to elicit such a vitriolic assault from some of its critics, many of whom seem to beselectively informed or speaking largely from thepretical considerations, such as the notion that hyperventilation because it is hyperventialtion, must be 'bad'. Be that as it may, the technique is beloved by both practitioners and clients, and clients seem to keep to want to come come back. And it's not because HBW is fun. It is fun, but it is laos very hard work.

Kind regqards,

Sosmd64.231.92.12 18:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have rephrased the beginning. As it is, it reads as though HB is still an adjunct of LSD therapy when in fact it is autonomous. IvorJ

There wasn't much information about either holotropic breathing or rebirthing in the section of that name,so I've renamed it 'professional practice', which was the bulk of that paragraph, and transferred the other stray sentences into the introduction where they can be amended, removed, or reallocated as appropriate. Jablett 18:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive request ?

I think some of this talk page is ripe for archiving now. Can anyone who knows how to do this take a look please ? Jablett 08:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revisiting Neutrality

Is the neutrality of the article still disputed by someone? Sanpho 13:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not by me - and for another good reason --- I have just recieved the article on "Hypocrisy and dissent in the Findhorn Foundation" that was quoted by the "Communicator"!! And I have found out that "the Communicator" used that article as his main, if only source of information. Everything he was feeding into the HB Wiki article could be lifted out of that single source as he first wrote it out. And that source was highly biased, criticising in all respects the Findhorn Community, alternative therapies and HB.
People are still editing the article, and as it was the Communicator who installed the "article disputed" status, I suggest we get rid of that status.--IvorJ 19:16, 17 aJanuary 2007 (UTC)
You are wide of the mark again. In the first place, I am not aware of an article on "Hypocrisy and dissent in the Findhorn Foundation". There is a book with that title, a copy of which I do possess, and which I originally quoted from, in only ONE of the points of criticism - the relevant one by the author of that book, Stephen Castro. All of the others were quoted directly from original books, journal and newspaper articles - all in my possession. I have now decided to reinstate the criticism section as it was on 18 December, with all of my original quotes. That section was heavily edited without discussion here and, in my view, is currently very shoddy. It displays very poor editing. The Communicator 15:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Communicator - I'm confused. The 18th December version drew a lot of critical comment (under "Criticism section too long" above), and you said on 29 December that you accepted Minehunter's shortening of it (22 December version). I accept that you may disagree with the January 2007 edits, but why have you decided to revert to the 18 December version which appeared to have much less cross user support? Jablett 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Jablett, a fair question! There are two reasons. First, I did accept Minehunter's shortening, but only as a compromise. His excisions seemed arbitrary to me: why did he cut out the bits that he did? Also, I had offered a defense for the length of the criticism section, regarding it as only a transitional state of affairs, since it was only the relative length of the section that was at issue (rather than its absolute length) and I anticipated that the rest of the article would catch up. My second reason is that IvorJ's most recent accusation against me is so unfounded that I felt that I need no longer put up with the shoddy state in which he left the criticism section, and I wanted to make it clear to anyone reading my reply to him just what those criticisms were without their having to search the archive. My compromise position now is to refrain from making this section any longer for the time being, because I have other materials which I could use, contrary to IvorJ's beliefs about the paucity of my sources! The Communicator 16:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
PS. Given that we had a lengthy self publishing discussion earlier in relation to Kevin Shepherd (also above), does anyone have the stomach to follow up http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=1389 review of Stephen Castro's book in which it is alleged that Castro lived with Kate Thomas, and Castro appears to reply that he has self published both his own work and that of Thomas ? Personally, there seems to be way too much Findhorn crossover happening here for my taste, but I don't know enough about any of it to take sides. Is this relevant or a red herring ? Jablett 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is a distraction from the main issue, which is that criticisms have been made. Everyone seems to be obsessed with who knows whom and who published what. But nobody is asking whether the criticisms are legitimate and a cause for concern among practitioners of HB and their patients. I think it is only right that the criticisms (both medical and "spiritual") be available to readers of the article, whose wellbeing may be at stake. The tactic of ignoring the criticisms is the same one employed by Metcalf in his "non-review". By all means, people should read Metcalf's essay, and then Castro's reply which follows it (you neglected to mention that bit, Jablett). I can add that Shepherd refers to this issue in his 2005 Pointed Observations (see "Metcalf" in the index). Metcalf basically sides with the official FF policy, and fails to mention the SCO or Professor Busuttil's critical report. In his emotive condemnation of Kate Thomas's book (which devotes ninety pages to the author's contact with the FF, not ten pages as he mistakenly claims), he also fails to mention the internal dissent at the FF regarding the implementation of HB, including figurehead Eileen Caddy's negative comments, all clearly documented in Thomas's book (and covered by me in the criticism section). Furthermore, Thomas's tone is sober rather than "vitriolic". I think it is also a mistake to conflate the HB controversy with the FF's problematic relationship with its neighbours. The FF was merely the place where HB was being introduced (and a significant place, given its position as a leading New Age centre), but it was not the only one. I have copies of two Forres Gazette articles from March 1995. On the 15th they published an article entitled "Breathwork courses switched to capital" (page 3), pointing out that the "controversial holotropic breathwork technique will be featured at the Alternative Workshops Centre at St James, Piccadilly, London, in the diocese of the Bishop of London, Dr David Hope". On the 29th they published "Church snub for breath sessions" (page 5), in which they quote David Skidmore, Secretary to the Church's Board of Responsibility: "'Neither the House of Bishops nor the General Synod has expressed an official view on this subject,' he said. 'The only comments I am aware of from Church of England sources have expressed negative views of the breathwork technique.' He said as a result of information given to the board for social responsibility the matter was being investigated further." Both articles also make clear the connections between Alternatives and the FF, through the person of William Bloom, but note that it is the HB technique that is at issue, not the relationship of the FF (or Alternatives) with its neighbours! On the general subject of neutrality, can I add that of the main protagonists in this debate only Jedermann and I have provided some sort of credentials on our user pages. In particular, IvorJ has never responded to my request for clarification of his "experience of breathwork". We know nothing about Jablett. Minehunter has said that he is "not qualified to discuss, or even especially interested in" the subject, and anyway we haven't heard from him for some time! The Communicator 16:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Communicator,

I raised the self publishing issue because I know that Wikipedia has a policy on it, and I wanted to question whether or not this article violates it. That’s 3 self published resources referenced in the criticism section now.

Neutrality and credentials are not the same thing. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but unless they are attempting to write from their own authority, I think the only valid issue is the quality or otherwise of their contributions. I think you are asking whether I have any undeclared interest that biases my contributions (?). I have no interest in creating a user page, because this is the only page I’m editing, but I’m happy to clarify my interest. I am a semi regular participant (1/2 times a year) in Holotropic Breathwork workshops. I have completed 1 module of the Grof Transpersonal Training. It’s a process that I care about, and I care about the people that I have met at workshops who are involved in it. However, I attempt to adhere to Wiki guidelines when I edit (when they are pointed out to me!), and trust that users will challenge me if I fail to do so. I care about attending to process more than anything else: that applies to my interest in HB, and my interest in what’s happening here.

As far as I understand it, the point of the talk page is to discuss the article, not the subject of the article, and I have tried to keep that in mind when I contribute. I genuinely have no interest in suppressing criticism, and I actually think that many of the criticisms listed here are very interesting. They don’t chime with my experience, but that’s no reason to condemn them. I try to evaluate them on their own terms and have no way of doing this other than what I find out through the internet. On that basis, I am not debating whether these are valid criticisms (I claim no qualification to judge, and I would question what kind of qualification would be needed to quantify or measure claims that HB causes spiritual ‘damage’ for example ?), but whether Wikipedia is the appropriate place for them in their present form.

My understanding is that Kate Thomas writes from her own inner authority, a position that I respect, but which ultimately hinges on how well respected her views are. I had never heard of her prior to editing this article, and can find no articles on the net that discuss her take on spirituality other than book reviews. If you have any references, please post them. Internet searches did however tell me that she wrote the letter that led to the suspension of HB at Findhorn, and that she was involved in a dispute with the foundation. At the very least, this leaves her vulnerable to accusations of bias, and from what I read, other foundation members seem to believe that she was acting from such a place. Steven Castro has had similar accusations levelled at him. If this were an article about the Findhorn Foundation controversy, and sometimes it feels like it is, I think you would need all of that information to contextualise it fairly.

The Forres Gazette, as far as I understand it, is the local newspaper that serves the Findhorn area. I haven’t been able to search their archives online. I assume, since the stories quoted don’t seem to have appeared in national newspapers (again, if there are sources please post them) that their interest in following HB also stems from the controversy at Findhorn. So I’m thinking: this is the newspaper of a small local community that appears to have been divided by controversy that some people think was personal. That doesn’t render it invalid as a source, but again, it certainly leaves it vulnerable to challenge.

Looking at the composition of the criticism section, bullet points 1 and 2 are Findhorn related. Bullet point 4: is another Findhorn context quote from Kate Thomas . Bullet point 5 (Castro), Findhorn again. Bullet point 3 (Scotsman article) I’ve not been able to find online, but I assume also refers to Findhorn.

You’ve explained to me before that the section is organised chronologically, but there is a clear geographical context to these entries, and from what I read, a community political (small ‘p’) context too. You say it’s not relevant to the criticisms. I say, we can’t judge - make it clear, and give the Findhorn controversy its own section, so we can translate the debate on the talk page into something constructive.

I’m genuinely touched that you care about the wellbeing of people involved in HB – we have a common interest there – and I don’t think that POV disagreements should endanger that. If HB really is unsafe and unethical I want to know about it, and I want all sides of the argument presented so I can make my mind up. However, I really don’t think that the critical sources used justify the prominence that they have been given in this article. Surely Ken Wilber must have written something on this issue that we can all get our teeth into? :) Jablett 11:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jablett
Thank you for your honest and thoughtful response.
I agree that neutrality and credentials are not the same thing. I raised the two together since the accusations of bias (and "hostility") all seemed to be coming from one side, as if I was the only one who could be defective in neutrality. So I pointed out that Jedermann and I had stated our credentials, whereas those on the other side had not (apart from IvorJ's enigmatic reference to "experience of breathwork"). You at least have now stated your position. You are starting from one that is sympathetic to HB and I am starting from one that is sympathetic to the critics. We are both agreed, however, that we can stick to WP policy (and good scholarly practice) in the editing of this article. Of course, the same should apply to anyone else.
Your point about "what kind of qualification would be needed to quantify or measure claims that HB causes spiritual 'damage'" is a good one. There is obviously no qualification of an academic sort here. And academics themselves are no better than anyone else (and perhaps are often worse) at assessing the spiritual status of another (I speak as someone with an academic background myself), although academics can provide useful information of a sociological and historical nature. A traditional way of assessing spiritual qualification is through biography and autobiography: one looks at a person's experience and behaviour, and the reactions of others to them, and attempts to draw conclusions. These, of course, will be based on one's own experience and the assumptions that one brings to the subject. The criteria here are obviously different to medical qualifications, but that does not undermine the relevance of the "spiritual" criticisms in the present context, since Grof himself has made frequent strong spiritual claims for his work, both LSD and HB. Such claims go right back to his earliest publications. (I am currently authoring a section on the LSD background to HB for inclusion early in the article, using Grof's own books, so I am well aware of this.) Also, strong spiritual beliefs of one kind or another appear to be common among participants in HB. Hence the relevance of criticisms of a "spiritual" nature seems beyond doubt. This doesn't mean that they can be proved. But I would expect them to be a matter of concern to the evidently sensitive types who engage in HB. That is why I have mentioned Meher Baba on this Talk page. He made very strong claims about the danger of using LSD for spiritual purposes, pointing out the illusory nature of the experiences gained, compared to that of genuine spiritual experience, and also the deleterious effect of such experiences on the spiritual potential of aspirants. He was referring to the situation in the 1960s, but I suspect he would have said similar things about HB if he had lived to hear of it (he died in 1969). Kate Thomas was more specific in her criticisms, claiming that the forced entry to the unconscious involved in HB actually interfered with the natural (if often painful) karmic mechanism (if I can call it that) of the participant, by burning up the "fuel" necessary for future growth. To assess the validity of such a claim it might be necessary to begin with the autobiography of Kate Thomas. If there is any truth in it, then surely it should be of concern to HB participants, including yourself Jablett. Now, according to Thomas herself, she voiced her objections to those in charge at the Findhorn Foundation. When these were ignored she wrote directly to the Scottish Charities Office. Of course, the SCO is not going to base decisions on scientifically unverifiable claims of a "spiritual" nature, so they commissioned their own report by a reputable doctor.
As you have noted, I did refer to an article in The Scotsman, which is a national newspaper. In addition to that, I might mention the following: 1. an article entitled "If only the spirit could move them" in The Guardian, 11 November 1992, pages 10-11 ("What is at the moment causing considerable concern both inside and out with the foundation is something called Holotropic Breathwork Therapy, a technique that involves periods of up to two hours of hyper-ventilation and is said to be 'ideally suited for those seeking greater psychological opening as well as an expanded mystical and spiritual dimension in their lives'. The aim is to achieve the effects of LSD by legal means"); 2. an article in the Daily Express (title missing from my copy, but about the FF), 16 August 1993, page 9 ("One of the most controversial workshops is The Breath Within the Breath. This teaches the technique of holotropic breathing in which people hyperventilate, restricting oxygen to the brain and inducing a 'high'. Medical experts have warned it is dangerous and could lead to death").
I'm not sure that you have addressed my points about the FF, so I will state them again. Although the FF was not on good terms with its neighbours, that is coincidental to the criticisms of HB listed here. Thomas was not a native of the area and had only recently moved there because of the FF. Busuttil and Watt were not locals and their criticisms transcended any local dimensions. The FF was merely the context for the criticisms because that was where HB was being introduced. Subsequent concerns (which I have not listed in the criticism section) involved the Church of England. Even though there was a FF link in that case, it only serves to underline the significance of the FF as a leading New Age centre in the UK (and Europe?), and justify the criticisms being voiced there in the first place, i.e. at the UK source.
I'm not convinced that Ken Wilber is very neutral on this topic, given his own New Age leanings and the approval he has expressed for Grof! The Communicator17:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Communicator should not be here. He has acknowedged a deep hostility to HB and to any psychotherapeutic practice that is not in line with the teachings of Meher Baba. His contributions have been exploitative of that position. Why is here? His remit is to use the wikipedia article to condemn HB. Having failed to make his initial move to demonstrate that HB is controversial he has said that the article itself is controversial. His contributions seem almost exclusively Findhorn based. His face-saving contribution that was not derived from that Findhorn article (did he write it?)seemed to be a verbatim report, and of poor quality. I am not going to let him get away with anything remotely suggestive of manipulation.

I am removing the disputed banner. I am also moving the immediate reference to LSD in the article - before encountering a historical perspective the reader should first be presented with a current, descriptive HB account. --IvorJ 14:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't acknowledge "a deep hostility to HB and to any psychotherapeutic practice that is not in line with the teachings of Meher Baba" - I merely said I was sympathetic to the position of the critics, and made reference to warnings given by Meher Baba that are relevant to the discussion. No, I didn't describe HB as controversial - Jedermann did. No, I didn't write any of the books or articles cited here. All I have done is to make available to future readers of this article certain information about critical reactions to HB, as well as health warnings provided by Grof himself.
I am content with the removal of the disputed banner at present, since my reversion of the criticism section has restored the NPOV that it had previous to IvorJ's editing. I agree that any reference to the LSD background should come after the introductory section - that is common sense. The Communicator 16:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article did appear neutral, Communicator, until you re-entered the current criticism section. It consists mostly of people's opinions, some of which are clearly hostile to breathwork, and they were not based on scientific studies of Holotropic Breathwork. This is the thing with breathwork--we are unfortunately lacking in scientific studies, so it is easy for people for or against it to rely on rhetoric based on their own feelings. To quote Sosmd who wrote above, "The first stage of any scientific endevor is the simple gathering of observational data. This is fundamentally the stage HBW is at ast the moment. HBW sufferes from the same lack of scientific validation as many if not all forms of psychotherapy....So to say HBW lacks scientific validation is accurate, but merely describes its present stage in the sceintific continuum. With regard to HBW being dangerous, I have practised HBW for over fifteen years. In our groups, an unfortuante physical outcome has never occured. This is because there are clearly defined inclusion and exclusion criteriae established by Grof, and we follow them. If a practitioner does not, then that is because that practitioner is incompetent, not because the technique or its indications/contraindicateions are invalid." I have had similar experiences with Holotropic Breathwork as Sosmd. I too am a medical doctor and am a certified Holotropic Breathwork facilitator. I have relied on my own gathering of information, through reading and direct experience, and found this to be an incredibly healing and transformative process for nearly everyone who participates, as well as myself. I have never encountered harmful effects to anyone, nor myself. However, I know that the Wikipedia article is not about my expressing my personal views and beliefs and experiences--it is to be informational and NPOV. It is not currently, due to your additions to the criticism section. I believe that that section should be returned to its prior state--not that I agree with the criticisms as they were then either, but I accept that different viewpoints should be acknowledged. Sanpho 02:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sanpho, there are a number of misconceptions in your comments, some of which may arise from a lack of familiarity with the history of this article. For the sake of clarity, I will summarize your points, followed by my replies:
1. The criticism section is not NPOV because it consists mostly of opinions by people who are hostile to HB. It was neutral before my reversion.
First, to be precise, three of the eight points of criticism are by medical professionals. One of these is Anthony Busuttil, Regius Professor of Forensic Medicine at the University of Edinburgh, who has been described as "Scotland's most respected pathologist".[7] Second, I think there is a misunderstanding about NPOV here. The criticism is certainly not neutral - it is critical. However, when I originally added it last July 13th I wrote it with NPOV, i.e. without adding my own opinions or interpretations, using direct quotations where appropriate and fully referencing my work. I have maintained these standards ever since, as they come naturally to me as a graduate in philosophy and as an academic editor. The word "dangerous" for instance, is not my own, but has been used by critics. Third, although the article was subject to ongoing editing, by a number of editors, it was not until IvorJ (formerly MAJ) started editing on 28 December that its NPOV (in the sense I have used it) was lost. His edits were carried out anonymously and without any prior discussion here. When my subsequent attempts at reversion were negated, I resorted to the neutrality disputed banner on 1 January. If you look at the critical section as it stood on that day (after editing by IvorJ), you will see that it is definitely not NPOV. His opening paragraph attempts to undermine the criticism by offering an interpretation of why HB "finds itself in a vulnerable position". He does similar things with the remaining and much pruned (butchered?) critical points. All of this despite the fact that Jablett, who is sympathetic to HB but who is also a more moderate and sensitive editor, had created a new section on 18 December which is devoted to responses to the criticism. It was IvorJ's additions which amounted to opinion, without quotation or reference. Noting this, on 2 January Jedermann (who has a clinical background, according to his user page) reverted from what he called the "POV distraction" (i.e. IvorJ's POV editing). So it was Jedermann, not I, who restored the NPOV, at least to some extent. The Communicator 15:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
2. HB lacks scientific validation because it is at the early stage of gathering observational data.
This is a theoretical point, which I can appreciate applies very well in the case of the hard sciences. To apply it to psychotherapy is much more tendentious. As Grof is wont to point out, breathing techniques for the purposes of achieving ASCs have been around for a long, long time. Their scientific study is more recent. The gathering of observational data would here apply to the study of respiration, the brain and biochemistry (the basis on which Busuttil made his critical report). The psychological side of the experience is another matter. Psychoanalysis has been around for over a century, but the theories of Freud and Jung (not to mention their practice) are still subject to dispute and controversy. Is that because the discipline is in its infancy and is still at the "stage of gathering observational data"? I don't think so. Which brings me to a related point. Grof's theoretical elaboration of HB makes frequent claims of a "spiritual" nature. In other words, HB is not merely a medical or psychotherapeutic matter. This is why it is so popular in New Age centres like Esalen and the Findhorn Foundation. Several of the critics have countered HB on this basis. The "spiritual" criticisms of HB have as much a place in the article as medical criticisms. They may be "opinion" to some readers, but others might say the same of Grof's "spiritual" interpretations of HB (and LSD) experiences. Grof is not a theologian or historian of religion. The Communicator 15:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
3. HB is not dangerous if it is carried out by qualified practitioners who adhere to the contraindications. Your personal experience supports this.
It is fortunate that Grof provides a list of contraindications. It was unfortunate that the originator and early editors of the article neglected to include it! (The original article was described by Jedermann as an "unreferenced sales pitch"!) I was the one who added that section, and Jedermann added a relevant external link at the bottom of the page. Adherence to the contraindications presumably helps to rule out the worst physical hazards. HB would not be very popular if patients started having seizures or heart attacks! Whether it is an "incredibly healing and transformative process for nearly everyone who participates" is beyond my expertise. At the moment, that amounts to anecdotal evidence. Also, it is still subject to the criticism made by Kate Thomas in the first point of the critical section. The Communicator 15:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Communicator,

Thank you for your reply – I think I understand where you’re coming from now, and I have some responses.

1) I agree that Busuttil and Watt are speaking independently as professionals in their own right, whether or not I’d agree with what they are saying. I’m unclear about the context for Watt’s comments – was the medical advice on which the course was cancelled hers?

No, it was Busuttil's. The Scotsman article is mainly about Watt, but Busuttil's report is implicit: "A New Age community in Moray has cancelled a meditation course after psychiatrists and local doctors expressed alarm about potential dangers to participants ... the SCO commissioned a report into breathwork which has expressed strong criticism". The Communicator 14:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Could this be made clearer in the article ? Jablett 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

2) I would expect the original Findhorn controversy to have been covered in the national papers, and it’s good that we now have those references (maybe they could be incorporated ? The references, not the quotes).

They could be! But see below as to whether it will be worth it. The Communicator 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My point was that the 1995 stories you quoted from the Forres Gazette were not covered by the national papers apparently. I’m theorising that because they are about Breathwork workshops in London, the only reason that the Forres Gazette was covering them was because they would have been of interest to the local community on account of the original controversy. It seems, correct me if I’m wrong, less of an investigation by the Church of England as the Forres Gazette asking the Church of England for their opinion, given their particular interest.

I have gone back into my file on this subject and found a copy of the original promotional literature, which indicates the strength of the FF link. The three "facilitators" are William Bloom, Gill Emslie and Marijke Wilhelmus. Of the latter two, it says they are "staff members of the Findhorn Foundation and fully qualified Holotropic Breathwork practitioners". The dates for the course are given as April 28/29/30 and October 21/22/23 (1995). This episode is covered by Stephen Castro in Hypocrisy and Dissent (pages 98-104) and he there refers to his own correspondence with David Skidmore of the Church of England's Board of Social Responsibility. The implication is that HB has spread to new venues through the influence of the FF. The Communicator 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

3) I’m not sure what the spiritual claims are which you say that Grof makes for Holotropic Breathwork - as far as I’m aware, none of them appear in this article, unless I’m so steeped in the language that I just don’t notice it any more ! (I should perhaps point out that my primary interest is psychological, and that’s the lens through which I read his work. It may well constitute bias of a different sort)

Well, the very first paragraph of the article refers to "Eastern spiritual practices, and mystical traditions of the world" (it is also worth pointing out that this is word for word from Grof's own website). Apart from that, his books are replete with such references. Here's one example that I had already typed up for a section on the LSD background: "There was no doubt in my mind that what I was experiencing was very close to experiences of 'cosmic consciousness' I had read about in the great mystical scriptures of the world. In psychiatric handbooks such states were defined as manifestations of severe pathology. In the midst of it I knew that the experience was not the result of a psychosis brought on by the drug but a glimpse into a world beyond ordinary reality ... I emerged from the experience moved to the core. At that time I did not believe as I do today, that the potential for mystical experience is the birthright of all humans. I attributed everything I experienced to the drug itself. But there was no doubt in my mind that this substance was the 'royal road into the unconscious.' I felt strongly that this drug could heal the gap between the theoretical brilliance of psychoanalysis and its lack of effectiveness as a therapeutic tool. It seemed that LSD-assisted analysis could deepen, intensify, and accelerate the therapeutic process." (Grof, Stanislav, with Hal Zina Bennett The Holotropic MInd: The Three Levels of Human Consciousness and How They Shape Our Lives, New York: HarperCollins, 1993, pp. 15-16). Here's another: "some LSD sessions had the form of profound religious and mystical experiences quite similar to those described in the holy scriptures of the great religions of the world and reported by saints, prophets, and religious teachers of all ages." (Grof, Stanislav, Realms of the Human Unconscious: Observations from LSD Research, London: Souvenir Press, 1979; first published in New York by The Viking Press, 1975; p. 3). I have no doubt that I could find many more. I also have two books of Grof's on the subject of death and the afterlife. These are Beyond Death: The Gates of Consciousness (co-authored with Christina Grof, Thames and Hudson, 1980) and Books of the Dead: Manuals for Living and Dying (Thames and Hudson, 1994). By the way, Grof's "spiritual" claims for LSD as quoted above are precisely the sort of claims that Meher Baba had criticised (as distinct from medical use). The Communicator 15:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, personally, I would be wary of saying that holotropic breathwork triggered 'spiritual experiences', and I'm glad that the article doesn't actually say this. I am clear that it triggers experiences that people interpret as such, and I imagine that the process by which an individual comes to decide that an experience they have had is a spiritual one is very much the same in the context of holotropic breathwork as it is in meditation or spontaneous awakening. The point about integrating insights from "Eastern spiritual traditions and the mystical traditions of the world" relates, I imagine, to the techniques for inducing non-ordinary states of consciousness, which I think we both agree have been around for centuries.Jablett 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

4) An article can violate NPOV in a number of ways. One, as you correctly point out, is in the wording of individual contributions. Another is in the selection or presentation of what material to include or exclude, and I think that THAT is the complaint that is currently being levelled at the criticism section.

For example, the chronological order of the criticism section gives the impression that there are new criticisms or incidents involving HB year-on-year, which I think is actually misleading, especially as three of them are actually from the same author, who you would reasonably expect to have the same stance over time.

As a professional editor, I felt that there ought to be some sort of logic to the order, so I chose a chronological one. This was not an attempt to create any sort of misleading impression. I think the criticisms speak for themselves (and I have attempted to present them as clearly and objectively as possible). The Communicator 15:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you of intentionally misleading, Communicator. I am arguing that a) the order of the criticism section gives a particular impression, and that b) that impression is a misleading one. Do you agree with either of these propositions ? Jablett 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I do think that Kate Thomas views are very interesting, and I will take the opportunity to read up on them further as you suggest, but I feel they are minority views (in the WP sense, see definitions below), and don’t justify the amount of space that they have been given.

Extracts from the WP guidelines on NPOV :

“NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.”…

“We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views”…

“If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.”

This is more tricky, because "minority" and "majority" only make sense within a specific context. What is the context in which the critics' views represent a minority? The medical one? The psychiatric one? The alternative therapeutic one? The New Age one? The general public one? Is there any evidence that their views are minority ones in any of those contexts? Where is the research? I think you're opening a can of worms here, because it is precisely the same lack of independent research which undermines the whole article (see below). The Communicator 15:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What is my definition of minority? Well,it's rough and ready, but I search the net to see who else is interested in the critic's views. If you Google '"holotropic breathwork" - wikipedia' (to remove all the mirror sites to this one) you get a sample of 65,200. '"holotropic breathwork" criticism -wikipedia' gives 14,200. "holotropic breathwork" "kate thomas" -wikipedia gives 5, 4 links to the text of the article that presumably don't mention it comes from Wikipedia, and one for the global ideas bank link discussed above. Substituting "Kevin Shepherd" into the string produces 2, both links to an early version of this article, and "Stephen Castro" produces the same result as Kate Thomas. This is my definition of minority view. For comparison,'"holotropic breathwork" "ken wilber" criticism -wikipedia' gives 234 entries including three scholarly articles that have been cited by other authors.Jablett 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, looking for a definition for ‘verifiable source’ within WP I found:

“In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s). “…

“Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.”

5) I’m afraid I think those definitions discount Thomas, Castro AND Shepherd. These guidelines seem quite clear to me, but if you feel this is unfair I’m willing to recommend it for arbitration by more experienced (and independent) WP editors.

To some extent this has been covered before, in the section you created above (Kevin Shepherd reference). In relation to that, were you aware that user SSS108 (i.e. Gerald "Joe" Moreno) is notorious for his online activities against critics of Satya Sai Baba? See [8]. It seems that the judgement against Shepherd on the page you linked to was premature, as pointed out by Jedermann. Further to that, although there are good reasons for the Wikipedia policy on self-publication, I believe that Shepherd's case is unusual. He is an atypical writer, a non-academic who has researched in Cambridge University Library and published a number of scholarly books. His Minds and Sociocultures: Vol One (from which I quoted in the criticism section) is over 1000 pages long, has maps, appendices, notes and an index. There are 461 notes to the main text and the index alone is 43 pages long. His other books are similar with respect to the quality of scholarly apparatus. It is unlikely in the extreme that any publisher would have taken on such a book, especially from a non-academic. Shepherd is realistic about his abilities, and prefers to be regarded as a scholarly amateur. He is scrupulous in his use of specialist scholars, although he is occasionally critical of academics (and academic publishers) when they endorse what he regards as dubious persons and practices. By self-publishing, he maintains his authorial independence, although he suffers from the lack of resources provided by commercial and academic publishing houses. His books have high production values (I speak here as a professional bookseller) and are presumably expensive to produce. He doesn't seem to gain financially from their sale, nor in any other way as far as I can see. He doesn't promote any organization or religious persuasion. It's difficult to see what is "self-serving" (to quote a term that was used by Minehunter in the relevant section above) about his writing, or that of Thomas and Castro.
I don't know anything about user SSS108 or previous disputes involving him. I found that page while doing an internet search on Kevin Shepherd. You seem to be agreeing that Kevin Shepherd currently falls foul of the WP policy, but should perhaps be treated as a special case, for which a change to the policy might be required. Do I understand correctly? Jablett 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
To reiterate: Wikipedia does acknowledge good reasons for self-publishing. See Self-publishing.
Of course there are good reasons for self publishing, but I don't think that's what we are talking about. As far as I can make out this is a wikipedia page about self publishing, rather than the policy about self publishing, which is part of the Verifiability page [[9]]Jablett 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
This brings me to a more serious issue, which relates to the fact that "Holotropic Breathwork™ is a registered trademark of the Grof Transpersonal Training".[10] As a commercial service, it should be subject to Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). In particular see the "Criteria for products and services". Early versions of the article were very obviously of an advertising nature, and completely without reference. Even now, apart from those of the critics, there is only one reference in the list that is not to Grof's own publications. It is not clear how independent that other reference is (all I can find out about Sarah W Holmes is that she is a "Psychologist, Psychotherapist, And Hypnotist" in Savannah, Georgia). Ironically, it seems that the criticism section and its related references are largely what is preventing the article from contravening Wikipedia policy on commercial services. Without "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" it is doubtful that HB deserves anything more than the passing reference it gets in the more generic Psychedelic psychotherapy. It would be interesting to hear what an independent arbiter would have to say about that. If the article is going to be marked for deletion, better sooner than later, before any of us waste any more time editing it! The Communicator 17:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
According to the database entry on EBSCO, where I got it from, the research reference comes from a journal published by the American Psychological Association. I assume that it is independent and peer reviewed.
Regarding commercial services, Wikipedia says simply that the subject must have "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself", not that they be referenced in the article. HB fulfils this, and doesn't need the disputed references in order to do so.Jablett 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

6) Ken Wilber may not be to your taste (or mine for that matter !), but I understand that he does criticize Grof’s model regularly, and is a well-known respected theorist in his own right, which surely makes any of his criticisms of HB ripe for inclusion.

I'm not familiar enough with the work of Wilber to comment. The Communicator 17:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Neither am I, but see google search terms above. Jablett 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

7) Meher Baba’s position on HB really is pure speculation. Interestingly, I see that he seemed to support the therapeutic use of LSD for treating chronic alcoholism and mental illness. I can imagine that he and Grof might have had much to talk about. However, I don’t know that he appointed anyone to carry on his teaching after his death whose opinion could be established (and I for one wouldn’t like to be in the position of second guessing him!) Jablett 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Meher Baba did admit of medical use for LSD, although there are qualifications here. The medical context was very different in the 1960s. Shepherd refers to this in Pointed Observations (2005). Among other things he points out that the context "was not in any way equivalent to the Grofian LSD psychotherapy, which was not trying to cure or alleviate mental disorders but to provoke experiences believed to have a transcendent nature" (p. 374, n. 104). Shepherd also indicates complexities in Meher Baba's deference to medical opinions. The Communicator 17:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Jablett, thanks for your input. I agree with the points you make and appreciate the information you quoted in #4 above, as that does expand on what I was thinking as well. Sanpho 16:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


SOSMD.

I have not been on this site for a while, but I see fundamentally the same discussion going on, so perhaps another 2 cents worth might be appropriate.

As mentioned in my earlier post, I am an MD and a therapist, and I have been practising Holotropic Breath Work (HBW) for over fifteen years.

One of the chief concerns that seem to be legitimately expressed here are concerns regarding the safety of HBW. These safety concerns appear to be based on two main issues. The first is the physical safety of sustained rapid and more effective breathing, and the second centers around the potential for various spiritual disturbances as a consequence of this practice. Might I suggest that in addition to my own attestation that I have conducted HBW sessions in complete physical safety for over fifteen years, and that this mirrors not only Grof's experience for a far longer period, but also the many hundreds of practitioners whom he has trained, that anyone seriously concerned about such sustained hyperventilation should be expressing equal concern at the practices conducted in the myriad of Yoga Studios presently in the world, where Pranayammha techniques are taught to all and sundry, usually without any of the pre selection or screening that is an integral part of a properly conducted HBW session. Despite the theoretical concerns of "Scotland's most respected Pathologist", the sheer number of people all over the world who regularly employ techniques of sustained deeper breathing attest to its fundamental safety. Further, these practices are not new. To the contrary, they are ancient. Whether their survival in the spiritual and psychological practices of the human race is a net plus or a net minus might well be argued, but to suggest they are physically dangerous would be to suggest a powerful counter Darwinian argument. If hyperventilation were as dangerous as Scotland's most respected Pathologist is quoted as suggesting, the chances are high that the practice would have died out, along with its practitioners, some considerable time ago.

With regard to the potential for 'spiritual" side effects, the situation is murkier. Most spiritual disciplines which employ techniques that induce non ordinary states of consciousness (NOSC), - such as yoga's pranayammha, Tibetan Buddhist practices, etc, - recommend that these techniques are not for everyone. Either they screen and exclude certain individuals, and/ or they recommend much so called 'foundation practice' prior to employing them. So does Grof, and the HBW methodolgy. There is a screening process. Certain individuals and diagnostic categories are excluded. Others, such as those with addictive problems, are advised that a period of time - usually a year - of sustained sobriety and drug freedom are required in order to establish a psychological foundation upon which experiences in NOSC might be beneficial.

As I mentioned in my earlier contribution to this topic, in my early days of practicing HBW a woman whom we accepted into one of our groups had an unexpected Kundalini opening. I feel now, with the accumulated wisdom of years of practice, that I would not today offer this individual HBW without more foundation psychotherapy, and perhaps not at all. But this individual as the only one among hundreds, some of whom were severely damaged on entering therapy, and the sheer number of people world wide who are increasingly practicing and submitting themselves to HBW attests to both its physical and psychological safety, despite the objections, which have always been theoretical rather than factual. People say, "that sounds dangerous", and ignore the patently obvious, and daily demostrated fact, that it is not.

I would also suggest that were HBW a dangerous activity in any measurable or observable sense, in the way for instance that alcohol is, that this fact would be widely known. There would be no need to speculate about it here or anywhaere else. I would also suggest - WP now being such a widely read resource, - that many of those injured by it would be present in this discussion.

Far more difficult to discuss than the above is the so called 'spiritual dimension' of the HBW experience. For one thing, what is it? Indeed, what is a spiritual experience at all? What is the spiritual dimension? When does an ecstatic psychological experience, - or a hellish one - cease to be such, and becomes spiritual? Is it like walking from Glascow to London? Until one reaches the Tyne it's all psychological, after that it's spiritual? This issue is complicated by the fact that many observers of psychological phenomena espouse a fully materialistic viewpoint, and for them the discussion is mute because the dimension does not exist. To them indeed mention of spiritual phenomena is itself suspicious at the least, and worthy of a DSM labeling, ambulant psychosis at worst. All human nature and behaviour can, and some day soon will be, explained by genetics, neuroanatomy and neurochemistry. Shakespere, Beethoven, Hitler, Stalin, love, hate, indifference, the urge to climb Everest and the hunger to drive to the stars, are all ultimately a matter of Serotonin and Dopamine, and all can be ultimately influenced and controlled by clever little molecules such as Prozac and Risperidal. But for those to whom the spiritual dimension of life has meaning, some discussion of its place in the realm of healing is germaine to this page.

For practical purposes, spiritual experiences in the HBW model are experiences which take an individual beyond the boundary of himself or herself. They are experiences which challenge the view of oneself as a "Skin Encapsulated Ego". The simplest of these is the identification with another human being. In this context it is important to note that the word identification is here being used in its psychoanalytical sense. In this context, identification is not an imitation or a mere likening, it is a becoming. So in this sense, an individual in a NOSC may be having an experience of an interaction with a parent or a sibling, and begins to experience the interaction from the perspective of the other individual. It is as if the boundaries between their consciousness has dissolved, and they become one. Similarly, individuals can have experiences of identification with whole groups of beings, such as tribal structures, or with powerful spiritual figures, such as Christ or Buddha, or Mohammed. Participants report similar episodes of identification with animals.

Of course, these experiences could seem entirely bizarre to someone with no direct experience of them, but what is intriguing about them from an ontological perspective, is that they are rarely new. They mirror experiences described in the world's spiritual literatures. What is further intriguing about them, is that they occur to individuals who do not necessarily have any prior experience with the particular spiritual tradition from which the experience is usually associated. Balts, for instance, in NOSC, can have seemingly authentic encounters with animal entities that could have been lifted directly out of the folklore of a North American Indian tribe. An accountant from the Bronx might have an experience that mirrors that of a Kalahari Bushman. Of course we live in a global village, and of course these individuals could have seen something sometime on TV which primed them for this experience, but that was hardly the case when Grof was discovering this same phenomenon during LSD sessions held at Charles University in Prague, then a communist country with a totally materialistic structure of education and entertainment, where individuals undergoing their therapeutic sessions had experiences straight out of the Upanishads or the Bhagavad Gita. Another aspect of these experiences which make them intriguing is the fact that individuals who have them, seem to return from them with new and entirely authentic information about the cultures and attitudes of peoples with whom they were, prior to, entirely unfamiliar.

But the most interesting aspect of all concerning these experiences, is that they appear to dovetail neatly with the particular psychological issues and traumatic experiences with which the person is dealing. So much so that is a tennent of HBW theory, that for optimum healing to occur, it needs to occur on the physical, psychological and spiritual levels.

There is much meat in the foregoing discussions on this topic, some worthy and some less so, and far more that I have time to address. I would however like to offer a final point about the psychedelic origins of HBW. It is clear form the may quotes offered above on Grof's LSD work, that the people being quoted have not read or taken that that work seriously. For instance,

"Wallace Sampson, Clinical Professor Emeritus of Medicine at Stanford University, criticize the approval of research by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) into the use of the drug MDMA (Ecstasy) as a treatment for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Sampson states that the study "appears to be the exclusive project of believers in psychedelic mysticism, and based on work of Dr. Stanislav Grof, an early LSD self-experimenter and psychedelic psychotherapist. After LSD and Ecstasy use was declared illegal, Grof developed Holotropic Breathwork, a potentially dangerous form of severe hyperventilation, as a legal method of invoking hallucinations."

I have no useful knowledge of Dr. Wallace's pedigree, but I do have some of Dr. Grof's. I can attest that he has no interest whatsoever in inducing hallucinations. Hallucinations are not real, by definition. They would interest Grof not at all. Grof was one of the early researchers selected by Sandoz to work with what became one of the most interesting compounds in the history of psychiatry. LSD has become inevitably linked in the public consciousness with Hippies, Charles Manson, and the froth and excesses, as well as the brilliance, of the 1960's. Hence, it is an easy 'guilt by association' smear to mention HBW in the same disparaging sentence as LSD, tarring both with the same yellow brush. Yet this ignores the fact that they are not the same thing at all, and also ignores the excellent and well documented research work that was done by conscientious psychiatrists all over the world with LSD prior to the Tate killings and its subsequent illegality. This attitude serves also to disguise the appallingly miserable state of psychiatry today, wherein the two most common compounds prescribed in the world are antidepressants and tranquillizers, where a visit to a psychiatrist lasts ten minutes, and is focussed usually on adjustments to the number and dosages of these medications, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the nature, the meaning, the extent, or the possible eradication, of the client's suffering. All discussion of HBW, with its inherent attempt to discover meaning in clients' pain, and point to a way beyond it, should take place in this context.

Kind regards,

sosmd

[edit] Referral to Mediation Cabal

I've referred this to the Mediation Cabal [[11]], and created the following summary of the ongoing NPOV disputes: [[12]]

I must stress I've only listed the recurring disputes,(I haven't had time to consider or reply to the recent ones listed in Communicator's post) but please feel free to add anything to the mediation request that you feel I haven't represented and/or is important to what's happening here.

I don't believe that deletion of the page is necessary or fair, and an answer to some of these ongoing issues could free up energy to concentrate on the important business of expanding the article.

Jablett 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added a query concerning notability, which I think should be taken into consideration at the same time. The Communicator 23:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of critical link by Jablett

I note Jablett's removal of the following external link to an independent review of a book cited in this article. This is merely the latest instance of HB practitioners removing published criticism. However, I will await the Mediation Cabal's guidance before reinstating it.

FYI, the second paragraph reads:

One of the strengths of the book is that it is, in a sense, a critique by an insider. Thomas claims to have had a major kundalini experience herself. It is not the existence or the validity of this force that is in question, but rather what she considers to be its illicit activation. The means by which this can happen are many and include not just traditional techniques of kundalini yoga, but also breathwork [my emphasis], drugs, magical practices, meditative exercises of concentration and visualization, shamanic dancing and sweatlodge ceremonies, and so on. A common strategy is to justify such techniques on the basis of having been around for millennia and used in 'traditional' societies. This line of argument ignores two fundamental factors. First, the traditional context (where it existed) of moral discipline. Second, the traditional motive (where it existed) of dedication to a higher cause. Unsurprisingly, such discipline and dedication were not always present even in traditional circles. Kundalini yoga, for example, has roots in prehistoric fertility cults and magical practices, and has often been associated with the pursuit of power. Where purification of the ego's selfish tendencies is not a preliminary requirement, it seems that techniques of inner development only magnify existing faults. Such factors were well understood in traditional schools of spiritual development. But how can they be comprehended in a New Age milieu that is so commercial and narcissistic, whether the motive given be scientific progress, therapy or 'enlightenment'? Caveat emptor!

Jedermann 12:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Jedermann, I'm not actually an HB practitioner. I have attended a training module, which was open to the general public, but I have not enrolled or made a commitment with Grof transpersonal training. It is possible, even likely, that I may eventually do so, but it is not currently the case.
The term breathwork is wider than HB, see [13] for a quick googled definition. This site is relevant to Thomas' criticism of HB, but it is not about it. That is why I removed it.Jablett 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Jablett, Sorry if I mischaracterized your relationship to HB. However, I still think that an independent review of one of the principal critical works cited here is required, since that criticism has been continually called into question by you and others. And Thomas writes specifically about HB in Kundalini Phenomenon, as already quoted in this article.
Thank you Jedermann. My complaint really is the apparent assumption that edits by people with a declared interest in HB can't also be objective. Some of them are, some of them aren't. Same goes for those with sympathies critical to HB. I like to think that I'm trying to cite objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion of material, but please challenge me if you think that's not the case. If I go to the scientific and medical network site and type in Kate Thomas, the first recommended article is this one : [14]. It's partisan - it's a defence by an author, Christopher Bache, of his own work, but that bias is made clear. His article is referenced, and a quick google search tells me he's a very well known author, unlike the author of the other Kate Thomas review if I do a similar search. Bache's article discusses Kate Thomas view of spirituality and also mentions Stanislav Grof, "holotropic therapy"(sic), psychedelic therapy and altered states of consciousness. All relevant to our discussions, and, as it turns out on this occasion, disagreeing with Kate Thomas. Now, this seems much closer to a relevant link to me, but I don't think it belongs on the 'external links' section either, and wouldn't put it there, because the credibility or otherwise of Kate Thomas views are not the subject of the article. They are the subject of our ongoing disagreements about the article, and to that extent, I have no disagreement with these kinds of links being posted and discussed on the talk pages, but don't believe they belong on the main page (unless I misunderstand the role of the external links ?) Jablett 10:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment from Mediator Wikipedia's guidelines on external links contains a lot of useful information about when to include/not include links. This should provide for you talking points and a common ground for establishing consensus.TheRingess (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Mediator suggestion I suggest that all interested editors read Wikipedia's policy of good faith assumption. TheRingess (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal suggestion

Re Communicator's point about HB's notability and commercial status. A weakness of the present article is that it doesn't help readers place HB within the totality of Breathwork. I suggest that Breathwork should become the main article on the topic - Rebirthing, HB etc would have their own subheadings. I've added a link to WP Breathwork - truly atrocious at present, including some advertising even more blatant than originally contained here. But it would allow a more general discussion of the pros and cons of the subject, and this article could be scaled down. Jedermann 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a very interesting and valuable point Jedermann. Some of the criticisms applied to HB, and the claims made for it, are common to other forms of breathwork. I agree that the absence of a good Breathwork page is a big oversight, and I think you've made a very good start on that project. Thank you. I think you should float the suggestion on Rebirthing-Breathwork talk pages too. Buteyko method also often seems to be mentioned as a breathwork modality, and has it's own wiki page. The question for me here is what should remain in this article. I think that the expanded cartography of the psyche and the origins in psychedelic therapy are quite unique to holotropic breathwork relative to other forms of breathwork, but I don't really know enough about them to be sure. I also think, as I said, that some of the criticisms are generic, but I wouldn't want to transfer them to another page only to have the same argument about independence or credibility of sources over there.
I've followed your suggestion and invited Rebirthing-Breathwork to join in. Buteyko is the opposite of Breathwork, though - it's controlled hypoventilation. I think it would be misleading and confusing to include it under Breathwork.Jedermann 14:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I've actually found this whole episode quite wearying as a newcomer to Wikipedia, and think it would be nice to have closure and agreement on issues here before moving on. It dispirits me to restate the arguments that I've already expanded elsewhere, but I will do so. Briefly I understand that Castro, Thomas and Shepherd are self published (do we agree on this ?). Having read the policies suggested by Ringess, I am still not convinced that they are valid sources (in the Wikipideia sense), or sufficiently important to justify the prominence they have been given. I am prepared to concede that Castro or Thomas may be valid sources for facts involving the holotropic breathwork events that happened at Findhorn (although I would much prefer it if they were independent journalists/theorists who did not also have close personal links with the events, and weren't self published), but I don't think that necessarily makes them valid sources of opinion on holotropic breathwork as a technique. I also continue to believe that the way the criticism section has been organised is misleading (consciously or otherwise).
I seem to be at cross purposes with others here about the definition of importance - I think I'm using 'importance' in the 'well known/academically significant' sense. Others appear to be using it in the 'highly relevant' or 'people need to know this' sense, which I believe is subjective and outside the scope of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this seems to have led to a circular situation where I am simply repeatedly questioning other people's sources, and the sources they cite which support them. I don't know any way out of that, and I note that Ringess is not willing to act as an external authority. My fear is that only those with highly polarised views may stick around long enough to see this resolved, and my own contributions may be limited by the amount of energy that I have for academic debate (which is not nearly as much as it might at first appear!).
That's all I have to say for now. Thank you, Ringess, for offering to mediate, and for your welcome on my talk page. Thank you also to Jedermann and Communicator for your contribution to the mediation process so far. I would encourage any other interested parties to get involved.Jablett 12:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to express appreciation to Jablett and Jedermann for their contributions to the debate, and to Ringess for her offer to mediate. Like Jablett, I find that even the thought of restating old arguments tires me! I am also open to a complete restructuring of the article, which may involve making it a subsection of Breathwork. There are, in addition, obvious links with psychedelic psychotherapy.
With regard to the specific issue for which Jablett sought mediation, the core issue seems to be that of self-publication by some of the authors cited in the criticism section. Looking at the references, we see that Castro has two entries, one of which is an article published in an independent journal (The Therapist) and the other is his book about the Findhorn Foundation. Even if the latter is self-published, there is no quote from it in the criticism section, only a passing reference; the significant quote is from the non-self-published Therapist article. Thomas's criticisms have three sources. One of these is a letter to a newspaper, so that is not self-published. As for the other publishers (New Frequency Press and New Media Books), and also Shepherd's publisher (Philosophical Press) I can only say that if these publishers have no publications by other authors then one could conclude either (1) that they are self-published, or (2) that they are published by someone else on behalf of the authors. If either possibility is the case, then should they be excluded from Wikipedia? Let's look more closely.
The first point of criticism is from Thomas's 1992 book. But most of this is actually a quote she herself provides from a letter she sent to Rainbow Bridge,[15] the Findhorn Foundation's own internal magazine. This is what Thomas says about the letter: "the then-Editor, Jean Prince, returned it to me, having first passed it to Eileen Caddy in view of the content. Eileen declined its inclusion, and I had to amend the letter in order to make it acceptable. This of course meant the deletion of reference to Eileen" (937). She then proceeds to quote from her original letter. Although Thomas doesn't say how much of the original was published by Rainbow Bridge, the context implies that it was substantially unaltered. If this is the case then much of that first point of criticism has been published as a letter in Rainbow Bridge and can therefore be checked by others (it was published on 23 May 1990). The reference to Caddy was obviously not published, but I'm not aware that she has ever disputed the view attributed to her by Thomas. It was expressed in a private conversation between the two of them. As for the other Foundation members referred to in the first point of criticism, it is no secret that there was opposition to HB among their ranks. Thomas again provides quotes from letters published in Rainbow Bridge (30 May) in response to her own. The first of these was signed by someone called Jane, and Thomas says that they did not know one another. Here is a taste from Jane's letter: "I would like to express my appreciation of Kate Thomas's article on Holotropic Breathwork. I have not experienced H.B. myself and actually am glad that I have not ..." (939). The second letter took the form of an open letter to Craig Gibsone, the Director of the Foundation, by a senior staff member, Alec Whittam: "I presume that all the written feedback you received (about H.B.) has been 'aired' in the Rainbow Bridge. By my count there was one in favour, five against, and one concerned and offering suggestions ... My gut feeling is that we are asking for trouble with this type of work. I question whether we know enough to be able to hold and contain whatever is being released. It feels to me that this is highly focussed individual therapy which requires teachers who are, or should be, spiritual adepts" (939-40). The third letter from the 30 May issue quoted by Thomas was from Gibsone himself, defending the Foundation's decision to go ahead with the HB workshops. Thomas makes it clear that she is quoting "several excerpts". Here I quote from the final paragraph of the letter: "this centre has something to add to the Holotropic work, as I feel that it is still developing and we can assist in its integration. Remember - there are many highly developed adepts and initiates living and working here" (940).
Now it seems to me that Thomas has gone to a lot of trouble here to state clearly what was said and by whom, and most of the facts can be checked by referring to Rainbow Bridge (unfortunatley the online archive doesn't go back that far). Is the question of self-publication relevant here? Putting it another way, would a freelance copyeditor working for a major publisher have checked all of these quotes? Speaking as a professional editorial manager myself, I can point out that they certainly would not! That is not part of their job.
The quote from Thomas's 2000 publication is obviously her own claim about the abilities of breathworkers. The context in the book is a "spiritual" one, and would have to be assessed on that basis. Readers of the Wikipedia article would accept or reject it according to their own experience and background. Again, I'm not sure that publication by a major publisher would alter any of these facts. It is, however, worth pointing out that one of the HB partisans who contributed to this Talk page appears unintentionally to support Thomas's claim. On 8 January, Sosmd wrote: "One woman, with whom we worked very early on in our HBW career, did go into an unexpected Kindalini opening. In retrospect, I would perhaps not offer her HBW today, based on her initial interview and my accumulated experiecne. That eror is mine, not the technique's. Although her procedss has not been easy in the subsequent years, she has done well. It is however empahatically ubntrue that I was not properly trained by Grof to deal with a Kundalini opening. Thos familar witht eh history of breath work will be aware that Christina Grof has written exgtensiveley about her own Kundalini expereicences, and this writinf is am important part of the curriculum of HBW." (sic) Assuming, for the sake of the argument, the metaphysical reality of kundalini, then this is no minor mishap. Furthermore, it is not clear from the quote how Sosmd would avoid a recurrence of such an event. Grof's own contraindications (as quoted by me in the article) contain no reference to this possibility, as far as I can see.
Turning to Shepherd's 1995 publication, I would make the same points as above. He is making his own claims, although there is some support for these. The remarks about "hypoxaemia" have a scientific basis. The comparison with Shamanism is one that Grof makes himself, although Shepherd clearly disagrees with him on the significance of this.
It seems to me that the whole issue of what HB does, and the competence of those practising it, are precisely what the criticisms are about, whether thay are medical or "spiritual". Although "extreme" measures are often used in medicine, whether they be surgical or pharmaceutical, such measures are generally for obvious physical ailments, although even here there can be disagreement about the necessity for particular approaches. In psychiatry and psychotherapy, the controversies are more widespread, since we are here dealing with the mind. Techniques such as Electroconvulsive Therapy and Lobotomy are very controversial, and some people even dispute the existence of certain so-called "disorders" (e.g. Adhd). In Against Therapy (Collins, 1989), Jaffrey Masson questions the core assumptions of psychotherapy, while Richard Noll (The Jung Cult, Princeton University Press, 1994) and Richard Webster (Why Freud Was Wrong, HarperCollins, 1995) undermine two of the most significant figures in the history of psychoanalysis. Although some of the evidence used in support of HB refers to psychiatric conditions, the context in which it has been introduced (in New Age centres such as Esalen, the Findhorn Foundation and the Alternatives centre at St James in Piccadilly) reveals a much broader application, and one that is supported by Grof's own "spiritual" claims for it. The latter are not currently included in the article, but I think they are very relevant and provide a context for much of the criticism, and they should be included in future, whatever the outcome of the debate about its eventual form.
Nobody appears to be disputing the NPOV status of the medical criticisms, even if they disagree with the substance of those criticisms. As for the "spiritual" criticisms, some of these are evidently not self-published. Even where this is a possibility, I would argue that the context supports their inclusion. Thomas appears to document her writing very well, and many of the facts can be checked. Shepherd is an interesting case. He is a self-confessed non-academic, who employs the scholarly apparatus of academics. As I pointed out above, "Minds and Sociocultures: Vol One (from which I quoted in the criticism section) is over 1000 pages long, has maps, appendices, notes and an index. There are 461 notes to the main text and the index alone is 43 pages long." Shepherd is probably best referred to as a "scholarly amateur" and I believe a place should exist for such writers, so long as they satisfy the conventional criteria for scholarship.
If I were a future researcher (of any kind) into the subject of HB (or breathwork, or psychedelic psychotherapy, etc.) I would rather have the full story, including the criticism, and for this reason I urge that none of the critics be excluded, as long as they are presented from a NPOV, properly referenced, and satisfy the usual criterial for verification.
The Communicator 16:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree the full story needs to be available, The Communicator, and I have no problem with self-published material on this topic that is more scholarly than the proponents' efforts. However, rather a large part of the HB controversy involves Findhorn, and cannot be isolated from the culture clashes prevalent there (see Talk:Findhorn Foundation about the strangely reticent Findhorn Foundation article). Would it be worth creating a separate article on the FF controversy, with HB as one (perhaps the prime) example? Linked to the relevant Breathwork articles, of course.Jedermann 14:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Mediator Comment It looks like you guys are really starting to talk to each other. That's great. TheRingess (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Jedermann, thanks for your helpful comments. I looked at the FF article (and Talk page) some months ago, and noted the inadequacies. There is certainly scope for revision there, and you may be right about a separate article on the FF controversy. In the criticism section of the HB article, I only mentioned the FF where necessary as a context. I think the criticisms of HB are logically independent of the FF controversy, even if the two have coincided to some extent. It also occurs to me that the HB criticism section might eventually be rewritten, paraphrasing the main points of criticism, rather than using lengthy quotes. That's just a thought. For the moment, however, I'm going to take a break from contributing to Wikipedia, including the Talk pages. I'll still follow the developments, but I think I've said all I wanted to say here, including for the purposes of mediation (TheRingess, please refer to the lengthy discussion that took place above, prior to the mediation process, if you have not already done so). The Communicator 13:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I spent a couple of hours on the Internet this afternoon obsessively checking references and publisher details for the authors and sources that I’ve been disputing. It occurred to me that this is most certainly not what attracted me to the Holotropic Breathwork movement in the first place, and that I really need to take a step back.

At the same time, I have been reading Kate Thomas autobiography, as I said I would. It does move me, but perhaps not for the reasons that Kate Thomas would have intended. When I read her account of the events at Findhorn, I am struck by how much this was a dispute that must have caused a great deal of hurt and anger on both sides. On one side there seemed to be concerns that passionately held beliefs were being ignored, marginalised, or deliberately suppressed, on the other fears that criticisms were personally motivated, and would endanger a way of life that people cared about. I think I detect something of a similar dynamic at work in our exchanges (in me at least), and I want to make it absolutely clear that, now that I’m aware of it, I have no interest whatsoever in using any of the people here to restage this argument. My experience of passionate spiritual debates of this type tells me that there are probably elements of truth and unconscious self-deception on both sides.

My instinct therefore is to leave the disputed references in, and let the reader decide, with the following alterations:

1) The first Kate Thomas reference to read “In volume 3 of her autobiography, mystic Kate Thomas (1992) quotes etc…”I think this is important information to allow the reader to make sense of what follows. The references to the personal conversation with Eileen Caddy, which Eileen Caddy was apparently unwilling to have published, should be removed. I understand that Eileen Caddy died last year, and this information is now completely unverifiable.

2) Stephen Castro reference: “Former Findhorn foundation member Stephen Castro (1995) takes issue with the confusion of therapy and spirituality which he claims is evident in the work of Grof…” and later “Castro shows how this confusion could be further complicated by commercial interests”. Same again – context setting, and some neutral rewording.

3) Kevin Shepherd reference: “Kevin Shepherd (1995) points out that the experimental nature of Holotropic Breathwork should be a cause of concern if the context is presented as commercial therapy:…”

4) Reorder the criticisms so that more mainstream views are presented first: I would suggest medical/psychological,commercial, spiritual in that order, and the Kate Thomas criticisms amalgamated into one paragraph

5) If these changes, which I am happy to make, are agreed, I think that it would be a really nice gesture if The Communicator could subsequently thin out the paragraphs to reflect the essence of the criticisms in a way that he is happy with.

Jablett 19:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Announcement

I have opened the case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-23 Holotropic Breathwork NPOV disagreement and listed myself as mediator. I invite everyone interested to participate in the discussions on that page and on this one.

TheRingess (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is no longer any need for mediation. All interested editors are talking to each other. I am confident that together you will reach consensus soon. I suggest that we close the mediation case, unless someone has a strenuous objection. Later, if everyone feels the need, we can reopen it. I will leave it open for a couple more days in case someone still feels there is a need for mediation. Good work guys.TheRingess (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I would prefer it if the case remained open. Talking to each other (looking at the length of our contributions!) has never been our problem - reaching agreement about the article (which remains largely untouched since mediation began) has. Although we are polite to each other and there is tentative agreement about ways to extend the scope of the article by relocating the controversial aspects into other articles, I believe the core disagreements still remain. Communicator has indicated that he is effectively 'resting his case' at the moment, and I have made clear my own reluctance to restate old arguments, (although I do have more to say, possibly at the weekend). At the moment it feels like stalemate rather than resolution. Jablett 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
However, the purpose of mediation is to keep people talking and everyone is talking. As long as you are civil to each other and focus on content not personalities, then eventually you will reach agreement. Speeding up the process is not the purpose of mediation. Remember there are no emergencies here on Wikipedia. Whether it takes a long time or a short time to reach agreement is irrelevant. What is relevant is that eventually you will. I still see no reason to keep this mediation open. In my opinion, no one is currently violating any content or behavioral policies. As I said, I will leave the case open for a couple more days in order to hear compelling arguments against closing. As I said, you guys are doing great.TheRingess (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solutions

Mediator Comment I'm creating this section because I feel that the editors involved in the mediaton are ready to start discussing specific solutions. I recommend creating a subsection for every separate point. I also recommend being brief and to the point. Remember also, that if you propose a solution, be bold and be the one willing to implement it. Remain focussed on content. Please don't use this section to reiterate arguments already presented.TheRingess (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

- jablett to make any or all of the changes numbered 1 to 4 above (under 'Mediation Suggestion'), subject to agreement and alterations with other interested parties.Jablett 19:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm treating silence as an absence of disagreement, and cautiously proceeding with implementing my proposals as suggested by The Ringess on the mediation page. I've now implemented 1 to 3 of the proposals listed above (separately, so that they can be reverted individually if anyone violently disagrees). I'll implement no.4 (reordering and amalgamating criticisms thematically) in a few day's time, leaving 'thinning out' (no.5) of paragraphs to be subsequently agreed on and implemented. Jablett 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Mediator Comment I think this is a great step. TheRingess (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. I've implemented the reordering (proposal 4), and begun clarifying and thinning on the first few paragraphs (proposal 5). Still to do in the criticism section are the Castro, Thomas and Shepherd paragraphs. Any takers ? Jablett 16:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented a thinning out of the Shepherd paragraph. His book was extremely difficult to trace through the local library, and the style and content is quite idiosyncratic. As noted previously, he claims no particular credentials. However, there is an argument for keeping it in. His argument about practices in context is relevant, and central to the arguments that he develops in the book. Elsewhere, although he meticulously documents facts, he mixes them liberally with his own opinions, and I've removed these, as well as the medical stuff (The hyperventilation stuff is mentioned elsewhere in the criticisms, as well as documented on the relevant wikipedia page, and it is not central to Shepherd's area of knowledge.) Castro and Thomas edits to follow in time, unless anyone wants to do so...Jablett 11:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just read the Castro book. Essentially it covers exactly the same ground as the Thomas book, and acknowledges that it has used "The Destiny Challenge" as it's primary source. It is also self published. The letter from "The Therapist" source is quoted word for word in Thomas' book, and attributed to 'Stefan'. There's not enough new material or ideas in either of the Castro sources to justify inclusion, so I have removed them. Jablett 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Having have read the various opinions of Holotropic Breathwork, pro, per Grof et al and con, per Baba et al, I would like to suggest there may be something seriously amiss with the ratio of fifty-four lines of criticism of Holotropic Breathwork to forty-one lines of description of Holotropic Breathwork, the latter count also including ‘Professional Practice’ and ‘Reactions and Contraindications’. This imbalance seems particularly egregious as the entire criticism section of Holotropic Breathwork comprises the opinions of just four individuals, Busutti, Shepherd, Castro and Thomas, three of whom are known to each other but only one of whom, to the best of my understanding, has experienced this experiential work, and then only once.

In addition, positioned as a separate paragraph within this criticism of Holotropic Breathwork is an additional eight-line paragraph referencing the opinions of two other individuals, Lilienfield and Sampson, of government approved MDMA research. This positioning is clearly provocative, mendaciously attaching HB as an associative practice to MDMA; promotion of such ‘guilt by association’ is unworthy of Wikipedia.

Holotropic Breathwork has been practiced for over thirty years, offering tens of thousands of adult individuals from all continents, racial groups, age groups and from both genders the opportunity to gain access to states of consciousness which may precipitate catharsis, insights and epiphanies. Research seeking to demonstrate the healing potential this work includes publication in peer-review journals (Holotropic Breathwork: An Experiential Approach to Psychotherapy; Holmes et al; Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, Vol. 33(1), Spring 1996. pp. 114-120. 1996). Other research, conducted within the Holotropic Breathwork community, includes a paper describing the introduction of HB into a residential recovery community in Santa Cruz, California (Holotropic Breathwork as an Adjunct to Substance Abuse Treatment in a Therapeutic Community; Taylor, Macy: 1993), and the following eleven PhD dissertations: "The Psychological and Spiritual Effects of Stanislav Grof's Holotropic Breathwork Technique: An Exploratory Study", Todd Evan Pressman, 1993; "Holotropic Breathwork and Altered States of Consciousness", Donna Maria La Flamme, 1993; "Examining the Effects of Holotropic Breathwork in the Recovery from Alcoholism and Drug Dependence", Byron Metcalf, 1995; “Grof’s Perinatal Matrix Theory: Initial Empirical Verification”, Stephen Binns, 1997; "Healing Through the Remembrance of the Pre- and Perinatal: A Phenomenological Investigation", N. Anne Marquez, 1999; "The Theory and Practice of Transpersonal Addiction Treatment", Brack Jeffreys, 1999; "The Language of Holotropic Light; Unpacking the Experience", Julie Lapham, 2000; "The Healing Potential of Non-Ordinary States of Consciousness", Geneie Everett, 2001; "Deepening Presence: How Experiences of No-Self Shape the Self, an Organic Inquiry", Marianne Murray, 2001; "Predicting the Outcome of Holotropic Breathwork Using the High Risk Model of Threat Perception”, Patrick Hanratty, 2002; "Somatic Memory in Non-Ordinary States of Consciousness", Chris Lyons, 2003. Other dissertations examining the nature of action and utility of Holotropic Breathwork are in the process of being completed at this writing. These dissertations, completed under the supervision of professors at accredited institutions of higher education, rise at a minimum to the level of credibility of any self-published work, and arguably exceed them.

Further empirical evidence demonstrating the healing potential of Holotropic Breathwork is needed to establish its value, safety and utility. Such studies are being planned as has been noted, but it may be useful to consider the context of welcome to such endeavors demonstrated by the dominant culture. As an example, I reference a recent statement made by Harriet Zuckerman, author of "Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States" and senior vice-president of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation; "We know people have ideas beyond the mainstream, but if they want funds for research they have to go through peer-review, and the system is going to be very skeptical of ideas that are inconsistent with what is already known."

Such skepticism is quite understandable within a dominant culture with a world-view predicated upon the Newtonian-Cartesian notion that the human body is a machine functioning within a machine - the universe. Principally in the introductions to his published books, Grof has consistently expressed his own initial difficulty, as a medical doctor and psychiatrist trained in the western tradition of ‘evidence-based medicine’, to embrace the findings from non-ordinary, or altered, states of consciousness. These findings appear to show, and with an uncanny consistency, that the true depth and breadth of the human psyche is greater by far than we have heretofore imagined, or, significantly, have been capable of imagining. This self-imposed limitation may spring in large part from our insistence upon the primacy of the brain as the determining organ of our successful function, evidenced by our proud self-description as Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

However, as challenging as it my be for many individuals to embrace, the preliminary evidence that is emerging from the experiences of tens of thousand if individuals who have been moved to participate in Holotropic Breathwork groups strongly indicates that a more complete understanding of our selves is to be found by including within our experience, in addition to cognitive thought, the intelligent data from our emotional selves and, yes, from the movements of our very souls.

With respect to the dissemination of real information represented by the unprecedented exercise of the establishment and maintenance of Wikipedia as an on-going project, phenomenal care must be taken to ensure that such information that is presented to trusting users is, in fact, factual. Such as the parochial fracas may have been that took place on the east coast of Scotland twelve years ago, it may not be extrapolated to include every human being who themselves choose to exercise their prerogative to seek life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by including Holotropic Breathwork amongst their experiences. The specific does not, under any circumstances whatsoever, automatically become the general; such a doctrine of anecdotalism runs entirely counter to the purview that presently governs our daily existence, and as such has no place in any organ that seeks to present itself as a credible source of knowledge.Kituchristie 17:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


SOSMD.

I have not been on this site for a while, but I see fundamentally the same discussion going on, so perhaps another 2 cents worth might be appropriate.

As mentioned in my earlier post, I am an MD and a therapist, and I have been practising Holotropic Breath Work (HBW) for over fifteen years.

One of the chief concerns that seem to be legitimately expressed here are concerns regarding the safety of HBW. These safety concerns appear to be based on two main issues. The first is the physical safety of sustained rapid and more effective breathing, and the second centers around the potential for various spiritual disturbances as a consequence of this practice. Might I suggest that in addition to my own attestation that I have conducted HBW sessions in complete physical safety for over fifteen years, and that this mirrors not only Grof's experience for a far longer period, but also the many hundreds of practitioners whom he has trained, that anyone seriously concerned about such sustained hyperventilation should be expressing equal concern at the practices conducted in the myriad of Yoga Studios presently in the world, where Pranayammha techniques are taught to all and sundry, usually without any of the pre selection or screening that is an integral part of a properly conducted HBW session. Despite the theoretical concerns of "Scotland's most respected Pathologist", the sheer number of people all over the world who regularly employ techniques of sustained deeper breathing attest to its fundamental safety. Further, these practices are not new. To the contrary, they are ancient. Whether their survival in the spiritual and psychological practices of the human race is a net plus or a net minus might well be argued, but to suggest they are physically dangerous would be to suggest a powerful counter Darwinian argument. If hyperventilation were as dangerous as Scotland's most respected Pathologist is quoted as suggesting, the chances are high that the practice would have died out, along with its practitioners, some considerable time ago.

With regard to the potential for 'spiritual" side effects, the situation is murkier. Most spiritual disciplines which employ techniques that induce non ordinary states of consciousness (NOSC), - such as yoga's pranayammha, Tibetan Buddhist practices, etc, - recommend that these techniques are not for everyone. Either they screen and exclude certain individuals, and/ or they recommend much so called 'foundation practice' prior to employing them. So does Grof, and the HBW methodolgy. There is a screening process. Certain individuals and diagnostic categories are excluded. Others, such as those with addictive problems, are advised that a period of time - usually a year - of sustained sobriety and drug freedom are required in order to establish a psychological foundation upon which experiences in NOSC might be beneficial.

As I mentioned in my earlier contribution to this topic, in my early days of practicing HBW a woman whom we accepted into one of our groups had an unexpected Kundalini opening. I feel now, with the accumulated wisdom of years of practice, that I would not today offer this individual HBW without more foundation psychotherapy, and perhaps not at all. But this individual as the only one among hundreds, some of whom were severely damaged on entering therapy, and the sheer number of people world wide who are increasingly practicing and submitting themselves to HBW attests to both its physical and psychological safety, despite the objections, which have always been theoretical rather than factual. People say, "that sounds dangerous", and ignore the patently obvious, and daily demostrated fact, that it is not.

I would also suggest that were HBW a dangerous activity in any measurable or observable sense, in the way for instance that alcohol is, that this fact would be widely known. There would be no need to speculate about it here or anywhaere else. I would also suggest - WP now being such a widely read resource, - that many of those injured by it would be present in this discussion.

Far more difficult to discuss than the above is the so called 'spiritual dimension' of the HBW experience. For one thing, what is it? Indeed, what is a spiritual experience at all? What is the spiritual dimension? When does an ecstatic psychological experience, - or a hellish one - cease to be such, and becomes spiritual? Is it like walking from Glascow to London? Until one reaches the Tyne it's all psychological, after that it's spiritual? This issue is complicated by the fact that many observers of psychological phenomena espouse a fully materialistic viewpoint, and for them the discussion is mute because the dimension does not exist. To them indeed mention of spiritual phenomena is itself suspicious at the least, and worthy of a DSM labeling, ambulant psychosis at worst. All human nature and behaviour can, and some day soon will be, explained by genetics, neuroanatomy and neurochemistry. Shakespere, Beethoven, Hitler, Stalin, love, hate, indifference, the urge to climb Everest and the hunger to drive to the stars, are all ultimately a matter of Serotonin and Dopamine, and all can be ultimately influenced and controlled by clever little molecules such as Prozac and Risperidal. But for those to whom the spiritual dimension of life has meaning, some discussion of its place in the realm of healing is germaine to this page.

For practical purposes, spiritual experiences in the HBW model are experiences which take an individual beyond the boundary of himself or herself. They are experiences which challenge the view of oneself as a "Skin Encapsulated Ego". The simplest of these is the identification with another human being. In this context it is important to note that the word identification is here being used in its psychoanalytical sense. In this context, identification is not an imitation or a mere likening, it is a becoming. So in this sense, an individual in a NOSC may be having an experience of an interaction with a parent or a sibling, and begins to experience the interaction from the perspective of the other individual. It is as if the boundaries between their consciousness has dissolved, and they become one. Similarly, individuals can have experiences of identification with whole groups of beings, such as tribal structures, or with powerful spiritual figures, such as Christ or Buddha, or Mohammed. Participants report similar episodes of identification with animals.

Of course, these experiences could seem entirely bizarre to someone with no direct experience of them, but what is intriguing about them from an ontological perspective, is that they are rarely new. They mirror experiences described in the world's spiritual literatures. What is further intriguing about them, is that they occur to individuals who do not necessarily have any prior experience with the particular spiritual tradition from which the experience is usually associated. Balts, for instance, in NOSC, can have seemingly authentic encounters with animal entities that could have been lifted directly out of the folklore of a North American Indian tribe. An accountant from the Bronx might have an experience that mirrors that of a Kalahari Bushman. Of course we live in a global village, and of course these individuals could have seen something sometime on TV which primed them for this experience, but that was hardly the case when Grof was discovering this same phenomenon during LSD sessions held at Charles University in Prague, then a communist country with a totally materialistic structure of education and entertainment, where individuals undergoing their therapeutic sessions had experiences straight out of the Upanishads or the Bhagavad Gita. Another aspect of these experiences which make them intriguing is the fact that individuals who have them, seem to return from them with new and entirely authentic information about the cultures and attitudes of peoples with whom they were, prior to, entirely unfamiliar.

But the most interesting aspect of all concerning these experiences, is that they appear to dovetail neatly with the particular psychological issues and traumatic experiences with which the person is dealing. So much so that is a tennent of HBW theory, that for optimum healing to occur, it needs to occur on the physical, psychological and spiritual levels.

There is much meat in the foregoing discussions on this topic, some worthy and some less so, and far more that I have time to address. I would however like to offer a final point about the psychedelic origins of HBW. It is clear form the may quotes offered above on Grof's LSD work, that the people being quoted have not read or taken that that work seriously. For instance,

"Wallace Sampson, Clinical Professor Emeritus of Medicine at Stanford University, criticize the approval of research by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) into the use of the drug MDMA (Ecstasy) as a treatment for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Sampson states that the study "appears to be the exclusive project of believers in psychedelic mysticism, and based on work of Dr. Stanislav Grof, an early LSD self-experimenter and psychedelic psychotherapist. After LSD and Ecstasy use was declared illegal, Grof developed Holotropic Breathwork, a potentially dangerous form of severe hyperventilation, as a legal method of invoking hallucinations."

I have no useful knowledge of Dr. Wallace's pedigree, but I do have some of Dr. Grof's. I can attest that he has no interest whatsoever in inducing hallucinations. Hallucinations are not real, by definition. They would interest Grof not at all. Grof was one of the early researchers selected by Sandoz to work with what became one of the most interesting compounds in the history of psychiatry. LSD has become inevitably linked in the public consciousness with Hippies, Charles Manson, and the froth and excesses, as well as the brilliance, of the 1960's. Hence, it is an easy 'guilt by association' smear to mention HBW in the same disparaging sentence as LSD, tarring both with the same yellow brush. Yet this ignores the fact that they are not the same thing at all, and also ignores the excellent and well documented research work that was done by conscientious psychiatrists all over the world with LSD prior to the Tate killings and its subsequent illegality. This attitude serves also to disguise the appallingly miserable state of psychiatry today, wherein the two most common compounds prescribed in the world are antidepressants and tranquillizers, where a visit to a psychiatrist lasts ten minutes, and is focussed usually on adjustments to the number and dosages of these medications, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the nature, the meaning, the extent, or the possible eradication, of the client's suffering. All discussion of HBW, with its inherent attempt to discover meaning in clients' pain, and point to a way beyond it, should take place in this context.

Kind regards,

sosmd

[edit]

Hi Kituchristie, sosmd - Thank you for your interest in this article. I would encourage you to stay around and make some edits to it. The criticism section has been the subject of a lot of debate, and a recent mediation process - it's probably the most controversial part of the whole article. I've been making a series of edits to it following the end of the mediation, to slim it down and (hopefully) improve objectivity. It's taken me a while to track down and read the items originally referenced, and the Castro quotes are still outstanding. Like you, I feel that lillienfeld and sampson's criticism of HB is unfair, but the quote is accurate (ie, it's what they said). HB is cited in the research protocol for the MDMA study. I don't know enough about the psychedelic research context to comment further - perhaps someone can make an edit with relevant information to sort it out? 20:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Castro material now removed. See comments above under 'Solutions'Jablett 15:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/l/Talk%7EHolotropic_Breathwork_3f75.html"