One result of being a naturalist which appeals to me is the simplicity
gained by dropping a whole non-existent world. We don't inhabit two
worlds, only one, this one. What's more, the one we really do inhabit is
observeable and operates in a consistent "lawful" manner, unlike
supernature. The other one, or I should say other ones, the thousands
of postlated supernatural realms, were held to be the more important,
the controlling realms, so the world around us was thought to be poor in
useful information and depth, a testing grounds. Spirits in a material
world, etc etc. It's like when a child "loses" his or her imaginary friend,
his real friends become more valuable and significant. They're not
perfect like the imaginary friend, but they have one advantage: they
are real!

I think this belief still lies in our unconscious. It leads us to use a
"priestly" approach to debate and learning, unnecessary complexity in
language, jargon, know-it-all-ism, academic (the inheritor of monastic)
approaches which serve to obscure rather than illuminate.

Cognitive therapy is based on an ultra-simple idea, that our clients may
suffer from misunderstanding their situation due to flaws in their self-
concept. They learned things about themselves that were untrue (that
they have free will so all their mistakes are moral failings, that they
must be devoted to their parents right or wrong, that their anger is
"bad" (they should only be mad at themselves because due to free will
all their problems are their fault, etc.)

I think of myself as a teacher. People see a situation, interpret it wrong,
act on that interpretation, and mess things up for themselves and
others. I ask them to examine themselves, scrutinize their beliefs, test
them, experiment with something new to see if another belief about
themselves fits the facts better.

There certainly may be reason to construct an academy-approved
literature describing this all, but even more important is to develop our
simplest possible method of describing it, convincing the average
person, etc. I think the ideal book would be one with an intro followed by
as many case studies as it could find. Anecdotes have a cumulative
affect, and I believe are the highest level of evidence we can amass,
and one of the most convincing forms of "evidence" for general
readers. People like to read stories, especially ones they can see
something of themselves in.

Ken