Beyond Therapy: A Set of Essays
On Miscellaneous Topics in Psychology and Psychiatry (2001-2003)

VI. Beyond Therapy: Part II - Specifics
What Specifically is Therapy and What Specifically About it is Therapeutic?

0.   Introduction

	In the continuation of this essay let me now concentrate on the relative specifics of this topic “beyond therapy”. To start let me try to look beyond the specifics of predominant models in therapy and in the process look at our current motivation in these dominant and dominating directions, and, therein, closely focus on the overall and specific phenomenology of the therapeutic process. (1)

	Let me begin with this more specific refinement of my previous definition of therapy, namely, that therapy is the management of a course of transformation of a relatively adverse socio-psycho-physical condition to a state that is relatively less adverse for that person both in some particular facet(s) and in overall character, over a certain stated period of time, both theoretically and practically! (2)

	This re-definition notes that therapy is the management of a course of treatment that should work both in theory, i.e., in intentional expectation, and in practice. It is also over a certain stated period, i.e., involves a period of time that is either limited or ongoing and open-ended in intent, and, applies to the improvement of both a part of the socio-psycho-physical constitution and the totality of the same. Lastly, therapy need not be absolutely effective, merely that it reduce the perceived degree of adversity experienced by an individual (or the potential adversity and its amelioration perceived in an individual by the therapist on the behalf of that patient). (3)

	What is the nature of this definition as outlined above, what motivates its explication? My intent is neither linguistic nor legal in orientation (although not without being able to contribute some input in those areas of concern). This intent is primarily phenomenological – an attempt to understand the essential features that constitute the meaning and practicalities of this particular phenomenon of ‘that which sets out to be therapeutic’. My understanding of this general topic of therapy applying to physical conditions, psychic disturbances and social/intersocial dysfunctions as implicated in the socio-psycho-physical element(s) of this definition, it not being my wish to draw an absolute distinction between these three overlapping fields of how we exist and interact in this world-of-life. Even though the therapist might concentrate on one of these three aspects correctly all three are involved in that experience of relative adversity and should be taken into account to some extent or other (even if their attention is divided unequally between them). Moreover, there is implied this phenomenal/phenomenological ‘fact’ that our therapeutic ministrations should be on the three fronts of the somatic, psychic and the co-authorial although not necessarily on an equal basis in intent, in practice and in the consequences discovered in the exercise of that particular ‘therapeutic’ process or process-type. (4)

1.   A Causal Philosophy ‘Grounded’ on Existential and Relational Philosophies

	To understand the dynamics of the therapeutic process in depth I have felt the need to integrate and explicate both a relational philosophy and an existential philosophy, and, a causal philosophy from their conjunction. A relational philosophy was first broached in the final paragraphs of Part I of this particular essay along with an introduction to the existential concept of authenticity through the promotion and practice of transcendental suspensions in the realization of the therapeutic resolution necessary to ensure a positive therapeutic transformation as entailed in our most recent definition of the therapeutic process. Let me quickly sketch a philosophical background as to why a philosophy of the causal is controversial and how I intend to circumvent those types of aporias and their ‘philosophical’ dilemmas in the pursuit of a practical causal philosophy relatively ‘grounded’ in this relational-existential philosophy of causal resolution and its implication in the intentional desire for the discovery and enactment of positive therapeutic processes! (5)

	All philosophical concepts are foundered on the metaphorical, and, on this metaphorical ‘ground’ will ‘founder’ if utilized beyond their critical level of normal deployment! In this light, e.g., the (correlative) philosophical concepts of ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ are relatively viable if used within their normal, metaphorical terms of empirical deployment. A match lit, e.g., could be seen to be the prime cause for a particular bush fire, the individual lighter of that fire being treated as the particular causal agent whose intentionality initiated that conflagration through the act of the lighting that particular fire. An agent being treated as present when a particular action is apparently initiated by that agent that appears to result in intentionally determined consequences (to some extent or other). So in this scheme we have non-intentional causes and intentional causes. A match that spontaneously ignites should not be classed as an intentionally determined cause (of that bush fire) even though those matches were ‘designed’ to ignite (but not intended to spontaneously ignite). The difference between these two ‘causes’ is a matter of the degree of the implicated epistemological organization relatively present or relatively absent. So on this spectrum we might see the ‘consciousness’ of a stone or worm as relatively minimal whereas that of a cat or dog is relatively greater, whilst, in relative terms of reference, human consciousness is relatively much more complex. This also implies, through complexity of levels in epistemological organization, that intentionality cannot be merely an intentional field, an intentional object and an intentional ego (as per a simple reading of our hermeneutic circle [archetypally])! Only the totality of the interaction between intentional fields, between intentional object-states, between intentional egos, and, their interactions amongst themselves, establishes the overall thematized sense of that intentional state-of-affairs. Only with the sufficient presence of thematiztion can an intent, like the mere tip of an iceberg, be self-reflected upon, discussed and shared through the intentional designs of language. Please note the limited philosophical deployment of this concept of an ‘iceberg’ by virtue of the fact that an iceberg whatever its size is always visible above the surface of the ocean, whereas, an intentional state-of-affairs only comes to thematization after the necessary degree of thematic complexity/thematic density has first been reached pre-intentionally, etc. Such embryonic ‘thoughts’ being, perhaps, only pre-intentional, merely background oriented sub-intentional or residual post-intentional (as vague awarenesses of past processes of intentional simulation, e.g., connotations pre-intentionally recognized but not intentionally noted in overt consciousness and its retrospective reflection). The point I am trying to establish here is that only through intentional complexity, with the requisite thematization of density, can the intentional process proceed and arise in overt consciousness. That, moreover, only through the implication of a complex intentional field, etc., can we establish the possibility of a casual agent, as a person, who could envisage and enact a therapeutic process either with respect to themselves or some other agent or agents. Hence the concept of therapeutic management, as per our definition of a therapeutic process, necessitates the involvement of an intentional agent or agents. Now, let me examine very briefly why a causal philosophy is controversial and how it could steer itself around such a philosophical obstacle. (6)

	In the West we have the paradoxes of Zeno, e.g. What we should learn from such puzzles is precisely the point made above, namely, all philosophical concepts are foundered on the metaphorical, and, on this metaphorical ‘ground’ will ‘founder’ if utilized beyond their critical level of normal deployment! In a similar fashion the concepts of ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ are correlatives and can be neither entertained in a state of complete separation nor in a state that, at the same time, does not somehow also separated these terms with respect to each other. The trick is to utilize their relationship within the level of its normal deployment, i.e., in non-critical non-philosophical terms of reference. We forget such expressions are both metaphorical and correlatives that can only be entertained meaningfully in a joint fashion within their limited terms of ‘empirical’ deployment, i.e., as correlative metaphors with all the limitations involved in such a phenomenal/phenomenological examination/re-examination. As the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna argues, and demonstrates: a cause cannot be disconnected from its effect, otherwise it is not a cause. An effect cannot be disconnected from its cause, otherwise it is not an effect. Then if the cause and the effect co-occur at the same moment of time then where is the cause and where is the effect? Because there can be no other causal account it follows that our previous understanding of cause-and-effect cannot be an accurate understanding of how the world is as it is. Quite the contrary, however, an appreciation that the metaphors of ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ fail us is, as a result, an enlightening experience because through this recognition of failure we should recognize the emptiness (i.e., non-absolute substantiality/reality) of those concepts, and all other concepts as conventionally exercised in their apparently ‘normal’ empirical deployment that we had hitherto taken for gospel, and, as a result, we should no longer feel (somatically/psychically/co-authorially) attached to such ‘virtual entities’….  (7)

	I have introduced this concept of emptiness, itself a metaphorical concept, to illustrate that the metaphorical, and that 'illumined' by (by the insight of) metaphorical illustration, is empty of the reality (in absolutist terms of reference) apparently pointed out by that type of device by virtue of the fact that no metaphor can be treated literally. So a particular designation of a certain event as a 'cause' and any consequences that appear to be arrived at through the exercise of that 'cause' realize a certain associated 'effect' as intended by the 'agent' that allowed that cause to function in that type of 'event-phenomenon'. But, as all of these designations are metaphorically based, to that extent they cannot be treated literally, i.e., in absolutistic terms of reference (being only short-sightedly treated in normal usage in a limited provisional conventional deployment). How do we account for the uniqueness of a particular phenomenon, say a certain agent with their own distinctive life-history? In a conventional, 'normal' frame of reference this is no problem. However, in critical terms of reference we can find no 'agent' absolutely outside, beyond, or removed from that conventional frame of reference. No metaphor can be absolutely cashed out! Hence there can be no external worlds, no internal worlds, no selves (as a result) (as absolutely distinctive ego-substances) no material object-states, no fields (as absolutely distinctive spheres of operation), etc. Moreover, as 'emptiness' is itself a concept the same must also apply to it, i.e., there can be no absolute reality called "emptiness" as there can be no absolutely literal emptiness! (8)

	That being the case how do we account for the apparent reality of the conventional world, i.e.,  how do we account for both the illusory nature of illusions, delusions, non-factual states of affairs and the apparent factual nature of factual states of affairs, etc? (9)

	This is no real problem as metaphors are not just words of a certain type! They form but one moment in the hermeneutic circle of comprehension (in accordance with my theoretical understanding of it) along with the rhetorical and the existential. Collectively they illumine our perception of the life-world and our consequent understanding of its existential richness of being (within the 'normal' limits of their collective deployment)! Let me elabourate. (10)

	Metaphors are textual in orientation. Texts are intentional depositions upon the (metaphorical) fabric of the life-world (as patterned formations imprinted on this fabric of the life-world; be it on brain material in the form of memory-traces, a piece of paper, footprints on the sand, photographs, artworks, musical scores, etc., etc.). These 'traces' are metaphorical substitutes for the phenomenal object-states associated with the agent or agents that initiated those depositions, and, their meanings, as texts, can only be determined rhetorically, i.e., meta-textually (because those extra-textual forces define what those otherwise meaningless 'inscriptions' have become). So, e.g., the marks in the form of a list on a piece of paper could be read perhaps as a shopping list or as a letter or as a poem, etc., because of the apparent genre, read 'form' invoked by that overall manner of the presentation of that text declares meta-textually whether it is a shopping list or a letter or a poem, or, some hybrid genre, etc.( e.g., a letter in the form of a poem). So, e.g., that page in a book of poetry suggest that the text printed there is a poem, e.g., and not a letter or a shopping list. Read in a poetic light that text confirming that reading for us by the relative richness realized in that type of reading above and beyond the mere investment of interest taken up in the reading of that text as a poem (if indeed it fulfils its phenomenal-textual nature as a poem). Then, through a suspension or balance of both of these two moments of the textual and the meta-textual there is realized the third moment of the non-textual wherein the text is re-experienced as a phenomenon in its own right and therein allowed to re-simulate the intentional phenomenon that initially inscribed it. In other words, it is as if we re-think the thoughts that initially 'wrote' that text. Why do I label this moment as 'non-textual'? It is as if the text disappears in this state of suspension between this balance of the textual and the meta-textual. As an analogy it is like that type of experience when we are absorbed in a wonderful novel. We seem to forget we are reading and the text appears as if transparent before us… until we find part of that text missing, incoherent or we find the text using a word or sentence that we cannot immediately grasp… then the text no longer appears as 'transparent'. This same type of phenomenon being experienced by a translator of a text as, essentially, the 'reading' of any text is a process of  'translation' (even when conducted in the medium of the same language as the language adopted in the writing of that textual inscription).  Or, if after completing this absorbing novel we were to be asked "did we enjoy it?" or "what was it all about?", etc., we would have no hesitation to say "yes, we did enjoy it" or "no, we did not enjoy it", or, "the novel was all about…." We do not have to mentally re-read this novel to say whether we enjoyed it noting our enjoyment page by page, sentence by sentence… We have an overall understanding of it and an overall understanding of whether we enjoyed it or not. This spontaneous, non-calculative type of understanding is essentially non-textual in my opinion. Then, from an equally balanced suspension of all three moment we have what I perceive to be a not-textual reading of the text - the apparent re-simulation of the intentionality that went into its fabrication, its intentional imprinting upon the fabric of the world. Of course, if that text is not well-formed or is in a language and/or genre we are not well acquainted with then that text presents itself to us as provisionally and relatively opaque. (11)

	But if our access to the world-of-life is only through the conventional or relative how do we determine what is relatively illusory or relatively real (if there can be no access to a world of the absolute, absolutely true and real)? As argued elsewhere the relatively real is determined through the richness of modes apparently presented to us through that text and the relative richness of those individual modes (in that overall presentation). Hence a dream apple is not as 'rich' as 'relatively real' apple in this double sense of modal richness in so far as a 'real' apple engages us in many more modalities and, on balance, those modes are individually relatively richer in their engagement of us as reader of that text. But, we might object, how could an apple be read as a text? For a start the apple is found as an apple-there-for-us. We turn it into a text-for-us by appropriating that apple, either from the tree, the fruit-shop or the fruit bowl, etc., to that extent it becomes a text for us. Then in 'reading it' we have a number of modalities to engage it, e.g., visually, by sniffing it, by sinking our teeth into it and tasting it, chewing it, recalling the taste of a past apple and comparing this current-apple-for-us it with the overall presentation of this recalled apple-experience, etc. (12)

	Now, you must wonder where this exposition is taking us? It is my intention to elabourate on a metaphorical system that more effectively deals with causal phenomena and from this insight better understand how a process of transformation can be bought about. To effect this depth of insight I need to discuss the causality of non-intentional processes of causality, discuss the causal consequences of the entertained and acted upon intentional process, and, integrate both of these views in a relatively more systematic frame of reference whilst at the same time not overstepping these boundaries that demarcate the relativity of the metaphorical-rhetorical-existential from the 'literal' non-sense of an absolutist frame of reference (mis-treated in an absolutist frame of reference [through the lack of a properly conducted process of an overall transcendental suspension] and not treated as 'empty', i.e., as virtual [through non-coincident mental reification of metaphorical content] in an absolute frame of reference). The metaphorical device under examination being, and giving, an appropriate insightful 'vision' of the world as long as those relative-conventions of that metaphorical system are not abused, by-past, mis-treated, etc., and can be found adequate to the nature of the task philosophically envisaged. Therefore, let me 'model' first non-intentional causation; second, intentional causation; and, third, the conjunction of both of these systems. (13)

	As already intimated this modelling will be conducted through the lens of a more sophisticated 'philosophy of the causal', itself the conjunction of a relational philosophy and an existential philosophy. Let me first outline the general nature of a relational philosophy - a philosophy that deals with the phenomenology of relationships in their essential nature. (14)

	A relational philosophy attempts to understand the essential nature of relationships in general. A relationship, in its essentiality, is treated as a phenomenon even though all phenomena are correctly constituted-for-us through their intentional simulation/re-simulation in and through our relationship with them. Here we idealize the nature of the relational overlooking this aspect of an intentional ego constituting/re-constituting the same. In effect we subtract this component of a transcendental ego from our phenomenological investigations in general and philosophically 'look' at the essence of phenomenal states-of-affairs which, themselves, already have been treated in ideal, essential terms of reference. Then by various dialectical stratagems we, hopefully, find ourselves in a position to appreciate this meta-phenomenological texture of a 'relationship' finding a validity, when present, in this research through its successful reiteration in and through these refined, rarefied processes of eidetic reflection. Let sketch out this type of meta-phenomenological process in the following paragraph; a meta-phenomenological process of reflection by virtue of the fact that we essentially are looking at the various transcendental conditions that allow us to phenomenologically reflect in the first place. (15)

	A relationship is a relationship by virtue of the fact that there is a relationship when there is a relationship entertained between more than two parties, such as, e.g., two particles and field. A relationship can be entertained between parties when some form of a common factor can be established between those parties. This establishes and characterizes the essential nature of that relationship. E.g., a brother and sister are 'brother' and 'sister' by being siblings belonging to the same family (as the third factor of this relationship) through their paternal relationship to the same mother and/or father. E.g., David is holding a rock and is in a relationship with the same by virtue of the fact that both parties are physical objects in the world (as the third factor of this relationship) in a current contiguous relationship with each other (through the mediation of a materially constructed sling as the fourth party in this relationship). My filled out tax-form is a representative snap-shot of my overall finances realized within the time-period of the tax-year. The essential configuration of that filled in form mirroring the essential configuration of that aspect of my finances 'looked at' in that tax-form. This essential configuration in a mathematical-financial format, i.e., genre (dealing with taxation matters), being the common feature between these two parties (this form, actual money, etc., being considered a third parties in this ‘bipolar’ relationship). This isomorphic invariance under the transformation from one party to the other, and v.v., establishing this relationship of taxation even though one aspect of the equation deals in dollars and the other only records their being obtained in a numerically accounted equivalent. So, correctly, this isomorphic transformational invariance is the factor that both indicates and characterizes the nature of that particular relationship, allowing, in the process, disparate object-types to be entertained in a relationship with each other by virtue of this relational symmetry if present. Moreover, a relationship can now be essentially described as a relational 'space' (and therefore able to be discriminated in intentional consciousness for that relationship to be entertained in intentional consciousness) in which participant parties are in a common relationship by virtue of this relational symmetry. Hence a relationship must be intentionally greater than the mere sum of its participant parties because there is the intentional reality of the appropriate field(/s) to be entertained along with this unifying symmetry therein realized plus those relational parties to be considered in the entertainment of a relationship. Now, the degree to which this relational complexity/density is present above and beyond the mere sum of is participant parties can be called the facticity of that relationship. The richer the relational nexus of a relationship the greater is this existentially emergent sense of facticity. This surplus 'relational energy' being re-invested in the 'body' of that relationship as it manifests itself in that relational field and effectively represents the bond or bonds or bonding of that relationship… the degree to which that relationship is both bound together and has emerged above and beyond the mere materiality of its participant parties. In a relationship between two or more person we might like to treat that relational facticity, the psychic intensity of those bonds, as the degree of love being 'suffered' by those parties. In a totally authentic relationship that degree of 'love' present equals its maximum realizable relational facticity. In a totally inauthentic relationship that facticity is essentially bondage. However, authenticity is dependent upon the existential transformation of the relatively inauthentic ‘material’ implying that the complete transformation of the latter must realize the termination of that relationship, i.e., its metaphorical death. On the other hand there can not be the complete inauthenticity of a relationship as this process of a non-resolution effectively establishes the non-existence of that relationship (through this non-process of non-interaction and non-resolution of difference realized therein). Authenticity is established through the 'factual existence' of that relationship and hence is equivalent to its facticity – hence degrees of authenticity. Furthermore, authenticity, as an intentional phenomenon, is realized through the thorough exercise of the overall transcendental suspension(s). But, let me look more closely into this aspect of our research when I deal specifically with an existential philosophy in the next paragraph. (16)

	All relationships-there-for-us are 'experienced', i.e, simulated/re-simulated through their being constituted/reconstituted in intentional consciousness. Intentional consciousness as a process can be ideally mapped through the utilization of the hermeneutic circle of comprehension. This is done through analogically focusing (i.e., metaphorically) on those three poles of intentional activity using various interrelated philosophical-metaphorical lenses (of the harmonic, textual, gestalt, iterative, phenomenological, etc., as discussed elsewhere on numerous occasions). Those three moments being re-described, labelled, through the succession of those frames of reference adopted and adapted to the task to hand. For convenience let me discuss those three moments under -the headings of the intentional object-state, the intentional field and the intentional ego. As discussed elsewhere the third moment centred on the intentional ego has been described as existential in character. Let me examine now this claim (as previously discussed by myself) and its qualifications. These three moments can also be labelled 'phenomenological', 'hermeneutical' and 'existential'. The first moment is a suspension based on a conjunctive suspension and is central to the (phenomenon of the) metaphor, the second moment is based on a dis-conjunctive suspension and is central to the (phenomenon of the) rhetorical, i.e., the asking of a question. The third moment of the existential is based on a conjunctive suspension of these two previous suspensions. These three moments negatively co-defining each other. Slight shifts in emphasis, imbalances, propelling the 'circular' movement of the hermeneutic circle (in both directions) dialectically. To some extent one might say that through the third moment, being a conjunctive suspension of the conjunctive metaphorical suspension exercised at the Object Pole (oriented towards the intentional object-state) and the dis-conjunctive suspension of the World Pole (oriented towards the intentional field) we are given our metaphorical exit and re-access from and to the Life-World as this third moment of the Ego/the Existential embeds these other two. More correctly the sense of the existential is derived through the dynamic balance of all three moments. The existential sense of the non-textual, in authenticity, giving us a sense of the not-textual aspect or orientation (through the dynamic balance of all three moments) hence our ability to simulate/re-simulate the meaningful-being of the life-world. This existential moment being our door to such a phenomenon - this phenomenon of simulation, and, our exit through a de-suspension or cessation of that super-conjunctive suspension. (17)

	An existential orientation finds itself reflected in natural utterances through the presence of various indicators or hallmarks. E.g., the historical sense of the present (versus the past and the future) is experienced in the non-textual existential orientation, which as a door to the simulation/re-simulation of the not-textual, then takes on a dynamic ongoing sense of the eternally present along with a creative/re-creative sense of the spontaneity of the not-textual. Besides an ongoing sense of the present and the spontaneity associated with the same other key hallmarks include a generally non-comparative awareness of the existential richness of a phenomenon, the power in experience/re-experience to positively pervade the 'space' of a relationship with the natural exuberance of its state, etc., etc. The existential is also characterized as a sense of freedom put in play through our ability to suspend our phenomenal constructions constituted by-us for-us. Then in this phenomenological territory through ongoing suspensions we ongoingly free ourselves from the overall confinement of our suspensions through the suspension (i.e., the de-suspension) of the same… and thereby realize our freedom, therein, to critically engage, disengage and re-engage with phenomena… through such a process. Hence, the importance of the overall suspension exercised through the hermeneutic circle to both critically engage, disengage and re-engage with phenomena… an affair to some degree or other that is our natural birthright and is intuitively conducted throughout the course of our natural existence by-us before this community of others that collectively constitutes this world-of-life as lived by-us! A process that is refined through the adoption and adaptation of an increasingly existentially sensitive atunement to the(se 'spiritual') ways of the world. Furthermore, the existential moment, as a doorway to and from the non-textual, is therefore our existential access to the exercise of choice through response, responsitivity and responsibility. Through engagement, dis-engagement, re-engagement the sense of the sense, meaning and meaningfulness of a response is intentionally formulated and acted upon through our not-textual relationship with the phenomenon or phenomena under interactive analysis with our own sense of self. This sense of response being resolutely discharged through a process of resolution, which, through uttering leaves a trace of itself in and through a process of textual deposition in some multi-modal manner or other. Then, through the sensitivity of that process to all manner of environmental concerns a certain degree of an appropriate responsitivity is realized in and through our relationship with that phenomenon. Moreover, with an increasing degree of responsitivity and authenticity an increasing sense of responsibility is realized in keeping with the overall existential nature of that relationship, i.e., a response in some considerable measure ‘centred in’ and ‘in keeping with’ the existential nature of that relationship (as a non-absolute, distinctive-like entity in its own right). (18)

	Let me now show, through a combination of these two philosophies of the relational and the existential, how we can construct a more sophisticated sense of the causal as it enters both non-directly into non-intentional causal states and directly in intentional causal states as an open, practical, ever-present region-of-life that operates between these two extremes. (19)

Hence, in constructing a causal philosophy I will need to articulate an ideal non-intentional variety, an ideal intentional variety, and, an open, practical, ever-present variation incorporating both versions and thereafter obviating a philosophical-practical need for those two previous versions (as the phenomenal world is phenomenologically constituted in intentional conscious without recourse to so called "external worlds" and "internal worlds" as impossibly articulated by representationalists, realists, idealists, etc., etc). (20)

	One of the key metaphors I will adopt is the Buddhist concept of streams or flows (santana). This is a more dynamic metaphor when compared to the rather static correlative concepts of cause and effect. Essentially, it is a consequential type of analysis, i.e., consequences evolve in time with the flowing of the stream, itself a composite of flowing ‘momentary’ phenomenal dharmas with some degree of a discretionary nature or 'discreteness' (as would seem to be implied in modern physics with the adoption of a quantum type of viewpoint as dictated by limitations imposed through the Planck 'constant'). This same type of position also regards causally oriented acts not so much through the lens of distinctive causes and effects, but, as consequences that follow from the giveness of that causal stream of activity, i.e., given x-type streams y-type consequences 'flows' from the same… To some extent one might say that given the presence of x that in and of itself is a sufficient (perhaps necessary) condition for y to follow from it given, also, that no contrary conditions are also present that will prevent that type of consequence from following. As a dynamic flow there is no distinct cause or set of causes and no distinct effect or set of effects. Basically, from the nature of the flow of consequences that co-occur with x-type of phenomena then y-type of phenomena follow. An apt illustration is that of an acorn growing into an oak tree given that that tree is allowed to grow and therein realize its essential nature to be an oak tree and not an apple tree….  (21)

	But a number of other metaphorical models will be incorporated within this basic metaphor of streams or consequential flows. This process of qualification and modification will be conducted on a provisional basis and with a recognition that ultimately all metaphor, however sophisticated, cannot be advanced beyond their level of 'normal' 'empirical' deployment as previously argued. The advantage of such relative sophistication is that philosophically we can travel more deeply into the realm of phenomena in order to appreciate the same more productively in the range of insightful consequences that may arise for us in the sphere of our natural existence. In this instance, my desire to understand the nature of both intentionally directing and non-intentionally directed causal transformation(s) in the context of the advancement of a therapeutic environment and its formulation of appropriate treatment programs, etc., has motivated me to enter this field of philosophical research when hitherto I have would shunned the adoption of such a foolish and dangerous responsibility. What fool would tread across this land when braver souls have had to face the still pervasive criticism of such dead and deadly philosophers as Zeno, Plato, Aristotle, Nagarjuna, Asanga, Vasubandhu, Hume, Kant, Husserl, Heidigger, Derrida to name but a few of those influential critics that one must find the means to successfully manage to walk past without ourselves being stopped dead in our own tracks when not able to find an adequate, yet provisional, appreciation of phenomenal reality given that the meaning of that  'reality', in the first place, is phenomenologically constituted by-us for-us! So, feeling this need, I have ventured forth in the hope that I can make some small difference in our coming to more deeply understand this field of causal philosophy. (22)

	A number of qualifications will complicate this metaphor of consequential 'streams' or 'flows'. For a start I would like to make, as indicated, an artificial distinction between a non-intentionally influenced causal flow and an intentionally influenced causal flow. Then, I would like to make a tripartite parallel with the (analogical) nature of the hermeneutic circle of comprehension as previously outlined by myself on numerous occasions. Moreover, I would like to introduce types of relational modes, namely, (particle) emissions, (charged) currents and (body) system(atic)s into the dynamics of this 'hermeneutic circle' of relatively non-intentionally influenced causal flows. Other topics and concepts that will be introduced will include complexion, self-organization, how to interpret quantum-like states of affairs, transformation as consequential flows and self-organized changes in the direction of consequential flows, and, the role that suspensional-like states have with respect to the consequential flows and changes in the direction of the same…. (23)

	The hermeneutic circle of comprehension is a metaphor involving three poles of the Object, World and Ego. In a similar arrangement I would like to parallel the model with the following, namely, (non-absolutely distinctive modes of) Emissions, Systems and Currents. This list parallels relatively isolated single particular-like states described as 'particles', ‘bipolar’ relationships set up between two participating parties described as 'currents', and, relationships set up between three or more parties as 'bodies' in a system. Emissions once emitted, through the external break-up/internal breakdown of a systematic structure and/or current, practically take a deterministic like consequential pathway on a non-quantum-like level of interpretation. On the other hand, currents come into relative existence through the external break-up/internal breakdown of a systematic structure and the relative promotion of a polarized bi-polar process of enstructuralization. Lastly, systems are relationships of three or more participants with or without relatively chaotic behaviour through the coupling of a current with an emission or the coming together of three or more emissions or the external break-up/internal breakdown of a systematic structure of four or more participant parties or through the coupling of currents or a combination of the former. These distinctions being qualified as relatively relative and hence not absolutely pure by virtue of the fact that all these modal states co-occur within the confines of the life-world, i.e., within the complex systematics of the same. (24)

	As indicated the circular nature of our three modes is realized through the transformations possible through coupling/decoupling of these states with themselves and each other. E.g., a system of three parties could externally break-up/internally breakdown through the formation of three emitted particles or one charged current and one emitted particle, etc. the following qualification being exercised, namely, that there can be no pure emissions, pure currents nor pure systems by virtue of the fact that all phenomena occur within the 'confines' of the environment of the life-world, i.e., always in the context of a situatedness within this world-of-life (because all phenomena remain there-for-us as phenomena; and never as ‘pure’ emissions, etc!). (25)

	Now each and every situation has its own relatively essential complexion by virtue of its self-organized status. Although each point (and moment) in the life-world is unique situations arise with a self-organized complexion by virtue of a commonality of that region as long as one realizes that there can be no pure particularity (by virtue of its interaction with the rest of the world) and no pure universality by virtue of its relative unique of its situatedness (in terms of life history, situation, current complexion, etc.) (contrary the dichotomous distinction argued for in classical Buddhist logic between real particulars and only nominal universals [as unreal mental supper-impositions on those real particulars]!)! (26)
	
	A further parallel with our hermeneutic circle of comprehension arises in so far as relationships are viewed as the ongoing resultant of a process of 'continual' resolution (treated through a discretionary lens). In a similar fashion, in the so-called physical world, if I am right to parallel the Ego moment with currents, then through currents the complexion of a regional situation (a region demonstrating the same or similar essential features) finds its ongoing resolution. Hence a consequential flow is (essentially) self-organized (and would demonstrate the same complexion, fractal symmetry, etc., across the extent or region of operation of that 'particular' state as phenomenally constituted/phenomenologically re-constituted as a relationship-there-for-us). On the other hand a change of direction in a consequential flow is the result of a process of re-self-organization, i.e., an essential change in the essential fabric of that relationship (with, as a consequence, a different set of expected consequences). Self-organization and re-self-organization implying that information is holistically enregistered across that operational region hence these concepts of complexion, self-organized changes in complexion and changes in the direction of the same in self-organized processes of re-self-oganization, etc. Hence transformations in complexion as the result of consequential flows, and, the changes in the direction of consequential flows through processes of re-self-organization. This distinction having a role in the therapeutic process in that, essentially, a therapeutic process is a positive change in the direction of consequential flows through processes of re-self-organization. (27)

	Finally, I would like to add some points of a more speculative nature to this concept of a relatively non-intentionally influenced consequential flow. For a start, as various types of suspensions ensure the dynamic function(s) of the hermeneutic circle I would like to speculate that various type of parallel processes ensure a similar type of transition between these modes of Emission, Current and System. A suspension being a balanced form of coupling (say between two emissions and their formation of a current) of a form that is either actively or passively coupling or actively or passively decoupling. I suspect we might find a definition of a virtual particle, etc., as a particle stuck, for what ever reason in a state of ‘balanced suspension’ between two or more (hybrid) states, or, as a particle and its anti-particle (or currents, systems, etc) formed and dissolved simultaneously within the confines of the Planck moment. Moreover, I foresee a way of harmonizing and explaining the value and merit of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum states with another influential interpretation of the multi-possible Many-Worlds Interpretation as I see the former dealing with quantum states from an relatively external point of view and the latter as concerning itself from a relatively internal perspective (with respect to the relationship under examination).  Hence the apparent involvement of the spectator in the former (read Ego) and the realization of a possible world with the greatest degree of probability (not that that probability can realize '1' or '100%' as absolute actuality has been philosophically ruled out as a polarity that is unobtainable, etc., by virtue of it being a mere polarity). Hypothetically, in the light of the latter interpretations, the relatively internal appreciation of the self-organized complexion of a distinctive region that is apparently entangled should have pre-decided its status internally to some extent although externally that can only be realized through some form of extra-relational intervention (read spectator involvement). Let me now theoretically explicate what is hypothetically needed in the artificial state of an intentionally influenced consequential flow qua intentionally influenced consequential flow. (28)

	Although it was my stated ambition to discuss first a physically-oriented metaphorical modelling of causal processes, correctly I am formulating this type of position through a physicalization of previous work done on the nature of intentional fields in the context of the hermeneutic circle. Just as there are only polarities involved in the thematization of the object/world/ego moments, through the existential fact of embodiment, as the person is ‘embodied’ in the matrix of the life-world, we can propose the same type of non-absolute polarization between these same three types of moments from a physically oriented point of view in and through their contrast from this intentionally-oriented point of view. Just as there is a triple correlativity between these three moments through necessary mutual co-thematization of each other in a similar fashion we can invoke a necessary mutual co-thematization of their 'ideal' physically oriented counterparts. This avenue is open to us because the metaphorical language adopted for this type of discourse on the nature of intentionally influenced causation implicates at least a covert acquaintance with this physical stratum of our embodiment in this world-of-life. In other words the metaphorical roots of our intentionally-oriented discourse must implicate metaphors of a physical orientation as well! Thus a closer examination of the metaphors utilized in intentionally-oriented discourses should reveal this debt. We don't need to travel too far before this fact of embodiment should reveal itself as witnessed by such concepts of intentional objects, intentional fields, egological self-perception, etc., all three aspects of the hermeneutic circle borrowing such expressions from a covert or ‘metaphorically-treated’ physically-oriented frame of reference, albeit transformed metaphorically into an intentional frame of reference. A number of other allusions to the physical world also spring to mind, e.g., the space of the relationship; the retrospective temporal orientation of reductions as found in the moment of the Object; the prospective temporal orientation of the World moment; the present temporal orientation of the existential moment of the Ego; the spontaneity of the not-textual moment of the overall suspension of the Object, World and Ego; concepts of response and action initiated therein, the fact that we find ourselves to be individuals mirroring others mirroring us where each of us is seen to have a distinct history, as participants in the formation of the collective histories belonging to the institution we find ourselves as members of, etc. Hence, correctly, a middle ground already exists for dealing with causal processes from the perspective of (this important phenomenological concept of) embodiment. Therefore, how can we capitalize on this middle ground in work done on intentional fields to formulate a more sophisticated vision of physical-oriented causal processes? In other words how can we, e.g., transfer the (complex) concept of a(n overall) transcendental suspension to a physically-oriented realm, etc? To do this let me look more closely at this collection of suspensions that constitute the overall sense of suspension. (29)

	The metaphorical identity of the intentional object-state is realized through a conjunctive suspension. Previously, I styled that type of relational separation and/or breakdown as an emission. Translated into a physically-oriented frame of reference we might say that the emission of a particle (or creation/recreation of an event-state) 'mirrors', hopefully, this type of theoretical construct. In the same vein, a dis-conjunctive suspension realizes a complex, systematic type of occurrence, namely, a field whilst a balance between the former realizes the existential moment of a current (between the bi-polar poles of ego and the bi-poles of the object-field). Implied in this complexity of currents is an embryonic sense of the intentional as that ability for a field to be appreciated in the context of a meta-field, etc. Hence the degree of epistemological organization is a reflection of the degree to which this layering is layered, invaginated, re-worked, multiplied, subject to repetition, hierarchically organized, etc. In effect, intentionality emerges from and through the multi-re-iteration of this 'meta-appreciation of an object-state-inter-world relationship…' helping us to quantify, approximately, the degree to which this epistemological organization has been re-iterated. (30)

	Although I have paralleled emissions, systems and currents with the moments of Object, World and Ego we should not read these former states as distinctive processes, i.e., as pure emissions, etc. On the other hand, we can treat these items as discrete to that extent there is a balanced co-suspension of those elements that mutually co-thematize that apparently particular state of affairs. So an (emphasis on an) emission necessitates the co-suspension of those other two moments co-defining it and there is, at the same time, a de-suspension of that particular moment under focus, a quazi removal of that state from its virtual state of suspension. Does this model then throw light on the nature of virtual particles that are theoretically postulated to fill the vacuum as they flash into and out of existence within the confines of the Planck moment? It would seem that we have a definition of a virtual particle as member of a pair (triplet, etc.) that is in a state of balance with its coupled partner or partners. Suspending that suspension producing a non-virtual state of affairs through a de-coupling of that pair (triplet, etc.). Hence the manufacturing of a current or a system necessitates the de-suspension of that particular moment while its co-moments are left or returned to a state of suspension. Quite simple really - but what does it mean? (31)

	One implication that could be drawn, perhaps, is that a particular type of response could be initiated by de-suspending the appropriate dialectical aspect. E.g., to produce an emission we need to de-suspend the conjunctive moment whilst covertly thematizing the suspension of the other two moments (of World and Ego). Translated into an intentional frame of reference this would imply that the emission/projection of an intentional object would arise through the de-suspension of the conjunctive suspension, in effect through its de-metaphoricalization in the mutually suspended environment of the Ego and World. Do we have a clue here as to how we should read this role of metaphor to analogue the world? To the extent that metaphor are not just literary devices but are intended to actively ‘metaphor’ the world. A conjunctive suspension establishes the psychic state of affairs wherein the intentional object is both like and not like the phenomenon to which it is being compared. The state of comparison establishing through its centre the psychic location or sense wherein that type of phenomenon is given its general place in the life-world as culturally and interculturally mapped. The performance of the dis-conjunctive suspension, through the mapping of rhetorical junctures perhaps establishing a sense of history. A balanced suspension of both of these two previous suspensions giving us an historical sense of the non-textual present. On the other hand, through a balanced suspension of all three moments a spontaneous a-historical sense of the present is realized through the insight delivered in which the not-textual is simulated/re-simulated (giving us direct access to the life-world through its de-suspension?). The not-textual, I would argue, gives us a sense of direct contact with the life-world, and, therein, through a reversal of this formation of intentionality a certain receptivity to response (as a ‘return’ to the world and all it eventually encompasses like an existential sense of responsibility, e.g.). The implication being that action-in-the-world is realized through the de-suspension of this overall sense of suspension! In effect a suspension/de-suspension of this overall sense of suspension (and therein our direct engagement in this world-of-life through this sense of an ongoing suspended overall suspension of the not-textual super-moment in this hyper-moment of realization of our direct engagement in this world-of-life wherein all senses of suspension are suspended ‘in turn’ ‘simultaneously’, i.e., directly!). (32)

	We might say, hypothetically, that the balanced suspension of both the past (Object moment) and the future (World moment) produces/ re-produces the sense and semblance of the present (Ego moment) which is expressed through a current/set of currents. Now, I envisage the initiation and persistence of currents through the induction of an emergent existential excess on a lower meta-level of epistemological organization through a de-suspension of a suspension in the form of a chaotic bifurcation. This semblance of resolve, in intentional-like terms of reference, in effect, parallels resolution (in non-intentional-like terms of reference) in and through the conflicting aspects of the system of that relationship. Let me elabourate. The metaphorical arrow of time is uni-directional by virtue of the fact that the past is not equal to the future. The historical past is analogued by the sense of the metaphorical, i.e., a conjunctive suspension that has determined the sense of that determined phenomenally (in non-intentionally oriented terms of reference)/phenomenologically (in intentionally-oriented terms of reference), i.e., its sense of place in our psychic mapping of the life-world (as the central point of that conjunctive suspension of like/not like). On the other hand, the meaning of the future is essentially rhetorical in character being modelled on the dis-conjunctive suspension of the either/or. The past has determined (metaphorically) what questions can reasonably be asked of a phenomenon's progression into the future - will it go this way or that way… The present moment realizing the meaningfulness of that choice through the resolution of that tension between the past and future, that tension between a 'conjunctive suspension' and a 'dis-conjunctive suspension'; translating the intentionally-oriented expression of 'suspension' as a 'bifurcation' in a non-intentionally-oriented, physically-oriented dimension. Hence the asymmetry of this metaphorical arrow of time. The semblance of the present being experienced as a 'current', the semblance of 'intent' realized through the resolution of the difference between the future moment and the past moment. One might say, again metaphorically, it is the relationship between the expected-unexpectedness of the future (which might surprise us) and the unexpected-expectedness of the past (which had surprised us). This energy of present 'intent' emerges as an existential excess through the existential fact that the (psychic) whole is greater the sum of its (psychic) parts. The semblance of choice, apparent in the transformation of the nature of a relationship, being realized through this emergent relational excess being able to induce a decisive rhetorical-reply in a lower level of that relationship's epistemological organization, i.e., a change of 'direction' in the course of that relationship. This change being conducted through the auspices of a chaotic bifurcation lower down in the structural-functioning of that epistemological organization present in the systematic 'body' or 'space' of that relationship. In effect the body or space of a relationship is effectively re-self-organized. So intent is realized through the resolution of a bifurcation higher up in the epistemological organization of a relationship whilst it induces a semblance of re-self-organization through a bifurcation lower down in this same epistemological organization as a transformation of state. By these means a living intentionally directed body can move in a non-determinant manner contra the predictability of material bodies like, e.g., billiard balls once set in motion. Hence a transformation could be defined as a transition from one state of self-organization to some other, i.e. as a process of re-self-oganization. Intentionality being a double process of re-self-organization through the resolution of 'intent' and the application of that intent in and through a process of induction. Self-organization I would define as the complexion of a relationship being resolved through a certain set of modes of being in keeping with the nature of that relationship, that complexion being the holistic pervasion of the essential information, as modally expressed, of that relationship throughout the entire space or body of that relationship. A transformation necessarily involving, therefore, a change in complexion. This period of apparent transition being the time needed for this change to take place be it within a Planck moments or a series of such moment or a period of time that can be treated as historical in extent. On the other hand, the real time of the transitional period may well be within a Planck moment or between the same, whereas, the expression of that transformation takes place in a period of historical time. Let me illustrate the different sense of time involved in that period of transition between one state of self-organization and its re-self-organization. (33)

	Imagine that we have created a finely balanced conical hill of sand to which one additional grain of sand will be added, enough to cause that hill to re-self-organize itself with an avalanche of sand descending down its slope. The sand hill in its first state was self-organized, the essential nature of that sand-cone perfectly expressed through out its extent with the same fractal symmetry. One extra grain of sand is enough for it to experience a period of instability as that hill re-organizes itself. That avalanche expressing a 'simultaneous' self-re-organization. Additional grains of sand bringing that sand-cone again to the chaotic limits of its essential configuration where one more additional grain of sand may or may not re-configure its current state of being through that self-organized process of the avalanche. With the same fractal symmetry expressed across the space of a relationship if that current state stands on the edge of a possible bifurcation the transition once in play re-configures that overall space in a self-organized manner. Indeed, as that essential information pervades that relationship equally from every point in its entirety a reconfiguration of that space through entering that bifurcation can be treated as within the moment or between the moment with only the apparent transfer of information across that space taking place in a period of time. Indeed, the apparent speed of information transfer across that space may well appear to be faster than the speed of light when in fact self-reorganization is essentially momentary within the ambit of that relationship from every point in that relationship despite the fact that that reorganization needs to express itself in the medium of that relationship in and through an apparent period in time. Grains of sand take time to fall down that sand-cone… a transformation across vast distances of cosmic space take time to be put into effect and to be seen despite that fact that the essential informational and its bifurcational sense of 'decision-making' already pervades the entire body or space of that relationship momentarily. Hence the self-entanglement of a self-organized relational space (along with its apparent sense of self-identity through this process of pre-transition, transition and post-transition of the transformational process as an apparent process). Hence the momentary shift or transformation in the complexion of a system despite the appearance of its manifestation of change as a period of transition conducted over a certain apparent period of time. (34)

	Let me now gather these various strands involved in this enriched metaphorical treatment of the flow of causal processes and through the existential fact of our embodiment argue for an intentional-non-intentional/non-intentional-intentional 'imaging' of the causal process in general. Then, armed with this theoretical treatment of the relationship let me see if I can throw some light on the nature of the therapeutic process, as previously defined, and, seek what general insights we may claim from the pursuit of such a critical, philosophical investigation that helps us to focus on a realization of an authenticity of being as we life within this one world-of-life before-others. (35)

	Earlier in this paper I stated that there was a need to formulate a relational philosophy plus an existential philosophy in order to establish a causal philosophy metaphorically more rich than the normal 'empirical' deployment of concepts like cause-and-effect. That such a construction was to be based on the metaphor of flows or streams of change. Let me now demonstrate my reasons for this approach. (36)

	From a relational philosophy we need to note the following: that information is spread throughout the 'space' or 'body' of that relationship equally from every point within it. This information is realized through resolution in which relatively dissonant structures are returned through processes of resolutional accommodation. The relationship expresses itself through three aspects of relatively discrete emissions, bipolar currents in a multi-polar system. Hence a relationship can never be purely envisaged between two emissive components or the poles of a current! Hence the tripolar configuration of the hermeneutic circle and its physicalized counterpart as a relatively physicalized aspect of the same (courtesy of phenomenal/phenomenological embodiment). Hence a relationship between two components must take place within an appropriate field, etc. A field being formed from the complex relationship between three or more component parties. All relationships being nested within the horizoned-confines of an open-ended life-world. The relationship emerging through three moments of which the third moment can be treated as existential in tenor, i.e., present-oriented at the intersection of the asymmetric relationship between past histories and future possibilities. The overall transcendental suspension of past, future and present producing/re-producing the semblance of relational spontaneity (through intentional bifurcations, overall transcendental suspensions, inductive bifurcations, etc.) despite the apparent time needed to express a process of re-self- organization through self-re-organization. Through relational interaction an emergent existential excess is realized ('intentionally' capable of inductively engineering bifurcations lower in the epistemological ordering of that relational space or body). All processes of transformation, i.e., change, taking place though relatively determinant self-organization and relatively non-determinant re-self-organization (as a process of self-re-organization). Hence the richer metaphorical portrayal of the relationship as relatively deeterminant and non-determinant flows or streams of apparently discrete momentary transitions. Processes of change being either self-organized or re-self-organized (through self-re-organization). Across bifurcations points of pressure, or pressure points, being 'invoked' to 'induce' processes of orgainization/re-organization of the relatively realized self-identity of that relationship in the existential moment where past meets future (whose total overall suspension/de-suspension permits us to engage directly with that relational phenomenon and its sets of component phenomena)…. ( 37)

2.   Insight(?)

	…and the moral of this story? That, effectively, an understanding of both transcendental suspensions and their physically-oriented equivalents of bifurcations are essential to an insightful comprehension of the general/particular natures of transformational processes and by extension to processes of treatment desired in a therapeutic context! An understanding of these pressure-points that effect processes of change in processes of change, i.e., a re-direction of the relationship, is essential to a deeper more insightful understanding of the transformational nature of the therapeutic process. Let me list some of these insights that have an application in the conduct of an appropriate process of therapeutic treatment: (38)

1.	A therapeutic process must add to the existential excess present in a relationship through the adoption and adaptation of a treatment program, or the innovative search for one, that has the necessary degree of merit, i.e., actual therapeutic potential given an accurate understanding of that adverse condition or set of conditions and their expected amelioration in the light of that treatment plan. (39)

2.	That therapy is a process of transformation that entails appropriate intent in the context of that applicable induction of that desired therapeutic intent. (40)

3.	That intent must be appropriate and applicable, formulated with the necessary degree of energy to induce what transformational processes are deemed necessary in that treatment program (through adequate per-intentional preparation, etc.). (41)

4.	The processes of intent and induction must cooperate with each other in the light of those therapeutic intentions. (42)

5.	Intentional bifurcations are realized through establishing an appropriate preparation, exercise and exit being engineered through suspension/de-suspensions within the theoretical ambit of the hermeneutic circle . (43)

6.	Inductive bifurcations are realized through establishing an effective thematization of the existential nature of that relationship in which a therapeutic form of intervention is going to be inaugurated. (44)

7.	Appropriate bifurcational pathways are entered when they are weighted in such a manner so as to ensure their adoption at those pressure-points. (45)

8.	The minimum energy of intent and induction to be expended in that process being realized in an ongoing existential appreciation of that relational-situation. (46)

9. 	That, in effect, the necessary degree of an existential excess be self-invested in the course of that process of treatment through directing the relationship’s own sense of self-re-organization. (47)

10.	 That this process of investment be sympathetic to the actual realization of those intentions and expectations being met in the context of the unfoldment of that relationship. (48)

11.	Hence the course of the therapeutic process is to be treated to a process of self-rectification in the light of its current treatment program. (49)

12.	Ensuring that all aspects of our phenomenological definition of therapeutic treatment be observed (as outlined in paragraph 2), etc. (50)

	As above, I have just outlined some of the important insights that need to be understood, intuitively, in theory, practice and in critical appreciation, in order to more successful apply this causal concept of flows, along with its existential ramifications, to the therapeutic situation. The intervention of resolve and resolution being effected through the skilful self-manipulation of suspensions/bifurcations (through processes of presentation/de-presentation/re-presentations) in the light of that therapeutic relationship…. (51)

Resolution is the operative therapeutic mechanism… therefore the process is never a ‘war’ per se. Indeed, warfare as a radical form of resolution is more a sign of a failure to realize a process of rectification before the need for such 'radical surgery' although given that "things were not nipped in the bud" such a desperate last measure may well be expedient for the restoration of a process of health, the re-institution of a healthy relationship. An existential approach should call for "a nipping of things in the bud" if that course of action were possibly open for us. Hence the need for a continuous monitoring of the health of a relationship be that with our own selves or others. Hence a continual monitoring, reacting, and re-evaluation, etc., is needed for the recognition and treatment of a disordered condition/set of disordered conditions - adversity always operating on a pre-condition of overall relative health and psychic integration through a deprivation of the integrity of that relationship along with its dis-investment of an existential surplus realized in the body of that relationship as one relationship intentionally-and-non-intentionally entered into in and through a set of relationships harmoniously lived with varying degrees within the overall flowing stream/s of the life-world. (52)

	Now, I do apologize for the diverse and complex nature of this disquisition! At least, in the metaphorical re-formulation of a causal philosophy, through the invocation of this phenomenological concept of embodiment, I have attempted to rectify my habit hitherto of concentrating only on the intentional-oriented dimension of epistemological processes (too often in a relatively non-causal fashion). To conclude this second part of this sixth essay let me now re-visit, in the current, speculative light of this research, the concept of authenticity in so far as it relates to the therapeutic process. (53)

3.    Provisional Conclusion: Finding Authenticity in the Relatively In-Authentic(?)

	Authenticity of the therapeutic process necessarily involves the full and fullest practical implementation of our phenomenological definition of therapy as (provisionally) defined at the commencement of this second part of this Sixth Essay. ‘Therapy’, e.g., that does not reduce the adversity of a condition of illness cannot be called therapeutic (at best, only barely palliative, or at worst, a criminal and/or exploitative practice!)! Then, again, to indulge in claimed therapeutic practices without any real critical assessment of such, as in the broad spectrum ‘treatment’ of Freudian Psychoanalysis, is, again, a travesty of so-called therapeutic intent! (54)

	A key ingredient of the therapeutic process is the desire to induce a positive transformation in the condition of the patient. In Part II of this Sixth Essay I have spend some considerable effort in trying to come to some understanding how a positive process of change can be brought about. In the final analysis, once all prior preparation has been completed, the only thing left for all parties concerned in a therapeutic process is for them to enter into it in a fully embodied manner, that is, in an attitude of authenticity open to what is felt to be needed, or called for, in the fullest pursuit of this practice. It is my belief that this should be an empowering process for all parties concerned – an open invitation for all parties to be fully informed to that extent appropriate to the tasks to hand. Thankfully, although sometimes all too slowly, we are moving towards a better informing of the patient as to what is about to befall them. Their fully-informed permission should be sought as I have found from experience that an informed patient is one of the best things one can do in true quality control and assurance; especially in the institutional setting where too often a patient is subjected to the treatment program of some other or is subjected to a treatment program that is inappropriate to the nature of their condition or complaint. On the other hand, all situations will call for a transcendental reservation to some degree or other when the therapist is authentically acting on the behalf of a patient despite the latter’s reservations and/or objections and find themselves subject to this program of treatment with or without their permission being exercised… the ‘exception’ to a properly intentioned treatment program, should it be made, should not be ruled out of court but fully grasped in ‘our’ pursuit of a co-authored authenticity taking cognizance of the fact that sins of omission can be just a deadly as sins of commission! That, in essence, the unique spirit of each and every situation should alone be called to account in the pursuit of our existential responsibility – a vocation realized through the openness of an appropriate and proper transcendental suspension of our deepest understanding of that relationship currently to hand, an understanding that find itself finely attuned in time through the authentic directness to be discovered in the nature of its ongoing engagement. (55)

	As authenticity is always the existential transformation of the relatively non-existential, and not of the relatively existential, let us go forth into the world, this wonderful world-of-life, despite its suffering, and attempt to make a difference, incremental transformation by incremental transformation until that day, that hour, that minute and second arrives when the cultural matrix in which we reside can radically go about a positive re-self-organization of itself along those avenues of approach that are relatively more therapeutic although never forgetting for one moment that therapy is more the icing on the cake given that it merely supplements the fundamentally intact nature of the human person beneath those conditions of adversity, and, that this existential basis of relational integrity, moreover, applies to the function and functioning of culture itself ! (56)

In the next paper, Part III, let me conclude by looking at a series of topics such as desire and addiction, typologies of illness, how should we dispense/dispense with treatment-processes, the prevalence of non-therapeutic medical myths, what should we do when we can or can no longer treat a patient, at what point do our therapeutic concepts and practices break down when we move beyond their ‘normal empirical’ level(s) of deployment?! Noting, in the process, the critical ramifications our middle path approach, between negative nihilism and over-positive absolutism, has for the overall consequences of therapeutic intervention as it enters, directly or indirectly, advertently and inadvertently, into the very cultural core and fabric of society…?! (57)

As I have argued elsewhere, non-dogmatically… from experience… from critical reflection… one of the proven paths to the exercise of the transcendental is through the practice of a thorough ongoing transcendental suspension of all our ontological commitments, epistemological expectations and existential interventions… for only in giving up that which we value do we deserve to be given back the same on our return to the world through the auspices of the transcendental life-world and its power to reward such sacrifice… replete with all rewards from such research and our attention to the fact that we are dealing with another person, other people… no longer just another person, other people…but now as co-workers in the business of therapy and the therapy of business… in the very process of therapy undergoing a process of therapy itself…!! That ultimately, there can be no absolute dichotomy between intentional intent and intentional induction, between patient and therapist, between the individual and a community of individuals, between communities and institutions…! (58)

	How do we seek to go beyond what might seem to be the latest cutting edge of therapy? Seek to go beyond this bewildering array of professional optimism from the entrenched orthodox to the totally unconventional? Only through the appropriate and proper practice of overall transcendental suspensions – forever realizing that the health of our metaphors is limited, provisional, never literal and forever subject to insightfully tested and attested reconstitution…!! (59)

That, ultimately, what is beyond - that we cannot speak, but, at least let us proceed to such an edge in the hope that we can look a little further… appreciate the past from hence we have come… where we currently seem to be ‘warts and all’… and to whence we should head… in this critical quest to look…
        	   		           beyond therapy…!!! (60)

							        Noël Tointon, Sydney, 21.4.03.