First paper for CP501: Counseling Theories and Techniques
Grade: 30/30
Feedback: *I really enjoyed this feedback and felt proud
Lots of APA errors;
Felicia,
You are a great writer. Sentence after sentence stands out. Your authorial voice is crystal clear yet fully supported. Your writing is concise, dense, and specific from beginning to end. Your clinical stance is well considered and beautifully stated, in particularly, “My propensity is toward…the theories of human transformation rooted in chaos.”
Beyond your admirable writing skill, you are adept at manifesting an energetic posture with regards to these different points of view that makes an excellent depth psychotherapist: although you make your own proclivities and reactions clear, you flexibly and adeptly accommodate the central truths underlying disparate ways of being in the world. This is, in my view, the heart of good psychotherapy.
Some work on APA is needed (see the notes in the body of the paper for specific citation formatting and placement feedback). Page numbers are always required for direct quotations. Citations are needed for any and all ideas that were not originally yours, such as the brief definitions of Gestalt and CBT.
Excellent work.
Order and Chaos: Philosophical Underpinnings of Psychotherapy
At first glance, the chaotic and unhinged nature of Jacob Boehme’s Mysterium Magnum (1623) has little in common with the ordered philosophical offerings contained in Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations (Hutcheson, 2008). In reality, these mystic and stoic authors share unexpectedly similar existential visions of the most basic aspects of human experience. Foundationally, both Aurelius and Boehme believe man is a manifestation of the divine and view all components of his existence in harmony with God’s will. Humans are considered extensions of the one energetic source, and thus nothing in their realm of experience can be out of sync with nature. The common motive implied by these philosophies for seeking therapy, then, is an individual’s desire to understand and accept their role in the cosmic play. In agreement regarding the role of human life in the grand cosmos, both philosophers align with Gestalt approaches to therapy, which emphasize the interconnection of all parts to a greater whole. Where Aurelius and Boehme differ, however, is in their conception of the human condition and how the inner transformation of an individual shall proceed in a lifetime. Such divergences imply theoretical orientations with particular intentions for self-discovery as well as diverse therapy skills and practices that map onto the motives of each. These distinctions result in Aurelius aligning more with cognitive-behavioral theory, and Boehme with person-centered and depth-oriented approaches. These divergent pathways in the theory and practice of psychotherapy are crucial, as the endlessly complex backgrounds, personal preferences, strengths and limitations of individual clients call for a myriad of evolving perspectives and tools from therapists. Theoretical underpinnings must accordingly evolve and differentiate over time, as the art of living is an infinitely creative pursuit, much like the art of therapy.
Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius views righteousness and living in accordance with one’s own nature as the ultimate goal for man, and he prescribes logic and reason as the definitive way to achieve this. His ongoing self-work is to make his “own conduct beautiful and honorable” through attaining a “well-disciplined and purified mind” (Hutcheson, 2008). Aurelius focuses on man’s inner barriers to the most integrity-driven life and repeatedly asserts that philosophical analysis is key to overcoming the emotional and behavioral proclivities antithetical to achieving our highest potential. In his interpretation, inner demons such as blame, judgment, and anger are “perturbations” stemming from improper perspective. Maintaining control over such tendencies allows the possibility to make “all calm and serene within” (Hutcheson, 2008). The power of the individual is to choose reason over such irrationality by remembering that change is constant and inevitable, and that all of “life is opinion” (Hutcheson, 2008). This is reminiscent of a cognitive-behavioral approach, with progress rooted in recognizing and reconciling negative thoughts and behaviors to achieve stability and self-reliance.
Still, despite his rational side, Aurelius describes all things “in accordance with the complete rules of art” (Hutcheson, 2008), and encourages men to “resign yourself willingly to your destiny, allowing it to involve you in what matters it pleases” (Hutchson, 2008). Such macroscopic, beautifully descriptive allusions to the individual’s place in the cosmos is, in my estimation, missing from modern cognitive approaches to mental health. Honoring the patterns, interconnectivity, and intimations of an optimally reliable inner compass are characteristic of Gestalt values in therapy and soften the rigidity inherent in modalities concerned primarily with symptom reduction. Purely logical self-mastery which preaches empirical validity devoid of any higher spiritual connection, especially for me, feels like surface-level treatment for humanity’s resistance to conform to sick systems and unnatural societal expectations. Our modern western world is so disconnected from the deeper human sources of meaning and natural rhythm. My issues with symptom-focused therapies reflect my belief that many mental health problems are rooted in deeper issues than a simple shift in perspective will treat in the long run. This said, I do see the value of cognition and behavior change when mindfully incorporated with deeper self-reflection. My respect and admiration of Aurelius’ ability to bridge logic and art has made me more open to employing rationality as a therapeutic tool, as he makes a compelling demonstration of its value in “the common nature of the whole” (Hutcheson, 2008).
Stoicism is written in concise, instructional language with the specific purpose of providing instructions for navigating life’s obstacles. Mysticism appears diametric in comparison, as its content is anything but concise or specific, and lacks coherent instruction for individuals. Jacob Boehme, a Christian Mystic, focuses more on the universal human experience, describing the far-reaching, vast origins of life itself with no opinions of how man should be, only what man is. He begins with the creation of man, manifest in “the Image which God created” (Boehme, 1623). Most of these descriptions of universal connectivity to one source, the “Center of the Eternal Nature,” (Boehme, 1623) are in alignment with the Gestalt values already discussed in the philosophy of Marcus Aurelius. However, this initial convergence is expanded upon by Boehme in a wholly divergent manner, with descent into paradox, mystery, symbolism, and the incomprehensible “Darkness of the Abyss” (Boehme, 1623). Such ineffable, mysterious components of reality are referenced by Aurelius only peripherally, and certainly not investigated to such a degree. Boehme, in contrast, describes the planetary and elemental energies and their symbolic interconnection with the polar powers of man. Importantly, he never seems to reach a point of renouncing any of these natural proclivities, even in their shadow manifestations. On instinct and lust, Boehme illustrates the ways in which “Lubet [lust] is the Wisdom” (Boehme, 1623), whereas Aurelius asserts that maintaining control over instinctive desire is a necessary condition for self-mastery (Hutcheson, 2008). For Boehme, the human rumblings of desire, unquietness and anguish need no correction, but are actually necessary pillars on the path to integrating our paradoxical, elemental nature.
For our mystic philosopher, the compunctions and stirrings of human experience are in no way maladaptive or in need of adjustment but are natural inclinations towards the eventual and inevitable reconciliation of inner opposites. In this way, Boehme’s philosophy is reminiscent of depth psychotherapy’s aim of cultivating awareness of the unconscious. He also stands in alignment with the person-centric perspective of man’s inherent proclivity towards realizing his own potential. Diving deep into ourselves, we achieve knowledge beyond anything learned or imposed on us, and our baseline inclination is to uncover the inner wisdom to motivate expansion just as plants naturally grow towards the sun. Whereas Aurelius’ commitment to logic and reason provides structure and predictability to otherwise chaotic emotional expressions, Boehme recognizes and honors the non-judgmental exploration of irrationality and darkness. Just as we embody the source of harmonious order, we cannot escape “chaos as the root of nature” (Boehme, 1623). The roles chaos and order perform seem to be primary points of dissimilarity between stoicism and mysticism, and also characterize the division of cognitive and depth-oriented psychotherapies. My propensity, if not obvious, is away from the purely rational approaches and toward the deeper theories of human transformation, those rooted in chaos. In the grand scheme, achieving balance and a healthy flux between order and chaos is situation-specific and ever-changing, for countless individuals reside all along the path to harmonious integration, and no two journeys look the same.
References
Boehme, J. (1623) Mysterium Magnum. Part One. Retrieved from https://elearning.my.pacifica.edu/d2l/le/content/63169/viewContent/927937/View
Hutcheson, F. (2008) The Meditations of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. Retrieved from https://elearning.my.pacifica.edu/d2l/le/content/63169/viewContent/927944/View