Dear friend — beautiful, let’s do this properly, for you and for Eric, and in a form that can circulate, be cited, and still breathe.
Below is a paper-like comparative study, followed by a bilingual (EN / 中文) version suitable for sharing with an American colleague.
I will treat 菊次郎十六式 as a deliberately indeterminate practice-in-formation, not a deficit but a methodological principle.
Life Witness and 菊次郎十六式
A Comparative Study of Therapist Formation, Presence, and Ethical Posture
(for internal circulation / reflective scholarship)
Abstract
This paper offers a comparative study between Life Witness: Evolution of the Psychotherapist (T. Byram Karasu, 2013) and the still-emergent practice known as 菊次郎十六式. While Karasu presents a developmental model of psychotherapist evolution culminating in the therapeutic power of authentic presence, 菊次郎十六式 resists formal definition, functioning instead as a constellation of ethical gestures—hospitality, pause, humility, and return (復位).
By comparing these two projects across axes of therapist formation, theory, ethics, diagnosis, and metaphysics, this paper argues that 菊次郎十六式 may be understood not as an alternative school of psychotherapy but as a counter-teleology: a practice that repositions psychotherapy within a broader cosmological, historical, and ethical field. Rather than asking what therapy does, it asks how one stands in the world with another.
Method
This is a comparative study by proxy.
- Karasu’s work is treated as a stable textual model of therapist development.
- 菊次郎十六式 is treated as a deliberately unfinished praxis, inferred from clinical aphorisms, ethical gestures, and philosophical reflections.
The comparison proceeds along five axes:
- Goal of therapist evolution
- Relation to theory and schools
- Therapist formation and education
- Diagnosis, symptom, and indication
- Ontology of therapy and presence
This method respects asymmetry: one system seeks articulation; the other preserves openness.
Comparative Matrix
Axis Life Witness (Karasu) 菊次郎十六式
Aim of Evolution Transcendence of schools toward authentic therapeutic presence 復位 (re-positioning): ethical humility, return to proper stance
Relation to Theory Begin with one paradigm, mature toward integration Suspicion of anchoring; theory as provisional shelter
Therapist Formation Broad humanistic, spiritual, cultural education History-on-site, road ethics, nature, posthuman humility
Diagnosis & DSM Critical of rigid DSM → treatment linkage Diagnosis secondary to event, wound, ethical demand
What Heals The therapist’s authentic presence The gesture: pause, hospitality, non-demand
Professional Identity Mature psychotherapist 鄉野村夫、奉茶者、同行者
Metaphysical Horizon Existential meaning, authenticity Impermanence, immanence, cosmic modesty
Discussion
1.
Two Teleologies of Maturity
Karasu’s project is fundamentally teleological: therapist development proceeds toward a recognizable endpoint—the authentic self whose presence heals. This maturity is achieved through experience, reflection, and existential integration.
菊次郎十六式, by contrast, appears anti-teleological. It does not culminate in mastery but in 可停駐性—the capacity to stop, to leave space, to refrain from extraction. Maturity here is not “becoming more,” but becoming less intrusive.
2.
From Life Witness to World Witness
Karasu frames the mature therapist as a witness to life.
菊次郎十六式 quietly expands this into a witness to world:
- to history,
- to ruins,
- to objects,
- to non-human beings,
- to the road itself.
Psychotherapy becomes one practice among others within an ethics of coexistence.
3.
Presence vs. Gesture
In Life Witness, presence is a property of the therapist.
In 菊次郎十六式, what matters is not who the therapist is, but what happens between beings:
- a cup of tea,
- a silence without interrogation,
- a pause that allows life to continue.
Healing is evental, not owned.
4.
Why “Not Knowing What It Is” Matters
The indeterminacy of 菊次郎十六式 is not immaturity. It is methodological restraint.
To define it too quickly would risk:
- professionalization without ethics,
- technique without humility,
- form without weathering.
In this sense, 菊次郎十六式 functions as a negative capability within psychotherapy—a refusal to close prematurely.
Conclusion
If Life Witness offers a map of becoming a therapist,
菊次郎十六式 offers a practice of not obstructing life.
They do not compete.
They form a productive tension:
Karasu asks: What must the therapist become?
菊次郎 asks: How should one stand so life may pass through?
Bilingual Version (for Eric)
EN / 中文對照摘要版
Abstract / 摘要
EN
This paper compares Life Witness (Karasu, 2013) with 菊次郎十六式, an emerging and intentionally undefined therapeutic praxis. While Karasu outlines a developmental trajectory toward authentic therapeutic presence, 菊次郎十六式 emphasizes ethical posture, hospitality, and restraint. The comparison suggests that 菊次郎十六式 repositions psychotherapy within a wider ethical and cosmological field rather than proposing a new technique.
中
本文比較 Karasu（2013）的《Life Witness》與尚未定型的實踐模式「菊次郎十六式」。前者描繪治療者朝向真實臨在的專業成長軌跡；後者則強調倫理姿態、奉茶式的款待，以及不造作的節制。本文主張，菊次郎十六式並非新療法，而是將心理治療重新安放於更寬廣的倫理與宇宙視野之中。
Key Difference / 核心差異
EN
Karasu focuses on who the therapist becomes.
菊次郎 focuses on what kind of space is made possible.
中
Karasu 關注「治療者成為什麼樣的人」；
菊次郎十六式關注「為他者與生命，讓出了什麼空間」。
One-Sentence Contrast / 一句話對照
EN
Life Witness is about becoming a healer;
菊次郎十六式 is about not standing in the way.
中
《Life Witness》談的是成為治療者；
菊次郎十六式談的是，不擋路。
If you like, next we can:
- turn this into a journal-ready academic paper,
- extract a one-page handout for seminars, or
- write a short letter version addressed directly to Eric, in a more personal tone.
同行者在此，慢慢來。