Are We Allowed to Have a Self?

Who do we listen to? The influence of Buddhism and Mindfulness is running rampant. I myself am drawn to it. But something is always missing for me. I wonder if it's just because I am from a Western culture and this Eastern philosophy is built on collectivist cultural underpinnings? They want us to die to Self. To see the idea of Self as the source of suffering. I get this, but I also do not get this. We are individuals. This is a given. Yes, we might all be the same matter, but then what is the point of us all having different faces, builds, and personalities??? We are different. Each face and personality is like no other. So shouldn't we be searching for the deeper implications to who we really are? Not just getting rid of it?

I also take issue with Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies in that, yes, purging ourselves of attachment might bring less suffering, but what is the point of being a person? I might be able to get rid of all my expectations, needs, and desires as an individual but what's the point? I was born with a unique personality, and developed a unique story all my own. If I ignore all of that then I am also not finding what joy I might find in my own life. Is it just a cultural reality that collectivist cultures want to become one and western cultures want to become individual and unique? Or is there an existential truth here that we are actually different people with wants, desires, stories, and personalities? If I force myself to rid all wants and desires attached to self, will I actually be able to engage? Will I be able to fully live this human life as ME? If there is no ME, then what's the point of having my own story?

How do I help clients with their story? Tell them they should just throw it into the fire? The smoke will all blow to the same place?

I wonder if existential philosophy has something profound to offer in our current time.

Bringing Heart to Existential Writing

Something I want to help bring to existential writing is heart. What do I even mean by that? Well, Thomas Moore's book Care of the Soul touches on this sense. It is a felt sense in the words of Eugene Gendlin that does not come through in Existential writing. I am very drawn to existential writing and therapy. I resonate quite fully with it, but sometimes find myself wanting more. I understand this is the point, to some extent. The human predicament is not one of rosy colors. It involves death, isolation, meaninglessness, and a lack of authenticity (if not engaged). The existentialists know that if you confront these things you will live a deeper more fulfilling life but they don't write about this fulfilling life. They are finger pointers. They are play-by-play commentators and not color commentators. I am also not a color commentator but see its necessity in existential psychology as well as in my own life.

I want to help myself and clients find that place where we sink our teeth into life after facing our own death. I want to find what full authenticity feels and looks like - not just what the struggle looks like to get there. I fear my desire may be to make this endeavour religious, but I want to work hard not to. Why? Because it is not about dogma. It is about what is and enjoying it. It is about what is and accepting it. It is about what is for us as individuals and relishing in it. It is about coming home into ourselves and sharing it with others.

Exploring the "positive" side of existential psychology and philosophy is something I'd like to attempt. I believe part of this is done by bringing in the humanities. We'll see won't we.