Abstract

(from the book) For me, four basic points emerged from this conference. First, I think that there is no justification for psychotherapists or personality theorists or physicians working with human patients and clients and students to automatically label parapsychological-type reports as pathological. . . . There is normality rather than a pathology in these reports. /// Secondly, the material that we heard this weekend has implications for science education. /// Third, I am pleased that these papers suggest that parapsychological gifts have some additional clues for identification of promising experimental subjects. . . . I think we have had some fine leads as to subject selection in our discussion this weekend. /// Fourth, what can be said about the pre-paradigmatic nature of parapsychology? We have heard speakers refer to the prevailing Rhinean paradigm. In many ways the Rhinean paradigm is a behavioristic paradigm and focuses on stimulus and response. . . . But in addition we have discussed a Jungian paradigm that sees synchronicity, acausality and quantum mechanics as possible connections.