The Vermont Center for Family Studies just finished our 2nd Vermont conference on Bowen Theory (BT) and meditation, which was inspired by the Center for Family Consultation’s Chicago meeting a few years ago. As I indicated in my opening remarks, a more specific theme of these meetings is differentiation and consciousness. I laid out Dr. Michael Kerr’s “meditation and differentiation are two valid tracks that don’t converge” hypothesis from the start.
In my pre-meeting dinner discussions with Dr. Fred Travis, a neuroscientist of consciousness, and Mark Roberts, an expert meditator with over 30,000 hours of exploration of inner subjectivity and transcendence, I was pleased to find them inspired by BT. Fred did a study last year comparing 30 subjects scores on Skowron’s differentiation of self (DOS) inventory to their scores on his sophisticated measures of higher stages of consciousness, which he asked me to help write up for “Family Systems”. He found intriguing areas of correlation and divergence. On a personal level, he noted the unique value of BT, and thought it would be useful to many in his social sphere. Mark Roberts is not a traditional scientist, but after hours of discussion he concluded that these two aspects of self are independent. He has meditation colleagues with remarkable experiences of stability inside and outside of meditation, and he thought that this did not necessarily lead to increased differentiation of self. He seems a fast learner, and is working to integrate DOS into his own imperfect relationships.
My own evolving view is that the answer to “two tracks” is yes and no.
Kerr’s “two tracks” hypothesis matters for the following reason. It is obvious that BT has much to contribute to those who study meditation, who seek to understand stress. It also seems obvious that getting more neurophysiological calm via meditation supports the methods of growing up that are defined in BT. The “two tracks” question challenges a deeper convergence. BT is disciplined in its emphasis on growing basic self. The traditional view is that meditation can’t grow basic self. Meditation is understood as a valuable technique that can’t change being, can’t change fundamental perceptual frameworks. I respect the challenge.
“Two tracks” may be based on a narrow understanding of what some meditations are. Vedic science is a theory of consciousness. Transcendence is defined as a ground state of consciousness, or pure consciousness. It is awareness of awareness itself, without content, underlying all conscious experiences, including of course family. Transcendence is not so much a technique as an aspect of nature, a universal constant, comparable to gravity. Vedic science offers a scale of human development, looking at the degree to which consciousness (self) is “embedded” in objects of experience.
This years conference clarified the critical value of theory as a basis for evaluating the potential of a technique to grow basic self, as defined in BT. There are many techniques out there. Compassion, I positions, Bridging Cutoff, EMDR, TM, Mindfulness, Hallucinogens (Charles Raison is studying them), Exercise, Yoga. They all have value in the right situation, no doubt. But which might grow basic vs. functional self? Measuring DOS is in its infancy. Bowen theory remains an open system when we face the fact that it is hard to really know the answer, since we don’t have great measures of basic self. It is undisciplined to be overly sure our traditional methods are the best. Right now, we rely on expert opinion, including those of our founding sages. But one criterion is the theory a candidate technique exists within. Is it a systems theory?
Vedic science is grounded in a theory of consciousness that is arguably broader than BT, though it needs BT within it. Transcendence, like differentiation, is both a noun and verb. The noun form of both describes a state of awareness. Is differentiation a principle of nature, grounded in evolution, which underpins BT’s proposed scale of human consciousness? Transcendence is an aspect of nature, a universal constant, like gravity. It is the proposed ground state of human consciousness. TM is to Transcendence as I Positions are to Differentiation.
The meeting was a true interdisciplinary discussion, avoiding an attempt to force the two disciplines together. Presenters and audience members reported gaining new knowledge. It bothers me when we have meetings that “preach to the choir” and I was satisfied on that score. We had presenters who know transcendence but not BT, and visa versa. Amie Post, Dr. Mark Abrams, Dr. Marla Zipin and I did talks on BT. Zipin did a fine talk on cutoff. Abrams spoke about neutrality in meditation traditions and BT. Post talked about the multi-generational self. Travis’ talks were on the theory of transcendence, the neuroscience of higher stages of human development, and the results of his study of DOS. Dr. Carole Bandy, a social psychologist, presented her randomized studies about the effect of meditation on resilience. She works at our local Norwich University, a military college. I will invite Bandy and Travis back next year.
Travis is conversant with modern consciousness theory including cutting edge work by Penrose, Hammeroff, and Eccles. The emphasis of Vedic science is not on the technique, but on consciousness. Fred is not selling TM, he’s researching nature. We had talks by some who don’t use TM, but once again this year I was unable to attract a scientist who studies another form of meditation, despite a strong effort. I’m more interested in theory than technique. I’ll try again for next year. We are looking at the first or 2nd weekend in October to respect the Jewish holidays.
For me personally, the highlight of the meeting was Roberts. His calm, humble, unscripted reports of expansive inner stability, peace, free floating love, and delight (even during an attack of shingles in June) were riveting and inspiring. It appears to me that Roberts has broken through to an embodied self-state of connected-separateness of significance for BT. His living experience, known to me via extensive conversations for many years now, presents an important new set of data about the nature of differentiation of self. Mark will join again next year as well.
Best,
Erik
Excellent and intriguing report, Erik,
I appreciate the atmosphere of curiosity and questioning, and the clarity of maintaining the integrity of separate ways of knowledge that have some relationship to each other, to be discovered. There do seem to be fundamental similarities between differentiation of self and what is described in the experience of enlightenment in Eastern religious traditions, including the capacity to be fully engaged in the moment but not “pulled in” in a loss of self or loss of awareness. Laurie
The works of John Searle on mind and consciousnesses a few helpful ideas to this discussion.
“He (Seattle) observes that it is a mistake to suppose that the ontology of the mental is objective and to suppose that the methodology of a science of the mind must concern itself only with objectively observable behavior; that it is also a mistake to suppose that we know of the existence of mental phenomena in others only by observing their behavior; that behavior or causal relations to behavior are not essential to the existence of mental phenomena; and that it is inconsistent with what we know about the universe and our place in it to suppose that everything is knowable by us.”
Jim Edd, does Searle’s view challenge Bowen’s famous definition of a fact, that it is a fact that we dream, but what we dream is not a fact?
Good catch. Yes, some phenomena, like what we dream, will never be facts that we know with 100% certainty. But what we dream can be very useful, even though it’s not a hard-edged fact. But you have to learn how to reason with observations which have only a partial certainty.
This is me talking, not Searle.
Erik:
I am impressed with the development of your questions and your thinking as you have taken this on….looking for similarities and differences while addressing what each has to offer to the other. I think this kind of exploration has much to offer all of us. Thank you for your efforts.