Indeed it does. What leads us to reject that notion as soon as we hear it, and believe that the earth is round? Other than that it was taught in school, and still is; all that we do and say to nearly everyone else in the world is based on their belief of it. That the earth is round, a sphere, and goes around the sun, explains many things. Like you can go around it, satellites encircle it, it is day on the other side of the world when it is night here, and vice versa, and is summer in the southern hemisphere when it is winter in the northern, and so on. Still, that the earth is round is a COUNTERINTUITIVE notion - our senses tell us differently. However, the explaining of those 'many things' is an example of a COMPREHENSIVE SATISFYING EXPLAINATION - a CSE. No one of these things may be the 'smoking gun' proof - but all of them together add up to the incontrovertible conclusion.



Evolution, as a scientific theory, is also counterintuitive. In the end there is no smoking-gun proof for it either, but it is a CSE for many phenomena and observations. In the twentieth century, RELATIVITY and QUANTUM MECHANICS are among the scientific theories that are counterintuitive. Among the eyebrow-raising things that quantum mechanics says is that elementary particles like electrons behave like waves, and particles - at the same time! And that elementary particles can be in two places at the same time (would'nt you love to do that?)

Counterintuitive theories and notions have greatly assisted technology and our quality of life, ranging from the obvious - global transportation and communications, satellites; to our GPS systems (relativity), ecosystems (evolution), and semiconductors, integrated circuits, flourescent lights and magnetic resonance imaging (quantum mechanics).

Many people - and not just clergy - point out that it is counterintuitive to believe in God. I see you, and myself, and the chair across the room - but I dont see God here. This would appear to be a belief that depends solely on faith. But for many centuries philosophers held that there were "proofs" for the existence of God, which looked like our CSEs. However this may or may not be accepted by today's philosophers, it is certainly true that comprehensive satisfying explainations underlie a wide variety of truths that we hold, or "believe in".

A basic but counterintuitive truth taught in mystery schools and in Jungian psychology is the Greater Self - extending from our conscious Ego to everything, the limits of space and time. To this powerful concept, often so dubious to newcomers, there is no 'smoking gun' proof: Rather, a comprehensive satisfying explaination - a CSE. It explains archetypes: why people continents apart are so similar when called upon to be a controller, a judge, a critic, a mother. It explains childhood fears, and why so often in later childhood the fear is replaced by intense curiosity. It explains why folklore legends around the world, from cultures that had no physical contact, are as similar as they are.

Mankind has often struggled to come to terms with the counterintuitive truths, accepting one and from that stance rejecting others. In the 17th century the clergy, accepting counterintuitive God, rejected the counterintuitive idea that the earth is round, and revolved about the sun. And even Albert Einstein, the father of counterintuitive relativity, rejected many of the truths of quantum mechanics. The reverse also happened among many scientists of the early 20th century, as they accepted quantum mechanics but rejected relativity, although the Nazi movement, anti-Jewish and therefore anti-Einstein, may have had something to do with that.

In our own lives, we may find that we too may reject the counterintuitive. We find 'credibility gaps' in everything from politics to the weather. Like so many that have gone before us, ranging from the Inquisitors to Einstein, there is a limit to what we accept, and beyond that we draw the line.

Accepting the counterintuitive parts of ourselves-

Knowing about archetypes, we recognize the parts of ourselves that do the accepting - the dreamer, the 'includer' committed to pushing the horizon outward; the goal-seeker, with his/her vision far beyond what his physical eyes would see. And the part that draws the line - the critic, the cynic, and in particular the defender. The defender is the limiter. Yet even Galileo, and Bruno, had a defender part of themselves; and even the Inquisitors at their respective Inquisitions had their goal-seeker and dreamer parts of themselves. It is and always was a matter of what we really want to be, and from where in ourselves we make the decision to be it. We cant be sure whether in all cases a person's success came from making the decision from the centered, non-judgmental place in himself. But we can be all but certain that his failure will come from making it from an off-center place.

Going into coaching is where you are re-introduced to the different parts of yourself with their different and oftentimes conflicting values. And where you learn that the point of credibility where you have 'drawn the line' is in fact a line drawn by only one particular part of yourself - and not necessarily the part from which you would want to make the decisions of what you will do and become in life.

Copyright (c) 2008 Dave Smart