IJSP Number 7, 2025

International Journal of Supervision in Psychotherapy, Number 7, 2025 Page | 53 In my opinion, in order to achieve at least some openings (‘a crack where the light gets in’), only a philosophic-anthropological approach can help psychology to overcome its own limitations and self-fixed boundaries. Otherwise, we are in a closed and jealously, even zealously, guarded system of facts, schools, procedures, statistics, practices, beliefs, and concepts. By such a conceptual overture psychology as such (as well as psychotherapy and supervision) will have nothing to lose but rather to gain by accessing a more generous vision of what is to be human and, consequently, what is humanly possible. As such, we want to point out and to discuss some of Murray Bowen’s concepts, that are not necessarily on the first line of light, which in our opinion could be further developed into general and insightful anthropological ideas with a generous outcome towards psychotherapy and supervision. Two of the important aspects of human psychology Bowen is interested in are the pseudo-self and the solid self . We will present them and ad some commentaries based on the generous psychological and psychotherapeutic foundation Bowen has constructed. The Pseudo-self Omnis creatura subjecta est vanitatis. What is the pseudo-self ? If there is a self , how come that we can even speak of such an eclectic word construct as the ‘ pseudo-self ’? Should it not be clear that a self is a self , which is and has to be always itself, no more and no less, and as such not something else or something different as a pseudo-self for instance? Considering what the dictionary states, ‘ pseudo’ (from Greek) as a prefix, means either ‘similar’ as in ‘ pseudo bulb’ or it can be understood as ‘false’ or ‘spurious’, which means pretty much the same. [8]. As such, the pseudo-self is kind of a self that actually is not a self , or if we want to insist for it being a self , it can only be a false self , a spurious and inauthentic one. The pseudo-self is to be understood rather as a mask or something one puts on to present oneself – to oneself or to the social world of others. Nevertheless, as we see, the pseudo-self has this intrinsic quality of in-authenticity, which is manifested and put forward by its own lack of authenticity. Consequently, the inauthentic pseudo-self comes forward with its own in-authenticity, which, as it turns out, cannot grasp its own falsehood or spuriousness. The pseudo-self is a mask that does not recognize that it is a mask and instead presents itself as the real thing, undisputable and incontrovertible self (of itself); there should be nothing else under that surface and what is presented or showed to us should be taken as being real – although we feel that it is a fake, a mask put on in order to fool us to believe that there should be something behind it. Unfortunately for those who play with the mask of the pseudo-self , there is not very much to hide behind the mask itself, which is more like an interface put forward to ‘save face’ and be socially acceptable in any circumstances. As such we are reduced to simple masks and will evade the idea of complexity; everyone tries to avoid complexity (because it is considered as synonymous whit complication) in search for simplicity of opinions, habitual beliefs and the usual common sense instilled in us by social pressure. “Instead of appreciating complexity, people tend to affiliate with one or another social dogma. Because our knowledge is enmeshed with that of others, the community shapes our beliefs and attitudes.” (...) “We let our group do our thinking for us. Appreciating the communal nature of knowledge should make us more realistic about what’s determining our beliefs and values.” [9] That is not a very flattering picture of how our mind and