Philosophical Midwifery (PM) is, of course,
inspired by Plato’s Theaetetus.  In that dialogue Socrates compares his
art of helping people give birth to either true ideas or false beliefs with his
mother’s art of midwifery.  I think that Grimes’ practice of this ancient art
is one of the best modern examples of the Platonic way of doing
philosophy.  Grimes has spent decades working to perfect PM for overcoming the
obstacles to our personal growth, and he has conducted literally thousands of
midwifery sessions.  This new mode of therapy not only has its roots in Plato,
but it is also deeply influenced by philosophers such as Plotinus (ad 204/5-270) and Proclus (c. ad 411-485) .  Although Carl Jung, among
notable other therapists, acknowledged his indebtedness to ancient
philosophers, it has been my experience that a significant percentage of modern
practicing psychologists have little or no training in ancient philosophy, or
even in modern philosophy.  Therefore, I will provide an overview of Grimes’
position and perhaps some therapists will become sufficiently intrigued to
engage with PM themselves.

The core aspect of
PM is what Grimes has called the pathologos, which is a sick belief. 
The pathologos, which is analogous to a psychic parasite because it ‘resides’
in the mind and injures its host, is a false belief that is responsible for the
manifestation of a particular class of problems.  We will inevitably repeat
these same kinds of problems until we have clearly identified the source and
have expunged it from our psyche.  This is all the more challenging because the
pathologos is a sick belief that we do not even know that we have. 
These false beliefs cause us to repeat old patterns and dramas every time
circumstances arise that in some significant way resemble the original
circumstances we encountered when we first received the transmission of the
pathologos.  The pathologos is invisible since we have never verbalized it, and
we have never verbalized it because we didn’t even realize that we had received
the transmission of it; hence the pathologos acts as an insidious blockade that
is invisible to the person it is blocking.  

In order to
briefly explain how this transmission of the pathologos can occur, imagine a
small child, open and uninhibitedly curious, being told to stop asking ‘why?’
by a parent or another authority figure who is the child’s role model, yet the
role model praises the child for doing practical chores, such as cleaning her
room.  If the role model appeared to be sincerely concerned about the child and
to be a knower far superior to the child, then the child may come to the silent
and unconscious conclusion that the best way to survive in her environment
under the power of the authority figure would be to do practical chores and
stop asking probing questions.  It is unlikely, however, that the child would
have been able to think in such terms and come to such a clear conclusion, and
it is precisely this silent conclusion that is a necessary condition for the
transmission of the pathologos.  In this example, and in all examples of
pathologos transmission, nothing was formally taught but something was learned
in a way that could not at the time be verbalized by the child, nor by the
parent who would have been unwittingly acting out of her own pathological state
of mind. 

Once the child who
has received this transmission of the pathologos becomes an adult, every time
she attempts to do anything leading to meaningful personal growth, which
inevitably involves deeper questioning, she is blocked in some way that could
manifest as a physical symptom such as a headache, or perhaps as fear or
anxiety and so on.  These physical or mental symptoms dissipate when she gives
up her goal of personal growth and instead cleans the house, thereby keeping
her pinned in mediocrity and perpetual suffering.  The most basic purpose of
PM, therefore, is to discover and uproot our pathologos, the ‘psychic
parasites,’ the unnamed, untaught, unknown false beliefs that block us from
actualizing our highest potential.

Unlike psychotherapeutic models
that require the therapist to interpret the client’s description of the problem
according to preconceived theoretical assumptions, PM remains free from
imposing any interpretation.  Also, PM avoids the harmful consequences of
materialistic-based psychiatric models, such as drug side effects and the
inability to appreciate fully the process of individuation when a person is
searching for objective meaning and truth.  The PM practitioner helps the
client go through a step-by-step process (which I have not given) that allows
her to see her own words and descriptions and memories.  Then by reflecting on
the current problem and deeply inquiring for oneself with the guidance of the
practitioner, the client has an excellent opportunity to discover the
particular circumstances that brought her, the believer, to believe that such
patently false ideas were true.  The client can then see for herself the root
cause of her pathologos, and in her clear seeing, once the pathologos has been
verbalized and identified, she has the chance to be free of its grip.  No drugs
and no authoritative imposition of the practitioner’s interpretation are
required.  In essence, if we resist probing existential and metaphysical
questions that are personally relevant to us, then we can be sure that the
pathologos is blocking us.  Fortunately, according to PM, we can aspire to and
reach the same heights as those attained by the greatest examples of humanity. 

Grimes accepts the
argument that the Good binds all together whereas evil unbinds and scatters
into dissolution, all of which is standard Platonism and Neoplatonism.  Proclus
provided technical metaphysical arguments to argue that the ultimate nature of
reality is the Good and the One, which really refer to the ineffable,
theologically equivalent notion of God.  Consequently, there is no ultimate,
independently existing force of evil.  This subject is as controversial as it
is difficult, but the essential idea is not beyond our grasp.  To the degree
that evil is, meaning that to the degree that evil is bound together with
itself into some kind of unity, which it must be if it is to be in any
way at all for any length of time, then it can only be due to its ultimately
innate goodness.  And this innate goodness of all things, no matter how
horrifically awful something or someone may be or appear to be, owes its
existence to the Good or the One itself.  For those philosophers in this
tradition it follows, therefore, that humans have the inherent capacity to
ascend to the Good or the One, which is also to some degree innate within
them.  Interestingly, this idea is very similar to the common Buddhist notion
that all of us are already enlightened but we have just forgotten and need to
reawaken to our true ‘Buddha-nature.’  It is this higher spiritual dimension of
PM that allows for the client to reach for her greatest aspirations towards
individuation, even while the entire therapeutic structure is grounded in the
strictest form of rationality.

Grimes also
accepts the Platonic love of the Good and the One and our innate but often
misdirected rationality, which is a view that is in direct opposition to most
postmodernists and many therapists.  However, he also makes relevant
comparisons with other philosophers (Eastern and Western) and various
therapists, and he even draws from chaos theory and wormholes, providing the
reader with a profound cosmopolitan understanding.  Despite the challenging
philosophical and theoretical insights and explanations, the second author,
psychologist Regina L. Uliana, provides an informative, more concrete
validation study.  I tend to prefer abstract thinking, and I did not find the
analysis of two real case studies to be particularly helpful, but a colleague
who has been deeply influenced by PM really appreciated the detailed charts and
graphs in the second part of the book.  There is also an extensive Index, which
is very useful.

Despite general
postmodern reservations towards Platonism and the seeking of ultimate truth, I
think that any therapist who reads PM will at least be provided with
challenging views and arguments to ponder and reflect upon.  PM can be further
developed, and it needs to be adequately understood and critiqued by those who
maintain a non-Platonic and non-religious worldview in order to help clarify
important difficult facets related to the idea of the pathologos.  To some
readers, Grimes’ conclusions may come to hastily, and they may think that his
views are too one-sided because he is so deeply rooted in the Platonic
tradition.  However, it can be reasonably argued that a pluralistic approach to
therapy can lead to the relativistic assumption that any behaviour can be
equally justified, which will be of little benefit to a client who is looking
to better herself because to become better is to presuppose that one’s prior
state was truly inferior. 

PM is in one way a
mode of psychotherapy broadly conceived, as in offering a therapy for the soul,
but it differs greatly from postmodern versions because it is based in a
traditional appreciation of objectively verifiable distinctions between truth
and appearances.  However, PM can also be considered to be a type of
philosophical counselling, although (I think) radically different from the
views offered, for example, by Peter Raabe, Lou Marinoff, and Schlomit Schuster .

It is also
important to note that more than a few psychologists have charged philosophical
counsellors with not being trained in ‘counselling’ and this point is not
without some merit.  Indeed, many clients do have psychological problems and,
in some cases, may benefit from drug therapy; but certainly not all clients
require pharmaceutical intervention.  And what benefit is it to the client if
the therapist carelessly resorts to the latest fashionable psychiatric
terminology to categorize and stigmatize people under ever increasing and
dubious labels of various apparent mental illnesses?  In fact, how can the many
psychologists who have little or no training in philosophy properly discern
when a client has a philosophically based problem rather than a psychiatric
one?  Rather than fighting with one another, surely it is in the best interests
of the clients if philosophical counsellors, psychologists, and all varieties
of therapists recognize the benefits of studying and learning from the
multifaceted approaches to therapy.

Link: Pierre
Grimes’ website

© John H. Spencer

John H Spencer is currently completing
his Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Liverpool, UK, under the
supervision of Prof. Stephen R. L. Clark.  His thesis title is "The
Metaphysical Foundations of Science and Religion" and his other main
(related) interest is in exploring the relationship between philosophical
counselling and other forms of therapy.  Also see the University of Liverpool Interdisciplinary Forum homepage at www.liverpoolidf.com

Categories: Philosophical, Psychology