Philosophical (sort of) aside - useful and not-so-useful fictions
I've read some about "Non-dualistic psychotherapy," and I know some people here have ties to those approaches and ways of thinking; and I respect that. I admit that the idea of 'the self" can be limiting and misleading as we go through life. Although I'm out on a little bit of an intellectual limb discussing this, I interpret these ideas to mean that we should allow people to envision themselves as part of a larger reality, and that the "non-dualism" refers to the "I and thou" dualism.
If I understand that correctly, I find that my Adlerian training provides a framework that allows for it. Some of the more hard-headed, Penn-and-Teller-ish people in my own field (Jack Trimpey and Albert Ellis come to mind) dismiss anything "transpersonal" as being unscientific, unprovable, and misleading when it comes to the business of daily living. In some respects, I would tend to agree with them. I like to focus on what works. But I have to respect the mindset that tries to think outside the box, as well.
I'd tend to put the "I and thou" dualism -- as well as the lack of the same -- under the headings of "fictions." To understand this, I go back to Hans Vaihinger, who strongly influenced Alfred Adler, and who first came up with the idea of "fictional finalism." This is behind the Adlerian therapy technique of acting "as-if" (not quite the same as "fake it till you make it," but close enough). It's also close to the phenomenological psychology approach that says we live in a world of subjective interpretations, rather than a hard reality.
So the self is a hypothetical construct. A useful fiction, at least most of the time. It comes in handy on Election Day, for one thing. Keeps things from getting out of hand.
But transcending the self, or dismissing conventionality, is also a hypothetical construct, a fiction if you will. It can be useful some of the time, too, but I think we need to be a little cautious..
When I was 16 years old, I had my one and only experience with hallucinogenic drugs, having taken what I believe was LSD while with some friends. It was not a good experience, and I wound up falling and injuring myself in a panic-stricken attempt to flee the situation. Part of the panic was the sudden and unexpected loss of the sense of self. Sensory input with no self to serve as backdrop became meaningless -- just so much frightening noise. Purposive behavior became impossible. The time distortions and visual distortions became secondary in the absence of the "carrier wave" or organizing principle of "me." A shot of Thorazine (treatment of choice in those days) administered as part of the first aid didn't exactly solve the problem - it partially returned my sense of self, but I started believing that I'd become unmoored from my physical body and was inhabiting fictional surroundings in my own imagination, kind of like the guy in John Varley's "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank." I got my being back, but not being-in-the-world. Until it all wore off, anyway. That, my friends, was a bad trip.
(Funny, back in those days they always called it "coming down," but for me the experience was more like coming slowly back "up" into normal reality from some hellish, subterranean place. Oh well. Kids: don't do drugs.)
So while mystics and practioners of Eastern traditions can find value in transcending the self, and ordinary reality, and letting go of the "illusions" of daily life, we have to accept the fact that those "illusions," and that organizing backdrop, are part of what being human is all about. Some thinkers, in the '60's and '70's especially, portrayed the villians as culture, and cultural constructs. That may be, and the question has made for some pretty entertaining SF books, from "Stranger in a Strange Land" to some of Varley's other, more gender-, mind-, and anatomy-bending excursions. (And whoever wrote that book - was it "James Tiptree, Jr"? - about the lesbian-only space colony where men were feared and loathed, and described as 'peckish.") And the dissolution of "self" as a frightening yet somehow intriguing prospect was admirably described in Greg Bear's "Blood Music."
And Don Juan seemed to have a lot more fun with hallucinogens than I did; pretty entertaining, he was.
But I digress.
My point was that illusions can be healthy. A number of studies of depressed people have found that they're actually more realistic in their appraisal of their circumstances than non-depressed people are. Happiness research has found the same thing. Living with the illusion that life is meaningful, predictable, safe, and civilized makes it easier to get through the week. The shattering of those illusions is a big part of what PTSD is all about. (the rest is probably instant neural flash-programming). One therapy technique I was trained in, EMDR, actually functions by "installing" what can really be regarded as replacement illusions in the person's mind. (They can be summed up as, "I'm going to be OK").
Life keeps getting better. People are good and will treat you well. Even "do unto others." They're all fictions, but pretty useful ones.
So as a therapist I just want to be sure that trading one set of illusions for another always keeps a set of adaptive and healthy ones in play, whether they're traditional or non-traditional.
So I guess "I" will keep on exchanging thoughts and ideas with those of "You" who are interested, and we'll keep stretching our minds and our perceptions, and in the process probably hang onto enough of our illusions not to get totally adrift in a pseudo-universe of perceived reality.
Now it's time for me to go vote for that dumpy, fat woman in the ugly shorts who keeps wagging her head with her mouth hanging open when she speaks, and who isn't capable of rational thought. At least that's what her opponent's commercials (Airing day and night for the past six months) would have us believe.

Help



