Conspiracy Theories and the Suitability for Reality

In the realm of relative truths, there is no clear and absolutely valid distinction between right or wrong. Rather, it is a matter of examining whether a particular theory comes close to reality, so that its application in practice is successful or not. In this regard, the approach of science has proven to be excellent because, through the constant development and refinement of methods of truth testing, it has produced many theories that could then be applied and implemented. We can think of every modern technical device, including the one on which this text is being written, as the result of thousands of practical theories, the application of which has produced usable results. Other theories, such as that of a flat Earth, may have a certain plausibility for some people, but they have not contributed to the development of a single technical device or effective medication. At best, they are gimmicks of the human mind with a certain entertainment value without any practical consequence.

There are important qualitative differences in the closeness of a theory to reality: the closer it is to reality, the higher its practical applicability and the more useful it is for progress. This equation applies not only to physical hypotheses, but also to those in economics, psychology or sociology. For example, studies on the suffering of individuals with gender identities that deviate from the binary scheme have led to more tolerance (incidentally, the new US administration no longer allows such studies to be funded by the state). Studies on the increasing concentration of wealth in an ever-dwindling upper class have led to a redistribution from top to bottom in some countries (although the current US administration is using them for a redistribution from bottom to top). Studies on the hole in the ozone layer led to a worldwide ban on chlorofluorocarbons in the 1980s (at that time without any interference from conspiracy theories, as is unfortunately the case with climate change).

Conspiracy theories and their distance to reality

Even if belief in conspiracies is not a delusion, although it contains delusional elements, it is still not grounded in reality. This is because it draws its appeal from fantasies rather than from a reality check. These fantasies are generated by fears and promise a way out of adversity by naming the perpetrators of evil. If a conspiracy theory manages to address collective sources of fear, it will easily find followers. The group of conspiracy believers experiences a subjective relief of fear because they have gained some control over the threat by recognizing the apparent cause of their fear. In the social environment, however, the new theory ignites new fears. Who would have thought, for example, that electrodes would be introduced into the body through vaccinations? The socially harmful power of these beliefs lies in such fantasies, which in many cases is consciously used by those who instigate them.

Conspiracy theories are therefore not only far from reality, they also have destabilizing effects on society, and can even lead to catastrophic forms of inhumanity. The historically most influential of these theories is probably that of the Jewish world conspiracy. It was widely disseminated by the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, which was written by anti-Semites at the beginning of the 20th century. This fictitious text has incited many right-wing extremists and groups to hatred of Jews, thus paving the way for the mass extermination of Jews under the National Socialists.

Many conspiracy theories, modeled on the “Protocols”, see the “actual” world domination in the hands of a few conspirators (Illuminati, Bilderbergers, Jesuits, Deep State, financial oligarchy, WHO, etc.) or in individuals (George Soros, Bill Gates, etc.). Instead of working for change in politics, the causes of social disadvantage and injustice are sought where they cannot be neutralized. This is because the conspirators seem to be powerful and well hidden, so they can at best be fought in their proxies, but can never definitively be defeated. That is why many conspiracy theories persist for long periods of time – the one about the Jewish conspiracy goes back to the Middle Ages. Those stories that emerged around the Corona pandemic are still active or keep resurfacing.

The more unrealistic a conspiracy theory is, the greater the effort required to explain and justify it, and thus also one's own attachment to the theory. The further a conspiracy theory is from reality and fact, the more aggressive it becomes in order to assert and secure its own position against challenges. It also excuses the anger and hatred that are necessary because the danger would be so great and because there is so much destruction in the danger that it can only be met by counter-violence. Conspiracy theories are therefore always aggressively charged. That is why they do not connect, but divide. Because they only allow for one paranoid reaction: to be in favor of it or against. And anyone who is against is automatically in cahoots with the conspirators and must also be fought.

Realistic and unrealistic theories

Theories, on the other hand, that are derived from reality are characterized by their practicality. In the technical field, functioning devices and machines are created, and in the social field, social bonds are strengthened and inclusion is promoted instead of exclusion. This creates more security for more people, reduces individual and collective fears and creates positive prospects for the future.

Theories that are far from reality, i.e. contain a high proportion of fantasy, have the opposite effect. They promote regression, social division, aggression and violence.

Further reading:
Is Believing in Conspiracy Theories Normal or Delusional?

Coherent Breathing and Science

In a scientific study conducted in England with 400 participants, a comparison was made between slow and fast breathing. The participants were divided into two groups. Both were asked to do 10 minutes of breathing exercises every day for four weeks, one group at 5.5 breaths/minute (a breathing rate used in coherent breathing), the other at 12 breaths/minute (this breathing rate represents the lower limit of breathing speed in the average population). The results showed that the subjective perception of stress and depression decreased in both groups, while the values for well-being increased. However, there were no significant differences between the slow and fast breathers. 

Since the slow breathing method was named „coherent breathing“ in the study, the study would prove that coherent breathing, in which you are supposed to take between 3 and 6 breaths/minute, is just as effective as breathing more than twice as fast. There are a number of other studies and overviews that show that slow breathing improves well-being and reduces stress arousal.  

So what should we think of this study? I claim that title and text of the study wrongly refer to coherent breathing. Coherent breathing not only means breathing slowly and regularly, but also relaxing the exhalation and regulating the depth of breathing in such a way that breathing is controlled primarily via the diaphragm. We know from practice that some beginners in the method find these elements of coherent breathing easy, while many struggle at first: They do not succeed in relaxing the exhalation, the inhalation takes too long, abdominal breathing is unfamiliar, the breathing rate is too slow, so that the necessary stretching of the breath creates stress, etc. There are remedies for all these initial problems, which are taught by a competent instructor. After a few practice sessions, these difficulties are overcome in almost all cases thanks to the special interventions and suggestions. 

In the study, the participants were initially given information about the method, but there was no opportunity to ask questions in case of difficulties. We can therefore assume that some of the participants of the study had problems with relaxing the breathing and were therefore unable to gain better recovery results. As simple as the method of coherent breathing appears, because only three or four basic elements need to be considered, there are many pitfalls in practice. Everyone has their own breathing habits that have been ingrained over years and decades. It therefore takes time, motivation and consistent practice to change them in a favourable direction. The discussion of the study results in the publication also addresses this fact and cites studies in which coherent breathing was practised under individual guidance, with clearly positive effects. While the study criticized the insufficiently "robust" design of these experiments, these studies also provide important findings. 

A further point of criticism of the study that I (like the authors of the study) have is the fact that the average number of practice sessions was 20, i.e. that it is not possible to speak of a consistent practice discipline, which is particularly important at the beginning in order to make lasting changes of firmly established breathing habits. In addition, no one knows whether the method was practiced correctly at all or only somehow. 

The participants were also not informed as to why they should take 5.5 breaths/minute. With coherent breathing in particular, it is important for many beginners to understand why they should breathe in this way and not in a different way so that they can motivate themselves to practise coherent breathing. For some people, motivation comes from experience: they like an exercise because they feel the positive effects. For others, it comes from mental understanding: they recognize that the exercise could be valuable from a theoretical point of view and then practice it.  There are always beginners who refuse to adhere to a strict guideline such as that required for coherent breathing. Only when they understand the reason they are prepared to train with it. Such resistance, which we know from teaching coherent breathing, was not taken into account in the study. So consequently, the authors of the study also assume that appropriate "psychoeducation" would have led to better results with coherent breathing. 

Furthermore, the study authors point out that there is a study that shows that a breathing rate of 8 breaths/minute produces better results for vagal activation, i.e. for stimulating the parasympathetic nervous system, than 12 breaths/minute, which in turn performs better than 16 breaths/minute. It therefore proves that the slower you breathe, the greater the effect on relaxation and on lowering blood pressure. In the study discussed here, the positive results for the "placebo" group, who breathed at 12 breaths/minute, can be attributed to the fact that many were able to experience a reduction in their otherwise even higher usual breathing rate as relaxing and mood-enhancing. Both study groups obviously benefited from the breathing awareness, regularity and deepening of breathing. Both groups were also instructed to breathe through the nose, which has multiple health effects, including improving oxygen uptake and regulating anxiety and stress management in the brain. 

The next point of criticism relates to the lack of physiological evaluations of the breathing exercises. The study results come from questionnaires completed by the participants. They are therefore subjective mood reports, and there is no data on heart rate, heart rate variability, blood pressure or sleep quality. It is often impressive for beginners in this method to see in real time, how their breathing pattern and their heartbeat synchronize, and those who like to go deeper can measure their heart rate variability and its improvement over the time of practice. In this study, it could well be that the physiological status of those who practiced coherent breathing was improved without being noticed.  

To summarize: The study discussed raises more question marks than it answers - and these are suggestions for more and more detailed research. Anyone working in this field can derive from this study the many benefits of working with conscious breathing. 

Further reading:
Coherent Breathing

  

Emergence and Determinism

In systemic view, everything which exists is part and whole at the same time. So being part and being whole is inseparably interconnected and has universal significance. These are attributes of "holons" (the term was coined by Arthur Koestler), the basic elements of the integral world model depicted by Ken Wilber.

All holons have the ability of self-transcendence. This is how subatomic particles become atoms, which then form molecules etc. From one way of existence, totally new forms of organisation can be created. The creation of new holons is called emergence in the case that the attributes of the new holon cannot be derived from the former one. Basic attributes of animals have not been contained in plants; reptiles did not have prerequisites for flying, which the birds developed etc.

The idea of emergence is opposed to a deterministic model of the world which assumes that every development of the future can be calculated supposed that all present conditions are known. A scientist at the time of plants could not have any clue that animals would develop out of them neither which species would come or how they would look like.

In the view of emergence, calculable deterministic phenomena are not the rule in the universe, but the exception. It occurs when a holon loses its ability to self-transcendence. Yet emergence can be found in all areas, from vortex movements in the water to the behaviour of social groups.

Science can explain phenomena created by emergence only retrospectively. In these cases, which are by far the most, it can only work reconstructively. Yet our ideal of science is based on its deterministic version. Science in the strict sense is what allows stable prognosis, which can be checked and counterchecked. Insights without prognosis is speculation, but not science. Yet this form of science can only by applied to anorganic objects in a limited space of observation, like e.g. the laws of gravity which allow prognosis about a heavy object falling to the ground. In the areas of quantum physics, this law does not work anymore and its application on living objects grants only minimal gain of knowledge.

We are so used and acquainted with the deterministic norm of science as it is highly successful in our world of things and technical application, and, when working with objects, we aim at this kind of perfection to make our lives easier. We want a hammer that drills the nails without breaking itself or them. We want a mobile that connects us with our partner when we need to, and not only when it is in the mood to do so. Our perception is not made for observing quantum elements. For the rough structure we can see and touch, the deterministic model of experience and handling is sufficient.

Yet we made the "mistake" to transpose this model of science to all the other areas of reality. Since the invention of agriculture, the model of technical manipulation of lifeless nature entered the areas of living beings. Thus it became a common procedure to render plants and animals to predictable behaviour by breeding and taming them. So they could serve our purposes of gaining nutrition.

This is how the basis of the deterministic model of the world was consolidated. The age of enlightenment, which caused the transition from the religious perception of reality in middle ages to the modern times, which were dominated by rationality and determinism. Though by this, an important part of humanity was displaced to the background. With the victory of the materialistic consciousness, the social plane was subordinated under the economic plane. Economy claimed deterministic thinking and planning, and presented economic constraints and compulsion to increase its influence in society. Economy needs reliable and calculable data for its functioning.

The degradation of the social realm becomes obvious wherever we notice the shortcomings of the materialistic consciousness - in ecological problem zones, in crisis of the financial system, in the growing outsider areas of rich societies, in underdevelopment of regions, in diseases caused by stress. Only slowly, the genuine reality and logics of communication comes to recognition needed to keep modern individuals and societies in balance.

This is how also more space and recognition is created for areas in which emergence can be felt and observed especially and eminently: In the areas of arts and non-technical sciences. They need to be set free of stress for their productivity and creativity, as due to the general tension of the inner and the social systems the powers for self-transcendence are blocked. Instead, too much energy goes towards securing what we already have by using deterministic relations. Structural conservativism is the counterpoint of all orientation using creative emergence.

We can find the difference between emergence and determinism also inside of ourselves. When our nervous system is in the stress mode, it acts in a predictable way. When we get angry, we always react in a similar way. The repertoire of our behaviour is limited to a minimum and the possibilities of our reactions are reduced to very few alternatives. In extremities, we get into a state of total blockage governed by immense fear without any degree of freedom.

As opposed to that, in a state of relaxed or focused awakening, with an active smart vagal modulation according to the polyvagal theory we can enfold our social and creative elements and set smaller or bigger steps in self-transcendence, in the emergence of unexpected news. In these states we feel connected to ourselves and to our fellow beings and we have to trust to contribute fruitfully. Thus we add our individual contribution to the emerging development of humankind and of consciousness.

We do not need to be hypnotized by believing in a model of science following the reactions of lifeless matter without understanding the creativity of emergence. Instead, let us enlarge the field of our vision, thinking and experiencing to the manifold aspects of all different realities, to the surprises and miracles, which evolve out of them continuously and reliably.

What Science Can Learn From Breathwork

Keynote Lecture at the Global Inspiration Conference (GIC)
of the International Breathwork Federation (IBF)
in Ireland July 2014

by
Dr. Wilfried Ehrmann  and Dr. Wolfgang Fellner

(For personal use only, please do not quote!)

Introduction

For our practical work with clients, we do not need science. Scientists are scientists, and breathworkers are breathworkers. But we use science whether we want to or not. Science operates in the background of our presence, our interventions and our communication. Science is part of the world we live in and so it is a formative part of us, whether we know it or not, and whether we use it or not.

As a consequence, it can only be beneficial for us as individual breathworkers and for the whole community of breathworkers to have a clear relationship with science.  And, as we will see later, science would benefit from listening to the insights of breathwork and learning from them. A discourse between the two can help breathwork to become more accepted in society and it can help science to broaden its knowledge of man and, as we will see, its own methodology.

Breathworkers can use science to clarify their view of reality and make clear distinctions between knowledge and fantasy. There are things which can be known as they are accessible by our outer senses and by communication, and there are things which are created inside ourselves, as product of our associative brain. It is an important quality for all therapists to be able to make a clear distinction between reality and fantasy, as only with this quality they can help their clients to develop a sober sense of reality themselves.

Finally, science and breathwork have a common goal. They are both aimed at creating a peaceful world with free/self-determined people and at striving for it by their means.

What is needed for creating a fruitful relationship between breathwork and science?

We need a framework of epistemology. Epistemology belongs to the realm of philosophy of science and basically deals with the question of what man can know about the world.

Secondly, we need a framework of methodology. Methodology signifies a theory on how to produce valuable and useful insights about reality.

Thirdly, we need methods and complementary concepts of how to make the findings of research applicable for healing work in practice.

All of these goals can be met in close cooperation between practice and theory, between breathwork and science.

First Person Perspective and Third Person Perspective

When we talk about science, we conventionally mean science based on a Third Person Perspective (3PP). This is science based on objective data and conclusions based on rules which are based on established and broadly accepted rules of reasoning. Scientific results are supposed to be valid and replicable (reliable), to be checked by other members of the scientific community. This is the principle of falsification as formulated by Karl Popper.

Although this is the usual form of science we know it is not the only one. What is science based on a First Person Perspective (1PP)? Its data are subjective and are accessible by the inner senses. Consequently, they are singular and unique. There is no possibility of reduplication and falsification in the traditional sense. Yet its data and theories derived from them can be communicated, evaluated and compared.

When science started to conquer the world of cognitions, 1PP-science was as important and approved in society as 3PP-science. Yet, in the course of the 20th century, 3PP-science became dominant, and dictated the "gold"-standards for science, thus ousting 1PP-science to the edges of the world of cognitions. Additionally, 3PP-science gained a leading role in society and politics by claiming the central role in explaining the world and in delivering the basics for reasonable decisions in the life of individuals as well as of states.

The advantages of 3PP are obvious and belong to a common-sense notion of truth. 3PP-knowledge is derived from data received by the outer senses: view, sound, touch, smell, etc. In these ways we perceive objects. The perception of objects is shared by everyone: Those who have been to Paris can state that there is an Eiffel tower. Those who have not been there can go there and prove the perception of others. But they also can believe in what others report, "I have seen the tower with my own eyes." This becomes a reliable truth when a certain number of people agree.

When one person says, "I have seen a spaceship landing in my garden," we would only believe this person if a sufficient number of others stated the same. Then we could form a consensus about the objective existence of the spaceship. If one person comes and cannot see the object, we can question his senses or mind. Yet, when a sufficient number of people deny the existence of the object, we have to give up the objectivity of its existence. (By the way: 20 percent of US-citizens believe in alien abduction – just imagine that only those are included in that survey who have returned from abduction and could answer a questionnaire – and what will we do when the number rises above the magical 50%?).

So for a theory to be approved, the data and the conclusions from these data have to be approved by the scientific community. Without its blessings, any findings from research remain private speculation.

Members of scientific communities act according to scientific standards. They need a form of ethical integrity to stick to the rules of science and act accordingly. So a 1PP-standard is required for 3PP-science to function. To act scientifically is not a normal form of behaviour, but a very exclusive and extravagant way of interacting with the world. It requires thorough training and the discipline for studying objects with patience and without prejudgements. It means e.g. staring through a microscope or on a computer screen for hours, days and weeks.

Someone who is not willing to take up a discipline will not be able to reduplicate and falsify the theories of any discipline. So 3PP-science relies on 1PP-qualities to work the way it works.

By the end of the last century continuing into the new millennium, new tendencies have been arising out of science approaching the borders of 1PP. Neurosciences have made a considerable progress and continuously work along the interface of brain processes and experience, of objectivity and subjectivity, of 3PP and 1 PP.

Research on the placebo effect has produced paradoxical and contradictory results. These enigmatic phenomena can most likely only be explained when a 1PP is added.
Another branch of research work is based on the embodiment theory: Body and mind must not be seen separate. Any study of the human mind has to include the complementary processes in the body and consequently has to include a 1PP.

Epigenetics, another new brand of modern scientific research, has shown that genes constantly interact with their cellular environment adapting its functions to the actual needs of the cell and of the whole organism. Finding methods for regulating and modulating this interactive process for healing purposes can open a fruitful field of joint 1PP and 3PP research.

Other areas for a combination of objective and subjective science can be found in psychotherapy science and in new approaches of medicine like person-centred medicine.

So the theory of science has to consider new possibilities in the cooperation and integration of 1PP and 3PP.

Without losing the advantages of 3PP, which lie in a commonly accepted reliable way of generating objective insights and relative, useful truths, a scientific 1PP should be added as an indispensable access to data which cannot be retrieved by 3PP and are essential for a complete explanation of reality and for thoroughly understanding its functioning.

Therefore we see an inclusive form of scientific knowledge on the horizon. It will be needed for safeguarding human well-being on one side and of scientific reliability on the other side. It will have to include a 2-Person-Perspective as well, which is the knowledge arising from interhuman relationships, and a 1-Person-Plural-Perspective, which is the knowledge which can be found in collective insights, in the wisdom of groups, communities and larger societies.

We need to include these perspectives into scientific research, when we want to create a holistic scientific model of the world. Data from various sources of perception should equally contribute to the scientific progress as an equivalent to a democratic society. Then we also can find new approaches to the questions on health which can be accepted by people who have sceptically turned away from scientific thinking because of its lack of 1PP experience.

By establishing this inclusive scientific knowledge about the world in general and about humans opens up new perspectives on the important questions: What is health? What is man? What is the self as horizon for inner growth?

Excursus: Ontology

In this excursus, we will look into the basic concepts about the reality of reality. How can we understand the nature of reality? By simplifying, we can describe two polar alternatives: Materialistic reductionism and constructivism.
The pure materialistic view is that there is just matter and nothing else. The world is outside without any relevant inside.
Radical constructivism states that reality is created by the mind, so there is no matter but just information. The world is inside without any relevant outside.

We propose a mediated or intertwined view: Any phenomenon consists of matter and of information. All there is, needs both to exist: matter and information. These two aspects can only be seen from different perspectives although they are basically the same. So everything in reality has an inside and an outside and can be understood and studied only when combining a look on both sides. The nature of reality and of our interaction with it can only be grasped when 1PP is included which provides the access to the area of information. A central aspect of information is meaning which can only be read by 1PP. Information without meaning is useless.

Since the beginning of modern times, the systematic exclusion of 1PP has served as success formula for 3PP-science to gain a position outside religious limitations in the first place and later on beyond the social and political discourses. The price was the denial of its foundation and origin, which is the search for meaning based on 1PP-insights. By this, science has moved into a secluded corner by limiting the possibilities of transferring science back to society when it does not systematically include the meaning-giving 1PP.

One side effect of this ontological position is the possibility of marking a clear distinction between science (including 1PP) and esoterics which is characterised by category fallacies as it usually bases 3PP on 1PP, reduces 3PP to 1PP or camouflages 1PP as 3PP.

Complexity and Simplicity

Furthermore, we look into the concept of complexity. "Ideal science" requires simple objects, so one goal of scientific research is the reduction of complexity. Yet, every reduction loses details which might be important for other scientific purposes. The basic reduction used by 3PP-science seems to us the omittance of 1PP. We consider this exclusion as detrimental for humanity on the long run.

Simplicity has the advantage of an easy transfer from knowledge to practical conclusions. With one simple cause of every form of cancer, treatment would be simple, as only one method would be required. Yet the reality of cancer is not that simple, so cancer treatment has become a highly complex field of specialisation. Humans are complex, and as elegant as simple theories can be, as many of them are needed to approach an all-inclusive description and explanation.

Simple models of cause and effect serve the need for control and safety but appear naïve and illusionary when the complexity and variety of humans comes into play. With more complexity, more perspectives have to be included to complete the picture. As humans have the 1PP always with them, they only can apply science in their life when it is combined with their inner senses. Insofar as science starts including this perspective, it will increase the benefits for humanity.

Inclusive Science and its Standards

Modern science succeeded by promising the ultimate control over nature and by granting safety and wellbeing for a growing population on the ground of simple cause-effect models. It also succeeded in exorcising mysticism by this “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”, as a German proverb goes. One goal of these reflections is to draw a clear line between fear-based superstition and mind freeing mysticism.

For a useful methodology of an inclusive science, we need to work on the following topics:

•    Which methods are appropriate for a certain field of research resp. for a certain scientific question?
•    Different groups of science according to the complexity of phenomena:
Science of nature, science of humans

• How can we refine the 1PP from a purely subjective and arbitrary function as it appears in the stream of consciousness model of literature or in esoteric speculations? What are methodological requirements for the 1PP as science?

A holistic science of humans has to include 1PP, otherwise it runs the risk of commodification or reification, which means to turn processes into objects. Reification serves to found and legitimise ideologies but not scientific research.

Criteria for Inner Research

Here is a list of requirements which allow a controllable way of inner research and make 1PP comparable to 3PP:

• A high degree of self-reflection and ethical integrity as an entrance criterion for the scientific community: 1PP is prone to charlatans and swindlers
• Discernment between sensations, feelings, fantasies and interpretations: A researcher of the inner world has to be trained in differentiating/discriminating between different classes of inner information related to different material processes in the organism.
• Reproducibility and comparability: Researchers who enter a certain state of inner awareness with the help of standardised procedures come to the same or to comparable results.
• Systematic abstraction of experiences: Research data from standardised introspection can be combined to produce theories which then can be applied in the healing work in practice.
• Criteria for plausibility: Due to economic reasons, many phenomena cannot be researched up to a point of "absolute" certainty, to a point of evident scientific proof. Yet, research work combining 1PP and 3PP can reach a high level of plausibility which allows for further testing the theories in practical work. In addition, plausible results of research can enter the general discussion and media communication as what they are: plausible findings. This could be a new category which can serve our needs for orientation similar to the category of scientifically proven results.
• Standardised training: As any scientist needs training in methodology and in objectivity (which is a 1PP-quality), 1PP-scientist need training in systematic introspection which can be standardised. For example, to gain the ability to differentiate inner sensations, a training in awareness, mindfulness or conscious breathing is helpful. After a certain amount of training with these methods, certain skills are acquired which then also can be measured with 3PP-methods like EEG or MRT.
• Rules for translation processes: Information from inside the organism which only can be accessed by a 1PP appears in different "languages": e.g. the "language" of body sensations, the "language" of feelings etc. The rules for translating between these structures of information have to be explained and standardised.

As addition to the last point: We can distinguish between two directions of translation:

1) Bottom-up: From the "language" of the organismic processes to the language of mental concepts and words. There are several distinct steps in this direction of translation: Body sensations (the basic form of information to experience consciously), feelings, symbolisations, words, sentences, ideas.
2) Top-down: From mental concepts to organismic processes. This direction includes the skills of mental concentration, visualisation, body scanning, affirmation work, mindfulness practices etc. It is an important aspect of any therapeutic work.

Inner vs. Outer Knowledge

Inner Knowledge is self-evident and immediate. As it is only accessible by the experiencing person, it is subjective and needs to be translated into verbal language for intersubjective use.
Outer knowledge can be verified by virtually everyone. This qualifies for objectivity and a high degree of reliability. It can be communicated, but needs contexts for acquiring meaning.

The Role of the Breath in 1PP-Science

Breathing has a special and singular position in the field of inner research. When we observe our breathing, we notice a movement in our upper body which can also be seen from outside (3PP). At the same time, we notice a movement on the inside, e.g. the movement of the diaphragm. This movement can also be made visible from outside via supersonic or X-ray. Observing the breathing, connects the inner and the outer senses. So it provides an interface between 1 PP and 3 PP. As easily as with breathing, there is no other way to enter into a direct conscious experience of an organic process "in real time".

So training the inner sense by observing the breathing, as it is taught in many schools of meditation as well as in breathwork, has not only beneficial results by calming the mind and balancing the nervous system, but also for building up skills which are valuable for systematic scientific research

In this way, we can consider breathwork as a method of scientific research and breathworker as scientists, when they are willing to use their skills for these purposes. They are experts in tracking the pathways of inner experience, which is the only way to collect inner knowledge. They are also trained in refining these pathways and in deepening the levels of experience so that the earliest traces of the cellular memory can be brought to consciousness for evaluation. They also know about the rules of translation between the different levels of inner experience.

By standardising these skills, breathwork can find a sound and publicly acknowledged position between esoterics and materialism.