Search

This article summarizes my existential–integrative (EI) model of therapy, with an emphasis on the experiential level of contact. The experiential (or being) level of contact comprises 4 basic dimensions—the immediate, the affective, the kinesthetic, and the profound (or cosmic). The engagement of the experiential level of contact is contingent on clients' readiness and capacity for intensive, whole-bodied awareness; it may or may not be relevant for clients requiring more externalized (e.g., cognitive–behavioral) levels of change. The value of the experiential level of contact resides in its promotion of a profound capacity for choice. This whole-bodied capacity is elaborated, and a therapeutic case is provided to illustrate.

This article raises two basic questions: What is humanistic psychology's relevance to post 9/11/2001? and, Can that relevance be practically applied to daily life? To address these questions, the author elaborates a humanistic concept that he calls the “fluid center.” The fluid center is an “awe-based” consciousness exemplified by playful constraint, humble daring, and reverent adventurousness. Whereas 9/11 represented the triumph of personal and interpersonal polarization (e.g., arrogance, humiliation), the fluid center, by contrast, represents the opportunity for personal and interpersonal revitalization (e.g., openness, dialogue). To illustrate this position, the author proposes two social visions that draw on the fluid center: awe-based education and awe-based vocation. He concludes that not only can such alternatives modify institutional settings; they can radically transform lives.

This special section highlights the renewal of humanism in psychotherapy. For the purposes of this special section, humanism is defined as a philosophical perspective whose subject matter is the whole human being. In psychotherapy, humanism places special emphasis on the personal, interpersonal, and contextual dimensions of therapy and on clients' reflections on their relationship with self, others, and the larger psychosocial world. The contributors to this special section-Bruce Wampold, David Elkins, Steven Hayes, Robert Stolorow, Jurgen Kriz, Lillian Comas-Diaz, and the authors of this introduction-are each leaders in their respective therapeutic specialties: research and training, cognitive-behavioral therapy, psychoanalytic therapy, European therapy, and multicultural therapy. In the manner of a "roundtable," each contributor was asked to provide a short article on the renewal of humanism in his or her respective specialty followed by brief comments on the initial round of articles. The conclusion of these reflections is that the renewal of humanism is a viable and growing phenomenon among the leading specialty areas of psychotherapy. The corollary conclusion is that although many theoretical and practical questions remain, humanism is (1) a foundational element of therapeutic effectiveness; (2) a pivotal (and needed) dimension of therapeutic training; and (3) a critical contributor to societal well-being.

This article anatomizes the experience of violence. Drawing on the phenomenological observations of classic literature, and in particular, the horror genre, this article proposes that the tendency toward violence is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon. While brain pathology, genetic disposition, and quantifiable stressors all appear to play a role in the outbreak of violence, the literary genre points to other, less well‐appreciated dimensions. Among these are: a sense of emptiness, the need to compensate for that emptiness through extreme and dramatic acts, and a lack of the sense of awe, meaning, and the carnivalesque in people's lives. This article argues for the restoration of awe, meaning, and the carnivalesque‐and not only as a hedge against the kind of violence observed on September 11th, 2001‐but as a virtue in its own right, and as an antidote, comparatively, to our desolate times.

SUMMARY This article presents a personal reflection on therapeutic awe. Formally, I define awe as the co-mingling of humility, reverence, and wonder before creation; informally, I understand it as the thrill and anxiety of living. Awe is not spotlighted very often as a therapeutic “condition,” but in my work and that of many of my colleagues it is the sine qua non of healing. In this article, I examine the nature, role, and salutary implications of therapeutic awe. Two brief cases are provided to illustrate.

This article proposes an existential vision of self and culture‐"the fluid center.” Drawing on existential philosophical and therapeutic principles, the fluid center is elucidated as a “pivot point,” a pause, between the reductionisms, elitisms, and anarchisms, that beset our age. Stated formally, the fluid center is any sphere of consciousness, which has as its concern the widest possible relations to existence. To help illustrate the fluid center, I draw attention to the historical phenomenon known as “carnival.” Like the fluid center, carnival embraces paradox. It promotes play, elasticity, and diversity; but it also acknowledges limits, vulnerabilities, and thresholds. The implications of the fluid center and carnival for politics, work, and therapeutic practice are explored and elaborated.

Over the past several years, a growing number of transpersonal theorists have addressed existentialism. These articles have been supportive of existential positions but only to a point. This point concerns one major theme: whether or not the universe is friendly (assimilable, consoling) or unfriendly (unassimilable, “other"). Transpersonalists tend to adopt the former, and in their view, superior, position and existentialists lean toward the latter “delimited” view. This article explores the accuracy of this perception on the part of transpersonalists and strongly argues for its reassessment.

Mounting research suggests that the way we deal with psychophysiological paradoxes or opposites (such as separation vs. attachment, firmness vs. supportiveness, formality vs. informality, masculinity vs. femininity, assertiveness vs. submissive‐ness, or in short, constriction and “drawing back” vs. expansion and “bursting forth") has key implications for our health. Although convincing theoretical treatises have addressed this topic, there has yet to be a concerted review of the pertinent literature. This article is intended to provide such a review.

This article conveys some of my thoughts, feelings, and experiences with R. D. Laing. Although I met him only briefly and did not know him personally, I sympathize greatly with his concerns. Once people believed that the world was flat; however, science has proved that the world is round.... Now in spite of that, one still believes that life is flat and goes from birth to death. However, life is probably round and much superior in extension and capacity to the hemisphere known to us at present. Future generations will probably enlighten us on this so interesting subject; and then science itself might arrive-willy-nilly-at conclusions... relating to the other half of existence. -VINCENT VAN GOGH (quoted in Graetz, 1963, p. 71) We respect the voyager, the explorer, the climber, the space-man. It makes far more sense to me as a valid project-in-deed, as a desperately and urgently required project for our time-to explore the inner space and time of consciousness. -R.D. LAING (1967, p. 127)

This article is a reply to Ken Wilber's (1989b), "God Is So Damn Boring' and an elaboration upon my original article, "The Deified Self: A 'Centaur' Response to Wilber and the Transpersonal Movement" (Schneider, 1987). The focus of this article is on Wilber's increasing use of pragmatism to justify his metaphysical claims, in particular, "ultimate" claims. This inclination is misguided on several grounds: (a) "'Ultimate" claims cannot be defined in terms that transcend the existential level; (b) "ultimate" functioning cannot be reconciled with concrete (fallible) functioning; (c) "ultimate" awareness cannot be validated scientifically (e.g., phenomenologically or hermeneutically), despite Wilber's efforts to show otherwise; (d) historical sages cannot be clearly differentiated from the psychologically dysfunctional; and (e) motivation still cannot be reconciled with consummate functioning. One always pays dearly and terribly when religions... insist on having their own sovereign way, when they themselves want to be ultimate ends and not means among other means. - Friedrich Nietzsche, 1966, p. 74

Kierkegaard's absolute paradox is proposed as the fundamental basis for a cohesive existential-phenomenological theory of perception. Absolute paradox is defined as a continuum of physical, intellectual, and emotional finitude (limitation) counterpoised by physical, intellectual, and emotional infinitude (freedom). After setting forth the tenets of this theory of paradox, the author explores its implications for the history of philosophical thought and individual and social psychology. In particular, he inquires as to why this paradox is so often denied and trivialized. He concludes that both philosophically and psychologically persons often fear paradox-even to a life-threatening degree-and therefore adopt polarized or extreme views. Finally, the author discusses integrated or balanced philosophical and psychological perspectives. He claims that such perspectives are possessed by persons who are able to encounter paradox and constructively transform what had once been denied or alien. The article is intended to reflect the spirit of Becker (1973), who urged that existential-phenomenological psychology (and in turn humanistic psychology) should strive to develop a more accessible, rigorous, and unified stance. Only the paradox comes anywhere near to comprehending the fullness of life.—Carl Jung.

This article is an existential-phenomenological ("centaur level")1response to Ken Wilber's concept of deified or ultimate consciousness. Ultimate consciousness, according to Wilber, is the supreme expression of human awareness. It is the point at which highly developed people (i.e., mystics) totally transcend space and time, and are aware (at once) of all perspectives in the universe. Three areas of this concept are evaluated and questioned: the human capacity to achieve ultimate consciousness, the relevance of ultimate consciousness for human problems, and the final appeal of ultimate consciousness. The author concludes that the concept of ultimate consciousness is (1) presumptuous and most probably unachievable for human beings; (2) even if achievable, irrelevant to people's day-to-day concerns; and (3) ultimately monotonous and uninteresting (if not terrorizing and overwhelming). A plea is made for a more realistic view of consciousness, one in which boundaries permit optimal freedom of expression.