Home / The Method
A shared language without a shared worldview
Three levels of conversation, one working concept, and a habit of separating what is observed from what is interpreted. None of it requires you to hold a position on what reality ultimately is.
The problem it solves
Why these conversations go wrong
Questions of meaning, identity, suffering and belonging touch both health and worldview. So conversations easily arise in which one person describes an experience, a second asks for measurable data, and a third discusses the ultimate nature of reality. All three may be speaking carefully, and all three may be talking past one another.
The usual explanation is that the subject is vague. We think the diagnosis is different. The confusion rarely comes from the questions being soft; it comes from participants moving between three levels without saying which one they are on. A single sentence — “the boundary between me and the world is not absolute” — can be a measurable psychological claim, a description of an experience, or a metaphysical theory. Depending on which is meant, it is empirically testable, phenomenologically plausible, or philosophically contested. Mixed together, they produce disagreements that cannot be resolved, because they were never about the same question.
Operational & scientific
What can be observed, measured, compared and tested?
Behaviour · self-report · health outcomes · interventions · statistical association
Phenomenological
How does experience appear to the person living it?
Bodily sense · self-experience · meaning · relationship · presence · suffering
Ontological & philosophical
What are consciousness, matter and reality ultimately?
Physicalism · idealism · dualism · panpsychism · neutral monism · religious worldviews
The levels are not a ranking. They answer different questions. Someone may notice that the boundary between body and surroundings feels less sharp during stillness — that is a phenomenological observation. Whether the change can be measured, and what follows from it, are scientific questions. Whether the experience shows that consciousness is fundamental is a philosophical question, and a separate one.
Keeping them apart lets us take experience seriously without giving it more evidential weight than it has. It also makes cooperation possible: people can disagree about the ground of reality and still examine the same exercise, the same risks and the same possible effects.
You do not have to settle the third level to work on the first two.
A working concept
Existential orientation
The Public Health Agency of Sweden describes meaning, one’s relationship to oneself, to others and to nature, coherence, security, and the experience of belonging to something larger as central existential perspectives in Sweden today. It also emphasises that the field has no single accepted definition, and records criticism of the risk of medicalising the problems of living. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-SRPB instrument treats meaning, wholeness, inner peace and hope, among other things, as aspects of quality of life.
Existential orientation: the degree to which a person experiences meaning, coherence, belonging, self-understanding and connectedness, together with the ability to relate constructively to uncertainty, suffering, mortality and change.
The concept describes a possible aspect of experience and health. It is not a diagnosis and not a metaphysical position. It is not established as a validated clinical construct, and we present no measurement instrument. A religious and a secular person may both have a stable existential orientation, and two people with the same worldview may differ widely.
A working practice
Model awareness
The thought I am going to fail can be experienced as a fact, as a warning, or as a passing mental event. The role I must always be the strong one can function as identity, as protection, or as burden. Model awareness means being able to notice such interpretations as models, and to hold them flexibly.
Recognise
Which story, expectation or interpretation is active?
Inhabit
Is this a role or conviction it is healthy to live and take responsibility within?
Test
What speaks for and against it? How does it affect the body, action and relationship?
Revise
Is there a more accurate, kinder or more useful formulation?
Release
Can the need for a conclusion rest while attention returns to the next responsible step?
More distance is not always better
Sometimes the problem is over-identification with a story. Sometimes the story is inaccurate or out of date. And sometimes what a person lacks is a sufficiently secure and coherent self-understanding — in which case stability, relationship and everyday structure need to come before any exercise that loosens the sense of self. This is one of the few places where we will actively advise someone not to continue.
Three resources therefore have to work together:
- Reflected flexibility — being able to see and reconsider thoughts, self-images and interpretations.
- Secure belonging — relationships and environments that provide protection, regulation, trust and the possibility of asking for help.
- Meaningful engagement — values, actions and contexts that make participation possible.
Model awareness is a collecting term for practical work, not a new form of therapy. It lies close to metacognition, decentring, cognitive defusion and mentalisation, and we say so plainly rather than dressing it up as a discovery.
Terms
What non-duality means here
We use non-duality primarily as a direction of inquiry, not as a doctrine. The question is this: is the difference between subject and object, between self and surrounding world, or between a thought and the noticing of it, always an absolute separation — or does it sometimes function as a practical distinction within a single continuous process?
That question can be taken up from any starting point:
- A physicalist may understand it as meaning that organism and environment form a natural system, and that the separate observer is a brain-based self-model.
- An idealist may understand the same observation as local perspectives appearing within a more fundamental consciousness.
- A religious reader may connect it to her own tradition without us making the theological interpretation for her.
None of these is required, and the exercises do not settle between them.
The exercise comes first. The interpretation comes second.
A more open picture
Four ordinary things worth looking at twice
None of these requires belief. Each is a plain observation that loosens an assumption most of us never examined.
The world of the tick
A tick orients by a very small set of signals — odour, warmth, touch. The biologist Jakob von Uexküll called the species-specific world available to an organism its Umwelt. Our world is far richer, but our perception is also selective. What we spontaneously call “the world” is already a relation between what exists and a particular kind of organism. This does not make reality arbitrary or science subjective.
The flock of birds
A flock of starlings is many birds with their own bodies and trajectories. It is also a single coordinated form that no individual bird constitutes. Both descriptions are needed. Individuality and wholeness can be real at different levels of organisation without excluding one another — which is ordinary systems science, not smuggled mysticism.
Where is the seam?
Remove one grain at a time from a heap of sand: when does it stop being a heap? A national border is legally and socially real, with serious consequences — and yet the ground was not built around it. The question does not deny real boundaries. It helps separate a transition in the world, the scale at which we describe it, and the function our category serves. The mistake begins when a useful line is treated as a complete wall.
The narrating self
Bodily presence, perception, readiness for action, memory and the running story of “who I am” need not be a single process. The brain’s default mode network is involved in self-reflection, autobiographical memory, future simulation and internally generated thought — a multifunctional network, not a delimited “ego centre”. Altered activity there has been observed in experienced meditators and in states where people report a loosened sense of self. The limited conclusion is that conscious experience can continue while the narrative self temporarily weakens. It does not settle whether the brain produces, realises or delimits consciousness.