the paradigm shift and CCI

Written by Niek | 18 May 2010

It is 1962 when Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) publishes his later world famous study 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', that genesis to 1947 when he was a graduate student at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. In 1970 the second edition is published of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn, Philosophy Professor, about changes in fundamental models of events. This edition includes 'an important postscript in which Kuhn clarified his notion of paradigm and for the first time explicitly gave his work an anti-realist element by denying the coherence of the idea that theories could be regarded as more or less close to the truth.' So informs anyway the website: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn.
It takes until 1995 till John Heron, at a CCI teachers meeting in Harlech (Wales, UK) just before the international European gathering at that spot, is invited to answer the question 'what is your account of the original theory of co-counselling and how has this changed in the paradigm shift?'

The talk of John at that occasion in Wales is later, November 1995, fully published (see documentation and hit literature on this website) called 'Original theory of co-counselling & the paradigm shift.' I personally regard this vision as 'breaking news' and crucial for the development of the CCI approach of co-creating and co-counselling.

the original theory

The original theory 'has an entirely positive view of human potential, especially human intelligence, the capacity of mind to discriminate what's happening and evolve an appropriate response' John says at the beginning. He distinguishes in his talk three parts: a) the original theory in ten attention fields, b) the paradigm shift, in 15 fields and c) some elaborations of the shift in 9 points. In this excerpt special attention is only paid to those fields which I regard as the most important ones for now.
So he states that 'all negative behaviour is entirely due to this positive potential being interfered with' (1) and defines that the goal of the original theory is 'to liberate occluded intelligence, through discharge and re- evaluation, from the crippled perspectives of the hurt child'(6). Earlier he mentions, that releasing (by discharge) the old pain which keeps the pattern running, re-awakens the fine wheels of the mind, start to spin again (5). In his tenth remark he describes some limitations of the original theory. So he calls it clearly false that rational thought alone, without regard to feeling, is a proper guide to action. The whole theory is, in his view, a form of humanism and gives very limited and superficial account of human nature. And it pays no attention to why 'people hurting people'. (10).

the paradigm shift

One of his prime contenders for the explanation why people hurt people is what he calls the innate ignorance (4). And the rock-bottom cure for ignorance is in his view creative problem-solving and education. (6). This kind of ignorance he calls external. 'That is about coping in the physical and social world'. He distinguishes also 'internal ignorance' forgetting who I really am. (8) This is for him, the core of the paradigm shift. 'Who I really am is a divine being with a limitless capacity for expanded awareness and charismatic abundance'. And, this gentle and imperceptible emergence of the divine being within, trough appropriate openness, is a transformation of personal being, which is also a transmutation of distress emotion.'(11)
He adds to that, that he thinks that it is true 'that discharge at the personal level can take us to the brink of spiritual awakening'. (13) At the same time he reminds that when 'I 'm part of a co-counselling culture that doesn't acknowledge the brink, then I unawarely back away from it, which generates more angst to inflate everyday distress'.

some elaborations

In some elaborations he offers trainers suggestions how to teach, regarding the paradigm shift. And he finalises:  'It is entirely a matter of personal integrity, of what you and I as teachers feel we need to do to be true to ourselves, to our deep beliefs and experiences. In CCI we need not simply to have a tolerance of both humanist and posthumanist versions of co-counselling theory and practice. We need to have a loving celebration of our differences in this area. And here I really do mean 'we need' in the general sense of 'we'. Teachers can only teach what in all conscience they can teach, and this is a matter for positive affirmation and delight. Let CCI be a place where differences of conscience are fully respected and honoured'. So writes John Heron in November 1995.