I was quite pleased to run across the following statement in an article I was reading tonight in regard to Jaakko Seikkula's approach...

Quote

Psychotic reactions should be seen as attempts to make sense of one's experience and to cope with experiences so difficult that it has not been possible to construct a rational spoken narrative about them. In subsequent stress situation, these experiences may be actualized and a way is found to utter them in the form of a metaphor (Karon, 1999; Penn, 1998; Van der Kolk, 1995). This is the prenarrative quality of psychotic experience (Holma & Aaltonen, 1997; Ricoeur, 1992).

Source: Open dialogues with good and poor outcomes for psychotic crises: Examples from families with violence

It should be emphasized that the common ground Perry and Seikkula share in their approach is their willingness and ability to do psychotherapy with individuals in acute states. For this reason, it's not surprising that they would both identify the value of metaphor as a means of communicating the individual's emotional turmoil and inner experience.

You will not find this emphasis within mainstream approaches where the primary value of psychotic content is as an identified symptom. Beyond that, professionals actively discourage any discussion of delusions and hallucinations out of a perceived fear that they will be encouraging them.