SMMN Vol.3, No.4

Spiritual Massage Ministry Newsletter

          Vol. 3, No.4                                    ISSN 1080-3262                                   August 1998




Albert Schatz, Ph.D.

None can love freedom , but good men.

The rest love not freedom, but license.

                                                    John Milton

This is a sequel to an article I published in 1994, What is a Research Scientist Doing with Massage? in the Massage Therapy Journal.1

In this  article, the term regulation refers to compulsory (mandatory) state regulation of massage. The term controversy refers to the controversy over that regulation. It is controversial because many bodyworkers are actively opposing it.

I'm a research scientist, a professor, and a teacher who has taught massage students and involved them in research. I didn't train them.

The research I do on regulation is applied research. It has to do with reality. Most if not all  alleged benefits of regulation are wishful thinking. Much if not all the alleged need for regulation is a self-serving paradigm of echolalia.

My research and publications on regulation have made me a saint and a sinner. Some people consider my work important and thank me for what I do. Others resent it. Several advised me: "Licensure is inevitable." "You can't stop it."  "You're wasting your time." One individual said, "Stop tilting  windmills. You're not Don Quixote." 

The person who told me that did not realize Don Quixote, like Joe Hill, is still alive; and many now consider what they both did important.

Periodically, I am asked, "Why are you involved in the controversy over regulation?" Here are eight answers, and some comments about massage schools.


1. State regulation is a windmill of injustice that restricts freedom; and injustice is a malignancy which, if ignored, metastasizes. By tilting that windmill, I'm supporting two freedoms:

(a)  freedom of an individual to make a living by doing massage, regardless of whether she is or is not state-credentialled.

(b) freedom for the consumer to choose a massage therapist; regardless of whether she is or is not state-credentialled.

2. I'm a retired professor who wants to do something useful. It's gratifying that many appreciate what I do. I meet wonderful people whom I admire and respect. I make new friends. They enlarge my world. This makes life interesting, exciting, and worthwhile.

3. My research on regulation enables me to continue teaching. For more than 30 years, I was a professor in colleges and universities in the U.S. and Chile. What I am doing with regulation is teaching because I motivate people to think critically about regulation, and not let others do their thinking for them.

4. I don't want spiritual massage healing regulated as secular massage therapy is. I have therefore clearly differentiated the two, legally and otherwise, in order to protect the identity and sanctity of spiritual massage healing. How the two differ has been reported in this Newsletter and in the Journal of Spiritual Bodywork,

5. My research on regulation recalls my early years on a Connecticut farm because what I write about regulation is what we used to call horse sense, now called common sense.

6. I agree with Albert Einstein who explained why he joined the Princeton Faculty Union: - I consider it important, indeed necessary, for intellectual workers to get together, both to protect their own economic status ... and to secure their influence in the political field.

7. I'm a member

of the working class

That's why I consider bodyworkers my fellow workers, and I'm interested in their problems. Many bodyworkers believe regulation is exploitation and oppression, although they may not use these two terms. Regulation is a labor problem involving unorganized workers who are exploited by special interest groups which profit from monopoly control of massage. Massage organizations are not the equivalent of labor unions. Massage therapists should unionize, as some doctors are now doing.

I see regulation this way because I was born and grew up in a working class family. I lived my early years on a farm in Connecticut. My family then moved to Passaic, NJ, where my father was a painter and paperhanger, and a member of the painter's union. During my adult life, I was a professor and a research scientist. But I always considered myself a member of the working class.

My union is the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) which was organized on June 27, 1905. Its members are called Wobblies. A good source of information about the Wobblies is Len De Caux's book The Living Spirit of the Wobblies (International Press. New York. 1978). The Wobblies believe, "An injury to one is an injury to all."

 I am inspired by labor history, which is not adequately taught in our public schools. I vividly recall major strikes when I was a boy in Passaic, in the early 1920s. I relate to present-day labor struggles in the U.S. and other countries, I like songs by and about working class people. This explains why I consider massage therapists and other bodyworkers fellow workers -  an IWW term.

Tillie Olson

I have previously commented that I have been inspired by Taylor Grant and Pete Seeger. I am also inspired by women such as Tillie Olson, whom I had the privilege to hear at Amherst College on May 24, 1998, when she was  awarded an Honorary Degree, Doctor of Letters.

"Tillie Olson was born into a family of social activists on January 14, 1912, in Wahoo, Nebraska. She came to California in 1936 with her daughter Karla to organize farm workers and write about their lives. Tillie worked as a farm worker, sales clerk, and secretary while raising four daughters with her husband Jack Olson. She remained active in social justice issues, writing in whatever pockets of time she could find. Although forced to drop out of school by the Depression, in her early 40s, she courageously applied to Stanford's program for young published graduate students, submitting a draft of "I Stand Here Ironing."

"She was accepted, and the story was published in Best American Short Stories in 1956. Over the next 15 years, she wrote and published the collection Tell Me A Riddle, followed by Silences: When Writers Don't Write. Tillie became an international speaker on the issues of working class women's lives., the conditions that permit creativity to flourish, and feminist theory. She has nine honorary doctorates, numerous awards including the O. Henry  Award, a Guggenheim Fellowship, and the REA Short Story Award, and is translated into more than ten languages. Tillie Olson continue to lecture, teach, write, and inspire." (This information is taken from the program for A Tribute to Tillie Olson on March 1, 1998, at a benefit event for the Cabrillo College Women's Studies and Women's Programs, celebrating their 25th Anniversary.)

Answer No. 8. How science

 has influenced me

To understand why I, a research scientist, am involved with regulation, you have to know what kind of scientist I am and what science means to me. In other words, how I have been influenced by science - with which I have been involved for more than half a century? I have always been interested primarily in applied research; that is, research which provides information that we can apply to present problems.

 I have also been concerned about the social responsibility of science; that, is how what scientists do affects people's "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." More specifically, how people work, how they live, how long they live, and the quality of their lives. These interests evolved from and reflect my working class background. The following comments about science and scientists may help you understand how science has influenced me. This will explain why I am involved in regulation, why I do the kind of research I do on regulation, and why I write reports the way I do. 

Michael Polanyi

My favorite philosopher is Michael Polanyi, who was Chair of the Physical Chemistry Department at the University of Manchester, England. Polanyi wrote, "Science is regarded as objectively established in spite of its passionate origins. It should be clear by this time that I dissent from that belief, and I have now come to the point at which I want to deal explicitly with passion in science. I want to show that scientific passions are no mere psychological by-product, but have a logical function which contributes an indispensable element to science. They respond to an essential quality in a scientific statement and may accordingly be said to be right or wrong, depending on whether we acknowledge or deny the presence of that quality in it.

"The function which I attribute here to scientific passion is that of distinguishing between demonstrable facts which are of scientific interest, and those which are not... Scientific passion serves ... as a guide in the assessment of what is of higher and what of lesser interest; what is great in science and what is relatively slight.

"I also want to show that this appreciation  depends ultimately on a sense of intellectual beauty; that it is an emotional response which can never be dispassionately defined, any more than we can dispassionately define the beauty of a work of art or the excellence of a noble action.

"Theories of the scientific method which try to explain the establishment of scientific truth by any purely objective formal procedure are doomed to failure. Any process of enquiry unguided by intellectual passions would inevitably spread out into a desert of trivialities. Our vision of reality, to which our sense of scientific beauty corresponds, must suggest to us the kind of questions that it should be reasonable and interesting to explore.

"Scientists - that is, creative scientists - spend their lives trying to guess right. They are sustained and guided therein by their heuristic passion. We call their work creative because it changes the world, as we see it, by deepening our understanding of it. The change is irreversible.

"Heuristic passion seeks no personal possession. It sets out not to conquer, but to enrich the world. Yet such a move is also an attack. It raises a claim and makes a tremendous demand on other men. In order to be satisfied, our intellectual passion must find response. This universal intent creates a tension: we suffer when a vision of reality to which we have committed ourselves is contemptuously ignored by others. For a general unbelief imperils our own conviction by evoking an echo in us. Our vision must conquer or die.

"We can now see ...  the great difficulty that may arise in the attempt to persuade others to accept a new idea in science. We have seen that to the extent to which it represents a new way of reasoning, we cannot convince others of it by formal argument, for so long as we argue within their framework, we can never induce them to abandon it. Demonstration must be supplemented, therefore, by forms of persuasion which can induce a conversion. The refusal to enter on the opponent's way of arguing must be justified by making it appear altogether unreasonable."2

Bill McKibben

believes, "Science functions best only if its practitioners try to tear down one another's ideas, testing them for every weakness."15

Kurt Gödel's incompleteness


The limitations of contemporary science have been definitively surveyed and mapped by Kurt Gödel. "His incompleteness theorems have been scrutinized by mathematicians and logicians of the highest caliber for over half a century and have not been shown to contain inconsistencies, Gödel's incompleteness theorems strike at the heart of science's ideal aim, which is to  devise a complete and consistent picture of nature.

"Gödel showed that this cannot be done. Not only is it not technically possible to accumulate all the data necessary to formulate such a theory, the very goal itself is hopeless. Gödel's theorems show that nature's laws, if they are consistent, as we believe them to be, must be of some inner formulation quite different from anything we now know, as Jacob Bronowski put it, and which at present we have no idea how to conceive."3

It is not surprising that Gödel's theorems have been largely ignored by the scientific community. Life is much simpler if "reality is in the eyes of the beholder." Zukav described how our present version of reality was manufactured: "Reality is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what we believe. What we believe is based upon our perceptions. What we perceive depends upon what we look for. What we look for depends on what we think. What we think depends on what we perceive. What we perceive determines what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality."4

The scientific method

The scientific method, which we teach students, epitomizes logic. But, "The so-called scientific method, which Johnny learns is how scientists work, is a fabrication. No scientist who has ever written about how they work has described it this way. Any scientist who tried to work like this would probably produce little of any value... Somehow, we may have gone off the track in believing that any particular set of descriptive statements,  interpretations, or explanations about our world can be the true one with the implication that all others are 'false.'"5


Many scientists have openly acknowledged that intuition has helped them, but do not understand that intuition is nature's way of conveying information to us. For Einstein. "The really valuable factor is intuition." W.I.B. Beveridge gives other scientists' comments about intuition and discusses intuition in his book The Art of Scientific Investigation.6

He also considers the "Psychology of intuition... Technics of seeking and capturing intuition... and Scientific taste." "W. Oswald," Beveridge says, "refers to 'scientific instinct,' and some people use the words 'intuition' and 'feeling' in this connection, by which they mean the same thing."6 Intuition is therefore not something new in contemporary science, but something that has been largely ignored because of the high priority accorded to logic.


Let us now consider logic.6 Theobald Smith said, "Discovery should come as an adventure rather than as the result of a logical process of thought." In 1603, Francis Bacon, considered the Father of Modern Science, wrote, "Men are rather beholden... generally to chance, or anything else, than to logic, for the invention of arts and sciences." In 1620, he wrote, "The present system of logic rather assists in confirming and rendering inveterate the errors founded on vulgar notions, than in searching after truth, and is therefore more hurtful than useful."

"Indeed , logical reasoning has often prevented the acceptance of new truths, as is illustrated by the persecution to which great discoverers have so often been subjected." "The slowness and difficulty with which the human race makes discoveries and its blindness to the most obvious facts, if it happens to be unprepared or unwilling to see them, should suffice to show that there is something gravely wrong about the logician's account of discovery." Beveridge has provided these and other comments and additional information about the role of logic in scientific discovery.6

Thomas S. Kuhn

Contemporary science meets the criteria of what Kuhn defines as a "normal science" paradigm Normal science includes all the scientific paradigms which Kuhn considers and others that have been developed since then. "The normal science paradigm is the norm, standard criterion which defines what is and is not legitimate science - legitimate training for science, legitimate scientific research, legitimate scientific contributions, legitimate scientific books and journals. This is the accepted framework within which one must 'grow up,' think, work, talk, write, publish, and be a good law-abiding citizen if one wants to be considered a legitimate scientist."

 "Normal science," Kuhn explains, "is what mainly prepares ... the student for membership in the particular [traditional] scientific community [i.e., chemistry, quantum physics, biology, microbiology, meteorology, geology] with which he will later practice [in accepted ways]. Because he there joins men who learned the bases of their field from the same concrete models, his subsequent practice will seldom evoke overt disagreement over fundamentals. Men whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent consensus it produces are prerequisites for normal science; i.e., for the genesis and continuation of a particular research tradition."

"One of the things a scientific community acquires with a paradigm is a criterion for choosing  problems that, while the paradigm is taken for granted, can be assumed to have solutions. To a great extent, these are the only problems that the community will admit as scientific or encourage its members to undertake. Other problems, including many that had previously been standard, are rejected as metaphysical, as the concerns of another discipline, or sometimes as just too problematic  to be worth the time. A paradigm can, for that matter, even insulate the community from those  socially important problems that are not reducible to the puzzle form, because they cannot be  stated in terms of the conceptual and intellectual tools the paradigm supplies.  Such problems can be a distraction... One of the reasons why normal science seems to progress so rapidly is that its practitioners concentrate on problems that only their own lack of ingenuity should keep them from solving...

"The scientific enterprise as a whole does from time to time prove useful, open up new territory, display order, and test long-accepted belief. Nevertheless, the individual engaged on a normal research problem is almost never doing any one of these things."7

Without using such blunt phraseology, this is what Kuhn says  one must do if he wants to be accepted by the conventional scientific establishment: To succeed, the individual must conform to the normal science paradigm which is an intellectual straightjacket with which he must voluntarily clothe himself if he wants to get a Ph.D., get research grants, publish in the so-called reputable journals, go "up the ladder," and enjoy the prestige of being a member of the exclusive club.

Those who "rock the boat" and "upset the apple cart" of acceptable science dogma are not accepted or, if they have been accepted, are rejected.

Quantum weirdness

Jeremy W. Hayward, who has a Ph.D. in nuclear physics from Cambridge University and has done research in molecular biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, tells us that there is a lot of "quantum weirdness ... which is so stunning that most scientists lead a sort of double life, accepting [the weirdness] in the laboratory, but rejecting [it] throughout their daily life."5

With respect to "quantum weirdness," the physicist Richard Feynman wrote, "Do not keep saying to yourself if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will 'go down the drain' into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."8  Feynman also wrote, "To those who do not know mathematics, it is difficult to get across the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature"7 Since Feynman does not tell us what "the deepest beauty of nature is," we don't know what he means

The dark side of science

The dark side of contemporary science is what we have to overcome, and we are in a unique position to do that. We are not "stuck" with contemporary science and its limitations.

Contemporary science has contributed to what is called a high standard of living for those who can afford it. We are bombarded day and night, by the news media, with information about the good things that science has provided, and which we should buy, whether we can afford them or not. We are less dramatically informed about what our high standard of living costs in terms of global ecological damage. We are also less frequently informed about the "dark side" of contemporary science. The Surgeon-General has yet to warn us, "Science can be dangerous to your health."

"Cigarette scientists"9 and others give us false information to assure us that all is well, This used to be called disinformation. Its new name is strategic misrepresentation. Exporting our corporate culture and the use of  contemporary science to devastate nature in third world countries for profit is called progress transition. Our language is perverted to create a false sense of security, so we are not clearly aware of what is happening. "Cigarette scientists" who help provide the linguistic smokescreen for corporate greed are responsible for how that greed  adversely affects global ecology and our health; and now threatens our survival as a species.

The bright side of science

The bright side of contemporary science is that some scientists do warn us about the dangers we face, despite retaliation from government  and the "establishment."

Linus Pauling, who won two Nobel Prizes - in chemistry and for peace-  concluded that, "Most problems in the modern world are the result of the contributions of science."

Albert Einstein wrote, "Strange that science, which in the old days seemed harmless, should have evolved into a nightmare that causes everyone to tremble."

Some who warn us of dangers are too often treated as pariahs by their former colleagues and others who are threatened by he truth.

Rachel Carson was demonized after her book Silent Spring appeared in 1962. George C. Decker, a member of the pest control committee of the National Academy of Science, called her book "science fiction." "Mitchel R. Zavon, a consultant for Shell Chemical Company [and] a member of the academy's pest control committee characterized Carson as one of the 'peddlers of fear' whose campaign against pesticides would 'cut off food for people around the world."10  Rachel Carson died of cancer a few years after Silent Spring was published. 

John W. Gofman, M.D. Ph.D. who has for years been warning us about the harmful effects of low-level radiation, has told us what happened to him.11 He has been castigated, discarded, marginalized, and ignored. But he has continued his important research and is educating people about the harmful effects of low-level radiation. He is doing this in spite of everything that has been done to silence him by those who allegedly are responsible for protecting us from the harmful effects of low-level radiation about which he continues to warn us.

Gofman became a pariah because he realized, "It's hard to work in science when you discover there's little you can trust... It all depends who has the money as to what scientists think. The people at Livermore [Laboratory at the University of California] saw what happened to me. Do you think any of them speak out? The cards are stacked. Radiation is regarded as harmless. It may even be good for you, because we've proved it harmless. You don't have to worry about waste because we've put it in landfills. So for a hundred years. Lies will be truth and truth will be lies. The cost will be the multimillions who will suffer from vicious diseases."

Gofman tells how his transformation occurred. "I was very stupid in those days," he wrote. " In 1955 - '56, people like Linus Pauling were saying that the bomb fallout would cause all this trouble. I thought, "We're not sure. If you're not sure, don't stand in the way of progress. I could not have thought anything more stupid in my life. The big moment in my life happened while I was giving a health lecture to nuclear engineers. In the middle of my talk, it hit me! What the hell am I saying? If you don't know whether low doses are safe or not, going ahead is exactly wrong. At that moment I changed my position entirely."11

This was quite a change. Gofman is a physician with a doctorate in nuclear physical chemistry. He is recognized as one of the world's leading medical experts on low-level radiation, on which he has done research for decades. As a graduate student at Berkeley, he was one of those who discovered uranium-233, and demonstrated that it was fissionable. In 1941-1943, he developed a method for isolating plutonium and provided the plutonium first used at the Manhattan Project. From 1962-1969, he was Associate Director of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and set up the Laboratory's Biomedical Division. From 1963-1972, he directed research in that Division. This research, requested by the Atomic Energy Commission, evaluated ionizing radiation and chromosome injury as causes of human cancer.

Gofman has been Professor of Medical Physics at the University of California in Berkeley, and a member of the Clinical Faculty at the University of California School of Medicine in San Francisco. He has received many awards and honors, including a citation from the American College of Cardiology. He has written several books.

Robert O. Becker, M.D., after years of research, concluded that, "The human species has changed its electromagnetic background more than any other aspect of the environment... Our electropollution is presenting us with a double challenge: weaker immune systems and stronger diseases." The latter is due to the fact that the fields enhanced bacterial resistance to antibiotics. They may also have produced genetic changes which increased their virulence."12 Becker became persona non grata when he aired his concerns about electromagnetic radiation. He has reported what happened to him, and why he did that.12

"I've taken the trouble to recount my experience in detail for two reasons. Obviously, I want to tell people about it because it makes me furious. More important, I want the general public to know that science isn't run the way they read about it in the newspapers and magazines. I want lay people to understand that they cannot automatically accept scientists' pronouncements at face value, for too often they're self-serving and misleading. I want our citizens, nonscientists as well as investigators, to work to change the way research is administered. The way it's currently funded and evaluated, we're learning more and more about less and less, and science is becoming our enemy instead of our friend."12




Everybody does research 

We all do research whether we are aware of it or not. We gather information, integrate and analyze it, and make decisions many times a day; i.e., when we walk across a busy street, drive in heavy traffic, go food shopping, look for a "good buy" on a car, and on many other occasions.

John Dewey tells us we have been doing research all our life:1

 "Original research is not a peculiar prerogative of scientists or of  advanced students. All thinking is research, and all research is native, original, with him who carries it on, even if everybody else in the world already is sure of what he is still looking for.

"This attitude of respect for original research, at all levels of growth from the laboratory of the nursery to that of the adult gives glimpses of countless avenues for the renewing of human life. It makes endless the possibilities of invention and discovery, of better and more original ways of living, of unveiling still undreamed-of connections, relationships and consequent developments which will lead to enrichment of human experience."

Massage schools should educate,

 not train, students

Unfortunately massage schools do not enrich their students' experience by having them do research.13 I involved students in the research Karen Carlson and I did when we discovered that Swedish Massage increased an individual's energy field.14

That experience was exciting for our students and gratifying for us. My suggestions, in 1994, about other ways to involve massage students in research1 have fallen on deaf ears.

It seems that the two primary objectives of some massage school training are to train students to do manipulations, and train them to memorize enough information to pass the national certification examination. Students are not given first hand experience in asking and learning how to appropriately answer such questions as:

1. Is that (whatever it is) an alleged statement of fact, or is it an asssumption?

2. If it's a statement of fact, what research supports it? Is that research well-designed? Does it provide well-documented evidence?3. If it's an assumption, what evidence justifies it? 

4. What's the "other side" of an issue? What evidence supports the other side?

All education should include learning to ask such questions and understanding the importance of doing that because all people should ask questions about many things which affect them. Questions are the essence of research and an interesting life.

The best way for students in massage schools to learn the importance of asking important questions is to involve them in research about important issues in massage.

I therefore suggest massage schools have their students research state regulation of massage. The students should study reports pro and con, identify those which are well-documented and  those which are not, discuss and evaluate the evidence pro and con, decide for themselves whether they are in favor of or opposed to state regulation, and justify their decisions.

This research is not conventional massage school training or any other kind of training. It's real research and real education on a real issue that profoundly affects massage therapists.

This kind of education will teach massage students how to think for themselves about important issues that affect them. It will also, as John Dewey pointed out, "lead to [the] enrichment of [their] human experience." I refer those at massage schools, who may be concerned about the effect of this kind of research and education, to Robert Burns and Howard Zinn,

Education has always inspired fear among those who want to keep existing distribution of power and wealth as they are. - Howard Zinn

Here's freedom to him who would read.

            Here's freedom to him who would write.

There's none ever feared

       that the truth should be heard,

But they whom the truth would indite.            

                                  Robert Burns

                                   Scottish poet, 1751-1796

Our choice of words reflects

the reality we perceive

There is a difference between teaching people and teaching massage, or teaching any other subject. There is also a difference between teaching people and training them.

I am a  scientist, a professor, and a teacher who has taught massage students and involved them in research. I never trained them. I've trained dogs, but not students. The army has instructors who train recruits and enlistees. Massage schools have instructors who train enrollees.

Why don't massage schools have teachers and educational programs? Why don't massage schools teach students to do massage while they are educating them, instead of training them to be massage therapists? Education teaches people to question, evaluate, and make their own decisions. Training does not.

If massage students were educated rather than trained, I believe there would be no controversy about the state regulation we now have because this regulation would not exist. Instead, there would be voluntary title protection, or self-regulation with each bodywork modality regulating itself.


1. Schatz, A. What is a research scientist doing with massage. Massage Therapy Journal. Vol. 33. pp. 32-38. 1994. 

2. Polyani, M. Personal Knowledge. Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 1958.  

3. Dossey, L . Recovering the Soul. A Scientific and Spiritual Search. Bantam Books. New York. 1989.

4. Zukav, G. The Dancing Wu Li Masters. An Overview of the New Physics. Bantam Books. New York. 1979.

5. Hayward, J.W. Perceiving Ordinary Magic. Science and Intuitive Wisdom. New Science Library. Shambhala. Boston. 1984. 

6. Beveridge, W.I. B. The Art of Scientific Investigation. 'W. W. Norton & Co. New York. 1957.  

7. Kuhn. T.S.. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press. 1962. 

8. Weber, R. Dialogues with Scientists and Sages: The Search for Unity. Routledge & Kegan Paul. New York. 1986.

9. Cigarette Science at Johns Hopkins. Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly. No. 464. October 19, 1995.

10. Tompkins, P., and Bird, C. Secrets of the Soil. Harper & Row. New York. 1989.   

11. Terkel, S. Coming of Age. The Story of Our Century by Those Who Lived It. The New Press. New York. 1995. 

12.  Becker, R.O., and Selden, G. The Body Electric. Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life. Quill. William Morrow. New York. 1985.  

13. Editor's comment. Massage magazine. page 10. Issue. No. 45. Sept/Oct. 1993.

14. Schatz, A. and Carlson, K. The integration of Swedish Massage & Therapeutic Touch. Swedish Massage increases the human energy field. Massage & Bodywork Quarterly. 10(2):51-55. Spring. 1995.

15. McKibben, B. Too hot to handle. The Nation. p. 10. November 10. 1995.



Albert Schatz



The Fuegans were the indigenous people who lived on Tierra del Fuego, the barren, rocky land at Cape Horn. This southern most end of South America is called Cape Horn because it has the shape of an inverted horn. It was called Tierra del Fuego, which in Spanish is Land of Fire, because at night Magellan's men saw the fires of the indigenous people. The Strait of Magellan is the perilous route that Magellan followed as he sailed through the dangerous, stormy Cape.

Ferdinand Magellan was a Portuguese sea captain who set sail from Portugal in October, 1520, with five ships and 241 men to circumnavigate the world. A mutiny soon left him with fewer vessels, one of which was subsequently destroyed in a storm. Magellan was killed in the Philippines. Only one ship with about 18 men returned.

The following account is taken from Magellan's logbook.

When Magellan's expedition first landed at Tierra del Fuego, the Fuegans, who for centuries had been isolated with their canoe culture, were unable to see the ships anchored in the bay. The big ships were so far beyond their experience that, despite their bulk, the horizon continued unbroken: The ships were invisible. This was learned on later expeditions to the area when the Fuegans described how, according to one account, the shaman had first brought to the villagers' attention that the strangers had arrived in something which although preposterous beyond belief, could actually be seen if one looked carefully. 

We ask how they could not see the ships they were so obvious, so real  yet others would ask how we cannot see things just as obvious.1


Ludwik Fleck, the Polish epistemologist and microbiologist, "who  inspired Thomas Kuhn's notion of the paradigm ... noticed that when beginning students are given microscopic sections to observe, at first they are unable to do so. They cannot see what is there. On the other hand, they often see what is not there. How can this be? The answer is simple, because all perception, particularly sophisticated forms of perception, require rigorous training and development. After a while, all students begin to  see what is there to be seen."



"The mind provides the framework, specific  knowledge and specific assumptions, for the eye to see. The mind constitutes the universe that the eye then sees. In other words, our mind is built into our eyes." (H. Skolimowski)


Reference: 1. Mattingly, J.W. Foreword. In: The Cancer Cure that Worked. Fifty Years of Suppression, by Barry Lynes. Published in Mexico by Marcus Books. 1987. Fourth Printing. 1992.

[Home] [Massage Law] [Journal ] [Special Issues] [Bios] [Spiritual Massage] [Massage Humor]