of course.. I am iggerant of the rep of Mr. Bowen amongst those actually doing this work. And in generalizing about the plight of the 'soft sciences', I may have unfairly accented the negative.

The dilemma I encounter - as when others around are dealing with family peculiarites and seeking some kind of words to express that - is partly ~what Ben mentions above: there isn't / perhaps never can be a handy paradigm to which "most sane folk" generally adhere.

But then.. in the same sense that 'computers' represent the first truly Universal Machine; hence, the impossibility of cataloguing any future possibilities there -- ditto with Human Machines.

I've noticed too, that very much can be accomplished by those who focus upon our often machine-like daily operation. Evidence (cults, sects et al) demonstrates (to me - conclusively), ofttimes appallingly.. just how malleable is a psyche. Of whatever ""IQ"".

That you find Mr. B's theory of practicable use is a decided + since clearly ya gots cuth. I'll peruse a bit more of his site, when in that strange mode.

(I've had to explore alt.medicine matters for others through the years, just often enough to realize how precarious is our symptom-obsessed corp. allopathy, so fearfully akin to our corp. religiosity -- and have become convinced that.. only too-many-words can even scratch the surface of either behemoth.)

Psych. is a field that must operate on just as massive a scale as 'health' implies in any context. There won't ever be 'closure' re either, IMhO. Neither is amenable to the logical 'proofs' which science craves - even when it can't demand.. I expect no healing universal paradigm -- a matter which may be moot anyway, if the recent decade's performance accurately portends our/the planet's longevity (?)

We aren't remotely equipped for changing comfy mindsets: even to survive-at-all. Surely, we're an alpha - a beta would have shown Some improvement after all that experience.

Ta ta,

moi