Energy Psychology in Psychotherapy: A Comprehensive Source Book

Fred P. Gallo

Overview – Excerpt – Table of Contents

Introduction: New Energy for Psychotherapy

       Fred P. Gallo, Ph.D.

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts, the rest are details.
        Albert Einstein

Billions of years ago, for the who knows which zillionth time, a concentrated amorphous plasma, little more than a few centimeters in diameter, enfolded into itself—no signs of atoms, only an implicate design, cosmic “DNA” ready to burst forth. God held the unformedness in the palm of His hand, squeezing it with a force that only God is capable of, and then releasing it—joining it on the journey outward, the Big Bang. And God said, "Let there be light." And within that coherent light, all of the information needed to unfold new realities was conceived. As the primordial stuff spread outward, space entering its being, quarks formed with their various manifestations that physicists call up, down, charm, strange, top and bottom, as well as antiparticles. Hundreds of tiny pieces of being began to relate to one other: positron, muon, pion, lepton, boson, photon, gluon, w and z particles, tauon, neutrino, and more. All coming together to form electrons, protons, neutrons, and thus atoms.

Differentiation: the first atom, hydrogen. One electron relating to a nucleus. And, in time, more differentiation: two electrons, three, four, and all the way to 92. Pythagoras would be proud! While at a fundamental level reality is composed of the same stuff again and again, the arrangement and the numbers become the difference that make the difference: configurations of matter and energy and the fields that hold it all together. It has been estimated that if we could magnify an atom to the size of St. Peter’s Cathedral, its nucleus would approximate the size of a grain of sand, while its electrons would be pulsating specks of dust over ten stories away, undetectable to the naked eye—which is itself comprised of electrons, neutrons, protons, and all those even tinier particles (or are they waves?). Add in to all this mix a lot of space for movement, and we get a reality held together by the four known forces of gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force.

God said, "Let there be life." And moments later, after the stars and the planets emerged, the oceans and rivers and clouds, the plants and the animals—humanity stepped forth—in the words of physicist William Tiller (1997) "babies ‘crawling on the floor of the universe’" (p. 2). And as we crawled, we evolved in consciousness; we developed mind. Humanity reflecting on this creation event: in a very real sense, humanity is the universe reflecting on itself. Philosopher Martin Heidegger (1962) referred to our kind of consciousness as dasein or there being: being-in-the-world. We are the kind of consciousness capable of being conscious of being conscious.

From Philosophy to Physics

Various thinkers throughout history have attempted to make sense of this reality we call life and world, looking for that which is most fundamental. Heraclitis said that all is change, and that we cannot step into the same river twice. His followers differentiated the nuance, “We cannot step into the same river but once.” Democrates spoke of atoms and said that while there appears to be change, this is an illusion, since the fundamental particles remain unchangeable. Thales opined that water is the most fundamental. Plato gave priority to the world of ideas and essences. And the list goes on and on from Aristotle to St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, the various scholastics, Avicenna and other Islamics, each making a stab at “What’s it all about?”

Descartes differentiated between mind and matter, prioritizing mind, which was a useful dichotomy at the time. Now we are recognizing Descartes’ error; mind and matter and spirit are not all that distinct. And then came Kant who taught us about the limits of pure reason, the need for the empirical, and in the process to make room for faith. Hegel showed us that, among many other things, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Husserl’s phenomenological reduction led to perceiving consciousness as intentional—that is, as consciousness of something—and also highlighted the relevance of presuppositions.

From philosophy came physics, or natural philosophy. In astronomy, Ptolemy championed the geocentric model of cosmology, thus usefully misleading everyone for 1,400 years. Copernicus turned it all around, helping us to become a little less self-centered. In time, no longer was the earth and humanity to be seen as so distinct from the rest of the universe, the rest of nature. Kepler held all sorts of mystical beliefs, made extraordinary mistakes in his investigations—yet managed to discover the three laws of planetary motion, which led to the formation of modern physics. He also held that all scientific statements must be testable by observation. Kant and Popper wholeheartedly agreed.¹ Galileo made interesting discoveries about gravity and enlightened us to the Law of Inertia, which disproved Aristotle’s had belief: namely that forces are necessary to keep objects in motion.

And then along came Newton and his laws of motion, the first being in agreement with Galileo on inertia, and the other two (force = mass X acceleration, and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) still familiar to most of us even if we never took physics. Newton also elucidated the law of Universal Gravitation. Here we are in 1687 with the publication of Principia Mathematica, and Newton’s paradigm begins to resonate throughout Western culture.

A little over two centuries and a decade and a half later, Einstein proposed a huge shift. The views of Kepler, Galileo, Newton and others became incorporated into a wider perspective as Einstein led us to the new worldview that matter and energy are interconvertible aspects of the same basic reality. Now we learn that there are no absolute frames of reference and no absolute velocities, all velocities being relative, although the speed of light is a constant. Time suddenly is not always so universally fixed. Space and time are not so distinct. And the position of the observer has remarkable bearing and influence on what we detect, on what we discover. The perspective of the observer now becomes a most fundamental constituent of reality. Or should we say realities?

Shortly thereafter our sense of reality tilted again as quantum theory proposed that energy is contained in discontinuous packets, that probability is more the rule than determinism, that the universe evidences non-local connections, and that some level of consciousness seems to pervade all aspects of reality. Mind appears to be implicit within matter and energy. Have the theologians and mystics been right all along? In the history of science we have had to divorce ourselves from the authoritarian “because-I-told-you-so” frame of mind of the old style metaphysics. It was not enough, or even fair, to play the game of science in that way. To qualify as science, a rather different approach was required.

From Physics to Psychology

Now what can we say about psychology, which is much younger in its approach to science than physics? Some would have it that psychology cannot join the League of Natural Sciences; psychology, it is claimed, is a human science that cannot be studied in the quantitative ways of physics and chemistry, although psychology is a branch of biology. True enough, the human experience appears to be distinct from many other aspects of nature. A rock is not the equivalent of a human brain, in most instances. But our divorce from nature has been greatly exaggerated; this separation is not everything that it’s cracked up to be. Nature is rather our kinship. I believe that consciousness and mind pervade the whole of being, not merely obvious life forms.

Throughout the history of psychology and psychotherapy theorists and clinicians have attempted to make sense of psychological conditions, states of consciousness, and how therapeutic change occurs. The results: We now have multitudes of ways to conceptualize human functioning and to treat psychological problems. The conceptualizations or theories are important because they guide research and shape the therapeutic process. Some have concluded that theory is unnecessary, but the simple fact is, even if we are not explicit about our theory or deny we have one, nonetheless a theory will be implicit in the therapeutic interaction. So one might as well be conscious of one’s theory. Of course, we should always bear in mind that theories are merely useful fictions and not truth, (although we certainly hope that they somehow parallel the truth), so we should not get too attached to them. Rather we should be ready to revamp them when they do not meet the empirical test. Although a useful psychological theory should be internally consistent, at the same time its purpose is pragmatic; the theory should mirror aspects of human reality for clinicians rather than being used as a mold into which patients must squeeze their reality.

One way of viewing human behavior is from a psychodynamic perspective that posits conscious and unconscious interpsychic and interpersonal dynamics as causal factors of psychopathology. A wide array of permutations along these lines has been explored for a goodly part of the 20th century, leaving us with rich theoretical legacies from Freud, Jung, Adler, Fromm, Horney, Sullivan, Klein, Kohut, and others. No doubt psychodynamics play a role in our functioning and some, such as Diamond (1985), have even attempted to integrate these understandings into an energy psychology model, highlighting the interrelationship of acupuncture meridians, emotions, and psychoanalysis.

Around the time that psychodynamic positions were first being formulated, a behavioral perspective was also emerging with the work of Pavlov, which was expanded through the work of Thorndike, Guthrie, Hull, Watson, Tolman, Skinner, and others. The behavioral perspective cites environmental factors (stimulus-response) and conditioning principles as determinants of behavior. Of course, there are radical and softer versions of this model, with some being unwilling to peer inside the black box and others, such as Tolman who viewed behavior as not simply mechanical but purposive. Nonetheless environmental factors and conditioning can be singled out as playing a significant role in our functioning.

Human behavior can be viewed also from developmental perspectives, which attend to sequential stages, individuation, fixations, manifestations of the innate, nurture interacting with nature. Here theorists and clinicians attempt to understand cognition, morality, and various personality factors as not being simply a function of environmental influences but also including the innate in the formula. Of course, these perspectives are often consistent with psychodynamic theories. The positions of Freud, Piaget, Kohlberg, Bion, Kohut, Stern, and others come to mind.

Human behavior also can be seen from a systemic-cybernetic perspective, attending to the various human contexts of family, workplace, community, culture, etc. In this regard psychopathology may be viewed as manifestations of cybernetic machine-like interactions, the direction of causality often being seen as mere punctuation. Here symptoms can be viewed in terms of relationship interactions, attempts at solutions, ways of exercising control, structural dynamics, etc. Even internal states can be understood as recursive healthy or pathologic systemic patterns. Treatment thus focuses on reordering internal and interpersonal systemic processes so as to foster mental health.

The cognitive perspective of human behavior focuses on the interrelationship of language and emotions, and the internalization and processing of information acquired through our senses. Our thoughts and emotions appear to be fundamentally interconnected to the extent that although one might conclude either that thought causes feelings or that feelings cause thoughts, we can only be certain that thought and feelings occur simultaneously. The cognitive perspective highlights the importance of internal processing; there is more to human functioning than simple stimulus-response bonds. The meaning of a stimulus or event is a function of the perspective of the observer, so that experientially there is no reality beyond perception. Therapeutic intervention therefore focuses on the internal representations that mediate our experience.

Human functioning can also be seen as a manifestation of neurology. Various brain structures have been shown to be instrumental with regard to cognitive, emotional, and other processes. For instance, the left hemisphere is considered to be the primary location of analytical processing, the amygdala is involved in emotional responsiveness, the hippocampus is relevant to memory, and the hypothalamus regulates basic drives of hunger, thirst, sex, and aggression. Nonetheless, these relationships may not be so clear cut in view of the fact that memory engrams, which Lashley (1950) set out to precisely locate, appear to be diffuse rather than encapsulated, thus suggesting a holographic model of the brain (Pribram, 1962). Nonetheless the nervous system, and especially the brain, plays a significant role in human behavior.

The chemical domain—neurotransmitters, hormones, and other biochemical substances—appears to play a crucial role in determining baseline levels of psychological health and pathology. For example, depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder are now known to involve neurotransmitters such as serotonin and norepinephrine, not to mention psychotic disorders and their association with dopamine levels. Cravings for cocaine appear to be at least partly related to dopamine availability. Researcher Candace Pert (1997) has discussed the “molecules of emotion”—neuropeptide—in determining the many oscillations in mood and emotions.

Energy Psychology

There is yet another way of perceiving human functioning. Everything in our universe is comprised of matter and energy. Energy is the more fundamental of the two in that matter is condensed energy. Einstein observed that matter and energy are interchangeable manifestations of the same basic reality. Research in subatomic quantum physics has revealed that electrons, the most elemental particles, can be either particles or waves, depending upon the experiment being conducted. All of these particles/waves are actually energy held together in, and by, forces and fields. The four known forces—gravity, electromagnetism, the nuclear force, and strong force—are distinguishable from matter and energy in that they function as blueprints.² The structure of the energy can be referred to as information—literally in formation. Information comes about as a result of the interaction of energy and fields, which “packs” energy into specific shapes and arrangements (matter). These arrangements are variably referred to as hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, carbon dioxide, proteins, etc. The fundamental constituents of the arrangements are essentially the same; the differences in our manifest world are a function of the arrangement or shape and numbers of elements. The periodic table, from our high school chemistry days, lists the least to the most complex: from hydrogen, helium, and lithium to and thorium, protactinium, and uranium. These elements, in turn, form the rest of our physical world. The same basic principle holds true in relation to human functioning: The distinctions between various sections of the brain, for example, have to do with the arrangements or shape and numbers of elements—the information of energy structures within matter. Envision matter as a still pond, energy as the force that disturbs the stillness by tossing in pebbles and rocks, and information as the ripples created by the impact.

Beyond Energy Psychology

The various components or divisions we use to talk about the human experience—behavioral, neurological, chemical, cognitive, intrapsychic, systemic, energetic, etc.—are useful but artificial categories. In many instances it may be sufficient and pragmatic to think about a phenomenon as being primarily a function of one “system” as compared to others; however, it should be borne in mind that such differentiation is merely a useful illusion. I recall the day in my high school biology class when the various systems of the body were defined and the teacher asked, “What is the most important system?” Many opted for the nervous system. However, the obvious quickly comes to mind. Where would the nervous system be without nourishment? Without muscles to move about? Without neurochemicals and the endocrine system? Without a skeletal system to contain the brain, to support muscles so that we can move? Without the opportunity to procreate? Without the ability to see, to hear, to taste, to smell, to feel? Thus systems of the body are not independent realities, just as theoretical positions are merely ways of punctuating reality that allows us to make sense of it and to predict it. One way by which we determine the value of a theory is its usefulness: A theory should be practical, making it possible to achieve outcomes.

Many theoretical approaches to fathoming human beingness have been Newtonian-like in orientation. In this new effort to discern the fundamental constituents of reality, we view the human experience and psychological functioning from the wider perspective of energy and information fields, an approach much more in tune with the findings of physics during the early years of the 20th century, as we set out to explore the 21st century.

If these energy approaches that we find to be so highly efficient and effective are to take root and flourish, they must be planted in fertile ground. To allow these understandings and technologies to germinate on the surface of solid rock would result in their rapid demise. A bridge must be constructed between energy psychology solutions to the anomalous and the findings of established science. Surely energy does not stand alone. It interacts with matter (inertial energy) and, within the course of that interaction, information is born.

Solid research is needed to investigate the effectiveness of these "energetic approaches to emotional healing" (Hover-Kramer & Shames, 1997) and all the other facets of the energy diamond, including energetic diagnosis, peak performance, enhanced learning, and so forth. However, research in itself will not be sufficient. A plethora of acceptable empirical data exist on the effectiveness of homeopathy, acupuncture, and prayer, and findings are beginning to emerge on the so-called "power therapies" of EMDR, thought field therapy, visual-kinesthetic dissociation, and traumatic incident reduction (Figley & Carbonell, 1999; Gallo, 1996a, 1996b, 1998)—and still there is resistance. Dan Benor (1992) reviewed hundreds of studies that demonstrated the effectiveness of various healer interventions. Solid data are already available. Certainly more is needed, but more data is not the entire answer. Historically scientific paradigms have not shifted simply as a result of mounting anomalous data. While recognizing the anomalous and the limitations of a paradigm are necessary events, “[the] crucial step toward recognition and acceptance [of a new approach] by the [scientific] community is conceptual work toward explanatory scientific theories and a paradigm that would accommodate them” (Rubik, 1995, p.34). This is also the greatest challenge to those researching and practicing in the fields of energy psychology and psychotherapy.

In-Formation

How do we go about constructing such a bridge? What shall it be made of? How shall it be fashioned? In the chapters that follow, the construction begins to take form as various pioneers of this emerging discipline offer their individual perspectives.

As to the composition of this bridge, at one level of unification, as noted, we can look to information. The structure of thought fields (information fields) is similar to molecules and DNA, which are informational structures accepted by the established hard sciences. The distinction between order (pattern) and entropy (disorder or absence of pattern), that has relevance to physics, is also fundamental to the structure of information. Psychological disorders have a structure, an implicate order, information. The alleviation of such conditions is achieved by disassembling that structure, collapsing or subsuming the information, disrupting or perturbing the order of the disorder so that a new healthy order may be instilled, causing the order of the disorder to entropy.

We can also extend Bell’s theorem³ to the interaction between healer and patient, wherein consciousness and the intentionality of the healer and patient are causal due to the resonating effects of energy and the information contained therein. This is similar to the concept of active information proposed by Bohm & Hiley (1993): “The basic idea of active information is that a form having very little energy enters into and directs a much greater energy. The activity of the latter is in this way given a form similar to that of the smaller energy” (p. 35). For example, subtle radio waves literally in-form the receiver, which in turn trans-forms the signals to a level of intensity that we are able to hear. Rubik (1995) notes that “the conscious intention of the healer to heal may be manifested everywhere but is active only on the patient for whom the message is intended. The idea of active information implies that matter has a mind-like quality. It also implies that information may be causal” (p. 39).

Scientific Theories⁴

Science affords us the means of making discoveries possible by observing, describing, and making predictions about reality. However, the premises of the scientific method also filter our perceptions in distinct ways by placing a framework around what is perceivable. Even theory based on scientific discoveries involves deletion, distortion, and generalization. Werner Heisenberg (1966), the renowned Nobel physicist, said that our observations of nature are not statements about nature itself, but rather statements about nature as circumscribed by our methods of questioning. In addition, organic limitations abound, given that we observe the world through our senses. Science progresses in part as our ability to perceive is refined.

Gregory Bateson (1979) described information as “news of difference” and observed that “all perception of difference is limited by threshold” (p. 29). The tuning level of our sensory organs determines this threshold, which is set to facilitate our ability to effectively navigate our environment. Differences too fine to impact our sensoria are not perceived. These organic limitations invariably have a bearing on the scientific models we create.

The telescope, microscope, x-ray, and magnetic resonance technology have extended our perceptual abilities and had profound implications for science. As we developed technology to measure time more precisely, science advanced again. As technology improves our ability to detect differences, theories predating such technological advances often require radical revision or are sent to the theory junkyard. Does manual muscle-testing, properly applied, extend our perceptual abilities and our scientific theories as well? Will neurofeedback and other types of biomonitoring advance our energetic and consciousness theories even further?

The theories proposed by Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, and Freud changed people’s perception of their world. New models refocus our attention to make former “blind spots” visible. Theoretical shifts direct our attention to ask new questions and to fashion new experiments, which in turn require the development of new technology capable of advancing our sensory acuity. Thus science evolves through both theory development and advancement of our means of perceiving and measuring differences.

Scientific Revolutions

We also strive to develop unified laws that can make predictions across contexts. Thus laws that predict behavior equally well in biological and physical systems are preferred over context-specific laws. The survival and utility of a theory depends upon how well it adheres to basic rules of assembly. In order for a new theory to be accepted, there must be phenomena that cannot be accounted for by currently accepted theory. The new theory must be able to explain and make accurate predictions about the anomalous, such that the anomalous ceases to be unexpected.

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn (1962) refers to recognition of an anomaly as the first step in a paradigm shift. This recognition has a three-part structure, similar to the Test®Operation®Test®Exit (TOTE) Model proposed by Miller, Galanter, and Pribram (1960). The initial test phase begins with awareness of the anomaly, for which existing theory cannot account. The operation phase involves a detailed exploration of the anomaly. Next there is a further test phase to determine if the paradigm-theory has accounted for the anomalous. Assuming that the new conceptualization meets the test of nature, we exit the operation. Such a need to explain newly observed phenomena and to extend the precision and scope of prediction has existed in the field of psychology since its beginning.

During the genesis of a scientific discipline, attempts are made to unify apparently disconnected observations. For example, at one time electricity, magnetism and light were considered to be unrelated phenomena; now we know they are different properties of an electromagnetic field. Finding a unification theory is the primary objective of science today, and the field of psychology is no exception. Our aim should be to advance a unified theory, capable of aggregating the elements of brain, mind, behavior, information, and energy in such a way that significantly increases the scope and precision of psychological research, development, and intervention.

In the development of a unified theory, scientists must search for the most fundamental level of description possible, a description that is ubiquitous to all of the elements that make up the aggregate to be described. Thus, again, the electromagnetic field represents the unification of electricity, magnetism, and light. What theory will unify the essence, structure, and functioning of brain, mind, behavior, information, and energy?

Pattern (Information) and Entropy

Theoretical physicist Erwin Schrodinger (1944) articulated a fundamental level of description that is of relevance to our considerations: what can be referred to as pattern or order. He observed that all things attempt to counterbalance disorder or entropy by the production of order, structure, and pattern. As defined by the second law of thermodynamics, entropy is the degree of randomness among components of any aggregate. Entropy is the absence or loss of pattern, structure, and therefore information; it is a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Schrodinger coined the term negentropy to indicate the degree of ordering, sorting, or predictability in an aggregate. A dramatic example of counterbalancing entropy via pattern formation can be found in the dynamic balance between life and death. In thermodynamics terms, death is the state of maximum entropy between aggregates of a biological system. Maximum entropy is reached when a system of aggregates is in a state of thermal, chemical and mechanical or thermodynamic equilibrium. When maximum entropy is reached, the incorporation of pattern, order, structure, and information is impossible.

Schrodinger distinguished between the organic and inorganic, noting that life counterbalances the tendency toward entropy by incorporating order, pattern, and information available from the environment. As we view ourselves through this paradigm, it becomes clear that we are literally consumers of information. We consume information in order to maintain our psychological stability; the consumption of food, oxygen, and light—information patterns—also deters entropy. Thus we are comprised of energy, matter, and information. Within this dynamic interaction, consciousness and mind also thrive.

Scientific Theaters

Nonetheless, in all humbleness, this unifying concept of information can only be correct or helpful to a point. As noted earlier, all theories are merely theaters (thea means, the act of seeing) from which reality is viewed; they are not reality itself. Scientific theories can only hope to mimic, but never equal, the magnificence and wonder of nature. “The most that a new model, metaphor, or concept in science can give us is the gift of new questions, because discoveries are driven by posing new questions of nature, who then responds to us in a new language” (Rubik, 1995, p. 39). In a somewhat more shocking vein, we have the words of Sir James Jeans (1981), the great English mathematician, astronomer, and physicist:

…[T]he physical theory of relativity has now shown … that the electric and magnetic forces are not real at all; they are mere mental constructs of our own, resulting from our rather misguided efforts to understand the motion of particles. It is the same with the Newtonian force of gravitation, and with energy, momentum and other concepts which were introduced to help us understand the activities of the world—all prove to be mere mental constructs, and do not even pass the test of objectivity. (p. 171)

Returning to our earlier musing, who shall build this bridge to the sciences? Who shall conduct this research and theoretical work? In Energy Psychology in Psychotherapy we witness the beginnings of an effort to explore the possibilities before us. Yet in the course of our explorations, we must be true to our individual paths if our work is to remain connected to our creative energies. Unity in diversity is not a problem so long as we realize that we are simply exploring various facets of the same diamond.

Don Juan tells Carlos about the lessons of the Datura plant, the "devil's weed," which he abandoned years ago after almost dying while trying to use it. He could have avoided the pain if he had known what he now explains to Carlos. The devil's weed is no different from any other path:

Therefore you must always keep in mind that a path is only a path; if you feel you should not follow it, you must not stay with it under any conditions. To have such clarity you must lead a disciplined life. Only then will you know that any path is only a path, and there is no affront, to oneself or to others, in dropping it if that is what your heart tells you to do. But your decision to keep on the path or to leave it must be free of fear or ambition. Look at every path closely and deliberately. Try it as many times as you think necessary. All paths are the same: they lead nowhere. In my own life I could say I have traversed long, long paths, but I am not anywhere. They are paths going through the bush, or into the bush [but] does this path have a heart? If it does, the path is good; if it doesn't, it is of no use. Both paths lead nowhere; but one has a heart, the other doesn't. One makes for a joyful journey; as long as you follow it, you are one with it. The other will make you curse your life. One makes you strong; the other weakens you. (Castenada, 1968, pp. 106—7)

References

Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: E. P. Dutton.

Benor, D. J. (1992). Healing research: Holistic energy medicine and spirituality (Volume 1). UK: Helix.

Bohm, D., & Hiley, B. J. (1993). The undivided universe. London: Routledge.

Castaneda, C. (1968). The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui way of knowing. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Diamond, J. (1985). Life energy. New York: Peragon House.

Figley, C., & Carbonell, J. L. (1999). Promising PTSD treatment approaches: A systematic clinical demonstration of promising PTSD treatment approaches. Electronic journal of traumatology, 5(1). Available at http://www.fsu.edu/~trauma/.

Furman, M. E., & Gallo, F. P. (2000). The neurophysics of human behavior: Explorations at the

interface of brain, mind, behavior, and information. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Gallo, F. P. (1996a). Reflections on active ingredients in efficient treatments of PTSD, Part 1.

Electronic Journal of Traumatology, 2(1). Available at http://www.fsu.edu/~trauma/.

Gallo, F. P. (1996b). Reflections on active ingredients in efficient treatments of PTSD, Part 2. Electronic Journal of Traumatology, 2(2). Available at http://www.fsu.edu/~trauma/.

Gallo, F. P. (1998). Energy psychology: Explorations at the interface of energy, cognition, behavior, and health. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Heiddegger, M. (1962). Being and time. London: Harper & Row.

Heisenberg, W. (1966). Philosophic problems of nuclear science. Greenwich: Fawcett.

Hover-Kramer, D., and Shames, K. H. (1997). Energetic approaches to emotional healing. Albany, NY: Delmar.

Jeans, J. (1981). Physics and philosophy. New York: Dover.

Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1979). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Adams-Bannister-Cox.

Pert, C. (1997). Molecules of emotion: Why you feel the way you feel. New York: Scribner.

Rubik, B. (1995). Energy medicine and the unifying concept of information. Alternative Therapies, March, 1(1).

Schrodinger, E. (1944). What is life? With mind and matter and autobiographical sketches. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tiller, W. A. (1997). Science and human transformation: Subtle energies, intentionality and consciousness. Walut Creek, CA: Pavior Publishing.

Zukav, G. (1999). The seat of the soul. New York: Simon & Schuster.

ISBN: 0-393-70346-0
September, 2002
Hardback, 466 pages