Glo/Non-dual Ecopsychology

[Guest guest]

>Glo:

>The reason why psychology is sterile and most therapy doesn't work is that

>the "self" that mainstream psychologies describe and purport to heal doesn't

>exist. It is a social fiction.

 

Dan: Glo, as a practicing psychologist, I don't feel psychology is

sterile, and I wouldn't be continuing to do this work if I didn't receive

consistent feedback about therapy "working" (there are many different ways

it can work).

Do you consider awareness a fiction, too? Does therapy not deal with

awareness? And what of "social fictions" such as self and other. Is not

are social fabric and important aspect of how we humans live and how we

contribute our energy? Further - what about racism, sexism, agism,

classism? Social fictions. Therefore not worth examining?

 

Now, this self that is a "social fiction"... who is it that is able to look

at this and determine it's a fiction? Who are you writing this letter?

Zen Buddhism, which clearly points to recognizing the self as social

fiction, also clearly points to the following: if you don't get it from

yourself, where will you get it? Thus, it seems there is a paradox at the

heart of Buddhism,

a paradox that isn't resolved by saying there is no self, or the self is a

social fiction. The self can't be said to exist or not exist. This isn't

the same thing as saying there is no self. There is no continuing,

permanent self identity. This doesn't mean there is no self. Buddhism

indicates that karma is constructed and "carried". Constructed and carried

by whom? Buddhism points us in a direction where conceputalization doesn't

"fit" anymore, where ideas about self or not-self don't "get it". Similar

moments can occur in therapy (although the aims of Buddhism can be

considered somewhat different), when a person reaches an instant where the

old concepts don't work and new concepts are not in place. This "creative

void" was an important aspect of Fritz Perls' (flawed as he was)

contribution to theory about therapy.

 

Therapy is one way to look at important basic questions: who am I?, where

I am going?, where do I come from, how do I go about this? A unique and

valuable aspect of counseling is that it provides an ongoing dialogue as a

means for self-examination, a unique kind of mirror is provided (hopefully

with compassion). In fact, counseling can be done from a nondual

perspective, believe it or not. A nondual perspective means being able to

resonate with persons, be able to recognize the "shared ground" as well as

the ways that "illusory concepts" can affect lives. Therapy in some ways

can be viewed as an encounter in a bardo-realm.

 

I've found that therapy can provide a useful dialogue about decisions in

relationships (do I stay or invest energy?), the effects of past experience

in the present, and abilities to deal with life "presently". Therapy that

works leads a person toward greater balance, awareness of how they direct

energy, ability to notice the consequences of thoughts and feelings; often

there are positive effects from releasing distorted self-thoughts, such as

self-blame, over-responsibility, guilt, negativity toward self and others.

Good therapy enhances openness, supports questioning, and is compatible

with spiritual awakening, although its focus is definitely more "worldly".

Being able to function well in the world (according to one's own

perspective of this) has

value, even if the person decides later to "renounce the world". I'd go so

far as to say that it is possible to live well in the world simultaneously

with renouncing it. There is no need to retreat to a monastery, forest, or

cave - perhaps that isn't even the most useful form of "renunciation" in

our present age.

>In reality the human personality exists at

>the intersection of the ancient cycles of air and water and soil. Without

>these there is no self and any attempt to heal the personality that doesn't

>acknowledge this fundamental fact is doomed to failure. There is no "self"

>without air and water and soil. Incredible amounts of energy go into futile

>attempts to heal what is really a fictitious self while our actual,

>ecological self suffocates.

>

>Some of the best thinking on Ecopsychology comes from the neo-Jungian James

>Hillman. In his "100 Years of Psychotherapy and the World's Getting Worse",

>Hillman blames a lot of the social and environmental problems that we face

>on the fact that the people who should be out there changing the world are

>in therapy instead. They treat their pain as a symptom of a personal

>pathology rather than as a goad to political action to bring about social

>change. Therapists create patients instead of citizens.

 

Therapists simply provide a service. They don't have the power to "make"

someone into anything. The people I work with are clients and I'm a

consultant. I'm not a medical doctor and they aren't my patients. A great

deal of harm has been done by those claiming their "political action" would

improve the world, so I'm quite leery of "calls to arms".

>People are willing to die by the millions in defense of one social fiction

>after another - a religion or political system or ideology. Yet attacks on

>the Earth which gave rise to all of these and without which none could

>exist, leave us numb.

>

>Because we haven't learned to identify with the living Earth, She fails to

>ignite in us anything near the passion and commitment that some of her

>lesser works manage to do. Though we are born, live and die in her, we have

>made ourselves unconscious of this. As Woody Allen said: "The Earth and I

>are two."

>

>

>"As long as the environment is "out there", we may leave it to some

>special interest group like environmentalists to protect while we look after

>our "selves". The matter changes when we deeply realise that the nature

>"out there" and the nature "in here" are one and the same, that the sense of

>separation no matter how pervasive, is nonetheless totally illusory. I would

>call the need for such realisation the central psychological or spiritual

>challenge of our age. "

 

I like that quote. It's very much to the point. Thanks.

 

O.K. Climbing down from my soapbox, now. By the way, I found your letter

on this topic very stimulating and thoughtful. Don't be put off by my

"self-serving" reaction. I take James Hillman's prescriptions about what

people "should be doing" with a grain of salt, as I take all prescriptions

about what we "should be doingshould be capable ofshould be striving

for" etc. (these shoulds often substitute for compassion within and between

"selves"). I like the tradition from which he comes and he's a good

writer. Jung's theory was a helpful guide for dreamwork, although my

greatest guide was a wisewoman named Betty who led a dream group I was in

once.

 

Hey, James - jumps in world population, nationalism, industrialization,

technology, and individual and collective frustration and greed might all

be worth considering as one looks at the situation of the world. And who's

to say that the world is "getting worse"? How presumptuous. Perhaps if

one saw the "big picture" everything would be seen to be quite in place.

 

By the way, your point about our sexuality being an aspect of our

connection with the earth rings true to me. And it's a connection with the

fire of life, too. Not to mention opening to our connection with the

endless sky of awareness/beingness. And our connection with the sky opens

into...

 

Love, Dan

>John Seed, On Ecopsychology

>(http://www.gn.apc.org/schumachercollege/articles/jseed.htm)