Theories of psychology generally avoid describing the psyche in terms of spiritual doctrine. Nowhere is this the case more than the tenets of nondualism, especially the “Radical” Non-Dualism of the spiritual master, Adi Da Samraj. Yet, without this framework, it is impossible to make sense of the paradox that is human existence. “Radical” Non-Dualism provides the mechanism whereby ultimate reality can be understood to emerge into individual human beings: the Illusion of Relatedness and the Grid of Attention. With these two spiritual tenets in place, it becomes possible to understand the two fundamental aspects of integral love, which comprise the main elements of effective clinical practice: ego love and self love.
Contemporary approaches to clinical practice are based on a premise that is no longer viable: split the person into pieces—typically either self or ego—and direct treatment toward one of them. Further, taking sides in the controversy is determined by one’s orientation toward love. Ego love is comprised of the ordinary emotional objectives of the individual: be loved, be loveable, and be loving. Self love, on the other hand, involves a more direct engagement: be love. These ego and self positions can be subsumed within a single, all-inclusive theoretical framework: the Integral Interface, which gives a comprehensive account of the psychic process embracing the whole person: Integral Love.
It is advocated that the standard of clinical psychology should be integral therapy, in which all therapeutic positions are subsumed within a single, coordinated approach. This paper presents such an integral therapy. It is claimed that capable therapists already make use of this model intuitively, even if unawares. The purpose of this paper is to make the basic tenets of this model explicit. To do so, no affiliation with existing schools of therapy is indicated. Rather, this paper relies soley on an explication of therapeutic technique to describe the therapeutic process. Part I of this paper focuses on a general overview of this integral model, as well as the initial elements the therapeutic process.
Part II focuses on specific therapeutic techniques.
In recent years, the clinical relevancy of psychoanalytic structural theory has been called into question. The complexity of structural theory has reached a point in which so many versions of psychic structure vie for consideration that consensus seems unlikely. Perhaps nowhere is this disparity more strikingly seen than concepts of ego and self, where theorists are especially polarized. However, this paper offers a conception of psychic structure in which the disparity between ego and self can be reconciled: the ego/self amalgam. In this conception, the defining features of each are retained and understood to exist only in relationship to one another, like figure and ground, as a single undifferentiated ego/self system.
Psychoanalytic structural theory can be questioned for the ambiguity of its component parts, particularly those most prominent: ego and self. Yet, the main orientations toward the ego and self can be delineated and outlined according to a summary concept: the tripartite ego. With this clarification of psychic structure, the self/object units of Kernberg and the bipolar self of Kohut are seen in bold relief. Further, it is shown that these structural components are inherently compatible and can be integrated within a single theoretical framework: the “Apex” Paradox. Part I of this paper presents an examination of the tripartite ego, followed by a comparative study of the structural theories of Kernberg and Kohut, as well as their respective orientations to clinical practice.
Part II of this paper presents a detailed account of the “Apex” Paradox, followed by the main development processes underlying the dynamics of this psychic structure, as well as its implications for clinical practice.
Psychoanalysis and cognitive psychology have developed two very different ways of accounting for the exact same aspect of the psyche: psychic structure and cognitive architecture. Further, each gives priority to their preferred feature of the psyche: identity for psychoanalysis, and intellect for cognitive psychology. Yet, the two cannot be understood except in relation to one another. This paper provides a conceptual framework whereby the two can be accounted: the imagery amalgam, itself comprised of two fundamental aspects: the multiple array and the memory enclave. Part I of this paper focuses on how these two aspects of the imagery amalgam operate in terms of the intellect.
Part II of this paper focuses on how the memory enclave operates in terms of identity.
An orientation to the self that seriously considers God and self to be the same runs through both Eastern and Western spiritual traditions: nondualism. Yet, even to speak in these terms is to commit blasphemy in certain spiritual traditions. Nonetheless, a compelling account of the identity between God and self exists: “Radical” Non-Dualism, the spiritual revelation of the nondual sage, Adi Da Samraj. Traditional accounts of nondualism provide no means whereby manifest beings can be understand to emerge from the underlying ground of unmanifest divinity. But two crucial mechanisms appear in “Radical” Non-Dualism whereby God can be said to transform into human beings: the Illusion of Relatedness and the Grid of Attention.
Most theories of the psyche are based on a premise that is no longer viable: split the person into pieces—typically either self or ego—and base the theory on one of them. However, it is claimed that this piecemeal approach works against an understanding of the whole person, nevermind which side is given priority. Indeed, it leaves out a piece rarely thought an essential part of the whole person: God. Further, taking sides is determined by one’s orientation toward love. Each of these positions can be subsumed within a single, all-inclusive theoretical framework, which gives a comprehensive account of the psychic process embracing the whole person: Integral Love. Part I discusses the various orientations toward love from the standpoint of “Radical” Non-Dualism, the unique spiritual revelation of Adi Da Samraj.
Part II discusses the implications of “Radical” Non-Dualism for the integration of two specific accounts of spiritual metaphysics: the Holy Trinity and the atman/anatman controversy.