experiences of security and insecurity, occupies the outer section of the core.
At the core of the Wheel of Existence is time, an existential given that permeates all our lives from birth to death and beyond.
The Wheel is a schema for understanding how the different rudiments of existential philosophy are integrated into a whole; it seeks to show how all the above elements both interact with and influence each other, all contributing to the individual’s experience of being‐in‐the‐world and to our worldview. The structure of the Wheel highlights the existential–phenomenological hypothesis that all issues always interconnect and express themselves throughout all facets of individuals’ relationships with the world. As such, the Wheel parallels existential philosophy in viewing the human being as a unified entity rather than split into divisions of mind, thoughts, body, and emotions. It follows that what a client focuses on at any point in time will be connected to many of their other concerns, thus paralleling phenomenology. In keeping with this thinking, the following chapters in which these elements or ‘leaves’ are described do not necessarily follow the clockwise or even anticlockwise direction of the Wheel.
Of course, the paradox is that existentialism by its very nature cannot provide anybody with a framework that guarantees safeguards or stability. If the Wheel is taken too literally or becomes too technical or rule driven, it can easily become counterproductive. Using a loose but clearly defined structure, however, can also highlight the uncertainties of being thrown into this world and the certainty of leaving it, which Deurzen confirms: ‘Although an existential approach [to psychotherapy] is essentially non‐technological, I also believe that one needs some methods, some parameters, some framework, in order to retain one’s independence and clarity of thinking’ (1988, p. 6).
Universalising: The Ontological Layer
The outer edge of the Wheel of Existence in the diagram encompasses what are known as the ontological or existential concerns of existence. These ‘ontological’ characteristics are the elements of being human that are common to all humankind. They are aspects of being human that we cannot change; they are an intrinsic feature to all humans. In existential terminology, they are called ‘givens’ or ‘universals’, meaning facts that we are either born with or encounter during life. Residing in the background of our everyday living, I think about these ontological givens as the relentless ‘hum’. These ‘hums’ are constant and move in and out of immediate awareness as events in life unfold. For Heidegger, this ontological aspect is at the heart of his understanding that certain aspects are manifest and inescapable and are the nature of being human (Heidegger, 1962).
Various authors have described a range of different themes of existence as ‘ontological’. The concerns chosen within this Wheel, and discussed below, are the ontological givens that arise most commonly in my current work and will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5. Other therapists might focus on other givens that give credence to their practice.
The Ontological Givens
Relationship in the ontological sense describes how a human being is always in a state of relationship not only to others but also to oneself and to the overall culture and environment. This understanding does not make any statements about the quality or the nature of the relationship but simply states the fact that relatedness reveals itself in the relationship.
Facticity relates to the limiting factors that we cannot fundamentally change including certain features such as our own genetic makeup, our psychological profile, our cultural heritage, and our social world.
Uncertainty and inconsistency is a feature of life that we cannot avoid and which the world imposes upon us.
Temporality ‘is the name of the way in which Time exists in human existence’ (Warnock, 1970, p. 62) and nobody can escape from the idea that life is moulded by our finitude, that we are only transitory beings on this planet.
Mood is the way we are ‘attuned’ to the world and describes how we are both experiencing and responding to our existence. ‘A mood assails us. It comes neither from “without” nor from “within”, but arises from Being‐in‐the‐world, as a way of that being’ (Heidegger, 1962, p. 136).
Freedom is connected to responsibility in that humans are not determined by external factors which are certain, but, within the limitations of existence, are free to create their own responses to living.
Embodiment denotes the concept that humans are both physical and non‐physical, are both mind and body. A body–mind experience will both shape and be shaped by our interactions in the world. ‘We are both subject and object, where the subject is his body, his world, and his situation, by a sort of exchange’ (Merleau‐Ponty, 1964, p. 72), where the object is subsumed into this exchange.
Mortality is our constant awareness that we are moving towards death, the end of our known life. It is our ultimate limitation, which cannot be removed, only denied or engaged with.
Anxiety is that state that is constantly in our background revealing to us both our discomfort and excitements generated by aspects of being human, such as the choices that seem out of our control, our moving towards death and our freedom.
Choice is inevitable in that we are constantly making choices, even when we are unaware of doing so. Even choosing not to choose is a choice.
Engagement (or Action) is how we choose to participate with the world, whether fully, partially, half‐heartedly, with passion and so on. Closely linked to our values, the idea of engagement also indicates our authenticity.
This ontological space is where we share a common resonance with other human beings about all that it is to be human, in a world that is replete with both limitations and possibilities.
It is also the space that, as therapists, we share with our clients in that we too are travelling on a journey through life’s tribulations, despairs and joys, in search of meaning within lives without inherent meaning and living with all of life’s paradoxes – all part of the process of coming to terms with living and dying. Ontology also facilitates our mutual caring or concern, which Heidegger describes as interconnectedness with others.
In practice, our exploration of ontological concerns merely reflects our innate sense of what it is to be a human being and doesn’t describe our personal response to these givens. Although the ‘givens’ described above may be immutable, the way we perceive or interpret them and the attitude we take towards them is always open to interpretation.
Individualising: Our Ontic Responses
Inasmuch as the ontological layer is made up of elements that are common to all humankind, the ontic layer reflects our individualised and cultural responses to the universal ‘givens’.
Hans Cohn succinctly describes the distinction between ontological and ontic thus:
an ontological enquiry explores those aspects of Being which are ‘given’ and inescapable … But each of us responds differently to these ‘givens’ of Being and creates his or her specific world within the all‐encompassing world of Being. An exploration of the specific way in which each of us is in the world is called ‘ontic’.
(Cohn, 1997, p. 13)
The inner segments of the wheel that circle the central core are known as our ontic responses and give flavour
