My apologies for the previous reply entitle PHILOSOPHY REPLY - I accidentally 
bumped my keyboard while my reply was still being type and an incompete 
message was sent on its unworthy way!  Here is the completed version.

Mel Siff

------------------------

On 6/17/99, David Clark wrote:

<<This Hegelian dialectic assumes that understanding proceeds from dualism
or polarity --a typically  . . Western mode of thought.

***In many cases, that is very true.  A sort of Aristotelian heritage of all 
or none thinking extended or varied in different forms by many Western 
philosophers after the Grecians. However, I chose that master-slave example 
because its nature is more of a relationship than a polarisation. And 
relationships or mappings do not necessarily depend on polarities.

In fact, if one analyses that example, it is strongly reminiscent of 
'Eastern' philosophies, since the master and slave each contain elements of 
masterhood and slavehood.  The master is a slave and the slave is a master.  
That sort of deduction might even be viewed as pure Zen.

<<Eastern philosophy (the word 'guru' is derived from the Sanskrit), on the 
other hand, leans towards an emphasis on stepping outside a system where 
words like 'right' and 'wrong' are the guidelines for 'truth'. . >>

***The origin of the word "guru" is interestingly paradoxical, since it tends 
to be more Western than Eastern. Usually, "guru" means one who takes one from 
s state of darkness to a state of light or enlightenment. The guru takes you 
from one extreme state to another.  In other words, Eastern philosophy, 
though many modern Westerners claim otherwise, sometimes does rely heavily on 
polarities of concept.
In the Eastern pantheon of gods or even in Buddhist concepts of balance there 
is sometimes the implicit spectre of dualism peeping over one's shoulder.

In some cases, duality may be more relevant than continuum, fuzzy or grayness 
thinking, since, unless the scale on both sides of any graduated scale or 
continuum is infinitely long or boundless, then we have to acknowledge that 
at each end there has to be one concept which is the diametric opposite of 
the other.  To avoid facing that conundrum, we then need to abandon the 
existence of a strict continuum and suggest the presence of some ill-behaved 
singularities or discontinuities.

A great deal of 'New Age' thinking tends to conveniently bundle thinking into 
Eastern and Western polarised packages, thereby tacitly neglecting the 
possible existence of Northern and Southern forms of philosophising. This, to 
me, as an African by birth, has always been rather ironic.

The related philosophies of left-right brain thinking also reflects this 
Eastern-Western chauvinism, so it is apparent that a more 'holistic' approach 
which embodies more than East-West or North-South polarities is necessary.  
Even then, the sort of contingency or adhocracy approach suggested by Arthur 
Koestler (in his "Act of Creation") probably offers a more universally 
suitable way out of the dilemma.   

Interestingly, that much overused word, "holism", is a term which emerged 
from the non East-West pen of South African prime minister/philosopher, Field 
Marshall Jan Smuts (in his book "Holism and Philosophy").

<<-- the pertinent questions have more to do with 'integration' and 
'disunity'.  Dr. Siff's questions, albeit slightly rhetorical ('would YOU 
really like to become the best guru in the world... Do you really want to 
have some catchy procedure named after you?'), are really only meaningful in 
a context where shades of right and wrong are precise and exact.  

However, as you all know, the healing profession is rife with plenty of juicy 
gray areas... So it might be more pertinent to think bout degrees of 
professional and personal integrity rather than degrees of excellence.  I'd 
be interested in hearing from you about what it means to exercise integrity 
in the healing profession -- what is integrity? Where does it stand in the 
hierarchy of professional abilities?>>

***This is an excellent remark, since too much attention to quantitative 
precision, scientific content, the code of the law and philosophical 
persuasiveness can blind us to the fundamental importance of ethics, 
morality, justice and the comradeship of humankind.  The use of the word, 
"integrity" is a fortunate coincidence in this context, since it comes from 
the process of "integration" , the putting together of the entire system.  It 
is a worthy companion to the word "healing", which means "to make whole".

I, for one, would rather have a less than perfect method applied to me in a 
spirit of the highest integrity than the most excellent method applied in a 
dubious spirit.  The lack of technical or medical perfection may well be 
compensated for by the far more favourable healing atmosphere created in the 
therapist-patient relationship reigning in the setting of exemplary 
integrity.  

Though this consequence is fortunate for the patient and very satisfying for 
the therapist, it is part of the nightmare of science, for it muddies the 
relationship between cause and effect, between therapy and outcome. After 
all, so much of modern science has its roots in classical "Western" 
philosophy and the ancient Grecian insistence on causality.  Yet, modern 
science and mathematics have made us very aware of the limitations of 
one-to-one, fairly linear mappings operating in systems which may not be as 
'closed' or deterministic as is often suggested in our peer-reviewed 
journals.  

The more I think about our roles as scientists or healers, the more I think 
that formal courses or regular seminars on philosophy need to become an 
essential part of our academic training. We have outcome or evidence-based 
approaches -- do we also need process-based approaches as part of the overall 
therapeutic scheme of things?

Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
[log in to unmask]



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%