NURSE MARTHA ROGERS -a critical look by Robert Glickman
Martha Rogers was a famed and respected theorist of Nursing. She
was based at New York University's School of Nursing and a major
supporter of Therapeutic Touch (TT) especially in its formative
days of its development in the early 1970s. TT's co-creators are
Dolores Krieger, RN , Ph.D. and Dora Kunz, a "fifth generation
sensitive" and clairvoyant since birth, who was, at this
time, the president of the American Theosophical Society. Krieger's
initial forays into research keyed on the laying on of hands to
elevate hemoglobin levels in afflicted individuals (Krieger 1972).
Soon Krieger would state that Prana, Hinduism's "vital force,"
was the source of the healing in TT. After receiving much condemnation
and criticism from her third hemoglobin study, Krieger dropped
the Prana explanation and embraced the human energy field (HEF)
concept then being developed by Rogers. (Rosa 1994)
It was convenient that as Krieger was looking for a more scientific
rational for TT, Rogers was introducing her Science of Unitary
Human Beings (SUHB). This "science" included concepts
as the unitary man, "Homo Spacialis" (the next evolutionary
plateau for humankind - humans in outer space), pandimensionality,
transcendence and a host of other unsubstantiated abstractions.
"From the science of unitary human beings, Rogers has derived
the theory of paranormal phenomena. This theory posits that in
a pandimensional, unitary world there is no linear time and no
separation of human and environmental fields. This theory provides
and explanation for phenomena such as clairvoyance and telepathy
and for the process and outcomes of interventions which need not
involve physical contact, such as therapeutic touch. According
to this theory, action-at-a-distance phenomena are normal rather
than paranormal." (Meehan 1993)
Rogers' SUHB gave Krieger a theoretical background for TT and
TT gave Rogers an alleged physical manifestation for her "science."
Later a flawed study by another Nursing theorist, Janet Quinn,
proved to believers that TT was effective and that actual touch
was no longer necessary. (Quinn 1982) From this point, TT became
more accepted in the nursing hierarchy.
One of the many places to look for potential TT practitioners
was on the Internet. I submitted the TT challenge to the Nurse
Rogers e-mail service. This service is run by Rogers devotees
and focuses on various aspects of Nursing from a Rogerian perspective.
I informed them that the test was to be conducted at the JREF
Building in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida on June 2, 3 & 4, 1997.
Best of all, the judge of the test would be PBS's Scientific American
Frontiers TV program. The test would use a fiberglass construct
that has two sleeves and that allows for the insertion of a subject's
arms. After a random coin-flip, the TT practitioner would assess
the energy emanating from the construct to determine whether the
right or left sleeve was occupied. After some preliminary trials,
a score of 15 or greater out of 20 would be considered a positive
result and would allow that practitioner to advance to the final
test. This final test would be done the following day and a score
of 20 out of 20 in would win the $1,100,000 award. For the most
part, the invitation wasn't well received.
Francis C Biley RN, Ph.D. of University of Wales College of Medicine
is a contributing author of The Theory and Practice of Therapeutic
Touch (1995 Churchill Livingstone) and Coordinator of the International
Region of the Society of Rogerian Scholars. She is also the list
owner of the Nurse Rogers service. She stated, "After spending
some time on formulating a critique of the methodology for the
following quasi- experiment, I have decided that it really isn't
worth doing. Although I applaud Glickman and associates for spending
time on the subject, it is quite obvious that they need to expand
their methodological understanding beyond 'if you can't measure
it, it doesn't exist.'"
Ana Cris da Sal is an RN and Nursing researcher in Brazil. She
wrote, "I am getting skeptic (sic) by the skeptic methods.
They seem to be so... hmmm....antique ?! A researcher, a REAL
one, before accepting or not the phenomenon, should study it (by
modern methods, of course). TT, for instance, should be tested
besides Quantum Physics and Physiology - and that's exactly what
I am doing in my PhD research. I'll be pleased to win the prize
- proving OR NOT (as a REAL researcher must think) the existence
of the human energetic field. And if I don't many others will
be developing parallel studies, as the pandimensional universe
provides uncountable opportunities and phenomenon."
Joanne Griffin is a TT researcher from Martha Rogers' homebase
New York University. She wrote, "I almost treat messages
like the one from Mr. Glickman like the jokes which I usually
enjoy enormously and often forward to my friends. It seems obvious
to me that he does not understand the basic definition of energy
field as Rogers used(s) the term, and it isn't worth the time
to respond."
I responded to these rather negative outlooks of my work with the following: "Pardon me for what I now see as an intrusion, meaning the posting of the TT challenge. I thought this was an open board with people open to new ideas. I didn't realize that material was to be screened prior to posting. I will be the first to admit that the most appropriate place to post this would be a TT e-mail service. The problem is that I do not know of any. However, do to the close relationship of the two concepts and in the interest of good science and Nursing, I still thought it appropriate to post here. Most of all, with the cameras of Scientific American Frontiers, I thought TT proponents would appreciate the chance to prove to the waiting world that TT's HEF exists
..
"Some of the recent responses point out one of the main problems
with Rogerian Science which is the duality and elusiveness of
simple meanings . All to often, much discussion on these postings
is devoted to the defining of concepts. The term 'human energy
field' sometimes refers to the TT HEF in a Rogerian context and
sometimes it doesn't. It seems to depend on the convenience of
the author at the given time. However, most of the writers in
this service seem to accept the notion of the TT concept and its
HEF. In fact many have devoted research to it.
"The focus of this our TT study is to take TT back to its
most basic concept. 'Can a TT practitioner (TTP) feel an energy
field?' This is a highly testable claim that they perform on a
daily basis. I fail to see the objection to this simple premise
or why 'it really isn't worth doing ." Best of all, it doesn't
need extremely large sample groups, complicated procedures, extreme
methodological strategies and statistics or even quantum mechanics.
It's a simple test that I highly recommend to all of the TTPs
to try on their own.
"So it is not an 'if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist'
notion we are working on here. TTPs have made the claim that they
feel energy fields. We simply designed a test to see if they can.
This is the way skeptics work. When someone makes a claim, we
keep an open mind and study it. Then a fair experiment is devised
to best test the claim. A closed minded person would simply dismiss
it out of hand (much like they way some people on this board have
dismissed our test and even called it a 'joke').
"I feel that this is important research in spite of the fact
that it may seem too simplistic to some. Had research such as
this been done in the infancy of TT and Rogerian science, maybe
this challenge wouldn't be necessary now."
Biley, at this point, encouraged me to keep on posting. She also
agreed about the duality and elusiveness of simple meanings and
that Rogerian discussion spends a lot of time defining concepts.
"I sometimes wish that they (we/me/us) could just get on
with it, but then I think its the beginning of an evolving science
and there is much we don't yet understand."
At this point, I thought I had my foot in the door. "I am
glad you see my point about the elusiveness of definitive meanings
for terms in Rogerian science and that there is much that is not
yet understood. So this is why I am sure that you know that it
is important to follow the scientific method. Although it can
be rigid and systematic, it is this way for a reason. This is
to eliminate error which can be introduced by anything including
improper technique, wishful thinking, bias and even intentional
deceit.
"So in an evolving science, the scientific method is even
more important . It prevents confusion and the contradiction of
terms. After a hypothesis is made, tests are conducted to check
that hypothesis. The evidence and data are analyzed. The hypothesis
is either accepted or rejected. These are the steps and building
blocks of scientific knowledge.
"In Rogerian science, most concepts are beyond testing. Those
that are testable, aren't tested. Other studies (especially ones
involving TT) are too convoluted and not properly controlled.
True double-blind studies seem not to exist. You can't add to
the body of knowledge by building untested hypotheses on top of
other untested hypotheses. The end result is a jumbled mix of
concepts and terms that people can't properly define or apply
any useful or practical meaning.
"When something is testable, it must be tested. When people
go out of their way not to test the certain claims, something
is wrong. Again, this test is designed to show the public through
PBS's Scientific American Frontiers TV program that a TT practitioner
can feel an energy field. Surely, someone reading these notes
is either able to do this or knows someone who can."
Martha H. Bramlett, RN, Ph.D., in an effort to try to bring some
perspective to the discussion, added this: "Let me state
for the record that I am not a therapeutic touch practitioner.
While I taken classes and have used it one occasion (and my recipients
have reported positive results), I certainly do not place myself
in the class with some of the experts that have participated in
this discussion. Nor do I always claim to get Rogerian theoretical
perspectives always correct. Like all of us, I am evolving and
striving for greater knowledge. So I hope all parties will forgive
me for any errors (and provide me insights so I can learn).
"The crux of this issue seems to be one in which sciences
are clashing. Mr. Glickman is making a sincere effort to try
to understand a purported phenomenon. His motivation may be to
prove or disprove the phenomenon, but I think the effort is still
sincere or he would not put so much effort into it. Yet when
presented to the Rogerian Science Nursing community, the effort
has met with great consternation. Several things contribute to
this. First, the term Therapeutic touch is somewhat imprecise
since Rogerian Therapeutic touch (as pioneered by Dr. Krieger)
has a very different theoretical base than that presented by many
of those who report themselves to be therapeutic touch practitioners.
Thus, when Mr. Glickman says therapeutic touch, we don't even
know if we're talking about the same thing, and in fact from the
discourse, I feel sure we're probably not.
"Many have tried to explain this difference, however, if
each of us remember back to when we first started working with
Rogerian Science, we will probably all remember the struggle we
endured to hone the conceptual picture involved. Our conceptual
perspective dictates what we see, and sometimes limits our abilities
to see through another perspective. Science is replete with examples
of this. Einstein altered his formulas because his belief in
a static universe was so compelling, he couldn't believe his own
calculations, and he later admitted this...
"The question arises as to what constitutes scientific investigation.
I think many of the therapeutic touch practitioners and Rogerians
scientists have tried to explain to Mr. Glickman that his tests
are inappropriate for the phenomenon to be tested...
"I think this is the crux of the discourse between Mr. Glickman
and the 'Rogerians.' The energy field he is trying to measure
is not the one we're saying we feel. Perhaps at some point such
a measure will exist, but not right now. So I would ask Mr. Glickman
to be patient with our science and our methodologies. I do not
ask him to accept what we say, only to allow for the possibility
that it may exist, and at some point of evolution our methods
may provide him with the proof he so desires."
I responded, "Regarding the purpose of the research we are
doing, we are not looking to investigate a purported phenomenon.
We are not sure there is one. What we are trying to investigate
is a legitimate claim. That claim is that TTPs are able to feel
HEFs. Now the water is definitely muddied as to how define these
fields. That is not my fault. I am more or less stumbling into
a work in progress and am trying to sort things out.
"I still am not sure what type of field, if there is more
than one, that you are talking about. You say that you had taken
TT classes and used the technique. Did you feel a HEF? Were the
TT courses Rogerian based or the 'other' type?
"So please don't think you need to disentangle communication
with me. These aren't my terms. I am willing to test any TTP who
states they can feel an energy field, be they Rogerian or not.
Now I would most prefer to test the best the field has to offer,
such as Dr. Kreiger or any of the other Rogerian TTPs.
"It is important to note that testing and research need not
be overly complicated. Usually the simpler the better. I see nothing
in the test we have devised could be considered inappropriate.
TTPs of all stripes claim to feel HEFs. What is so complicated
about that? Why wouldn't anyone want this to be tested?
"When you say, 'I think this is the crux of the discourse
between Mr. Glickman and the Rogerians. The energy field he is
trying to measure is not the one we're saying we feel,' you really
loose me. The energy field I am trying to measure is exactly the
one the Rogerians are saying they feel! When Rogerians claim to
feel 'their' field, that is a testable claim. The ability to measure
this exists right now with exactly the test we've devised!
"Speculating about something and having it be true are two
different things. I too wish to evolve and learn but speculation
is no substitute for evidence and avoiding testing is no substitute
for truth."
Biley jumps in here with: "I think a Rogerian would say that
they 'perceive' a field manifestation, rather than feel a field,
i.e. we chose to call what ever is going on a perception of an
energy field rather than say that it is an energy field or is
energy."
These were some interesting and exciting developments. It appears
that the Rogerians were backing away from TT. The two concepts
that originally supported and "proved" each other were
now becoming incompatible!
The debate continued. Richard Cowling RN stated, "Last time
the test was offered, I said all that I had to say about the matter.
[This refers to several e-mail exchanges we had prior to the November
1996 TT test.] I think that the dialogue spawned by this test
has done a great deal of good by allowing people to openly describe
various vantage points. I do not share Mr. Glickman's philosophy
of science, but respect his right, as I hope he does mine, to
advocate for a specific worldview.
Mary Jo Borden wrote, "I have been studying Rogerian Science for only five years and thus am somewhat reluctant to enter this discourse... According to Rogers energy field is the fundamental unit of not just human beings, but of all the living and non-living. Energy field is infinite and integral with all other energy field. This is the unifying concept. Pattern is the distinguishing characteristic of an energy field , thus of a person, or of a plant. Since pattern is the distinguishing characteristic it is pattern which Rogerian scientists and scholars attempt to gain understanding of. It is pattern which is energy field manifestation.
"I have long felt uncomfortable with the Krieger TT movement
because it is not congruent with Rogerian science as I explore
and evolve understanding of it. I have attended Holistic Nurse
meetings and observed TT instruction and practice. The TT practitioners
do imply ability to feel energy field. I have excused this by
allowing that there are many ways to feel a phenomenon. However,
the TT practitioners and teachers I have observed do not study
or incorporate Rogerian theory into the teaching of TT. If the
TT practice emerged from Rogerian science and were congruent with
Rogerian science perhaps practitioners would be co-participating
with the patient in therapeutic pattern recognition, and per Margaret
Newman, repatterning. Perhaps Mr. Glickman is making assumptions
about the beliefs of all Rogerians because of the tie between
Rogerian science and non-invasive modalities advocated by Rogers.
I believe that energy field is not emanating and physically palpable,
but rather manifest as pattern . I am an energy field. I don't
have one!"
I followed up on these responses with a note to several people at once. "There is one thing that never fails to mystify me. This is the way people try to restate my intentions and/or motivations and how far off these restatements are from what I wrote. I have been writing in the simplest and clearest terms possible precisely to avoid such misunderstandings. One more time, by responding to comments to me, I will state why I am here and what it is I am trying to do.
"First, I want to respond to Margaret Lunney, Ph.D., RN,
CS, who stated, 'I am not a therapeutic touch practitioner but
I support others in their ability to use TT because of the scientific
evidence that it works. Glickman should read the evidence or be
open to have therapeutic touch yourself and see what it can do.
It sounds, however, as if you are afraid and suspicious of anything
you can't see.'
"Contrary to what you may think, I have studied the evidence
for TT. >From Krieger's initial hemoglobin study to the present,
it is virtually non-existent. TT studies have suffered from poor
design, poor methodology, poor controls, improper or absent double-blinding
measures and improper statistics to name a few. Don't take my
word for it. Therese Meehan RN, Ph.D., a Rogerian TT researcher
stated, 'What current research tells us, according to Popper's
principles of refutation and verification, is that there is no
convincing evidence that TT promotes relaxation and decreases
anxiety beyond a placebo response, that the effects of TT on pain
are unclear and replication studies are needed before any conclusions
can be drawn. Other claims about outcomes are, in fact, speculation.'
(Meehan 1995) I could cite more but I don't think it is necessary.
"The healing effects noted by many TT practitioners can too
easily be attributed to the Placebo Effect. This is the prime
source of static and false positives in healing studies. To make
any definitive statement about any healing modality, it MUST be
effectively ruled out in any study.
"Regarding the notion that I am 'afraid and suspicious of
anything I can't see,' I don't know why you would think that.
If I was fearful of TT, the last thing I would do would be to
design a test that would conclusively prove a major plank of the
TT concept. The only people who have something to fear are the
ones that have something to hide. I seek and embrace the truth,
not fear it.
"To Mary Jo Borden: Let me clarify what I do understand and
what elements of TT and Rogerian theory I am trying to test. I
do know about electromagnetic fields. I know that they are proven
to exist. I know that a hypothesis regarding the nature of this
concept can be formulated and predictions of an outcome can be
made. Then the testing of this hypothesis can begin and results
of the testing can be analyzed. The best part is that everyone
can learn and understand the terms and procedures so they can
independently repeat the test on their own. This is the scientific
method and how knowledge is obtained. In TT and in Rogerian science,
I don't see this process at all. As stated before, the TT scientific
research is groundless. In Rogerian science, speculation is mounted
on more speculation creating newer and grander ideas, but no actual
specific testing is done. If anything, many of these ideas are
beyond testing. Without this vital testing, upon which factual
and useful data can be built, statements like 'I believe that
energy field is not emanating and physically palpable, but rather
manifest as pattern' are virtually devoid of meaning.
"Then there is the 'Blur.' The Blur is where TT science and
Rogerian science 'overlap.' I am constantly being accused of not
understanding the differences in the TT HEF that can be felt and
the Rogerian HEF that can be perceived. As mentioned in a previous
note, based on what is written in this e-mail service, this confusion
is commonplace and constantly debated among the Rogerian scholars
themselves. When it is convenient, positive or conclusive, the
TT HEF and the Rogerian HEF are the same thing. When it is detrimental,
they aren't the same thing. Yet several Rogerians talk about the
TT studies they are working on. This confusion isn't mine. It
belongs to the people of Rogerian science. It is also their duty
to straighten it out.
"So I am not trying to make any assumptions at all. Both
the TT people and some of the Rogerians claim, in some way, to
be able to feel or perceive a HEF or a human energy manifestation.
Until someone can be more definitive, I personally don't care
who does what. What I do care about is that when a testable claim,
especially one that severely deviates from the known scientific
paradigm, is made under the guise of science, it must be properly
tested.
"To Richard Cowling: Yes, I respect your right to advocate
for a specific world view. What I am trying to do is encourage
you and all to refine that view into something that is more scientific
and accessible to those outside of Rogerian science."
Cowling responded with the following. "Respectfully, Mr. Glickman, you do not need to encourage me (not sure what others you refer to) in refining my view into something scientific as it is already scientific as has been expressed in volumes of literature and support. I acknowledge your view and you apparently do not acknowledge (and perhaps may not understand) my view. I support your work and your intentions. I do not request your support or encouragement. I do acknowledge, as do many other scholars of science, that there is more than one scientific perspective of merit. I will be attending an interdisciplinary conference in Los Angeles in June sponsored by the University of Southern California, University of California at Los Angeles, and University of California at Irvine. The title of the conference is Reclaiming Voice: Ethnographic Inquiry and Qualitative Research in a Post-Modern Age. I think the introductory description is relevant here:
'At a time when the pressure for change in the academy is increasingly
linked to the resurgence of conservative and neo-liberal discourses
and practices, researchers need to be more direct in countering
the attacks in the public space against alternative methodologies.
While the need for research to be theoretically rigorous and
ethically accountable is vital, we must be clear that rigor and
accountability are not the sole provinces of conservative and
neo-liberal educational discourses and practices. Good qualitative
research helps establish the importance and validity of human
experiences, and improve the human condition. RECLAIMING VOICE...acknowledges
differences in inquiry and promotes a verisimilitude of (re)presentations
and analyses. The conference is intended for those of us concerned
about working with alternative methodological and theoretical
frameworks. By joining in rigorous, lively interchanges, participants
will better understand how to utilize ethnographic and qualitative
research, as well as how to (re)claim and (re)present the voice
of ourselves and those with whom we engage in research.'
"I do not care to engage in an attack and defense game with
you, Mr. Glickman. This is an old model of discourse. I continue
to respect your strength, convictions, knowledge, persistence,
and systematic actions in behalf of your singular cause."
This became the last bit of actual dialogue that I was going to
receive from the Rogerians. So I ended with this parting shot.
"Richard,
My words here are meant to be a constructive criticism and not
an attack or a lack of respect for you and your efforts and the
efforts of others (meaning the other people in Rogerian science
especially those who contribute to this e-mail service). As a
nurse, I am interested in what effects Rogerian science and TT
will have on my profession. I have examined the TT research thoroughly.
I have only begun looking into Rogerian 'science' but the combined
TT/Rogerian research I have reviewed is poor. Again, the people
here have a hard time determining which energy field is which
and I cannot tell if anyone is concerned by this ongoing confusion.
"Where we differ is in the value and significance of the
scientific method (SM). The SM is what science is all about. When
scientists do not follow the SM, they are doing something other
than science. How else is there to be a standard for everyone
to follow so that we are able to check that we doing the same
work, techniques and studies? How else are we to eliminate error?
How else are we to prevent the wishful thinking of a researcher
from becoming part of the result of his work? When bias and error
are not eliminated, chaos is the end result.
"Wishful thinking is the engine that drives science, but
it can't be the science by itself. There are all kinds of 'sciences'
out there that are actually pseudosciences. Many have the rubber-stamp
of approval of apparent scientific boards and Universities. TT
is also considered by many to be 'scientific' and this has been
expressed in volumes of literature and support. It is also featured
and promoted by many Universities and Nursing organizations such
as the ANA and NLN. This support still doesn't make TT scientific.
With TT, the SM has been totally ignored. The 'scientific' literature
on TT is baseless. Although accepted by too many in Nursing, no
one has yet been able to prove the most basic tenant of TT --
'Can anyone actually feel a field?' Again that is the purpose
of this legitimate scientific test. I still can't imagine why
people are offended by this test when they should be pleased by
a golden opportunity to demonstrate what many do on a daily basis.
"The history of science is filled with people who have complained
about having to deal with the SM. Creation 'science,' cryptozoology,
N rays, ESP, cold fusion, psychokinesis are just a few of the
many ideas that do not hold up when subjected to the SM. Famed
physicist Nikola Tesla is a great example of someone who tried
to beat the SM. He started out with some progressive ideas (including
the alternating-current motor and the Tesla Coil which is used
in Kirlian photography of all things) but came up with some wilder
and untenable ones toward the end of his career that didn't pan
out. He eventually died in poverty blaming the scientific community
for his problems. Today he is the hero of every crackpot who ever
dreamed up a perpetual motion or free energy machine. So there
is a long precedent set for people who want to circumvent the
SM and for obvious reason.
"Not knowing the difference between fantasy and reality is
dangerous. People who don't know the difference but should and
have a 'scientific' background are among the most dangerous of
all. Although many are honest and well meaning, they have the
greatest potential to mislead an uninformed public. There are
several gurus today who have attracted a large following by mixing
mainstream medicine with a multitude of fantasy ideas.
"I do not want to comment about the RECLAIMING VOICE project
until I know more about it and what promoting a verisimilitude
of representations and analyses entails. What I hope this project
isn't, is an opportunity for a group of disgruntled scientists
trying to bypass the scientific method to become self-satisfied
with their ideas."
Cowling responded with the following line: "Thanks for sharing
your thoughts with me."
Although I received some interesting insights into the views of
"Rogerian Science," I sure didn't get any volunteers
for testing.
Krieger, D. (1972). The response on in-vivo human hemoglobin to an active healing therapy by direct laying on of hands. Human Dimensions, Autumn, 1:12-15.
Meehan, T.C. (1993). Therapeutic Touch and post-operative pain:
A Rogerian research study. Nursing Science quarterly, Summer,
6(2): 69-78.
Meehan, T.C. (1995). Letter in the American Journal of Nursing,
Jul., 75 (7):17.
Quinn, J.F. (1982). An investigation of the effects of Therapeutic
Touch done without physical contact on state of anxiety of hospitalized
patients. PhD dissertation (New York University, 164 pp.). University
Microfilm #DA82-26788. Abstracted in Dissertation Abstracts International,
Dec, 43(6):1797B.
Rosa, L.A. (1994) Therapeutic Touch: Skeptics in hand-to-hand combat over latest New Age
There are also other types of "tools" that can be used for more abstract and subjective ideas. I have had some discussions with pro-TT people that said that things like love and pain can't be scientifically proved but are accepted as real and therefore this leaves the door open to a concept like TT. I don't necessarily agree with this idea. Concepts such as love and pain can be measured in different ways. I do not know if you are a nurse but you may be familiar with the 1-10 pain scale to determine the severity of pain a patient is experiencing. "0" means no pain, "1" means minimal pain, "5" is moderate and "10" is the most pain a person can imagine. This is a rudimentary tool but it allows us to MEASURE something as abstract as pain. (A similar process for love could be developed. I know that I love my wife more than the guy who fixes my car. I know that I love the guy who fixes my car more than the person who would like to steal my car.) With these tools that give us an ability to measure, we can now say something about pain and love.
Rogers' material and ideas give us nothing to measure. When Rogers stated that the HEF was electrodynamic in nature, she gave us something to measure with real scientific tools. Since there is no electomagnetic component to the HEF, backing away from this concept was her only avenue to keep the HEF idea viable. A mystical, forth-dimensional life energy field apparantly has a longer shelf-life than an electromagnetic one. Other ideas as they appear in her "science" such as helicacy, patterning, resonancy, integrality are equally unmeasurable.
In my discussions with Rogerian scholars I found that Rogerian's 'perceive' a field manifestation, whereas the TTers feel a field. I have no evidence that either group can feel or perceive any kind of human energy manifestation. So as to whether the Rogers perspective and the TTers perspective are the same or that they are mutually exclusive, I haven't a clue and neither apparrantly do they. What I do know is that when it is convenient, positive, or conclusive, the TT HEF and the Rogerian HEF are the same thing. When the circumstances are detrimental, they aren't even close. back to main TT page