Talk:Holotropic Breathwork/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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)

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".[1] 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 [2]. 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 [[3]]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".[4] 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

Referral to Mediation Cabal

I've referred this to the Mediation Cabal [[5]], and created the following summary of the ongoing NPOV disputes: [[6]]

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)

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 [7] 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 : [8]. 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)

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,[9] 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)