Author Topic: Critique of George Iber's, "Can we talk with animals?"  (Read 9 times)


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Critique of George Iber's, "Can we talk with animals?"
« on: July 25, 2014, 09:30:31 PM »
Hi George,

Regarding your article of April 2013

With all due respect to you personally, professionally, and as a colleague of mine in PGSG, I have to raise some objection to the topic of your article and the article itself.

Is there any relevance of the completely unverifiable claims of Teacher Ou's communication with bees and other animals to PGSG? Considering there are more relevant and important, not to mention verifiable claims about PGSG that can be reproduced by its teachers and students, and possibly studied in some objective manner, shouldn't this be of more importance?

Your article sounds like a way to rationalize Teacher Ou's story about the bees and, while the extent of animal and insect intelligence and communication is an interesting topic, you didn't relate it to anything that I can consider practical or meaningful to PGSG, except that it's connected to something Teacher Ou said. Frankly, I find it a bit embarrassing as a PGSG teacher to see such a topic discussed publicly and I can only guess that you published it because of your surprise of hearing such an incredible story, which you hinted at in the article.

I have always been disappointed by the lack of critical feedback by PGSG students and teachers to Teacher Ou, who, as far as I know, has never solicited such feedback, partly due to the uncommunicative nature of his native culture, which does not promote critical analysis as we know it in the West. I'm sure that Teacher Ou can handle such feedback and put it into a proper and useful perspective, resulting in something more beneficial than these Dr. Doolittle tales of fancy.

I've also been disappointed about the lack of progress in PGSG curricula, so seeing time spent on more articles like this, or the one thousandth nearly identical and medically undocumented testimonial, seems to be omitting a rather obvious need to push forward with more meaningful exploration of PGSG's value as a healing method. This disappointment is amplified by going off into more nebulous and less effective methods, such as the chanting also mentioned in your article.

Considering the length of time that Teacher Ou has been living in the USA, and in an effort to translate PGSG culturally into this environment, it's time to put some pressure on the PGSG Institute to engage in some of the critical feedback and analysis common to the academic and medical fields where it is being most heavily promoted, in North America, and this definitely excludes musings about talking to bees when another topic about the health benefits of the practice is more relevant and potentially of critical importance to both existing and potential students.

Michael Udel