Home Biography · Bibliography · Books Essays Bios/Critiques · Colloquia · In Person Art & Literature Laing & Psychotherapy Philosophy & Religion Shamanism & Rebirth Politics of Diagnosis Therapeutic Communities Critical Psychiatry & Psychology · SLS Annual · Editorial board Submit a Paper · About the SLS · Mission Boardmembers Patrons & Sponsors Join the Society Contact us · Resources · Notes and Notation A Timeline Further Links About this site Guestbook Discussion

Methods - Building Context: Transpersonal Reality in Existential Psychotherapy1 SCOTT BORTLE [5] Citing the Bible The duality of the words "faithful" and "unfaithful"-the fact that they too function in both the contexts that we have seen operative here-highlights again how for Leila the two contexts are interwoven, so that an entity in one exists at the same time in the other. If one is the daughter of a Christian preacher, how one lives as a daughter is not separate from how one lives as a Christian. Leila is a daughter-some kind of daughter; at the same time she is a Christian--some kind of Christian. But what kind--"faithful" or "unfaithful"?--and how to live the duality? A consequence of this interweaving is that talk about referents in the context of Christianity can be simultaneously talk about referents in the family context. We see this immediately, in the subsequent discussion (lines 340-371), where Laing and Leila speak of a biblical passage (Luke 14:26) concerning the Christian attitude towards ones parents. Goldman (this issue) considers this portion of the conversation in considerable detail. I want only to make some general points about its use of context, and the ontological work that is accomplished. 340 T: Uhuh. Well, if you're faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ, 341 how can you be unfaithful to your father? 342: L: Yeah? [smiling] 343 T: But, eh, I mean he said that didn't eh eh unless you 344 hate your father and your mother and follow me, you can't be 345 eh my disciple. 346 L: Yeahah Leila's smiling "yeah?" in 342, a continuer, displays recognition of the passage which Laing is glossing and encourages him to continue. When he paraphrases the passage in 343-4, she thoughtfully confirms what he says. What Laing has done is recognize the fact that the two contexts, those of family and Christianity, are woven together, and propose a way to grasp the relationship of the two contexts. As Leila and Laing debate the appropriate translation of this passage, and the term "hate" is softened to "prefer," then "deny," and finally to "happily indifferent," one might think, on a first quick reading of this section of the transcript, that the family context is no longer operative; that this discussion presupposes only the context of Christianity. That this is not the case becomes evident when Leila suddenly glosses the relevance of all this to family relations: 368 L: Because if you are not happily indifferent to your 369 parents, they're going to be on your case all your life. 370 [laughs] 371 T: That's right. [laughs]... Ostensibly they have been talking about religion, but Leila's utterance makes it clear they have been speaking of the family too. Leila laughs with a new lightness and clarity. Laing gives an enthusiastic assessment of her gloss. And immediately after this Laing announces that he must return to the conference podium. The conversation can be ended; its work is done. Startlingly, Leila asks Laing if she can accompany him, "see what you say," and she does indeed take a seat on stage with him, and confidently answers questions from the audience. Conclusions Leila has been confused because she was born into, and continues to understand herself in terms of, two contexts simultaneously. One presumes that the "weave of references" of these two contexts have bound and tugged on her in confusing and contradictory ways. Laing not only displays recognition of these laminated contexts, he suggests a way of reconciling their demands. Throughout, Laing allows Leila to invoke contexts in which he is willing to take a stand. He grants reality to the entities she is insecure about-universal mind, conspiracy, herself. One result seems to be a reduced ontological insecurity on her part. Being happily indifferent to her parents would offer her the possibility of remaining separate from them without being understood as unfaithful. Her tension and ambiguity are resolved. Whereas before Leila was trapped in a situation where she could neither be faithful to her parents nor to Jesus (because her separation from her parents was understood as an affront to both), the re-interpretation Laing offers opposition in the two key contexts frees her, opening the possibility of being separate and yet faithful. She should remain separate from her parents in order to be faithful to Christ. And all this work goes on at the level of pragmatics, in the conversational acts of this therapeutic demonstration. This is the level of the "transpersonal reality" of which Laing speaks. References Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In A. Durant & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interacirve phenomenon (pp. 1-42). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Heidegger, M. (1927/1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row. Heidegger, M. (1975/1982). The basic problems of phenomenology (Hofstadter, A., Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Laing, R. D. (1960/1990). The divided self: Penguin. Laing, R. D., & Esterson, A. (1964). Sanity, madness, and the family: Families of schizophrenics. New York: Basic Books. Nofsinger, R. E. (1991). Everyday conversation. Newbury Park: Sage. Page ..1 ..2 ..3 ..4 ..5 Hermeneutic Research on Psychotherapy. Methods: A Joumal For Human Science [Special Issue, Annual Edition]. Guest Editor: Martin J. Packer. University of Dallas, 2000. How do I cite a webpage? Comments and suggestions on the content and/or any problems with the display of this page would be appreciated by the webmistress. Thanks.