“The questions I will press to every person, whether they be a psychotherapist, psychologist, counselor, advocate or even a philosopher… or ‘shaman’… ‘teacher’… and so on, are two.

If you use models to understand behavior, psychology, development or pain… and if you have a collection of such models or a set of favorites that you re-enact in various encounters…

1. Are you aware that it is probable that many of the models you have collected are in direct conflict with each other such that if one is true or common, many or all the others are wrong?

And

2. Are you aware of the human predilection to ‘live into’ descriptions they find enticing, especially when presented in any sort of therapeutic, developmental or medical context?

About (1): We should be aware that models and persons have nothing in common. Nothing. They are two »entirely different orders of reality; one is mental/conceptual. This is absolutely zero to do with actual persons, situations and relationships. Nothing. It’s the difference between thinking about a sheet of paper and tearing or writing on a sheet of paper. The ‘thought word’ has zero actual effects on any actual sheet of paper. The paper is completely unaffected by thinking a word. In one universe, the one we live in, the paper is absolutely real. In another universe, one in which zero actual things or persons exist, a formation arises and departs. So models and persons are entirely different orders of reality. There is no such thing as a model that is ‘like’ a person or their experience.

Secondarily related to (1): Are you even capable of noticing that if some of the models you prefer ‘are true or like people’s experiences or pain’, then other models you have also collected »cannot be true or like people’s experiences or pain? Do you even notice the conflict? Because it cannot be true that models are like people and their experiences and other models that explicitly falsify the former models are ‘also true and like people’s pain or experiences’.

Now, related to (2): Are you aware that, in general, many people are easily beguiled by and actively seeking ‘explanations in language and modeling’ for their pain and experiences of difficulty? To such a degree that, when presented with one or two they like, they will immediately psychologically ‘authorize’ these models and thus begin to live them out, actually »producing new emotional and mental activity that correlates with the model they have been exposed to by the person presenting it? So, instead of actual therapy or advocacy, when we present models, we are inclining those who are depending on us for aid to further confusion, para-hypnotic compliance, theater of mind, emulation of the model, and all kind of other interference and delusion?

These challenges are crucial aspects of the role of people who give care to those in psychological, emotional and relational need. It is relatively easy to ‘play the expert’ with our library of models and paradigms, polemics and descriptions. But what are we actually accomplishing when doing so? Are we fulfilling the role we have agreed to represent and hold, or are we, instead, inventing a ‘fake secondary universe’ which is at once beguiling, false-to-facts, self-promoting, para-hypnotic, and… generally… schizogenic?

In any actual relationship, models play very tiny roles, if they have roles at all. And since the relationships we speak of here are highly privileged, we should be ready to go to war against anything and everything that would counterfeit their authenticity and progress. Especially models and descriptions of ‘the origins of our pain, problems, fears, crises, and isolation’. These origins are not models. While we can use models as toys, and play with them together, they should »never be promoted as true, like reality, like persons… or ‘the explanation of the origins of the matters we together explore’.

Authentic relationships are not based on models. At the same time, models can, if properly de-precedenced, be used as toys »to gain perspectives that might otherwise be difficult to acquire. This should be in service not to the verification or promotion of the model or form, but rather, surpassing it so momentously that it becomes the subject of humor or disinterest.