paranthropology vol. 5 no. 4

5/19/2018 Paranthropology Vol. 5 No. 4

1/106

Paranthropology: Journal of Anthropological Approaches to the Paranormal

Vol. 5 No. 4 1


2/106

Vol. 5 No. 4 (October 2014)

Board of ReviewersDr. Fiona Bowie (Dept. Theology and Religious Studies, Kings CollegeLondon)

Dr. Anthony DAndrea(Center for Latin American Studies, University of Chicago)

Dr. Iain R. Edgar (Dept. Anthropology, Durham University)

Prof. David J. Hufford (Centre for Ethnography & Folklore, University of Pennsylvania)

Prof. Charles D. Laughlin (Dept. Sociology & Anthropology, Carleton University)

Dr. David Luke(Dept. Psychology & Counseling, University of Greenwich)

Dr. James McClenon (Dept. Social Sciences, Elizabeth State University)

Dr. Sean O'Callaghan(Department of Politics, Philosophy & Religion, University of Lancaster)

Dr. Serena Roney-Dougal (Psi Research Centre, Glastonbury)

Dr.William Rowlandson(Dept. Hispanic Studies, University of Kent)

Dr. Mark A. Schroll (Institutefor Consciousness Studies, Rhine Research Centre)

Dr. Gregory Shushan(Ian Ramsay Centre for Science & Religion, University of Oxford)

Dr. Angela Voss (Canterbury Christ Church University)

Dr. Lee Wilson (School of Political Science and International Studies,The University of Queensland)

Dr. Michael Winkelman(School of Human Evolution & Social Change, Arizona State University)

Prof. David E. Young(Dept. Anthropology, University of Alberta)

Honorary Members of the Board

Prof. Stephen Braude(Dept. Philosophy, University of Maryland)

Paul Devereux (Royal College of Art)

Prof. Charles F. Emmons (Dept. Sociology, Gettysburg College)

Prof. Patric V. Giesler (Dept. Anthropology, Gustavus Adolphus College)

Prof. Ronald Hutton (Dept. History, University of Bristol)

Prof. Stanley Krippner (Faculty of Psychology, Saybrook University)

Dr. Edith Turner (Dept. Anthropology, University of Virginia)

Editors

Mark A. Schroll (Research Adjunct Faculty, Sofia University)

Jack Hunter (Dept. Archaeology & Anthropology, University of Bristol)

Cover Artwork

Fernando Paternostro


Vol. 5 No. 4 2
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/history/staff/hutton.htmlhttp://www.bristol.ac.uk/history/staff/hutton.htmlhttp://www.saybrook.edu/spotlight/skrippnerhttp://gustavus.edu/profiles/pgieslerhttp://gustavus.edu/profiles/pgieslerhttp://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/http://www.anthropology.ualberta.ca/en/People/RetiredandEmeritiFaculty.aspxhttp://www.anthropology.ualberta.ca/en/People/RetiredandEmeritiFaculty.aspxhttp://www.michaelwinkelman.com/http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/page/114/lee-wilson.htmhttp://www.cosmology-divination.com/index.php/templates-and-stylesheetshttp://www.cosmology-divination.com/index.php/templates-and-stylesheetshttp://www.ianramseycentre.info/staffhttp://dreamtalk.hypermart.net/member/files/mark_schroll.htmlhttp://www.psi-researchcentre.co.uk/http://www.psi-researchcentre.co.uk/http://www.psi-researchcentre.co.uk/http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/ppr/profiles/Sean-OCallaghan/http://charleslaughlin.blogspot.com/http://www.sas.upenn.edu/folklore/faculty/dhufford.htmlhttp://www.bris.ac.uk/archanth/staff/bowie/index_htmlhttp://www.virginia.edu/anthropology/faculty/turner.htmlhttp://www.virginia.edu/anthropology/faculty/turner.htmlhttp://www.saybrook.edu/spotlight/skrippnerhttp://www.saybrook.edu/spotlight/skrippnerhttp://www.saybrook.edu/spotlight/skrippnerhttp://www.saybrook.edu/spotlight/skrippnerhttp://www.bristol.ac.uk/history/staff/hutton.htmlhttp://www.bristol.ac.uk/history/staff/hutton.htmlhttp://gustavus.edu/profiles/pgieslerhttp://gustavus.edu/profiles/pgieslerhttp://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/http://www.anthropology.ualberta.ca/en/People/RetiredandEmeritiFaculty.aspxhttp://www.anthropology.ualberta.ca/en/People/RetiredandEmeritiFaculty.aspxhttp://www.michaelwinkelman.com/http://www.michaelwinkelman.com/http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/page/114/lee-wilson.htmhttp://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/page/114/lee-wilson.htmhttp://www.cosmology-divination.com/index.php/templates-and-stylesheetshttp://www.cosmology-divination.com/index.php/templates-and-stylesheetshttp://www.ianramseycentre.info/staffhttp://www.ianramseycentre.info/staffhttp://dreamtalk.hypermart.net/member/files/mark_schroll.htmlhttp://dreamtalk.hypermart.net/member/files/mark_schroll.htmlhttp://www.psi-researchcentre.co.uk/http://www.psi-researchcentre.co.uk/http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/ppr/profiles/Sean-OCallaghan/http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/ppr/profiles/Sean-OCallaghan/http://www.jamesmcclenon.com/books/http://www.jamesmcclenon.com/books/http://www.gre.ac.uk/schools/health/contact/staff/pc/dr-david-lukehttp://www.gre.ac.uk/schools/health/contact/staff/pc/dr-david-lukehttp://charleslaughlin.blogspot.com/http://charleslaughlin.blogspot.com/http://www.sas.upenn.edu/folklore/faculty/dhufford.htmlhttp://www.sas.upenn.edu/folklore/faculty/dhufford.htmlhttp://www.bris.ac.uk/archanth/staff/bowie/index_htmlhttp://www.bris.ac.uk/archanth/staff/bowie/index_html


3/106

This issue would not have been possiblewithout its many contributors who gavetheir personal and professional time in theservice of addressing various complex prob-lems within Paranthropology, and I want tothank Jack Hunter for making this issuepossible. This issue has been dedicated toStanley Krippner, and the professional in-terests we share are evidenced throughoutall the papers in this issue. And yet thededication of this issue to Krippner is muchmore than a recognition of our professionalalliance, it is a testimony of my gratitude toStanley's compassion and commitment tomaking this world a better place that he hascontinued to demonstrate since joining theStick-Out-Your-Neck Club at the Uni-versity of Wisconsin.

Moreover this issue represents a par-tial summing up of my thinking over thepast 50 years on ESP as it relates to Paran-thropology and the anthropology of con-sciousness that led me to the work ofKrippner. From my perspective the papersin this issue represent a cautious as possibleattempt to assess experiences and events

that Euro-American science has ignoredbecause they are beyond the limits of itsparadigm. Still many readers of this issue(especially those outside of Paranthropology)will view its papers as a form of science fic-tion. And yet none of us knows for sure ifthere are mysteries to be solved that a newparadigm could help us understand. Tothose of us who may say I have gone too far


Vol. 5 No. 4 3

Editors Introduction:Hypotheses in Search

of a Paradigm

Mark A. Schroll

Di!erentiating Experiences from Events, and Validity frAuthenticity in the Anthropology of Consciousness

- Stanley Krippner & Mark A. Schroll (5-14) -

Reflections on Methodological Concerns in the Anthropoof Consciousness: A Response to Krippner & Schroll

- Hillary S. Webb (15-20) -

Interplay of Perspectives in the Anthropology ofConsciousness: A Commentary on Krippner & Schroll

- Susan Greenwood (21-27) -

Experiencing Dream Telepathy (Or Non-Local MemoryA Fifty Year Retrospective Autobiographical Analysis

- Mark A. Schroll (28-43) -

Psychic Dreams: Evidence, TransformationalProcess and Magical Thinking

- David Luke (44-48) -

Whose Dream Is It Anyway? A Commentary on ExperiencDream Telepathy (or Non-local Memory): A 50 Year Ret

spective Autobiographical Analysis- Zelda Hall (49-55) -

Sacred Places and Home Dream Reports: MethodologicReassessments and Reflections on Paul Devereuxs

Experiment in Wales and England- Stanley Krippner & Mark A. Schroll (56-65) -

Geomantic Earthmind: Practicing Earth Yoga:A Response to Krippner & Schroll

- Bethe Hagens (66-69) -

Commentary:Barometers for the Anomalous? Dreams

and Transpersonal Archaeology- Ryan Hurd (70-74) -

Bohms Influence on Ullmans Theory of the Origin ofDreams: Reflections and Insights from Montague Ullma

Last Interview- Mark A. Schroll (75-87) -

Dreaming, Ullman, and Bohm:A Commentary

- Daniel Deslauries (88-91) -

Epilogue:

Toward a New Paradigm of theVarieties of Transformative Experience- Mark A. Schroll & Darlene Viggiano (92-103) -

Review:Seeing Fairies: From the Lost Archives of the Fairy Inve

gation Society, Authentic Reports of Fairies in Modern Tiby Marjorie T. Johnson

- James McClenon (104-105) -


4/106

with my theoretical speculations in this issue,my reply is that I have not gone far enough. Ifhumankind's collective wisdom has taught usanything, it is the fact there is always more toknow, and that the most powerful tool we havein science is doubt.

Krippner and I begin this issue with ourpaper Differentiating Experiences fromEvents, and Validity from Authenticity in theAnthropology of Consciousness (pp. 5), rais-ing questions into the very broad and difficultconcernhow do we even know what a genu-ine transpersonal experience is? What is, orwhat should be, the criteria of our assessment?And where do we even begin our attempt tosort this all out? Additional clarification ofthese concerns are taken up by Hillary S.

Webb in her Reflections on MethodologicalConcerns in the Anthropology of Conscious-ness: A Response to Krippner and Schroll(pp. 15), and reassessed again by Susan

Greenwood in her Interplay of Perspectivesin the Anthropology of Consciousness (pp.21).

Moving forward and in the light of theimportance these contributions make, our firststep should be to provide as accurte, and aswell documented as possible account of the

events as they occurred, followed by our care-ful assessment and evaluation of all the facts.As a means of demonstrating this I offer as anexample my paper Experiencing Dream Te-lepathy (or Non-Local Memory): A 50 YearRetrospective Autobiographical Analysis (pp.28). Additional reflection and assessment ofmy experience is provided by David Luke'scontribution, Psychic Dreams: Evidence,Transformational Process and Magical Think-ing (pp. 44). Further discussion of the way in

which we approach our inquiry intoParanthro-pological phenomena, as well as the particularmeans of assessing the transpersonal value ofdreams, is provided in Zelda Hall's reflectionson Whose Dream Is It Anyway? A Commen-tary on Experiencing Dream Telepathy (orNon-Local Memory) (pp. 49).

Our cumulative inquiry thus far leads usto yet another opportunity on how to collectthe kind of event and experience data dis-cussed in Krippner and Schroll's paper Dif-ferentiating Experiences from Events, and Va-lidity from Authenticity in the Anthropology of

Consciousness (pp. 5)--as well as a means ofgathering data to assess psi fields and/orSheldrake's theory of M-Fields as archetypalportals of time and memoryis explored inKrippner and Schroll's paper Sacred Placesand Home Dream Reports: MethodologicalReassessments and Reflections on PaulDevereux's Experiement in Wales and Eng-land (pp. 56). This paper is followed by anopportunity to bring the focus of our attentionback to this issue's Cover Design through Be-

the Hagens own trusted portals to memory,morphic resonance, the sacred, electro-magnetism, and most importantly our Earthidentity in her contribution GeomanticEarthmind: Practicing Earth Yoga: A Re-sponse to Krippner and Schroll (pp. 66). Fol-lowing this, Ryan Hurd's commentary offers usanother opportunity to explore these concernsabout sacred sites and dreaming in his Ba-rometers for the Anomalous? Dreams andTranspersonal Archaeology (pp. 70),

Nevertheless our fundamental questionstill remains, where does memory or con-sciousness exist if it is not exclusively a by-product of our brain's neurochemistry? A par-tial yet incomplete answer is explored in mypaper Bohm's Influence on Ullman's Theoryof the Origin of Dreams: Reflections and In-sights from Montague Ullman's Last Inter-view (pp. 75). In response, Daniel Deslauries(who trained with Ullman) offers a well-reasoned examination of the controversial hy-

pothesis of non-local memory in his Dream-ing, Ullman, and Bohm: A Commentary (pp.88). Finally this issue concludes with a morecomplete overview of the non-local memoryhypothesis in my and Darlene Viggiano's pa-per Epilogue: Toward a New Paradigm forthe Varieties of Transformative Experience(pp. 92).


Vol. 5 No. 4 4


5/106

Introduction

Beginning a paper with a polemical statement isnever a good way to open new lines of commu-nication, yet it has been our experience on manyoccasions that unless we are speaking to someonewho is already familiar with the anthropology of

consciousness, or are someone who has alreadyencountered a transpersonal experience, the per-son we are speaking with will either politely rolltheir eyes and hope the topic of our conversationwill change, or they will, in varying degrees ofcritical inquiry, ask how we reached this conclu-sion that we have had a transpersonalexperience.1 Or, in response to the personal con-viction we have in our fantastic tale, they maydecide a psychological intervention is necessaryto evaluate our mental health.2 This paper's focus

is to provide a brief inquiry into the very broadand difficult question, how do we know what agenuine transpersonal experience is? What is, orwhat should be, the criteria of our assessment?And where do we even begin our attempt to sortthis all out? We therefore hope that this paperwill help to open new lines of communicationabout a very controversial and contested topic ofinquiry.

Getting Started:Anthropology of Consciousness and

Transpersonal Psychology

Anthropology can be defined as the scientificstudy of human beings, past and present, theircultures (including social structures, languages,etc.), and their physical and social evolution.Among many things, the anthropology of con-

sciousness focuses on how various culturesandthe individuals within themunderstand andrelate to alternations in consciousness (e.g., per-ception, cognition, emotions), the various healingsystems that evolve out of their beliefs, the prac-titioners (including shamans) who enact them,and even the neuroscience underlying performedmythologies such as rites, rituals, and ceremonies(Beischel, Rock, & Krippner, 2011; Cardena,2011; Schroll, 2010a, 2010b; Winkelman, 2011).These alternations in consciousness can be re-ferred to as transpersonal experiences and/or asexpressions of transpersonality (Schroll, 2010c,p. 22).

According to Roger Walsh and FrancisVaughan:

Transpersonal experiences may be defined as

experiences in which the sense of identityor self extends beyond (trans) the individ-ual or personal to encompass wider aspectsof humankind, life, psyche, or cosmos.Transpersonal practices are those structuredactivities that focus on inducing transper-sonal experiences. Transpersonal disciplinesare those disciplines that focus on the studyof transpersonal experiences and relatedphenomena. These phenomena includethe causes, effects and correlates of

transpersonal experiences and develop-ment, as well as the disciplines and prac-tices inspired by them (Walsh & Vaughan,1993, p. 204).

Viewed in its most wide-ranging context, the in-quiry into transpersonal experiences has beenfurther defined by Charles Laughlin:


Vol. 5 No. 4 5

Di!erentiating Experiences From Events, and Validity fromAuthenticity in the Anthropology of Consciousnessess

Stanley Krippner & Mark A. Schroll


6/106

As recognized disciplines, transpersonalpsychology dates to the latter 1960s andtranspersonal anthropology to the mid-1970s. Transpersonal anthropology is sim-ply the cross-cultural study of the psycho-logical and sociological significance of

transpersonal experiences. 'Transpersonalanthropological research is the investiga-tion of the relationship between con-sciousness and culture, altered states ofmind research, and the inquiry into theintegration of mind, culture and personal-ity' (Campbell and Staniford 1978:28)(Laughlin, 2012, p. 71).

Is It Possible to Clearly Distinguish

Event and Experience?

Whether anthropologists engage in participant-observation during fieldwork, or archival studies,they attempt to distinguish between event andexperience. Event refers to physical factors, or theimpingement of sensory data on our neural re-ceptors,3yet when we refer to phenomena this iswhere we cross the line into the nether zone ofexperience, and the real difficulty begins. Experienceis the internalization of the event, and is shapedor interpreted through our particular cultural

belief systems. Epictetus, the ancient philoso-pher, famously wrote that what happens to us(i.e., events) is not as important as our reactionsto what happens to us (i.e. experiences). AndMarcus Aurelius wrote much the same thing aswell as, centuries later, Alfred Korzybski and Al-bert Ellis. They all, through age or wisdom, knewthe difference between event and experience, yetthis is not a widely shared orientation in anthro-pology. Instead, we are reminded by BonnieGlass-Coffin that anthropology was built upon

the premise of cultural relativism,

which is, the willingness to take seeminglyirrational experiences described by infor-mants at face-value and without judgmentwhile describing the functions, the symbols,and the meaning of what they report aslogical within the context of their cultural

beliefs, behaviors and structures (Glass-Coffin, 2013, p. 117).

We are in other words talking about ethno-graphic accounts such as when don Jos Rios,the celebrated Huichol shaman, was a young

man and lost his right hand while operating farmmachinery. He re-framed the accident as a call tobecome a shaman. He conducted a lengthy ap-prenticeship and became a folk legend both inMexico and abroad. When another iconic Mexi-can shaman, doa Maria Sabina, lost two hus-bands in her younger years, she re-framed thelosses as a call to shamanize, because marriedwomen could not become sabias, those whoknow (Estrada, 1981; Villoldo & Krippner, pp.155-159). Here again, both don Jos and doa

Maria knew the difference between event andexperience.

Nevertheless, while cultural relativism accu-rately preserves the ethnographic facts as theyare revealed by informants to the anthropologist,this method does not provide us with the tools totease apart (or step inside) the contextual under-standing and knowledge of event and experi-ence. Glass-Coffin gets right to the bare bones ofthis problem, telling us:

But, even though anthropologists have frequentlybeen told, by the cultural experts who are thesubject of study, of ghosts and spirits, star rela-tives, and animal allies, for more than a hundredyears, the principle of cultural relativism has al-lowed a side-stepping of the more fundamental

question of the transpersonal. Instead, throughfocusing on the interpretation of beliefs,rather than on any evaluation of the valid-ity of these against a common frame ofreference, anthropologists contextualize

such claimsdomesticating and dismissingthem, colonizing knowledge even as theyclaim to honor the truth of the Other(Glass-Coffin, 2013, p. 117).

This dismissal and colonization of knowledge isnot confined to the subjugation of indigenouswisdom, but (as we shall learn in Schroll, 2014,this volume) it is a means of silencing and ignor-


Vol. 5 No. 4 6


7/106

ing the fantastic tales of transpersonal encoun-ters that represent our cosmic birthright. We are,however, getting ahead of ourselves in our at-tempt to properly understand this problem, andfigure out ways to solve it.

The Di"culty of Learning How toAssess Authenticity and Validity

In Stanley Krippner's work with medicine men,medicine women, and shamans, he has paid spe-cial attention to the difference between event andexperience. When the inter-tribal medicine manRolling Thunder told Krippner that he oftenshape-shifted himself into an eagle and flewthrough the skies, Stanley felt the most parsimo-nious way to deal with this report was to consider

it an experience. Krippner did not negate thepossibility of it also being an event, but there isno way of providing enough evidence to decidethe matter. Further, for the purposes of Kripp-ner's investigation, it was Rolling Thunder's ex-perience that was paramount (Jones & Krippner,2012).

The same could be said of shamanic out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, andpast life experiences. There may be sophisticated,complex, and labor-intensive ways of determin-

ing the veridicality of these reports, butfor theanthropology of consciousnessveridicality isnot as important as the careful recording of theexperiential accounts. The point here is (as wecan see in the example of Schroll, 2014, this vol-ume), our first step is always to provide an accu-rate and as well documented as possible accountof the events that occurred. Afterwards throughour careful assessment and evaluation of all thefacts, we can come to a conclusion of trutheven if this truth is so fantastic it contradicts the

current worldview of Euro-American science.Because, if in fact the event can be demonstratedas truly anomalous, then this is where Kuhn's(1970) work is relevant.

In contrast, parapsychology is profoundlyinterested in events and their veridicality. Para-psychologists place considerable value on experi-ential reports but chiefly as a step toward con-structing a controlled observation or experiment

that can determine if an experiential report cor-responds to an event. Krippner recalls that anIndian parapsychologist asked a shaman,

Yashoda Devi, to hold a group of seeds whilechanting, and her experiences were duly re-corded. The seeds she held produced plants thatwere significantly taller than a control group ofseeds planted and nurtured under identical con-ditions. The significant plant growth qualifies asan event, even though the issue of causation isopen to several interpretations (Rock & Kripp-ner, 2011, p. 118). Another example Krippneroffers us is his 1980 visit to the Zulu shaman,Credo Mutwa, which included a ritualistic

throwing of the bones for the new decade.Credo Mutwa made several predictions, basedon the arrangement of the fallen bones, one ofwhich was that Nelson Mandela would becomeSouth Africa's prime minister during the forth-coming decade. This experiential report corre-sponded to an event (Krippner, 1991).

The anthropologist Richard DeMille (1976)has differentiated between authenticity and validity.


Vol. 5 No. 4 7

Fig. 1


8/106

The difficulty of developing a universal defini-tion of authenticity and validity was briefly ad-dressed in note #3's reference to Durkheim'sconcept of social facts, and in Glass-Coffin's pre-vious discussion of the limitations associated withcultural relativism. Still this differentiation be-

tween authenticity and validity can be illustratedby specific examples, such as the controversy sur-rounding Margaret Mead's interviews of youngSamoan women. Her 1928 book Coming of Age inSamoa reflected an authentic venture in that sheactually went to Samoa and recorded the reportsabout their romantic lives. However, another an-thropologist, Derek Freeman (1983) claimed thatthe participants in Mead's study did not provideentirely accurate information. Therefore, inFreemans opinion, Mead's reports were authen-

tic in that they were truly part of Mead's experi-ence (i.e.: she was not lying) but were of dubiousvalidity in that her conclusions could not be re-verified by other anthropologists. But subsequentinvestigations have questioned Freemans conclu-sions (e.g., Orans, 1996) and the ensuing contro-versy is an excellent example of the interplaybetween authenticity and validity.

Kilton Stewart's field work among the Senoitribe of the Malay Peninsula provided reportsconnecting the extensive use of family dreams to

the tribe's peaceful and collaborative nature(Stewart, 1977). However, an overseas visitor wasmurdered by the Senoi not long after Stewarthad written up his accounts. Furthermore, laterinvestigators found no evidence that Senoi fami-lies shared dreams at breakfast, despite Stewart'sclaims. Once again, an anthropological accountwas authentic but not valid.

DeMille conducted a thorough investigationof archival records of the Yaqui Indians whoCarlos Castaneda claimed to have visited. He

found no evidence of consciousness-alteringplants being used in ways that Castaneda haddescribed. Nor could he verify Castanedas de-scriptions of several other Yaqui customs or theexistence of don Juan Matus, Castaneda's pur-ported mentor. However, many of Castaneda'sanecdotes inspired countless readers of hisbooks. His ritual for inducing lucid dreams hasreportedly worked for several dreamers. Even

though Castaneda never produced field notesfrom his alleged excursions, DeMille concludedthat much of what Castaneda wrote was valid,even though of doubtful authenticity.

Sometimes accounts of tribal customs areneither authentic nor valid. Lobsang Rampa

wrote a series of bestselling books concerningancient Tibetan practices, accounts supposedlydictated by the spirit of a Tibetan lama (e.g.,Rampa, 1956). The practices did not matchscholarly accounts, and Rampa's sincerity wasalso questioned. The same can be said of manywriters who claim to have obtained wisdom fromvisits to other planets or to parallel universes. Forthe most part, these accounts are not authenticand also lack validity.

In 1925, an adventurous anthropologist, Wil-

liam McGovern, ventured into the Amazon, laterwriting up his exploits in a book, Jungle Paths andInca Ruins (McGovern, 1927). His accounts ofinitiations and rituals raised doubts at the time.For example, McGovern described a shamanwho drank a substance called kaapi and gave adetailed description of a funeral service beingheld nearly 200 miles away by another tribe. Afew weeks later, McGovern had the opportunityto visit that tribe and reported that the shaman'saccount was completely accurate. Similar reports

have been given by anthropologists who havegone to Brazil and Peru, imbibing kaapi,yage, hoasca, or ayahuasca. It appearsthat McGovern was ahead of his time and thathis report was both authentic and valid. Onceagain, the correspondence between the experi-ence and the event is open to several interpreta-tions, but it is more than likely that McGovernreported it accurately.

Conclusion

In conclusion, anthropologists of consciousnessdeal with material in which it is important to dis-tinguish between experiences and events. In ad-dition, anthropologists of consciousness need toinsure that their reports are both authentic andvalid. These emphases will bring scientific rigorto the anthropology of consciousness. And yet, as


Vol. 5 No. 4 8


9/106

Schroll, 2010c points out,

[E]ven though our current science is em-pirical, researchers collect data in an ob-jective way. I later realized that this limita-tion of quantitative methods is also true of

ethnographic methods that rely on our vi-carious identification with informants, aswell as phenomenological participant ob-servation. This, too, is the problem ofreification that Ernst Cassier (in Kripp-ner 2000:301) sought to address, becauseeven though ethnography and other narra-tive heuristic approaches are improvementso n s t r i c t q u a n t i t a t i v e m e tho d s ,participant-observers continue to collectdata in an objective way. In other words,

the data is treated as an ontologicalother or as a thing that is separate fromthe observer. This approach is not an I/Thou, Dasein (there-being) or wu-wei (ac-tionless action) orientation, which are per-spectives that would allow the researcher totruly become a participant observer. In-stead, similar to quantitative methods ofresearch, participant observation merelycollects, analyzes, and eventually interpretsdata as an I/it relationship and fails to

grasp the beingness of the experience andthe meaning of particular gestures andsymbolic actions of lived experience (May1977:60) (Schroll, 2010c, pp. 13-14). Ulti-mately therefore, none of this is doing anygood (Schroll, 2010c, p. 16).

Glass-Coffin (2013) concluded the same. In her

attempt to bridge this ontological divide, in the

spring of 2012 Glass-Coffin sought approval

from Utah State University to try an experiment

in the classroom that might allow students to

have more first-hand encounters with the numi-

nous. I asked if I might teach a class on shaman-

ism that introduced students to a shamanic

toolkit for engaging non-ordinary states of con-

sciousness (Glass-Coffin, 2013, p. 123). In re-

sponse to this request:

A debate ensued about whether what I wasasking to do violated (or not) the publicmandate about teaching religion in theclassroom. After multiple discussions withadministrators, faculty, and students, theprovisional consensus was that, as long as I

was focusing on teaching a method ratherthan a doctrine, I could engage the stu-dents in a one-semester experiment to seewhether an experiential pedagogy mightprovide the means for students to moredeeply engage the big questions in theirlives (Glass-Coffin, 2013, p. 123).

Glass-Coffin's experiment was a success, and the

student evaluations of this course affirmed to her

that, Taking transpersonal experiences seriously

might, indeed, make anthropology more relevantto a 21stcentury world, which is urgently in need

of reassessing the roles of sentience and relation-

ship as economies crumble, as human action be-

comes more environmentally unsustainable, and

as the I-it orientation of modern worldviews

threatens to destroy the earth (Glass-Coffin,

2013, p. 125). In a July 17, 2014 conversation

with Krippner, he responded to this discussion of

Glass-Coffin's work and concerns raised in Hil-

lary Webb's review of this paper by saying: Inthis example, Glass-Coffin's students reported

experiences they considered worthwhile. They

did not claim that these corresponded to the

authentic experiences of shamans, nor were they

concerned with whether or not the 'worlds' they

visited actually existed. Here, this is an example

of an enterprising teacher who focused on expe-

rience and validity, not on events and authentic-

ity.

Schroll too had an experimental educationexperience as an undergraduate at the Universityof Nebraska-Kearney in the course Eastern Psy-chology: 416/516, in 1982, and again as agraduate in the summer of 1984, taught by DirkW. Mosig, Ph.D. (who was also a 5thdegree blackbelt in Okinawan karate (and is now 9thdegree)).The first 20 minutes of each class was spent inzazen meditation. The summer session was bet-


Vol. 5 No. 4 9


10/106

ter, as class time ran for 3 hours, instead of 75minutes during the regular semester. KatagiriRoshi, head monk of the Minnesota Zen Medi-tation Center, visited our 1982 class, and Schrollalso participated in a weekend meditation retreatwith Katagiri-Roshi at the Omaha Zen Medica-

tion Center. Meanwhile Mosig, defending hisproposal for this course, faced similar concerns tothose Glass-Coffin encountered regardingwhether or not his Eastern Psychology coursewas a violation of the public mandate about notteaching religion in the classroom, and in a waysimilar to that of Glass-Coffin, he laid this con-cern to rest. Schroll therefore concurs withGlass-Coffin in her call for direct encounters ofthe numinous in our classrooms, and the hopethat this will assist us in awakening our active

involvement in transpersonal ecosophy (Schroll,2013).

Krippner's response to this discussion duringour July 17, 2004 conversation led him to sum upthis example by saying: Regarding the exampleprovided by Schroll, his studying with a re-nowned teacher, insured that Schroll's experiencewould be both authentic and valid. But did theexperience reflect an event? This is a questionthat can be asked of any and all numinous expe-riences, and the documentation of events is an

issue yet to be resolved. In other words, we needto continue working toward the scientific accep-tance of our encounters with transpersonality inall its multifaceted forms, and encourage our col-leagues who have yet to experience the numinousto do so, by any means they choose.

Finally, we will leave you with an analogySchroll has devised that will help us to remem-ber, and identify, with this paper's thesis regard-ing event and experience:

[T]he assumptions and methods of scienceare similar to a voyeur watching two peo-ple having sex while looking through akeyhole. The keyhole's outline constitutesthe paradigmatic parameters that define itsdomain of inquiry (i.e., its ontology), whileour non-interfering observations representits analytic and objective criteria (i.e., itsepistemology). Limiting its ontological in-

quiry, Euro-American science has beenable to formulate some basic laws thatholdat least within its limited framework.But the whole of reality is larger than whatscience can see through the ontological pa-rameters of its keyhole; likewise its objec-

tive epistemology fails to provide us withan understanding of the subjective quali-ties that the two people making love areexperiencing. This image of the infinitedepth of reality, whose basic structure is adynamic, undivided whole, is the vision ofhuman potential that informs the world-view of transpersonal psychology, the an-thropology of consciousness, and relateddisciplines (Schroll, 2010c, p. 6). (See fig 1).

Bibliography

Beischel, J., Rock, A. J., & Krippner, S. (2011).Reconceptualizing the field of altered con-sciousness: A 50-year retrospective. In E.Cardena & M. Winkelman (Eds.), Alteringconsciousness:Multidisciplinary perspectives: Vol. 1:History, culture, and the humanities. Santa Bar-bara, CA, Denver, CO, Oxford, England:Praeger, pp. 113-135.

Campbell, R. L., & Staniford, P. S. (1978).'Transpersonal anthropology.' Phoenix: TheJournal of Transpersonal Anthropology, Vol. 2,No. 1, pp. 28-40.

Cardena, E. (2011). Altering consciousness: Set-ting up the stage. In E. Cardena & M.Winkelman (Eds.),Altering consciousness:Multi-disciplinary perspectives: Vol. 1: History, culture,and the humanities. Santa Barbara, CA, Den-ver, CO, Oxford, England: Praeger, pp. 1-

21.

Castaneda, C. (19??).

DeMille, R. (1976). Castanedas journey: The powerand the allegory. Santa Barbara, CA: CapraPress.


Vol. 5 No. 4 10


11/106

Durkheim, E. (1895/1982). The rules of sociologicalmethod. New York, NY: Free Press.

Estrada, A. (1981). Mara Sabina: Her life andchants. Santa Barbara, CA: Ross-Erickson.

Freeman, D. (1983).Margaret Mead and Samoa: Themaking and unmaking of an anthropological myth.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Glass-Coffin, B. (2013). 'Belief is not experience:Transformation as a tool for bridging theontological divide in anthropological re-search and reporting.' InternationalJournal ofTranspersonal Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 117-126.

Greenwood, S. (2009). The anthropology of magic.Oxford, UK & New York, NY: Berg.

Greenwood, S., & Goodwyn, E. D. (2014). Magi-cal consciousness: An anthropological and neurobio-logical approach. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jones, S. M. S., & Krippner, S. (2012). The voice ofRolling Thunder: A medicine man's wisdom forwalking the red road. Rochester, VT: Bear &Company.

Krippner, S. (1991). Vusamazulu Credo Mutwa:A Zulu sangoma. In R. I. Heinze (Ed.),Shamans of the 20th century (pp. 33-41). NewYork, NY: Irvington.

Krippner, S. (2000). Research methodology inhumanistic psychology in light of postmod-ernity. In K. J. Schneider, J. F. T. Bugental,& J. F. Pierson (Eds.), Thehandbook of humanis-tic psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.

259-304.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolu-tions. 2nd ed, enlarged. Chicago, IL: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

Laing, R. D. (1967). The politcs of experience. NewYork, NY: Ballantine Books.

Laughlin, C. D. (2012). Transpersonal anthro-pology: What is it, and what are the prob-lems we face doing it? In J. Hunter (Ed.),Paranthropology: Anthropological approaches to theparanormal. Bristol, UK: Paranthropology,pp. 69-97.

Lewis, S. (2008). 'Ayahuasca and spiritual crisis:Liminality as space for personal growth.'An-thropology of Consciousness, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.109-133.

Lukoff, D. (1985). 'The diagnosis of mystical ex-periences with psychotic features.' Journal ofTranspersonal Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.155-181.

Lukoff, D. (2011). Visionary spirituality andmental disorders. In E. Cardena & M.Winkelman (eds), Altering consciousness: Multi-disciplinary perspectives: Vol. 2:Biological and psy-chological perspectives. Santa Barbara, CA,Denver, CO, Oxford, England: Praeger, pp.301-325.

Lukoff, D., Lu, F., & Turner, R. (1998). 'Fromspiritual emergency to spiritual problem:The transpersonal roots of the newDSM-IV

category.' Journal of HumanisticPsychology, 38(2), 21-50.

McGovern, W. M. (1927). Jungle paths and Incaruins. New York & London: The CenturyCompany.

Mead, M. (1928). Coming of age in Samoa. NewYork, NY: William Morrow.

Orans, M. (1996). Not even wrong: Margaret Mead,

Derek Freeman, and the Samoans. Novato, CA:Chandler and Sharp.

Pelletier, K. R. (1978). Toward a science of conscious-ness. New York, NY: Delacorte Press.

Phillips, R. E. III, Lukoff, D., & Stone, M. K.(2009). 'Integrating the spirit within psycho-sis: Alternative conceptualizations of psy-


Vol. 5 No. 4 11


12/106

chotic disorders.' Journal of Transpersonal Psy-chology, 41(1), 61-80.

Podvoll, E. M. (1979/80a). Psychosis and themystic path. The Psychoanalytic Review, Vol.66, No. 4, pp. 571-589.

Podvoll, E. M. (1980b). The psychotic journey.Naropa Institute Journal of Psychology, Vol. 1,No. 1, pp. 21-44.

Rampa, T. L. (1956). The third eye. New York, NY:Ballantine.

Rock, A. J., & Krippner, S. (2011). Demystifyingshamans and their world. Exeter, England: Im-print Academic.

Schroll, M. A. (2010a). 'The anthropology ofconsciousness: Investigating the frontiers ofunexplainable personal and cultural phe-nomenon.'Paranthropology:Journal ofAnthropo-logical Approaches to the Paranormal, Vol. 1, No.1, pp. 6-8.

Schroll, M. A. (2010b). 'Castaneda's controversyand methodological influences.' Paranthropol-ogy: Journal of Anthropological Approaches to the

Paranormal, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 3-6.

Schroll, M. A. (2010c). 'Toward a new kind ofscience and its methods of inquiry.' Anthro-pology of Consciousness, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 1-29.

Schroll, M. A. (2013). 'From ecopsychology totranspersonal ecosophy: Shamanism, psy-chedelics and transpersonal psychology: Anautobiographical reflection.'European Journal

of Ecopsychology, Vol. 4, pp. 116-144.

Schroll, M. A. (2014, this volume). 'Experiencingdream telepathy (or non-local memory): A50 year retrospective autobiographicalanalysis.' Paranthropology: Journal of Anthropo-logical Approaches to the Paranormal, Vol. 5, No.3, pp. 28-43.

Schroll, M. A., Rowan, J., & Robinson, O.(2011). Clearing up Rollo May's views oftranspersonal psychology and acknowledg-ing May as an early supporter of ecopsy-chology. International Journal of TranspersonalStudies, Vol. 30, No. 1-2, pp. 120-136.

Schroll, M. A., with Schwartz, S. A. (2005).'Whither psi and anthropology? An incom-plete history of SAC's origins, its relation-ship with transpersonal psychology and theuntold stories of Castaneda's controversy.'Anthropology of Consciousness, Vol. 16, No. 1,pp. 6-24.

Stewart, K. (1977). Dream exploration amongthe Senoi. In H-M. Chiang & A. H. Maslow

(Eds.), The healthy personality: Readings, 2nd

ed.(pp. 127-137). New York, NY: D. Van Nos-trand.

Villoldo, A., & Krippner, S. (1987).Healing states.New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Walsh, R., & Vaughan, F. (1993). 'On transper-sonal definitions.Journal of TranspersonalPsy-chology, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 199-207.

Walsh, R. (2007). The world of shamanism: Newviews of an ancient tradition. Woodbury, MN:Llewellyn Publications.

Winkelman, M. (1982). 'Magic: A theoretical re-assessment.' Current Anthropology, Vol. 23, No.1, pp. 37-66.

Winkelman, M. (1992). Shamans, priests and witches:A cross-cultural study of magico-religious practitio-ners. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.

Winkelman, M. (2011). A paradigm for under-standing altered consciousness: The integra-tive mode of consciousness. In E. Cardena& M. Winkelman (Eds.), Altering consciousness:Multidisciplinary perspectives: Vol. 1: History, cul-ture, and the humanities. Santa Barbara, CA,Denver, CO, Oxford, England: Praeger, pp.23-41.


Vol. 5 No. 4 12


13/106

Notes

1. Bonnie Glass-Coffin tells us: When I asked thesequestions of my colleagues at the 2011 AAA meet-ings [in Montreal, Quebec], the responses I receivedwere telling. After one panel devoted to a discussionabout research on the invisible in the modern world, Iwas told that if anthropologists talked about thesethings [as really real], we would be perceived as na-ve, gullible, and uneducated. Another panelist added,when I decide what to share and what to leave out ofmy research, I choose to share only what makes theconnection to other people's experiences (Glass-Coffin, 2011, p. 121).

2. Schroll 2014, this volume, provides a personal ac-count of dream telepathy as one example of this.Other examples are experiences associated with whatSusan Greenwood refers to as expressions of magi-

cal thinking or magical consciousness (Green-wood & Goodwyn, 2014, in press). Magical con-sciousness is a participation in and co-evolution withan animistic cosmos (Greenwood, 2009). In agree-ment with Greenwood, Schroll (2005) wrote, Just bytheir very existence, natural landscapes, rivers, trees,plants, and animals are able to serve as 'triggeringdevices' that assist us in awakening our ancestralmemories. Using this heightened sensitivity andawareness of all natural systems provides witches,shamans and the rest of us with an ability to free-associate and remember (Schroll with Schwartz,p.16, 2005). Further clarifying this view, Schroll

2010c referred to the broad spectrum of events andexperiences that anthropologists of consciousnessinvestigate (shamanic states of consciousness, spiritpossession, dissociative states, etc) as expressions oftranspersonality (p. 22). The obstacle we face indeveloping this view is (Schroll tells us): This refer-ence to 'fantastic tales of psi/spirit phenomena' re-sembles a flashing neon sign for what is frequentlyreferred to in anthropology as 'magical thinking'(Winkelman 1982, 1992). (Schroll, 2010c, p. 16).Schroll reminded Greenwood of this critical assess-ment of magical thinking so that she can continueto develop her positive examples in a way to avoidany confusion with a psychopathology that needs tobe cured (personal communication, May 21, 2014).Specifically Greenwood needs to clarify her positivedefinition because, in the critical sense, magicalthinking resembles what the Diagnostic and Statisti-cal Manuel-IV (DSM-IV) refers to as forms of psy-chosis, in particular schizophrenia (Laing 1967; Pod-voll 1979/80a, 1980b; Lukoff 1985, [Lukoff, 2011;Lukoff, Lu, & Turner, 1998; Phillips, Lukoff, &Stone, 2009]; Villoldo & Krippner 1987:180-186; [&

. . .] Walsh 2007:87-105). The frequent misdiagnosisof persons telling these so-called 'fantastic tales' asschizophrenia has been greatly reduced in light ofLukoff's diagnostic category 'Religious or SpiritualProblem' (V62.89), in which transpersonal experi-ences are not viewed as a mental disorder but as acondition contributing to the maintenance of a

healthy personality. Sara Lewis has discussedLukoff's diagnostic category as a means of under-standing spiritual crisis and personal growth associ-ated with ayahuasca use (Lewis 2008:112-113).Roger Walsh (2007:107-113) provides an even moredetailed discussion than Lewis, pointing out: 'If cor-rectly diagnosed and appropriately supported, thenspiritual emergencies can be valuable growth experi-ences: hence their other name of 'spiritual emer-gences' (Walsh 2007:113) (Schroll, 2010c, pp. 16-17).

3. This description of an event reflects a naturalscience orientation, whereas in 1895 Emile Durk-

heim sought to establish the same precision withinsociology (which is now also used in anthropology)through his concept of social facts: which is a con-sensus reality that is unique to whatever group orculture researchers choose as their object of investi-gation (Durkheim 1982). This approach works welluntil we seek to understand the very subtle internalexperiences produced by these events, which are thefocus of inquiry associated with the investigations oftranspersonal psychologists and the anthropology ofconsciousness. Schroll points out: People can be-lieve in things that are not real (like the EasterBunny) which are useful in creating folk beliefs that

can become part of a larger explanatory system. Itmay seem harmless for us to indulge ourselves infolk beliefs as part of [our] holiday celebrations, yetthis is why Maslow held . . . that organized/legalisticreligion has the same tendency to create rituals thatoperate as social facts (Schroll, Rowan, & Robin-son, 2011, p. 123). Schroll elaborates on this point:One example is baptism, which can amount to noth-ing more than slight immersion in water or a meresprinkling of water on our head, which has now be-come a ritual that symbolically represents transcen-dence or transpersonal awareness, whereas holding

someone underwater until they are very close todeath represents a 'thanto-mimetic' method poten-tially capable of inducing a mystical, or transpersonalstate of consciousness. But the technique is difficultbecause the person could potentially drown (Pel-letier, 1978) (Schroll, Rowan, & Robinson, 2011, p.123). More needs to be said about this, nevertheless,a complete discussion of the problem associated withapplying the concept of social facts when we aretrying to understand subtle internal experiences ex-ceeds the limits of this paper.


Vol. 5 No. 4 13


14/106

Biographies

Stanley Krippner, Ph.D., is Alan Watts Professor

of Psychology at Saybrook University in San

Francisco, California. In 2002 he received the

American Psychological Association's Award for

Distinguished Contributions to the International

Advancement of Psychology as well as the

Award for Distinguished Contributions to Pro-

fessional Hypnosis from the Society of Psycho-

logical Hypnosis. In 2010, three of his co-edited

books were published:Perchance toDream: The

Frontiers of Dream Psychology; Mysterious

Minds: The Neurobiology of Mediums,Mystics,

and Other Remarkable People; and Debating

Psychic Experience:Human Potential orHumanIllusion. In 2010, an updated edition of his co-

authored bookHaunted by Combat: Understand-

ing PTSD in War Veterans, was published. In

2012 he co-authored (with Sidian Morning Star

Jones) The Voice of Rolling Thunder: A Medi-

cine Man's Wisdom for Walking theRed Road.

Dr. Krippner is a past president of the Interna-

tional Association for the Study of Dreams (from

which he received its Lifetime Achievement

award) and the Parapsychological Association(which gave him its Outstanding Career Award).

Email: [email protected].

Mark A. Schroll, Ph.D., Research Adjunct Fac-

ulty, Sofia University (formerly Institute for

Transpersonal Psychology), Palo Alto, Califor-

nia, is a frequent contrubutor to this journal, and

author of 30 peer reviewed papers (not including

those in this issue). Schroll is the Guest Editor

of this issue of Paranthropology, and first met

Dr. Krippner January 23-24, 1984, attending the

workshop Myths, Dreams, and Shamanism at

the Interface Conference Center in Newton,

Massachusetts (near Boston). April 6, 2001 was

the first time we presented together in the 2.5hour Hypotheses In Search of a Paradigm: A

Conversation Forum that I organized and

chaired at the Society for the Anthropology of

Consciousness annual spring conference, Bastyr

University, Seattle, Washington, including com-

ments from Constantine Hriskos, Edith Turner,

and Michael Winkelman, This paper and entire

issue of Paranthropology represents a continu-

ing inquiry in search of a paradigm capable of

adequately assessing and comprehending a vari-ety of phenomena that are often too fantastic to

be believed; an inquiry that includes parapsy-

chology, shamanism, transpersonal psychology,

and philosophy of science, all of which represent

aspects of transpersonal ecosophy (pronounced

E-kos-o-fee). Email: [email protected].


Vol. 5 No. 4 14

Transnational Anomalies Research

Transnational Anomalies Research (TAR) is an international collaborative re-search initiative founded by Joey M. Caswell and Dr. J. Miguel Gaona in 2013.The TAR team consists of members across Canada, Spain, France, the U.S.A.,and the UK, with diverse specializations and backgrounds including neuro-science and biology, psychology, physics, anthropology, and engineering.

http://tarteam.org
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


15/106

Introduction

Many thanks to Krippner and Schroll for rais-ing this important topic of discussion, and to theParanthropologyeditors for the opportunity to addmy own two cents. As anthropologistsof con-

sciousness or any other subfield of anthropol-ogythe future of our discipline is well servedwhen such meta-inquiries are presented for ourcontemplation.

How do we know what a genuine transper-sonal experience is? Krippner and Schroll ask,later refining this question to one of, Is it possi-ble to clearly distinguish between an event andan experience [when it comes to reports oftranspersonal experiences]?

They write:

There may be sophisticated, complex, andlabor-intensive ways of determining theveridicality of these reports, butfor theanthropology of consciousnessveridical-ity is not as important as the careful re-cording of the experiential accounts. [O]ur first step is always to provide an ac-curate and well documented as possibleaccount of the events that occurred. After-wards through our careful assessment and evalua-

tion of all the facts, we can come to a conclusion oftrutheven if this truth is so fantastic it contra-dicts the current worldview of Euro-American sci-ence [Emphasis added] (Krippner &Schroll, 2014, p. 7)

Krippner and Schroll define Event as physi-cal factors, or the impingement of sensory data

on our neural receptors and contrast it withExperience as the internalization of theevent, [which] is shaped or interpreted throughour particular cultural belief system (Krippner& Schroll, 2014, p. 6). Put another way, anEvent is here being defined as an objective and

ontologically real occurrence or phenomenon(which is, therefore, not influenced by personalor cultural constructs), while Experience repre-sents the phenomenological expressions of howwe react to an event (i.e. how we weave thatevent into the story of our existence). As a way ofillustrating this distinction, Krippner and Schrolloffer the examples of don Jos Rios and doaMaria Sabina, for whom certain events in theirlives (for the former, a debilitating accident, and,for the latter, the loss of two husbands) were expe-

rienced as a call to shamanize. They concludetheir paper stating the position that anthropolo-gists of consciousness deal with material in whichit is important to distinguish between experiencesand events, that these emphases will bring sci-entific rigor to the anthropology of conscious-ness (Krippner & Schroll, 2014, p. 17).

While there is much to respond to in Kripp-ner and Schrolls rich essay, it is to what I under-stand to be the suggestion that anthropologists ofconsciousness are, or should be, responsible for

determining the eventness of our research par-ticipants reported experience that I would mostlike to respond. Skipping ahead to the punch lineof my argument: While certainly there are manyresearch situations in which making such deter-minations and/or distinctions between Eventand Experience is necessary, Krippner andSchrolls position that only by doing so can weclaim scientific rigorand therefore scientific


Vol. 5 No. 4 15

Reflections on Methodological Concerns in theAnthropology of Consciousness:

A Response to Krippner and SchrollHillary S. Webb


16/106

acceptanceneglects to take into account themany ways in which transpersonal experiencescan be evaluated. How an anthropologist relates(or should relate) to the distinction betweenEvent-Experience and Authenticity-Validity de-pends greatly upon the primary aims of his or

her study and, therefore, a broader view of theanthropology of consciousness needs to be in-cluded in this assessment.

Defining Some of the Essential Terms

In order to clarify my position on this, I will be-gin by defining my terms. Too often when wedebate or dialogue about matters regarding suchenigmatic topics as consciousness, transper-sonal experience, and the like, we fail to first

define our terms and explain the professionalpriorities that provide the semantic and philo-sophical seeding ground of our argument. As aresult, our attempts at coming to some sort ofmutual understanding (if not necessarily agree-ment) with those with whom we wish to commu-nicate become skewed from the beginning. It isas if we are trying to point out a constellation inthe northern sky to someone who is facing west.By defining our terms and giving even just a brieforientation to the particular intellectual land-

scape in which we personally stand, we are betterable to revealboth to our audiences/colleagues/readers as well as to ourselvesthemany assumptions inherent in our arguments.While we may still have difficulty identifying thesame constellation, at least we are facing in thesame direction.

That said, before diving into some of myown thoughts regarding the distinction betweenEvent and Experience and Authenticity and Va-lidity, I would like to give some background re-

garding the focus of my own work, as well assome of the definitions that act as the philo-sophical ground upon which my research trajec-tory is built. I wil begin by giving quick defini-tions of some of the other terms that play a sig-nificant role within the context of how the dis-tinction between Event-Experience andAuthenticity-Validity should or should not befactored into our research assessments.

Three terms come to mind as particularlyimportant: consciousness, transpersonal experi-ence, and anthropology of consciousness

Within the context of my research, I defineconsciousness as:

[the subjective processes] by which the to-tal sum of experience, information, knowl-edge, and understanding become availableto us, both through states of ordinaryawareness and non-ordinary awareness.As human beings we are in every momentexperiencing and being transformed by theworld through both ordinary and non-ordinary means, whether we are con-sciously aware of it or not (Webb, 2012a, p.6).

While I certainly don't consider this to be theul-timate definition of consciousness, this is typi-cally my starting point. Within this definition,several of the philosophical assumptions that in-fluence my work are revealed. For example,rather than attempting to define what conscious-ness ultimately is as a phenomenon (i.e.: eithermind, matter, or a combination of the two), thisdefinition reflects my interest in the existential-humanistic features of consciousness. That is,

not those elements of the phenomenon that areobjective and repeatable across a broad spectrumof humanity, but the ways in which individualsexperience consciousness. Likewise, when it comesto investigating transpersonal experi-encesunderstood here as an umbrella termthat unites a range of non-ordinary states ofconsciousness during which, as Laughlin wrote,the sense of identity or self extends beyond(trans) the individual or personal" (as cited inKrippner & Schroll, 2014, p. 5)my particular

investigative approach focuses on the phenome-nons experiential qualities as opposed to trying toidentify features of its ontological reality (or non-reality).

Finally, the anthropology of consciousness,is a field of study that, as Krippner and Schrollvery eloquently explain it, focuses on how vari-ous culturesand the individuals within themunderstand and relate to alternations in con-


Vol. 5 No. 4 16


17/106

sciousness (Krippner & Schroll, 2014, p. 5). Ac-cording to the mission statement of the Societyfor the Anthropology of Consciousness, the So-cietys primary aim is that of contributing to thedialogue surrounding cross-cultural, experimen-tal, experiential, and theoretical approaches to

the study of consciousness [utilizing] diversemethodologies, including ethnographic, scien-tific, experiential, historical, and alternative waysof knowing. Furthermore, they state, We valueinterdisciplinary perspectives, respect diversetraditions, and prioritize inclusiveness and opendialogue in the study of the anthropology ofconsciousness (Anthropology of Conscious-ness, 2014).

In other words, the Society for the Anthro-pology of Consciousness recognizes that research

exploring both the clock (objective) andcloud (subjective) features of consciousness isessential to our understanding of the phenome-non of human consciousness (see Webb, 2012).

Event and Experience in the

Context of Qualitative Research

I raise this point about the methodological scopeembraced by the Society for the Anthropology ofConsciousness because, as noted, if I have a

criticism regarding Krippner and Schrolls excel-lent unpacking of the dyads of Event-Experienceand Authenticity-Validity, it is that they do notaccount sufficientlyat least for my tasteforthe many ways in which anthropologists of con-sciousness approach the study of transpersonalexperiences. What they seem to imply with thestatement anthropologists of consciousness dealwith material in which it is important to distin-guish between experiences and events and thatthese emphases will bring scientific rigor to the

anthropology of consciousness is that determin-ing the truth of an experiences event-nessshould be the sine qua nonof all transpersonal re-search.

If this is indeed their position, I disagree.Within the context of my own researchwhich,as I described earlier, focuses on the existential-humanistic and, therefore, subjective-experientialaspects of consciousnessmy focus is on gather-

ing data that illuminates such questions as,What meanings do the research participantsmake out of non-ordinary states of conscious-ness? In what ways do these meanings reflector rub up against the meaning systems of theculture in which they live? and How do the

meanings made of non-ordinary states of con-sciousness shape their day-to-day lives and rela-tionships? Addressing these questions within aresearch context does not require that I attemptto determine or judge whether a transpersonalexperience as described by a research participantactually happened in the sense of it being anontologically real event. Not only is that beyondthe scope of my research goals, but attempting todo so would ultimately confuse and muddy mymethodological process, not to mention the data

itself. Opinions about the ontological reality ofthe event itself are, therefore, left out of theequationboth as a matter of choice and a mat-ter of necessity.

For example, during my 2006-2009 fieldworkin which I investigated the psychological experi-ence of yanantin or complementary oppositesas the philosophical basis of the indigenous An-dean worldview, I was offered the following tes-timony by one of my research participants:

I started on this path when I was a child,he told me, I dreamed a lot. I used tohang out with my older brothers. I used togo to the jungle a lot. And when I gothome I would tell my mother about ridingwith my friends on the elephants. Mymother said I shouldnt lie. But I wouldswear that we had ridden on the elephants.I used to fly a lot. I do not think it was allchildish magic. Later, when I had finishedhigh school, I started to study under a

[shamanic] teacher in Lima. I started toappreciate my essence and my love of theunknown. I loved what I learned aboutwhat I wasmy essence, my Andean roots.My teacher taught me a lot about who Iwas. He told me to look at myself. I feltpart of something. I was not aware of whatit was, but I was already part of something.


Vol. 5 No. 4 17


18/106

And step by step, I started to walk (Webb,2012b, pp. 78-79).

While within the context of a different researchproject, I might very well have spent much ana-lytic and interpretational time deliberating and

debating whether or not my participants testi-mony constituted an ontologically real transper-sonal Event, given the scope of my researchgoals, I had neither the interest nor the methodo-logical backing to do so. Instead, I was interestedin the meanings that he, now an adult, made ofhis childhood experience; which he saw as hav-ing laid the foundation for his eventual initiationinto Peruvian spiritual traditions. He reportedthat his non-ordinary experience in the jun-gleand similar experiences that later follow-

edprovided him with an increased sense ofconnection to his cultural roots. This had, inturn, led to a sense of intense communion withhis own existence. Adding his testimony to thetestimonies of other participants, I was able tocome to some conclusions regarding how suchstates of consciousness are interpreted within acertain cultural group.

Concerning Authenticity and Validity

In addition to Event and Experience,Krippner and Schroll consider the distinctionbetween Authenticity and Validity. Accord-ing to Krippner and Schroll, Authenticity inresearch implies that the individual actually wit-nessed or experienced the events that he or sherecounts. That is, he or she is not lying or falsify-ing the data. In contrast, a Valid researchstudy is one in which the data accurately reflectsreality and therefore can be re-verified by otheranthropologists.

They write:

Some accounts of tribal customs are nei-ther authentic nor valid. Lobsong Rampawrote a series of bestselling books concern-ing ancient Tibetan practices, accountssupposedly dictated by the spirit of a Ti-betan lama The practices did not matchscholarly accounts, and Rampas sincerity

was also questioned. The same can be saidof many writers who claim to have ob-tained wisdom from visits to other planetsor to parallel universes. For the most part,these accounts are not authentic and alsolack validity (Krippner & Schroll, 2014, p.

8).

A question: Where lies the burden of proof indetermining authenticity and validity when itcomes to investigating participant reports oftranspersonal experiences? In the above exam-ple, I am unclear how this determinationthatLobsong Rampas accounts were neither authen-tic nor validwas made. By what criteria is sucha thing to be judged, when it cannot be tangiblymeasured? In the case of Authenticity in re-

ports of transpersonal experiences, unless theindividual confesses to lying, how can we everknow if the encounterno matter whether anEvent or the Experienceactually occurred?Going back to my research participants report ofriding elephants in the jungle as a child: Was helying, as even his mother accused him? What sortof interrogation methods would have been ac-ceptable to determine this?

If I am setting out to document the innerexperience of a group of individuals, my mission

is to record their testimonies and to create ananalytic picture that considers the psycho-social meanings made of these experiences. Bar-ring some kind of confession or coercion, there isno way for me to know if my participant is lyingor not. Therefore, I chose to take the report atface value. If, during the research process, I wereto discover that my participant is lying, I mightshift my questioning slightly, asking my partici-pant, What made that lie necessary? What doesfictionalizing a transpersonal experience provide

for you life (i.e.: shamanic prowess, desire toplease the researcher, etc.)? What are the internalconsequences now that your lie has been ex-posed? This, too, would reveal important in-formation about the role of transpersonal expe-riences within an individuals personal and cul-tural life.

Regarding Validity, or the accuracy of thedata, when it comes to exploring transpersonal


Vol. 5 No. 4 18


19/106

experiences through qualitative methodologies,given that such states are inherently subjectiveand, therefore, often non-repeatable (even if theyare Authentic), how do we ascertain that thedata is accurate? How can the rigor of our workbe assessed? How do we convince our

audiences/colleagues/readers that the data wehave gathered and our analytic conclusionsabout it constitute a valid enough interpretivepicture for them to hang their hats oni.e. usingit as the basis for future research, for policy de-velopment, for teaching, and so on?

As each methodology has its own criteria fordetermining what constitutes proof of validity,there is no one answer to this; only to say that, asresearchers, we are responsible for (a) outliningjust what Validity means within the context of

our research reports; (b) being transparent aboutthe limitations of our studywhat it can or can-not determine given the analytic parameters ofour chosen methodology; and (c) remainingfaithful to the standards we have set for ourselvesthroughout the entire research process.

Within the context of my work, Authentic-ity is relatively easy. I do not lie. I portray thedata as accurately as my understanding will allowme, being as transparent as possible about thelimitations of my own knowledge and never for-

getting that, regardless of all my best efforts, inthe end, all research reports are only an ap-proximation of reality, not reality itself. Regard-ing Validity, within the context of a qualitativestudy in which I seek to shed light on how expe-riences of non-ordinary states of consciousnessinfluence the lives of my research participants,the following goals might play a role in my datavalidation process:

Fit.How faithful the final report is to the

everyday realities of the participant(s) and/or how closely the analytic and interpretiveconclusions match up with the partici-pant(s)s experiences of the phenomenonbeing illuminated. In order to accomplishthis, I might seek input from one or moreof the participants, showing them the finalreport and asking for further testimony

about how well the narrative captures theessence of their experience. Relevance. A research report has rele-vance if it allows core problems and proc-esses to emerge that were not previouslyaccessible.

Modifiability. That is, the ease with whicha hypothesis can be altered when new, per-haps even contradictory, data is comparedto existing data. A valid research studyshould not seek absolute closure, butshould instead open the phenomenon upto greater possibility and questioning. Rhetorical Power. A study has rhetoricalpower if the final narrative (a) effectivelycommunicates to an outside reader theemotional and intellectual meanings that

the phenomenon holds for the participants,and (b) effectively communicates the mean-ings that the phenomenon might hold forthe wider culture and, (c) perhaps evenhow it reflects greater patterns across thespectrum of human behavior. In this case,validation must occur by presenting thenarrative report to outside readers whothen comment upon the insights that theyhave gained as a result of reading it.

According to these criteria, Validity is achievedwhen the final research report rings trueenough to the experiences of all involved.True enough because, as noted, the map cannever fully reflect the territory, only approximateit. If any one of these four validation criteria arenot met, the burden thus falls upon me as re-searcher to either modify my interpretation, re-write the final report in a way that more accu-rately reflects the data, and/or include within thefinal report a well-reasoned argument as to why I

did not make these changes and why the reportshould nonetheless be considered valid.

Conclusion

Krippner and Schroll are two researchers forwhom I have the utmost respect, and they havedone us all a great service by raising the ques-tions and points that they do within their paper.


Vol. 5 No. 4 19


20/106

The disagreements I have with certain aspects ofwhat they have proposed do not in any way de-tract from the overall enthusiasm I had readingtheir paper. Quite the opposite, in fact. As statedearlier, I believe the anthropology of conscious-ness is well served when we are asked to consider

the nuances of our field and become aware ofthe epistemological assumptions that inevitablyarise when we do so. By turning a critical eyeover and over againto our collective and indi-vidual work, our field grows, both in terms of thedepth of our understandings about transpersonalstates and, not insignificantly, the way in whichour field is perceived throughout the researchcommunity.

References

Anthropology of consciousness. (2014) The So-ciety for the Anthropology of Consciousness(website). Retrieved August 25, 2014, fromhttp://www.sacaaa.org/anthropologyofconsciousness.asp

Krippner, S. & Schroll, M.A. (2014) 'Differentiat-ing experiences from events, and validityfrom authenticity in the anthropology ofconsciousness.' Paranthropology, Vol. 5, No. 4,

pp. 5-14.

Webb, H.S. (2012a). 'Clock system of cloud sys-tem?: Applying Poppers metaphor to thestudy of human consciousness.' Paranthropol-ogy. Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 4-12.

Webb, H.S. (2012b). Yanantin and Masintin in theAndean World: Complementary dualism in modern

Peru. Albuquerque, NM: University of NewMexico Press.

Biography

Hillary S. Webb, PhD., is an anthropologist, author, andformer managing editor of Anthropology of Conscious-ness, the peer-reviewed journal of the Society for the An-thropology of Consciousness. Having received her under-graduate degree in journalism from New York University,Dr. Webb went on to earn an MA in philosophy of mindfrom Goddard College and a PhD in psychology fromSaybrook University. She is the author of several books,including Yanantin and Masintin in the Andean World:Complementary Dualism in Modern Peru. She is currentlyVice President of Institutional Research at Circus Conser-vatory of America.


Vol. 5 No. 4 20

Recent Publication

This book discusses how Amerindian epistemology and ontology, relatedto certain indigenous shamanic rituals of the Amazon, spread to Westernsocieties, and how indigenous, mestizo, and cosmopolitan cultures havedialogued with and transformed these forest traditions. Special attentionis given to the hallucinogenic brew ayahuasca.

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199341191.001.0001/acprof-9780
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199341191.001.0001/acprof-9780http://www.sacaaa.org/anthropologyofconsciousness.asphttp://www.sacaaa.org/anthropologyofconsciousness.asphttp://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199341191.001.0001/acprof-9780http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199341191.001.0001/acprof-9780http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199341191.001.0001/acprof-9780http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199341191.001.0001/acprof-9780http://www.sacaaa.org/anthropologyofconsciousness.asphttp://www.sacaaa.org/anthropologyofconsciousness.asphttp://www.sacaaa.org/anthropologyofconsciousness.asphttp://www.sacaaa.org/anthropologyofconsciousness.asp


21/106

My first memory of Stanley Krippner was at aninvited seminar on The Anthropology of theParanormal held at Esalens Center for Theoryand Research on the magnificent Big Sur coastoverlooking the Pacific Ocean in 2013. It was an

unforgettable experience meeting Stan, at lastbeing able to make contact with the personwhose name has almost become synonymouswith shamanism and the anthropology of con-sciousness. A charming and polite man, Stan waspositive and encouraging, but nevertheless it wasa somewhat daunting experience giving my pa-per on magical consciousness the following day.Taking the speakers seat, I found myself sittingbetween two pioneering icons of alternate modesof mind. On my right was Edie Turner, while

Stanley Krippner sat on my left. It felt like anhistorical moment indeed as I became aware ofthe tremendous inspiration and legacy that bothStan and Edie have given anthropology. I wassomewhat apprehensive to be introducing mytake on the paranormal based on my own expe-riential research on magic. In the event, bothStan and Edie were very gracious, even thoughmy work took a different viewpoint to Stans, as Ishall demonstrate here through a commentaryon his paper Differentiating Experiences from

Events, and Validity from Authenticity in An-thropological Research. In this paper Stans aimis to outline the need for anthropological reportsto be both authentic and valid to bring scientificrigor to the anthropology of consciousness, andwith this I am in full agreement. However, myown work, while honouring Stans approach, hasa rather different perspective regarding how weconceptualize science and its methodology. In

my view, it is unreasonable, and indeed irra-tional, not to consider magical experience on itsown terms as scientifically valid and authentic, asI will outline below, drawing on the spirit of thecrashing waves of the ocean and the stimulatingatmosphere of our debates at Esalen.

***

The anthropology of consciousness, according toStanley Krippner, focuses on alternations in con-sciousness - such as through indigenous healingsystems - and the neuroscience underlying per-formed rites, rituals and ceremonies. Accordingto Krippner, anthropologists studying suchchanges in consciousness attempt to distinguish

between event and experience. A shamanic expe-rience of shape-shifting, an out-of-body experi-ence, or past life experiences, for example, is dis-tinguished as different from an actual event,something that happens that can be verified byevidence. Nonetheless, for anthropologists ofconsciousness, Krippner argues, veridicality isnot as important as the careful recording of ex-periential accounts. Krippner makes a clear de-marcation between experience and event; thiscan be equated with subjective and objective ori-

entations to anthropological fieldwork. Krippnerpoints out a difference between the disciplines ofanthropology and parapsychology. By contrast toanthropologists, parapsychologists, while valuingexperiential reports, are more interested in eventsand their veridicality. Experiential reports arevalued, but chiefly as a step toward constructinga controlled observation or experiment that candetermine if an experiential report corresponds


Vol. 5 No. 4 21

Interplay of Perspectives in theAnthropology of Consciousness:

A Commentary on Krippner & SchrollSusan Greenwood


22/106

to an event. Krippner also contends that an an-thropology of consciousness differentiates be-tween authenticity and validity; anthropologicalreports may be authentic they are authenticbecause it was the anthropologist that experi-enced them - but they might not necessarily be

valid as scientific evidence. The case in pointhere being the notorious work of Carlos Casta-neda, who took no field notes on the Yaqui, asfar as we are aware, and no evidence could befound for the consciousness altering plants thathe claimed were used by the Yaqui; but neverthe-less Castaneda inspired probably thousands ofpeople in their own explorations of alternationsof consciousness. Anthropological accounts mayhave neither authenticity nor validity, the exam-ple Krippner gives is the novels of Lobsong

Rampa in the 1950s; or sometimes they will haveboth, as in the case of McGoverns 1925 work onAmazonian shamans. But what is scientific evi-dence? Why the distinction between authenticityand validity? Are they not just different forms ofknowledge? Castanedas work was authentic ifhe experienced it, but it was not valid, as he leftno scientific record of his experience.

Stanley Krippners main objective is to up-hold existing notions and practice of the scien-tific method as a benchmark. One of my own

objectives is to challenge the existing parametersof scientific knowledge to include the anthro-pologists subjective experience as a valid form ofknowledge, thus melding the firm line betweenthe fieldworkers subjectivity and objectivity inthe discipline. But this does not mean abandon-ing objectivity or analysis. Rather they can beconceptualized as two forms of knowledge thatadds different orientations to anthropologicalunderstanding of alternate modes of conscious-ness. I suggest that an anthropologist needs to be

both subjective and objective in their perspec-tive. My reasoning for this approach stems frommy own experience of magic. Having spent overtwenty years as a fieldworker examining variouspractices of western witches, pagans and magi-cians, I have had many experiences of magic. Inconventional anthropological methodology Iwould be required to remain partly detachedwhile conducting participant observation, and if

I did have experiences I would not include themin my research data so as to uphold my scientificobjectivity. An objection for some anthropologistshas been the issue of the ethnographer goingnative with its implied loss of objectivity. Thereis a supposed fine distinction between recording

the natives point of view that comes throughtheir relationships with spirit beings and the an-thropologist fully experiencing the affective as-pects of such non-material entities themselves.Thus thinking with spirits in an alternate modeof consciousness is valued as an emic native ex-pression in anthropology, while it has been firmlylocated outside the habitual etic domain of an-thropological enquiry and theorisation - nativesmay think what they like, but science reallyknows best about reality. While it is acceptable,

or even required, for informants to report mani-festations of spirits, the anthropologist should notcross the line between scientific objectivity andtheir own subjectivity.

In my doctoral research, published as Magic,Witchcraft and the Otherworldin 2000, I wrote that Isought to create communication between schol-arly analysis and the magical spirit panoramas ofmy informants. Wanting to develop the criticaleye of the anthropologist, but also an empathythat was sensitive to my informants involvement

with an inspirited magical otherworld, I took adeliberately participatory approach. My argu-ment was that anthropological engagement withmagic was valuable for understanding, a tool ofresearch, not to be contrasted with scientifictruth. Experience shapes how you evaluate in-formants experiences of spirits and I sought touse my own practice to understand theirs. In myview someone who does not experience magicwill struggle to understand the essence of magi-cal thinking. A reviewer for my book, described

me as a native turned anthropologist. Ratherthan focusing on the other, I had turned an an-thropological gaze upon myself as a native. Inthis respect, I follow Edith Turner who has ar-gued that to understand spirit healing in Zambiashe needed to sink herself fully within it, as sherecords, Thus for me, going native achieved abreak-through to an altogether different world-view, foreign to academia, by means of which


Vol. 5 No. 4 22


23/106

certain material was chronicled that could havebeen garnered in no other way (Turner1992:28-32). This position develops the traditionof William James who, in Principles of Psychology,first published in 1890, resisted reductionism andused his own inner workings of mental life to

study some of the most extreme and challengingphenomena and what that might mean (Kelly2010:xvii).

The experimental nature of anthropology issomething to be celebrated rather than coveredup (Ingold 2011:15-16), or so constricted that itmakes invisible some aspects of human life. In anexperimental vein my work seeks to explore aplace of experiential knowledge that comesthrough the process of magic as a mode of con-sciousness, but also through rigorous theoretical

analysis. The role of the fieldworker is to under-stand alternative modes of consciousness, not assomething alien, but as a part of being human, apart that is currently rendered largely invisible tomodern scientific methods. In other words, it isappropriate for the researcher to go native aslong as they understand the difference betweentwo modes of thought: one magical, associativeand mythopoetic, as elucidated by philosopherLucien Lvy-Bruhl in his work on the philo-sophical notion of participation, whereby the

world is explained as being inspirited; and theother analytical, the basis of current scientificunderstanding. Participatory identifications forLvy-Bruhl violated Aristotles principle of non-contradiction, the existence of apparent mutu-ally exclusive states, such as life in death andunity and multiplicity of being (Shore1998:313-314; Greenwood 2009:30-43). Partici-pation is, in essence, a concept that sums up amythopoetic attitude of mind; it is a form ofmental processing that occurs through the mak-

ing of psychological associations and connec-tions, and it not only occurs with spirits butthrough the creation of synchronous relation-ships with different things that are seen as dis-crete in logical thought. Lvy-Bruhls notion ofparticipation captures the essence of the work-ings of a magical mode of mind and its differen-tiation from the western focus on analytical rea-son.

Here we have to look at the troubling rela-tionships between different types of knowledgein the social and natural sciences, such as thatcoming through emotions, sensory experienceand the imagination. For anthropologists, specificknowledge gained through fieldwork is under-

stood using an academic model based oneighteenth-century Enlightenment notions ofanalyticreason that are often far removed fromthe world of lived experience. In this regard, itseems appropriate to question the basis of thevalorization of this type of reason as a bench-mark for knowledge due to the fact that it ignoresor downplays emotion, intuition, dreams andsensory experience, all driving factors of magicalthinking. Perhaps Castaneda just imagined it all,or maybe it came through dreams and the my-

thopoetic orientation of mind, but the end resultwas that his work has spoken to and inspiredpeople to expand their own ways of thinking.The novels of Lobsong Rampa fuelled my emo-tions and my imagination when I read them as achild, although Krippner cites them as havingneither authenticity nor validity. So what is thebasis for our scientific understanding of validity?The Enlightenment categorization of analyticalreason as a basis of academic validity has di-vided the human mind, not only from dreams,

emotions, intuition, and sensory experience, in-cluding that with non-human beings, but it hasalso crystalized into a dichotomy between so-called rational and irrational modes of thought.A focus on analytical reason has also created adivision between the natural and the social sci-ences. The natural sciences tend to approach al-tered states of consciousness, as a by-product ofbrain activity and couch explanations in westerndiscourse, whereas anthropologists as social sci-entists offer cross-cultural explanations empha-

sizing experience and meaning, but nonethelessstill base their theories on analytical reason andvalidity.

The problem of validity is especially clear ifwe take the case of magic as an example. Magichas traditionally been examined in anthropologywithin a rationality debate that focuses on issuesof instrumentality rather than a mythopoeticprocess of participatory thinking as elucidated by


Vol. 5 No. 4 23


24/106

Lvy-Bruhl. In short, it functions as a form ofmisplaced science that people seek to give themdirect results, whether bringing rain or a newlover. And it is this functional aspect that mostfrequently interests psychologists so that they canassess its effects, and then often compare magic

unfavourably with science. Even anthropology, asa softer social science that is more traditionallyinclined to view the spirit beliefs of other cultureswith more empathy of understanding, still basesits theoretical attitude on the scientific method,while at one and the same time acknowledgingthe reality of magic in peoples lives. To ignoreother aspects of consciousness not associatedwith analytical reason such as the role of mythin the magical imagination etc. - makes whatamounts to a silence regarding a whole dimen-

sion of human life. It is important to widen theorientation of science to include magical reasonas another mode of thought.

Science no longer enjoys the same amount ofin

paranthropology vol. 5 no. 4

Documents