Searching for "The Truth" in a World of Many Truths
In the world of academic research, you are often asked to pick a "worldview." It’s a fancy way of asking: How do you view reality?
On one side, you have Realism (often associated with Modernism). This is the view that there is "One Truth." It is objective, measurable, and independent of our feelings. It’s the gold standard in the hard sciences.
On the other side, you have Relativism (often associated with Post-Modernism). This is the view that reality is subjective. There isn't one truth; there are many truths, shaped by our culture, our experiences, and our internal worlds.
As I try to define my own framework for Transpersonal Psychology, I find myself stuck right in the middle of these two worlds.
The Pressure to Fit in the Box
I identify with Realism primarily because that is what we are taught in the social sciences. There is a palpable pressure to conform to this "one truth" model. In the broader field of psychology, if your work isn't objective, if it doesn't align with the rigid structures of the scientific method, it is often looked down upon.
This is the "Etic" approach: the outsider looking in. It feels safe. It feels validated. It’s the path of least resistance if you want your research to be respected by the establishment.
The Call of the Open Field
However, my heart is drawn to Relativism. This worldview offers an "Emic" approach: the insider’s perspective.
It isn’t as confined. It allows space for the messy, beautiful, unmeasurable parts of the human experience the spiritual dimensions that traditional science often ignores. Transpersonal concepts are unique; they are deeply personal and internal. Trying to measure a spiritual awakening with a ruler often misses the point entirely.
Building a Bridge
My goal is to find a way to combine both.
I know that Realism, with its objective methodology, is valued by the scientific community. It provides the legitimacy needed to get a seat at the table. But Relativism provides the depth. It allows me to honor the lived experience of the individual.
It’s a difficult balance. Merging the two is time-consuming and intellectually demanding. But I believe it is necessary. To truly understand the human mind, we need the rigor of the scientist and the openness of the mystic. We need to respect the "One Truth" while honoring the millions of individual truths that make up our collective experience.
