Caring Science as Sacred Science

Jean Watson

• Publisher: Lotus Library
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9780578882260
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Alternative & Complementary Medicine

"In this continuing work, I have allowed myself toincorporate personal material...for my own caring-healing processes...So, in some ways, writing about caring and sacred science may not be tolerated in academic circles and scholarly work, but if there was ever a time to converge personal and professional authentic ethical efforts for living/being/doing/becoming scholarly, spirit-filled and scientific, it is NOW."

Jean Watson

Written by the leading expert in Caring Science Dr Jean Watson, this updated newly revised text offers a moral and philosophical foundation for all health professionals. This moral/ethical framework offers the reader a way to work and view life through a caring and healing lens. The author discusses a new paradigm for mind-body-spirit nursing, medicine and healthcare. You will gain core knowledge of caring as it relates to both education and the practice of compassionate, professional human caring and healing.

This new edition includes Watson's most recent writings on the Seven Sacred Sutras as well as her 10 Caritas Processes®, a foundational, values-based guide in which to base your life and work.

Chapter 1

Existential-Spiritual Crisis in Science

Science is not the same in all paradigms in terms of (ethics), ontology, epistemology (and praxis).

Lather, 2007, 164. (author’s paratheses)

Even the so-called Human Sciences, with their various attempts to incorporate new assumptions for science, have had their existential crises in the past half-century. There has been the rise and fall of Grand Theory to guide history and philosophy of science to an overthrow of all Grand Theory and any attempts to construct a systematic view of the nature of human and society, in spite of major sociological-historical intellectual movements. Ironically, with this crisis, it has led back to Grand Theory for new reasons, as this chapter explores.

Thus, there have been various waves of philosophical scientific thinking in the human science discourse and directions. For example, Laslett in Skinner (1994) pointed out that historically there was an effort toward the abandonment of the

study of grand philosophical systems of the past, with their unsatisfactory mixture of descriptive and evaluative elements, in order to get on with the truly scientific and purportedly value-neutral task of constructing what came to be called ‘empirical theories’ of social behavior and development. The effect of all of this was to make it appear that two millennia of philosophizing about the social world had suddenly come to an end (Laslett, 1956, p. 4 in Skinner, 1994, my italics).

This momentum against Grand Theory partially contributed to the purely empirical science fixation, which discarded the substantive moral, metaphysical, ontological and even epistemological issues of the day. Within the history and philosophy of science generally, the positivist account of what counted as knowledge and explanation became dominant (i.e., see Hempel, 1965, pp. 245–295 in Skinner, 1994, p. 4). The influence of Karl Popper and his disciples exercised an enormous influence toward a generally “rationalist” stance, requiring any experiment to be subjected to attempts to “falsify it, thus separating anything factual from anything metaphysical or normative.” Only then, in Popper’s view, according to Skinner, were human science and social science phenomena on the road of the straight and narrow path to becoming genuine sciences (Skinner, 1994, p. 4).

Nursing science in particular has followed this scientific-theoretical momentum and the enticement with the rise and fall of Grand Theory, parallel with social-philosophical movements in Europe and the Western World of science. For example, with the overturn of Grand Theory, there likewise has been a recent and somewhat continuing tendency toward abandonment of nursing theories and the subsequent moral-metaphysical underpinnings they provide for education, practice and research; the very phenomena of human caring and healing nursing seeks to study.

However, the changing turn toward a moral and philosophical foundation for the discipline of nursing and health sciences generally, supports the current rise in Grand Theory again, to offer a meta-narrative, and a meaningful, philosophical foundation for any discipline.

Historically, however, the ironic rise of early European postmodern thinking and the deconstructive movement in literary, historical, and philosophical-scientific circles around the world, contributed to, first, the paradoxical abandonment, and, more recently, the return to Grand Theory to guide philosophies of science and research. As Skinner (1994, p. 7) pointed out in his book The Return of Grand Theory in the Human Sciences, “times have certainly changed” and once again new philosophies are being practiced, revived, and are flourishing in a variety of forms. Witness the widespread influence of Michel Foucault, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Jacques Derrida, Jürgen Habermas, and others, including the whole range of previously neglected arguments from Feminist studies and the Women’s Movement in general. There is a continuing search for new explanatory phenomena that are constantly present in our daily caring-healing work.

One of the dominant themes in all these developments/transformations in the history and philosophy of science, has been the dominant discourse, even widespread reaction, against the assumption that the “natural sciences offer an adequate or even a relevant model for the practice of social (human) disciplines” (Skinner, 1994, p. 6, my parenthesis). Basically this critique has reminded us that the positivist contention that all successful explanations must conform to the same deductive model of physical-natural sciences is misconceived. The claim of course is that the attempt to recover and interpret meaning (related to human experience) and social actions must include, and even take the form of, the point of view of the persons themselves (Skinner, 1994). Even the best attempts to address human science phenomena were challenged by these thinkers, challenging the routines and disciplines of society and science, to resist and deconstruct, if not “destroy, the so-called scientific movement, in the name of (saving) our own humanity” (Skinner, 1994, p. 10, my parenthesis).

Such strong sentiments, ironically, led to a new grand narrative about knowledge and how to approach questions of epistemology; thus injecting or reasserting anti-theory as a paradoxical Grand Theory view. This was the result of the postmodern turn by the various philosophers and historians of science according to Skinner (1994).

The inadvertent result ironically has now resulted in this movement toward reintroduction of Grand Theory. This turn has occurred more by default than by purpose, or as a result of some of the unexpected consequences of the deconstructivist movement.

What seemed to occur in the beginning of postmodern mind, was a new grand narrative that rejected any overriding theory or worldview; however, in the process of deconstruction of the negative side-effects of classical science, the new postmodern movement resulted in a stripping away of the underlying values, moral foundation, and metaphysical ground for science and theory alike.

Once ideas are deconstructed to their core, theory and science alike are into nihilism and moral abyss (Watson, 1999a). Thus, then, the ironic rise of Grand Theory to offer a necessary metaview, a meta-narrative of philosophical-ethical foundation for a discipline; otherwise it loses its values, its moral map, its meaning and purpose.

Therefore, a return to an ethical, philosophical foundation for our science helps us relocate our professional knowledge and ourselves in practices that are congruent with our human-universe experiences and our larger world. This takes us to an ironic turn back to Grand Theory as meta-narrative for a metaphysical-ethical starting point. This turn allows for a Caring Science that can accommodate some of the existential-spiritual crises and angst of the postmodern deconstructivist consequences of the Human Science attempts, as well as consequences of the classic assumptions for conventional science. Both rigid conformity to classic assumptions as well as total deconstruction of all approaches toward theory and science are equally faulty.

Caring Science as Sacred mediates the two extremes by trying to unify the best of a moral-metaphysical-philosophical foundation with unitary ontology, pluralistic epistemologies and methodologies. This perspective views a cosmos that is at the same time both unitary and multiple, both One and Many: within this cosmos are many spiritual centers of consciousness: one is physical, which houses the spirit; another, a pantheistic world in which spirit is both immanent and transcendent, leading to the ultimate unspeakable mystery. Such a world is alive; sacramental (Reason, 1993).

Reason (1993) makes an explicit relationship between meta-physics and science by acknowledging the profound contradictions to the secularized experience, knowledge, and action of Western society and its science. He points out that if we are to live our lives as high-quality inquiry, we need to consider inquiry as sacred.

He makes a case for sacred experience and sacred science. From this perspective, he advocates for “reverential thinking” for the appreciative and sensitive mind, reverence for life, appearing as a natural acknowledgement of the miracle and beauty of life itself (Reason, 1993).

Reason goes on to suggest that personal experiences and study of the epistemological crises of our world can lead to scientific inquiry that is grounded in immediate experience of the presence of the world and contained within a wider cosmology; so an essentially mystic/spiritual worldview underpins both Reason’s and Fox’s view about quality in human inquiry (Reason, 1993; Fox, 1988).

Such a view toward the sacred in science reminds us of the fact that the human person is “a fundamental spiritual reality with a distinct presence in the world” (Heron, 1992, p. 52).

The notion of a living, sacred cosmos, within Reason’s view, can inform our notions of inquiry so we can develop a new kind of sacred science. Thus, such a science that restores the metaphysical integrates “a critical, self-reflexive consciousness with a deep experience of the sacred and would thus make a major contribution to what Maslow (1971) referred to as the ‘further reaches’ of human nature” (Reason, 1993).

“Sacred nature of Caring Science cannot remain detached from or indifferent from human emotions — pain, joy, suffering, fear, and anger. At the same time, as its name indicates, the Science of Caring is guided by scientific knowledge, methods, and predictions”

Watson

Chapter 2

Why Have You Come?

What about a science model that inspires, captures, embraces and contains the heart and hands as well as the mind? A model that faces the infinity of the human spirit, the over-soul of life, as the cosmic union that connects rather than separates us? A model that honors the awe, wonder, beauty, mystery, miracles of humankind and all living-non-living existence. Can we envision a science model that unites us to this great unknown that holds us in its hand, when we do not know the way, and are called to surrender to the sovereign expressions of life that emanate from the gift of life itself, and draw us to them? Not only during turmoil, sickness, despair, suffering and angst, but also during joy, bliss, quiet, peace.

... reminding us that these are all given to us as possibilities, as openings to the transcendence of deep Love/Caritas, the cosmic energy of the universe which radiates with and from our open heart, releasing vibratory Love energy into the universe and all our relations!

JW Journal 2020 October

You are not here by accident. In deepening Caring Science as Sacred Science, we create new open space to ask ourself: Why have I come to Earth plane? Why am I here at this time of major global upheaval and destruction? By entering caring science as sacred allows such questions, to be addressed from our heart, hands, open to the Infinity of the human soul and Cosmic Love as the highest level of consciousness; this too is part of our evolving humanity; as part of an evolving science that opens the door to metaphysics, the non-physical, the unknowns of other side of the veil. Here Caring/Caritas is honored as a supreme life force, our foundation of grace, mercy, and blessings in our Belonging-Being-Becoming-Knowing-Doing; this is the deep source of all true knowing, living, birthing, dying.

In Sacred Caring Science, we allow for the inner, infinite nature of our reality of Belonging and Being. We are not restricted to the outer, physical world alone, which is the science model of a past era, which cuts our humanity off from its life Source — the human spirit and our Originary primordial Love; the Love that Levinas (1969) discussed as an “Ethic as First Principle,” which comes before ontology. As Levinas put it: “this is not meant to be anti-intellectual; rather... in distinguishing between objectification and metaphysical we are on our way not to the denunciation of intellectualism but to its very development” (Levinas, 1969, p. 109, author’s bold).

So, perhaps the rhetorical question for our evolving science is: can it contain an underlying metaphysical-philosophical-ethical foundation for its essence and its existence for its das Sein? * Or must we revert to and continue to succumb to classic assumptions of science for our human phenomena, which objectifies humans and keeps our knowledge limited in time and space and physicality?

The purpose here is to consciously evolve, recognizing and acknowledging that information is not necessarily knowledge; knowledge is not understanding; understanding is not wisdom. It is an evolutionary process of awakening to the differences, seeking movement toward wisdom, an upper evolving model of science that can integrate the whole.

As we examine our truth of Belonging — Being, Knowing, and Doing our caring-healing work in the world — how can we...