from psychotherapy to dialogue

there is an inherent circularity at the foundations of conventional psychotherapy. we identify the source of our "emotional issues" as generating within the mind. then we ask the same mind to resolve those issues it itself generates. but if it is the mind's manner of relationship to life that causes it to becomes an "issue", how can the mind change its own patterns of relationships? the conventional answer is that an outside trained professional can help us identify our negative mind-patterns, and this new awareness will in turn allow us to make the necessary changes. these pattern-changes should help us heal the emotional pains that burden our lives. but here is the problem: at the core of the mind's negative patterns, there are issues related to the social system within which we live our daily lives. this social system impedes the actualization of what viktor frankl called "logos". it is not possible to heal our minds within a social system sustained through the commodification of beings. logos implies the deep transformation of our social system from capital-orientation to a dialogical- orientation. logos can only be actualized within a dialogical society in which i-thou relationships become the sustainable norm rather than isolated exceptions. as our social system stands now, logos gets frustrated at every turn, and it is the frustration of logos, as frankl pointed out, the primary cause for our neurosis and despair.

there is an inherent non-dialogical context in therapeutical relationships. it is for that reason that frankl speaks of moving from psychotherapy to logotherapy. the therapeutic context, as practiced in conventional therapy, is inherently non-dialogical. in the psychoterapeutic setting there is an established rank and role distinction, even if unspoken, between the doctor and the "patient". reciprocity is one-sided in the financial side of the relationship. the place, time, duration and setting of the meetings are pre-arranged, determined and controlled by the doctor alone. i agree however that there are more humanizing methods of therapy. the dialogue between buber and rogers is one fascinating discourse on buber's views on therapy. 

dialogical ecology: on zen, dialogue and mental health.

the integration of zen mental practices with dialogical approaches to society and nature, goes beyond the mere combination of desirable states of mind with equally desirable forms of behavior. the dalai lama explained the concept of the integration into one and the same essence of a state of consciousness and a state of behavior comprising of both wisdom and compassion. wisdom actualizing as compassion and compassion manifesting as wisdom. this is a new state of being in which consciousness and behavior are intrinsically united as one and the same. the dualism that separates understanding from action has been overcome. in a sense we would need to find a new term to describe this new combined, unified state of being comprised of behavior and consciousness. it is with that "buddha mind" goal that zen, rather than resorting to conventional preaching about negative inner tendencies and proclivities, teaches instead, or in addition, how to engage in concrete mind-body practices that lead to the overcoming of those negative states of mind. zen does so by going to the source from which negativity arises. zen teacher sharon salzberg wrote: "when we are devoted to the development of kindness, we are no longer forcing ourselves into a mold we think we have to occupy; rather, it becomes a movement of the heart so deep and subtle that it is like a movement of the sea close to the ocean floor, all but hidden yet affecting absolutely everything that happens above. that’s the force of kindness." this is precisely what the dalai lama was expressing with his concept of integration, and this is also precisely how i-thou dialogue and zen practice work together: zen offers the mind the ability of integrating dialogue into its own emotional and behavioral essence, and dialogue becomes the actualization in "real life" of the true nature of the mind. when reason alone is unable to grasp the deepest sense of life, and deep emotional commitment alone is not enough to encourage the deed, the integration of deed and essence into one whole-being person becomes the most optimal and adequate way of life. the integration of the deed and the mind, makes the deed of dialogue the most natural and the most joyful response of the mind. all becomes a dialogical-ecology.