Talk:Transpersonal psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance 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.

Contents

[edit] Other transpersonal studies

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

[edit] Introductory Discussion: Science and the Transpersonal

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

psychology of religion only partially intersects with TP. TP is concerned mainly with mysticism, and various PoR didnt give (at least it's not their central aim) satisfactory "maps of mind/spirit". TP is (for instance, Stan Grof or Assagioli) concerned with "universals" in transegoic existence, while the majority (say, more than 80%) of PoR stuff is still within ego bounds (from TP viewpoint)
also-physiological psychology and neurophysiology (PP) do not care much about the field of TP. "Altered states" for them, in fact, even do not exist. See for instance:http://skepdic.com/altstates.html
so, before changing the article further, I'd suggest at least 2 things: more serious and detailed criticism of TP from scientistic viewpoint (social and other branches wont do- and 'los transpersonales' only scoff at them. With success, because, as I see: TP is a growing presence, and, if not academically respectable enough, enormously more influential in everyday culture. One should just check amazon sales of Ken Wilber or Alan Combs (The Radiance of Being). Probably the most serious critique of TP would be a very simple observation: guys like Ken Wilber or Stanislav Grof (but not Assagioli or Maslow) are essentially not psychologists, but philosophers, or, more specifically-metaphysicians.

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


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

  • This is quite a biased statement. What psychologist is not also a metaphysician? Freud? Skinner? Piaget? Lacan? --goethean - (17 March 2004)
  • My own view here is that Wilber could be seen as a theoretical psychologist (in the context of TP; Wilber has obviously made contributions applicable to other fields). He is obviously not an empirical psychologist, in that he doesn't engage in empirical research (unless you count his own extensive personal experience); however, just as physics has its experimentalists and theoreticians (with the latter trying to interpret and build models drawing on the data of the former) there's no reason why psychology shouldn't have theoreticians also. To call Wilber a 'philosopher' wouldn't be incorrect, in that many of his concerns draw on issues relating to various branches of philosophy, but his primary interest is in enhancing the capacity for human development - clearly a psychological motivation in my view. DoctorMartin 04:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem with the scientistic critique suggested by MH is this: why should the, by definition, narrow "scientistic" viewpoint be privileged over the transpersonal one? TP as I understand it is concerned not with the study of mysticism, which is a philosophical endeavour, but with the study of the world as seen through transpersonal eyes. This study includes the science practiced from a TP perspective, as well as, and just as importantly, the phenomenology of the TP awareness. It is this TP awareness that such a psychology must take as its starting point. And since it must, then its course of study will necessarily be different from a scientistic one. How could a scientistic critique of TP be of any use? A scientistic critique of science is of no use! There is nothing unscientific about TP psychology -- Maslow (one of its founders by the way) was a consummate scientist AND philosopher -- but there is also nothing scientistic about it, which is a good thing. Moreover, there is nothing scientistic about the science that Einstein practiced. I mean this, of course, of TP as it is intended -- a psychology, not a mysticism in the soft sense of the word. JMF - (31 August 2004)
  • Stanislav Grof M.D., Ph.D., was Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, and Chief of Psychiatric Research at the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, and contributed to an exceedingly large body of pioneering research that has most certainly helped shape our current understanding of consciousness and modern psychology. --Thoric 17:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Robert" Tart, not Charles?

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

  • FYI CORRECTION: In one of his numerous capacities, Charles Tart is associated with the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology as a core faculty member. ITP was founded by Robert Frager and Jim Fadiman. RW 11 May 2005

[edit] Forces in psychology

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

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

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

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

[edit] Large re-edit

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

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

[edit] Problematic Wikipedia categorization: New Age

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

Reference:

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

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

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

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

[edit] Removing section on the transpersonal view of self

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


[edit] once-born and twice-born

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

Yes, I see that these distinctions need a further elaboration. According to Alexander (1980) (see reference section) the distinction is as follows:
Transpersonal psychology views itself as an emerging "fourth force" in psychology which explores areas not currently examined within the contexts of behavioral, classical psychoanalytic, or humanistic psychology. Generally speaking, its proponents argue that we in the Western tradition must break the molds within which our views are formed and recognize that it is possible to expand our consciousness in such a manner as to exist more happily and healthily than has hitherto been possible for the majority of us. From James's point of view, this idea of consciousnessness as primarily good falls within the "once-born" category of individual. Psychologically, he observed, such persons can function quite well in 'the world, despite the fact that they fail to take evil adequately into account. For James it is the "twice-born, " or "sick soul, " who embodies the most comprehensive understanding of the nature of existence—a judgment which he makes, not on psychological grounds, but on the basis of philosophical assumptions.
This distinction is actually a bit complex, so instead of working it into the article I will try so simplify Alexanders critique of the (supposed) failure of early Transpersonal psychology to discuss the reality of evil.
--Hawol 12:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of this article deleted in German Wiki

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

  • Well, first of all. If this article does not fit the Wikipedia quality standards, then those standards must be very strict. I'm not quite sure what they mean by wikipedia quality standards. The article includes references from peer-reviewed journals and academical titles, as well as a critical section presenting the critics of Transpersonal Psychology. Both aspects are included in order to ensure that the article presents a balanced point of view. I believe those two points are crucial to the integrity of the article. --Hawol 13:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
What it probably means is that the German Wikipedia is even more ideologically-driven than the English one, which is very depressing. Transpersonal psychology is a phenomenon that is accepted by the mainstream. It is described in undergraduate psychology books. So there is no basis for deleting this article, and an attempt to delete it wouldn't succeed. — goethean ॐ 16:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Strict (or ideologicaly driven): Yes that was also my impression and I tried to argue but it didn't help. "does not fit wikipedia quality standards" was my summarisation/synopsis here to avoid to translate the entire discussion. The main arguments were: "is esoteric/new age", "not scientific" and "Lemma/Definition: is not given" what means it is not explained in the first 3 or 4 sentences like: "Transpersonal Psychology is ...". Those who can understand german can read the discussion on my user page: Aquis. There was also an unsuccessful request for recovery. --Aquis 18:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

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

[edit] Institutions of higher learning

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/a/Talk%7ETranspersonal_psychology_66eb.html"