Note: The Summary table
provides a textual and tabular overview. This enables the reader to turn
to subsequent chapters keeping the larger picture in mind.
In part 'METAPSYCHOLOGY', I develop a general classification of everything that is psychically relevant.
• First, I hypothesize that everything that is psychically relevant can best be expressed in language and can be differentiated in analogy to basic language patterns. This 'Differentiation' can include everything that is psychically relevant.
• Second, I assign three principal meanings to each item which is a psychical Relevant: absolute, relative or nothing.
This is what I call the 'Dimensions' of the psychical Relevant. Since the respective Absolute is the determining factor for every psychical Relevant - as well as for every human being (!) - it is the focal point of this study.
In part 'PSYCHOLOGY', this general classification is transferred to the person.
In part `METAPSYCHIATRY´, I also use the classification shown in part `Metapsychology´ and start from the hypothesis that mental disorders are mainly caused by `Inversions´ of the dimensions mentioned above.
Inversion means that by reversal of Absolute, Relative
and nothing, basic reversals of meaning take place.
Such reversals of meaning arise, above all, by attitudes that make a claim to absoluteness that excludes other attitudes.
"Isms" or ideologies are typical examples of this.
[I use the terms 'ideologies' or 'isms' as terms for all attitudes with claim to absoluteness, not only for social but also for the doctrinaire and the like attitudes in families and individuals!]
By a claiming absoluteness something Relative is absolutely set and the other is negated, i.e. the absolutized Relative becomes a 'strange Absolute' (sA) and the negated other becomes a `strange Nothing´ (s0)..
Strange Absolute and Nothing form pairs of opposites, 'all-or-nothing-complexes', which I have generally called "It"and in the person "strange Self" (sS), since these terms are suitable: `it'= a general, unspecified cause of an occurrence (e.g. It makes me angry / sad / sick ...), `strange Self´= personal It as a strange personal center. 
Those Its, or strange Selves, represent new, strange, independent entities which can cause strange, second-rate Realities (general and personal) and thus also mental disorders.
If the entire psyche (i.e. all aspects of the psyche) is involved in this process, psychotic symptoms may ensue. If, however, these events only affect one or a small number of aspects, then, depending on the nature of these aspects, symptoms will arise which are 'merely' neurotic, psychosomatic, or of another category. In my opinion, these diseases can only be explained if they are based on disturbances in the absolute sphere of a person. If a person can accept problems as a part of life, considering them to be only of relative importance, it is highly unlikely that this person will succumb to a mental illness. However, when 'something' Relative is absolutized and becomes established as an Absolute, this Absolute will function as an It or strange Self which determines the person. This "something" will be given too absolute a status, while the person will be attributed too relative a status. This “something“ will attain too much independence, while the person will become too dependent. This “something“ will become the subject, while the person becomes its object. This “something“ will become personified, while the person will become 'something'. This “something“ will dominate the person and not the person the `something´. This is the “victory“ of the Relative over a person.
To understand the genesis of such disorders, it is important to look into a process, that I name 'Spreading and compression'.
By spreading, every inversion may cause multiple disorders, just as a disorder may be caused by a variety of different inversions.
This process is explained in more detail in part 'Metapsychiatry'.
As described in part 'PSYCHIATRY' and summarized in the 'Summary table', these 'Its' or strange-Selves can cause various diseases.
It is in particular at the example of schizophrenic psychoses that this becomes most obvious. From this point of view, I think the problem of the psychodynamic genesis of psychoses is solved theoretically and in principle.
In part `METAPSYCHOTHERAPY´, I analyze the 'psychotherapeutic quality' of the most relevant worldviews and religions.
In part `PSYCHOTHERAPY’, I examine the most well-known psychotherapeutic schools of thought.
In the chapter `Primary Psychotherapy´, I introduce a theory that is free of ideology and which I believe to be the best against mental disorders.
Motto: “He is a doctor
who knows the invisible,
that has no name, nor matter but still an effect.” Paracelsus
About me, Torsten Oettinger, the author of this
book: I am a psychiatrist-psychotherapist and publish here
the experiences and knowledge which I have been able to
gather throughout the decades that I have worked in this
specific area. I believe that the following texts will open
up new perspectives in psychiatry and psychotherapy for the
1. In these writings, a new theory of the psyche and its disorders is developed.
2. I investigate the influence of different ideologies and worldviews on the psyche and on 'psycho-theories'.
Ad 1. I classify the psyche and the psychical
Relevant (pR) in a new way: I derive their classification
from basic patterns of language. This means that I use
language as an analogy for the psychical Relevant (pR),
since our language is the best tool which captures
everything important to us and excludes nothing that is
psychically relevant. Therefore, in this study, basic
language patterns serve to differentiate the psychical
Relevant in general and the psyche in particular. According
to their meaning, these differentiations are then
further divided into the "dimensions": absolute,
relative or 0 (insignificant).
This classification includes everything that is psychologically relevant and, in contrast to university psychology, it goes beyond what can only be scientifically ascertained because that is only part of what the psyche is.
(This is thoroughly discussed in the parts `Metapsychology' and `Psychology´.)
"Inversions" (the confusion of the Relative and Absolute) are seen as the main cause of mental illness. In the section 'Metapsychiatry', I show how these inversions generate strange Absolutes, which then form second-rate, strange realities such as mental illnesses.
Ad 2. Although different ideologies and worldviews are of great importance to the psyche and psychological theory formation, this is hardly reflected from academic side.(See more to this topic in `Criticism of materialist science and psychology´.)
The reason for this is that psychology and psychiatry are too one-sidedly defined as science.
What is scientifically not accessible will be largely ignored.  But the exclusion of such topics leads to deficient theories and therapies and to a strong increase in psycho-practices (`psycho-boom'), which often gives people dubious answers to questions that are not answered by conventional medicine. (See more to this topic in `Esoterism´.)
In my work, I focus more on life itself than merely on science. Therefore, I attend to that which is of ultimate concern for the patients, regardless of whether or not it is scientifically ascertainable.For me, the credibility of statements is the decisive criterion, not their provability - credibility which includes knowledge and experience but is superordinate to it. 
In this study, basic assumptions (such as philosophies resp. worldviews and religions), which are the foundations of current psychological and psychiatric theories, are critically examined as to their psychological and psychotherapeutic relevance and functionality. Furthermore, I develop a specific theory and psychotherapy which includes subjective and spiritual factors. Thus, the theory and therapy of mental disorders are substantially expanded.
One might ask the polemical question whether our psychology and psychiatry themselves do not suffer from poor health. They seem to be affected by disorders which could be called “scientitis” or “dogmatitis”, since they are too focused on science. In scientific writings, reference is made very rarely to philosophical or even religious insights. According to the 'malicious' words of Karl Kraus: “Psychoanalysis is that mental illness for which it regards itself as therapy” we psychiatrists should ask ourselves in which way our theories might be wrong or even 'in ill health' - or even we have reduced "the diseases of the mind to mindless diseases" (Basaglia).
(For more details, see the unabridged German version.)
In the beginning was God,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God … (~ by John 1:1-4)
• Metapsychology is the theory of
everything which is psychically relevant.
• Everything about which a person speaks or can speak is psychically relevant.
• The psychical Relevant is best expressed by way of language.
• General language structures are very suitable as analogues for the division of the psychical Relevant.
• Psychology is the theory of the personal psychical Relevant.
the multiple meanings of the prefix 'meta' (above, between,
behind, beyond), I define metapsychology as a level of
analysis above psychology, from which the latter can be
surveyed and scrutinized. At the same time, metapsychology
comprises and permeates all subjects which are associated
with psychology. Among the disciplines connected with
psychology are, first and foremost, psychiatry, as well as
sociology, neurology, biology, and linguistics. However, I
also include philosophy (metaphysics, which is, to a degree,
superordinate) and theology.
The main subject of psychology is the psyche. The subject of metapsychology is all that which is important for the psyche, which interrelates with the psyche, has an impact on it and is able to reflect upon it from a higher level. Therefore, metapsychology examines and reflects upon that which is psychically relevant (pr).
The consideration of the field of metapsychology and its subject-matter, the psychical Relevant, is very adequate, since an isolated analysis of the psyche alone neglects very important connections.
In my view, the examination of all dimensions of our human existence should be undertaken, rather than limiting our analysis to facts which are only accessible by scientific methods.
This means that in addition to all scientific insights acquired by academic psychology, attention should also be given to that which transcends our experiences, which is beyond the demonstrable and perceptible. Thus, all relevant metapsychical, meta-empirical, philosophical and religious phenomena of existential importance should be considered.
In contrast to this perspective, the notion "metapsychology" is used - following Freud - by scholars of psychoanalysis to describe the dynamic, topical and economic interrelations of psychical phenomena.
Regarding the area of topography, Freud was primarily concerned with the concepts of the Ego, Id and Super-ego; regarding the area of psychodynamics, he investigated the mental forces between these entities of the psyche; regarding the area of economics, he examined the benefits of specific psychical processes for the person concerned.
This study, too, discusses structural, dynamic and qualitative aspects which are similar to the psychoanalytic ones. However, these are merely a small part of metapsychology and psychology and are presented in a different perspective. 
More generally, one might say, that
none of the models provided by conventional medicine are
able to transcend the anthropological perspective i.e.
they look at the psyche and its illnesses only from a
"horizontal point of view", considerably limiting the
possibilities of analysis and therapy. Therefore, in
particular questions which are most important for a person
and which have existential meaning are answered
insufficiently or not answered at all. This has been
pointed out by existentialists in particular.
Similar to the structure employed in the other chapters, the part “Metapsychology” will first be discussed in general terms and then more specifically, using concrete examples. At the end of this chapter, I will briefly address some metapsychological topics which are important for this publication. This will only be a selection of a variety of topics, since all topics relevant to the person and examined especially in philosophy, anthropology, psychiatry and psychology, are psychically relevant.
• The first section (general issues of psychical relevance) is subdivided into a horizontal and vertical structure.
Horizontal arrangement: Differentiation of that which is psychically relevant by presenting analogies of fundamental language structures.
Vertical arrangement: The psychical Relevant in its dimensions/meanings.
• In the second section, important topics are discussed which are psychically relevant.
The psyche itself is the focus of attention in the next chapter: 'Psychology'.
Abbreviations: the psychical Relevant = pR; or psychically
relevant = pr.
Synonyms: psychic / psychological/ that which is significant, important to the soul/ psyche.
Nearly all things are psychically relevant (pr). An issue which factually might not be psychically relevant can it be potentially. It is difficult to imagine an issue which might not be psychically relevant or which could not become so. The term 'reality' might come as close as possible to that which is psychically relevant. If reality were to be defined as that which affects us, then reality is not merely an objective but also a subjective matter.
It is about to differentiate the psychical Relevant (pR) and to arrange its meaning. One can also say that it is about an adequate classification of the reality/ world according to its importance for the human psyche.
I divide the psychical Relevant (or the reality) in general after:
Concerning the differentiations
I deduce basic patterns of psychologically relevant forms
as well as the psyche from basic patterns of language. I'm
referring here to simple grammars of developed languages.
I use several levels of differentiation and would like to briefly introduce the first: Four "main aspects", which are psychically relevant, are derived from the main word classes: nouns, verbs, adjectives and syntax: forms of being, life, qualities and their connections.
These will be further differentiated in the course of the study.
The dimensions of the psychical Relevant (and thus also the differentiations) I subdivide into:
- the Absolute (A) = absolute dimension
- the Relative (R) = relative dimension
- the nothingness (0).
The dimensions represent the so-called vertical classification of this publication.
They reveal the position and importance of the psychical Relevant and of the respective differentiations.
When differentiation and dimensioning are brought together in a diagram, the following picture will emerge:
By differentiation and dimensioning, that which is psychically relevant, the pr reality, is divided vertically and horizontally. In the horizontal division, basic forms of language differentiate that which is psychically relevant in such a way as if one were to place a co-ordinate frame horizontally across that which is to be determined, so as to arrange it in an order. This division is designated as horizontal, since no evaluative assertion is to be made here as to a specific object's importance (this could be indicated by an elevated level of an entry). Rather, it is the vertical division which provides information about the importance of a subject-matter, the 'dimensions' of that which is psychically Relevant. Therefore, this graph shows the differentiation of that which is psychically relevant through language and in specific dimensions.
distinguish the following 3 stages in the classification of
the psychical Relevant
(dimensions and differentiations).
| 1st stage of dimensions:
the Absolute (A), the Relative (R) and
the Nothingness (0).
| 1st stage of differentiation:
4 main aspects: being, life, qualities, connections
| 2nd stage of dimensions:
7 synonyms of the Absolute and Relative
| 2nd stage of differentiation:
23 single aspects
| 3rd stage of dimensions:
All terms listed in the overview table, concerning
| 3rd stage of differentiation:
All terms listed in the overview table, concerning differentiations.
“Language is yet more than blood.” Franz Rosenzweig
The differentiation of that which is psychically relevant is based on an analogy formation between patterns of language and patterns of that which is psychically relevant - this also includes the psyche.
I repeat: That which is psychologically
relevant (that which, to us, is significant) can be divided
horizontally or vertically. The horizontal division
differentiates that which is psychically relevant and the
vertical division, with its dimensions, provides information
about the importance of that which is differentiated. The
differentiations resemble a grid, such as the one we use to
zone the earth's surface into longitudes and latitudes, so
as to guarantee better orientation. In the analysis of that
which is psychically Relevant, it is language which offers
these 'longitudes and latitudes' ('horizontal division'),
while the dimensions of the Absolute, Relative and
Nothingness provide us with information about the 'altitude'
(significance) of the subject-matter ('vertical division').
Initially in this chapter, the differentiation of that which
is psychically relevant (horizontal division) will be
discussed in analogy to general language patterns.
No other tool will give us as much information as language about that which is psychically relevant. Language has not only individual but also general meanings and forms of expression. The psyche and that which is relevant to it can only be determined indirectly. One can draw conclusions about the psyche and that which is important to it from the behavior of people, their dreams, from a culture in general and art in particular, from the history of mankind, or even from their language and many other sources. Therefore, language is by no means the only means of expression available to humankind, however, in my opinion, it is the most important means to communicate. This seems to correspond to everyday experience.
Do we not learn the most about the world and humankind by our communication? Is language, therefore, not also the best source of information if we seek to draw conclusions about our inner being? Is not language therefore suitable for drawing conclusions about our psyche because language best reflects psyche and what is relevant for it? I think so.
Language thus appears as a first-rate metapsychological instrument / medium, in order to make statements about the psyche.
Therefore, it seems natural to
see also in basic language structures analogies or
homologies for psychic structures and to use them as a
classification of psychologically relevant facts and the
Lévi-Strauss and Lacan had a similar idea, postulating a `homology´ between language and (albeit merely) the unconscious. 
I would like to expand and clarify their hypothesis. I believe:
• Basic characteristics of the language in relation to its structure, dynamics and quality statements can also be found generally in the psychical Relevant and specially in the psyche.
• Concerning only the psyche: Psyche shows similar characteristics as the language in terms of its structure, dynamics and meaning contents.
It seems obvious that in the development of language, general language components and rules of grammar can be understood as reflecting what has been psychologically important to people for thousands of years.
That which is important to humankind has not only been defined by means of words but also by means of corresponding language patterns. By using language in this way, humankind not only denoted specific terms with specific phenomena but also reflected whose connections and functions as expressions of our psyches and their world experience. Therefore, general, basic language components, such as the parts of speech, prove to be excellent analogues for the representation of general psychical relevant and psychical "basic elements" - and the syntax, in turn gives us in form of subject, object, predicate and their functions point to analogous psychic forms and their functions, and the semantics shows their meanings. Like language, I also see the psyche as a highly-differentiated system, which on the one hand has certain characteristics but on the other hand is very flexible and always alive. In analogy to the grammar of the language one could speak of a grammar of the psyche.
As said, I use in this paper simple grammars of developed languages which are essentially the same in their rules. Here I can address this topic but briefly.
A basic classification which can be found in
almost all developed languages is one which differentiates
between nouns, verbs and adjectives, as well as,
syntactically, between subjects and predicates. The
below shows the resulting psychically relevant
P s y c h i c a l l y r e l e v a n t f o r m s
`main aspects´ correspond with
I. forms of being
II. forms of life
Therefore, that which is psychically relevant, as well as
language, can be divided into the following four main components:
Being, life, qualities and their connections.
As in language, these forms can be found in all that is psychically significant.
That which nouns, adjectives and verbs represent, exists in specific connections which are reflected, linguistically, in syntactic and morphological rules. In this book, they will be utilized as psychically relevant correlates. Their interplay takes place on different levels or dimensions, which are particularized in a subsequent chapter.
By analogy with language, this differentiation is expanded to include 23 aspects. This is the “second differentiation stage” of that which is psychically relevant, and of the psyche itself. At the end of all differentiations one would find what all possible pr words represent in their infinite variety.
Thus far, the following analogies were made in the first stage of differentiation:
(N) = being
(= forms of being or pr units)
II. Verbs = life (= dynamics)
III. Adjectives = qualities
IV. Syntax = subjects, objects and their connections. Abbreviation: (BLQC)
first stage of differentiation these four main aspects of
that which is psychically relevant have been determined.
I believe they also reflect 4 important themes of humanity:
I. Being or not-being, II. Life or death, III. good or evil, IV. subject or object.
These in turn are embedded in the existential theme of the Absolute.
(See also: Fundamental Problems in Metapsychotherapy).|
If we further differentiate the four main
aspects mentioned above, following a further differentiation
of general language components, a different number of
aspects will accrue, depending on the method employed and
the level of differentiation envisioned.
In my experience, a further differentiation up to 23 single aspects proves most helpful.
Forms of l a n g u a g e
Forms of being =
1 Everything / Something (Nothingness)
2 God / World
3 People / Things
4 I / Other(s)
5 Personal Spirit/ Soul, Body
6 - / Gender
Modal auxiliary verbs
Forms of life =
Dynamics (and Modalities)
7 to be
8 to want
9 to have
13 may, be allowed
14 to create
15 to do, to produce
16 to perceive
17 to reproduce
18 to judge
22 right, wrong
23 negative, positive
The single aspects of differentiation are differently
dimensioned. In the 1st-5th unit in the above table, the
aspects with absolute dimensionality are named first,
whilst aspects with relative dimensionality are shown behind the slash. Further explications can be found in the unabridged German version.
stage of differentiation is
presented in the overview table.
The method employed here to categorize that which is psychically relevant or psychological, by determining analogies from language, has the advantage that the single aspects can be expanded indefinitely, so that every psychically relevant term can be integrated into the system.
In this study, I predominately use the 1st and 2nd stages of differentiation.
An objection raised against this kind of differentiation
argues that there are languages with basic structures which are
entirely different. In fact, even for the most advanced languages
there are very different grammatical theories, which differ from the
usual simple "school grammar" used here. Doubtlessly, this is a valid
objection. However, I believe that, from a certain point, every kind
of language and grammar can be used to express what is most important
to a person. (Otherwise, adequate translation into many different
languages could not be possible.) Therefore, the classification used
here is merely one of many possibilities to infer that which is
psychically relevant from general forms of language. I intentionally
use simple grammar (“school grammar”), since it best reflects the
every-day use of language.
Alongside language, that which is psychically relevant is reflected in many ways: It is obvious in our behavior, gestures, facial expressions, art and more. Yet, none of these forms of expressions is as differentiated and yet comprehensible, as is language.
"If names be not
correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of
If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.” (Confucius)
"The word, according to its nature, is the freest among the spiritual creatures but also the most endangered and dangerous.
Therefore, watchmen of the word are necessary." Hrabanus Maurus 
Similar Ortega y Gasset: " ...
it is by no means indifferent how we formulate things. The
law of life perspective is not only subjective but rooted in the
nature of things ... itself. ... The mistake is to assume that it is
up to our arbitrariness to assign things to their proper rank."
[In: „Triumph des Augenblicks Glanz der Dauer“ DVA Stuttgart, 1983 S. 75ff. Tranlated by m.E.]
The following terms are equivalent to the word
'dimensions' : frame of reference, position, status,
perspective, meaning, importance, relevance.
As mentioned before, I distinguish between three dimensions of that which is psychically relevant (pr):
• the Relative (R) 
• the Nothingness (0).
The dimensions represent the 'vertical classification' of that which is psychologically relevant. They attribute the respective meaning to the pr units and differentiations: an absolute, relative or no meaning. It is the absolute dimension which is the decisive factor. The Absolute and the Relative have thoroughly different characteristics and effects. This fact is important when considering the theory of the genesis of mental disorders.
The Absolute (and the Nothingness) have a primarily "spiritual nature", while the Relative is more factual.
Absolute or relative adjectives prove helpful in representing the nature of the respective dimensions. They provide information on whether forms of being and forms of life, qualities and their relationships have absolute, relative or no significance. In this study, the relative dimension is marked by gradable adjectives, whilst absolute adjectives serve to identify the absolute dimension.
Overall, I classify the dimensions according to
the following categories :
• their `areas´ (absolute, relative, null = 1st classification stage;
or to the corresponding 7 synonyms = 2nd classification stage),
• their 'rank' (first-rate, second-rate, null),
• their 'orientation ' (pro/+, contra/‒, null )
• their occurrence (e.g., dimensions of the world, the person, the psyche, etc.)
(More on that later.)
way, each pr phenomenon can
be classified according to the following
absolute, relative or null (0); first-rate, second-rate or null; pro/+, contra/‒ or null, and by its occurrence.
What is it that is our ultimate
concern? What is
it that affects us most? What,
for us, is of utmost importance? Hunger and love? (F. Schiller).
The drives and the unconscious? (S. Freud). The" chow"? (B. Brecht).  Religion? (P. Tillich). Genes? Pleasure or reality? Ideologies?
The laws of nature? The views differ. I call it the Absolute (A).
• first-rate, actual Absolute (A¹) 
• second-rate, strange Absolutes (sA or A²).
Both types can have positive or negative connotations. (The sA can also be ambivalent.)
That means I distinguish between:
• a first-rate, actual, positive Absolute (+A¹), a negative Absolute (‒A¹) and the `absolute attitude´ and
• second-rate, strange, positive and negative (or ambivalent) Absolutes (+sA, ‒sA or ±sA).
(More in the section `Metapsychiatry'.)
I believe: the Absolute is the determining spirit of anything psychical Relevant (pR). Similar to nothingness, it can neither be proven to exist nor compared to another matter; nevertheless, it is of existential significance. Since it is the foundation of our spiritual life, it is always with us. Our live rests upon on it. To what which people consider to be most important or even the Absolute is, of course, very diverse. I believe that every person has its own Absolutes. Subjectively and individually, we have thousands of Absolutes: Gods which we love with all our heart, or devils and enemies that we fear and hate. Some people think security is paramount, whilst others believe that health is the greatest good. A third group might say that the meaning of life is realized as we seek to be good people, whilst yet other are convinced that progress is of the highest significance. Others consider certain individuals to be most important etc. In this way, every one of us has an own outlook on life and a frame of reference, in the center of which there is an Absolute. Mostly, an individual's parents and environment had great influence on the development of this framework. Generally, an individual will unconsciously accept these attitudes. However, occasionally, individuals adopt consciously these opinions. Some of these worldviews are known by a certain name, as is the case regarding the religions and ideologies but others are not. I have experienced that even individuals who are members of a particular church will have a variety of private beliefs which often contrasts strongly with their relevant confession. Therefore, a formal profession of belief in God due to an individual's affiliation with the Roman-Catholic or Protestant Church might not be specifically meaningful. Alongside their formal religion, they might also believe in money, power, progress, a political party, their father, mother, their wife or simply themselves - and is there someone of us who does not?
However, that which is most important may also be negative: It may seem most essential to individuals that they are not immoral, unfaithful, dependent, or not to become like a certain person. This negative goal then needs to be avoided at all costs, it is considered to be the worst possible outcome, an unacceptable condition, the unforgivable, mortal sin, as it may be called, or similar.
- In my view, all approaches to life, all worldviews, be they formalized or private, conscious or unconscious, have different Absolutes which are the basis of these worldviews and ideologies.
Furthermore, the simple conclusion follows that these Absolutes determine also to which extent an individual is able to cope with their own person, with other people and the world around them. Therefore, these respective Absolutes are also crucial for the genesis and therapy of an illness.
- Considering the Absolute to be at the core of the psyche it is not a new concept. The philosopher Karl Jaspers claimed that the kind of God a person believes determines his true being. (More precisely, one might say that the kind of God and the kind of devil a person accepts determines their true being.) S. Kierkegaard expressed similar thoughts.  Especially psychotherapists of the “Viennese School” (W. Daim and I. Caruso) were convinced that misabsolutizations are decisive of the emergence of mental disorders. Unfortunately, their work is little known.
Absolute (A) is the core of a person's identity. (This
concept can be summarized in the mottoes: “I am like my A”
or alternatively, “my A is my life”). In addition, the A is
the ultimate creative sphere. Whatever a person places above
themselves, becomes an Absolute. Though the Absolute cannot
be proven, it can be experienced, it is more or less
apparent and plausible. It is not possible to prove the
Absolute in general, nor is it feasible to prove the
Absolute of a person (their Self). It is only possible to
believe in it.
In principle, the Absolute is a metaphysical or spiritual category, which means that we can only describe it in words or portray it by using analogies or metaphors etc. In this sense, it is unspeakable, elusive. It is a priori, a basic assumption. The Absolute is only defined by itself.  It is self-explanatory. Different rules and characteristics apply to the sphere of the Absolute than to the sphere of the Relative.
(This statement will prove particularly relevant when examining the effects of inversions and the genesis of illnesses, as will be explained in the following chapters.) An investigation of the causes of mental disorders is ultimately (!) a quest for the Absolute.
Similarly, the main and most important answers (therapy) are also found in the area of the Absolute.
character of the Absolute (A) becomes more apparent when
looking at the origin of the word:
It originates from the Latin word “absolutus” and denotes a matter or subject which is detached and independent.
In this study, I use the following 7 synonyms:
4. whole, complete
6. primary, first-rate
The term absolute represents the guiding concept.
Rank of the Absolute
the rank I distinguish first- and second-rate Absolutes.
• To the first-rate Absolutes (A¹):
- the first-rate positive Absolute (+A¹)
- the first-rate negative Absolute (‒A¹)
- and the personal "attitude toward the Absolute", which I will discuss later.
• To the second-rate, strange Absolutes (sA)
- positive/pro and negative/contra-sA (+sA and ‒sA)
- strange nothingness (s0 or only 0).
They play an essential part in the emergence of mental disorders and will be discussed in greater detail in the following chapters.
Spheres of the Absolute
The following spheres can be discerned among the first-rate Absolute (A¹):
A-center = the core-Absolute is only resp. exclusively-absolute.
A-external = the external Absolute is relative resp. also-absolute.
In the first-rate reality, the Relative is co-absolutized by the Absolute, so that this Relative is here `also- absolute´.
Preview: Areas of a second-rate, strange Absolute (sA).
• Representatives of the 3 actual Absolutes
- Representatives of +A¹:
God / love as the +A¹; Personal: the + `absolute attitude´ toward the Absolute´.
- Representatives of −A¹: `the absolute evil' and its choice.
- Representatives of the `absolute attitude´: the absolute sphere of person.
• Representatives of strange Absolutes (sA)
+sA: general or individual +sA parts e.g.
ideal of itself = 'Ideal-I' or 'Self-Ideal',
ideal of others (e.g. ideal of other people, of the world as idol, ideologies, etc.)
‒sA: general or individual ‒sA-parts with absolutely negative connotations (e.g. taboos etc.)
0 = negated or repressed first-rate matters.
A = the Absolute
sA = strange Absolute
sS = strange Self (the personal sA)
∀ = strange All in an all-or-nothing relations.
0 = Nothingness
It = complex of strange All and 0 (`dyad') or of pro and contra and 0 part (`triad') in the core.
C = general abbreviation for complexes that dominate personal and other areas of reality. 
Pro-sA and +sA on the one hand and contra-sA and ‒sA on the other hand will be viewed as equal throughout this book.
The terms will be explained in detail in the section 'Metapsychiatry”.
Relative is created by the Absolute. The Relative is
subordinate to the Absolute. It has a relative meaning in
relation to it. Other than the Absolute, which only has one
meaning and is first-rate, the Relative has a great variety
of meanings. It could be compared to the interpretations of
dreams or of symptoms, which are also not limited to one
single specific meaning. So basically, you cannot think of
the Relative as an independent. When we use the term “the
Relative”, we should actually say “the Relative of the
Absolute”. Therefore, the Relative is not as independent as
the term might have you expect. The word relative mainly
describes a relation. The Relative cannot exist without the
Absolute, in a similar way as there is no part without the
whole - just as no illness exists in isolation from the
affected person - or it is said, it would have a relatively
The Relative can be proved, the Absolute may only be believed. 
The Relative is best defined from the Absolute.
The first-rate relative sphere forms a continuum with its components but our language divides this continuum into separate entities. This also applies to the classification of diseases.
Contrary to the Absolute, the Relatives can only be in a relative opposition. Also, two Relatives can only be set in relative opposition to each other. Therefore, there is no dualism or absolute opposition of body and soul, health and illness, subject and object and so on in the first-rate reality.
Absolute opposite and separation only exist between A and ‒A.
The Relatives as strange Absolutes (sA) however, can be of absolute relevance to the individual. Then they are not only ambiguous but often appear to be contradicting and paradoxical.
The qualitative meanings of Relatives are not absolutely distinct, which means that something that usually has a negative meaning, can appear positive (and vice versa)- i.e. everything Relative has one relative positive (+) and one relative negative (‒) side, or several of these sides. There is no Relative that is solely positive or negative. Then it would not be relative but absolute. The sayings: “Everything (Relative) has two sides” and “Everything has its advantages and disadvantages” are well-known. This fact is also important when it comes to mental disorders, which are also Relatives. It relativizes the statement that illness and its causes are solely negative and health and its causes are only positive. Only God, also the first-rate Self, spirit, and life can be seen as actual Absolutes. The terms “person”, “personality” and “self” can be used best to show the Absolute part of a person. Also, terms such as sense, truth, fairness, dignity, freedom, and love are indicators for the actual Absolute.
Terms such matter, body, thing, object, the worldly or functions are important representations of the Relative.
1. relative, relational
7. dependent 
Preview: For comparison, the most important characteristics of second-rate Relatives (R²).
The adjectives on the far left are dominant.
(See also in the Summary table columns I and L, lines 1-7. Character of the sA ibid. Column K, lines 1-7).
1. inadequate/ hyperabsolutized/ unrelated
2. strange/ hyperidentical/ without identity
3. unreal/ hyperreal/ essenceless
4. split/ one-sided/ detached
5. accidental / determined/ undetermined
6. second-rate/ extreme/ unconnected
7. too heteronomous/ pseudoautonomous/ detached.
More on that later.
Assignment of certain absolute and relative aspects (Tab. 4)
More about 'The Absolute and Relative in comparison' - see unabridged German version.
(Fig. 5) These symbolic pictures show the priority of A compared to R: (from left to right) the Absolute is the center/ the superior/ the basis/ the first-rate/ and the comprehensive. Therefore, the Relative is the peripheral/ the subordinate/ the superstructure/ the secondary and the limited. Nothingness is outside of AR.
believe that the actual nothingness is a result of the
The strange second-rate nothingness may be seen as a result of the sA or else as a category of second-rate realities. Something became worthless, meaningless, nothing, null, void, negated, etc.
(See also `Genesis of the nothingness´).
distinguish the following pr systems/units that will be
described more specifically later on:
(I denote the more absolute before the Relative).
1. Everything, All - Something 2. God - World 3. People - things 4. I - Others 5. Spirit - Body, Mind.
If you look at the dimensions, there is an absolute and a relative area in every system/ unit. In the absolute area, there are one or more Absolutes. If it is a first-rate pr system, there is only one actual Absolute.
Is it a strange, second-rate pr system however, there will be at least two if not more strange Absolutes.
Shortcut: system, unit = Σ (The term unit is also used for system, to make it easier to understand.)
The world, the
person and the I (= WPI) are made of one first-rate reality and a lot of
second-rate realities. Whether our world is „the best of all possible
worlds“, as Leibniz said, or whether one is, as Schopenhauer (and
Buddha) said, stricken by “the sorrow of life“,or the person is
considered good or bad - philosophers have very different opinions
about that. I think everything from ‒A to +A is represented, although
most of them are probably somewhere in between. People live in a world
between heaven and hell - sometimes belonging more to one side than
the other. This is a world that will always be in need of redemption,
just as we are.
A commonality of all realities/ systems (Σ) is that they are determined by different Absolutes (A or sA).
chapter 'Metapsychology', you will find the introduction of the
classification of any kind of psychical relevant topics.
The classification has a vertical and a horizontal axis. The vertical axis consists of dimensions of the Absolute, Relative and nothingness. The differentiations make up the horizontal axis. These are deduced from fundamental forms of language. All psychical relevant realities have specific dimensions and differentiations, where the absolute dimension determines the specific reality. It is divided into first-rate and second-rate, strange dimensions and thus, into a first-rate and second-rate realities. Usually, those have very different characteristics. Especially the second-rate, strange realities (particularly the second-rate psychical and personal realities) create the basis for the emergence of mental disorders. I divide the named dimensions into spheres, ranks and orientations and differentiate up to 23 single aspects.
To specify this classification, you could say:
1. In general: metapsychology, or else, whatever is psychical relevant has to do with the Absolute, the Relative (and the nothingness), with their rank and orientation and what subjects, objects and predicates represent. (1st classification stage).
2. The `2nd classification stage´ corresponds to the first vertical column of the Summary table.
In keywords: Metapsychology or the psychical Relevant (and psyche) have something to do with:
the Absolute, with sense, with identity, truth, unity (wholeness), unconditionality (security), causes, independence (a1-a7); Further with: Everything and nothing, God and the world, I and other people, spirit, mind and body, gender, conditions, aspirations, ownership, necessities, obligations, rights, the new and the old, actions, information, portrayals, meanings, mistakes, the past, the present and the future, with qualities and with all `movements', i.e. actions and processes that are connected to them.
They all have (actual or strange) absolute, relative or no importance.
3. To the `3rd classification stage´, one could allot all pr terms of the Summary table
4. Infinitely differentiated, one could say: metapsychology or anything psychologically relevant or the psyche ultimately have to do with every psychical relevant word and sentence. This also means that every pr word in a particular area could be categorized in the "summary table", for example, in a particular cell of the table.
To me, it makes the most sense to use the usual grammar as an analogy. With that, the given categorization (such as language) appears as an open system that can be extended or shortened if needed.
It seems to me that this categorization gives more options than the usual classifications in psychology and psychiatry to present anything psychical Relevant in general and anything psychical in particular.
L A N G U A G E
P S Y C H I C A L R E L E V A N T
DIMENSIONS (absolute and / relative)
a1 absolute / relative
a2 self / different
a3 actual / possible
a4 whole / partial
a5 unconditional / conditional
a6 primary (first-rate) / secondary (second-rate)
a7 independent / dependent
I Units: Spirit / Matter
II Dynamics: Life / Functioning
III Qualities: abs./ relative Qualities
IV Contexts: Subjects/ Objects
Forms of being
1 All / something (nothing)
2 God / world
3 People / things
4 I / other(s)
5 pers. spirit / soul, body
Forms of life
Dynamics (and Modalities)
7 to be
8 to want
9 to have
13 may, be allowed
14 to create
15 to do, to produce
16 to perceive
17 to reproduce
18 to judge
22 right, wrong
23 negative, positive
Here, I focus on the topics of the `2nd classification stage´. I will try, in particular, to find answers to the following questions: Which are the most important psychical relevant (pr) topics? What is reality, truth, freedom, the Self, the I and so on? Is there only one reality, just one truth, one freedom, one Self, etc.? Or are there a lot of them: a lot of realities, a lot of truths, a lot of freedoms, many Egos and Selves? And if so, what are they?
chapter, I distinguish with regard to every specific, psychical
relevant topic between absolute and relative forms and between
first-rate (= actual) and second-rate (= strange).
• The first-rate forms consist of only one +Absolute (divine/ celestial form), which comprises many relative forms.
• The second-rate forms consist of many strange absolute and strange relative forms. Here, the strange absolute forms are separated into two opposites and one zero part. (Why this is so, I explain later.)
So I distinguish between one first-rate Absolute (+A), which forms with its Relatives (R¹) a manifold unity: one first-rate reality/ world (W¹) - and on the other hand many second-rate, strange Absolutes (sA) with many second-rate, strange Relatives (R²) which create diverse second-rate realities/ worlds (W²).|
(These statements are basically statements of belief, although a lot of the specific literature gives the impression that this is not the case..
Phrases like “there is no absolute truth!” can be found often. However, the author should say: “I believe, that there is no absolute truth!”)
following section, the 7 aspects of the dimensions are
sequentially ordered (`2nd stage of dimensions).
What applies to +A and the sA, also applies to their synonyms: therefore to first-rate or second-rate identity (a2), first-rate or second-rate actuality, truth (a3), first-rate or second-rate unity (a4), first-rate or second-rate unconditionality/ safety (a5), first-rate or second-rate causes (a6) and first-rate or second-rate autonomy and freedom (a7). They will be specified further in the following.
At each first-rate aspect, I mention a `Meta'-term. So I want to make it clear that this first-rate meta-stage is the highest, includes everything Relative and is stronger than any sA, which have only relative importance from this perspective.
and the Relative were discussed above in `hypotheses' and as
`general conceptions' in chapter `Dimensions'
In relation to their (main?) function one can say:
• There is one first-rate absolute solution (= salvation and redemption) and many first-rate relative solutions.
• In contrast, there are many second-rate solutions: second-rate (pseudo-) absolute, when a relative solution has been absolutized, or second-rate relative, when other solutions have been derived from a pseudo-absolute solution. (For details, see section `Solutions´)
be understood as the 'inner unity of a person' or as 'essential
I distinguish first-rate, actual identity and second-rate, strange identities:
• The first-rate, actual identity encloses all possible relative identities, no matter if they are positive or negative. I think that the identities we give ourselves, such as 'a good person', our profession or our status, are not the absolute identity but more relative/ attributive identities. In my opinion, the highest identity is the identity that God gives to us, (theomorphism), which also continues to even if we are not at ease with our own idea of our identity. It represents itself personally as the positive Self. It also integrates our second-rate, strange identities. That means, that I can always feel identical to myself, even if I am strange to myself or can't see who I actually think I am. Even from that perspective, entirely alienated, I receive a fundamental, indestructible identity (from God / the love). One can identify this identity also as `meta-identity´ because it stands above all other relative or strange identities and compensates these.
• In contrast to that, there is a lot of second-rates (pseudo-)absolute identities. They consist of one hyper-identical and one contrary, strange and one zero part. They are fixed on specific identities and exclude other, mostly negative ones. In this case, the affected person has either the sense of a strange or even unacceptable identity, of a hyper-identity, or no identity at all.
Example: If my status as psychotherapist establishes my absolute identity, then I would feel as if my entire identity is lost when losing this status. Also, relativistic over-identifications may lead to a strange or non-existent identity, although many authors see it differently, e.g.: “The structure of the complete Identity is a reflection of the whole social process”. The definitions by the Self of Kernberg and others goes into the same direction.
It appears good, to define the above named attributes (nationality, profession ...) as something that is part of one’s actual Self. Stronger, however, is the first-rate core identity, which can be found deep within a person that causes me to be myself. But whenever relative identities become absolute, the person is confronted with a lot of different, sometimes paradoxical identities, that cannot be integrated anymore. Isn't that one of the main problems of our clients, that the free and unshakable identity is being limited and bound to severe requirements, so that we can only feel comfortable and identical to ourselves if those internalized requirements affirm it? Isn't it obvious, how vulnerable, questionable, delicate and potentially pathogenic such an image of man is? But we need an indestructible identity.
(See also `Disorder of the person's identity´ and `a2 Identity and otherness´).
convinced, that there are several “truths”.
I distinguish between first-rate, actual truth and “second-rate, strange truths”.
• The first-rate, actual truth includes all potential, relative truths.
The first-rate, actual truth is an entity with a variety of relative sections of truth.
More specifically: Every relatively true statement is connected to a relatively opposing statement, which is also relatively true.
Both “truths” are neither absolutely true nor absolutely untrue. Those relative truths only stay true if they are embedded in the first-rate actual truth. The first-rate truth does not only include objective truths but also subjective truths. One could identify it as 'meta-truth'.
Also: objectivity will be the most truthful if it does not attempt to be solely objective but also includes subjectivity. And subjectivity will be the strongest and most true when it involves objectivity.
The first-rate truth is stronger than the second-rate, strange truths, and can compensate those.
• In the case of “second-rate, strange truths”, a
relative truth is turned into an absolute truth, and a relative opposite
becomes an absolute opposite. Then, there is only absolutely true or
absolutely untrue, right or wrong, black or white etc. Also: If a
(relative) truth will exaggerate, a relative untruth arises.
Similar to the realities, the various truths also depend on the Absolute. They are subordinated to an Absolute and this Absolute determines if they are first-rate or second-rate. Those statements go hand in hand with the conceptions of the modern logic. For example: “The correctness or falsehood of a system can only be determined from outside of the system” = Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
Truth is stronger than rightness because the latter is often
"short lived". (P. Bamm)
Here are just a few keywords: We need to differentiate between truth and `rightness'. Truth is an important topic in philosophy, rightness/ correctness in sciences. The truth one can believe, the rightness one can prove. Truth first and foremost captures the essence, correctness the thing in itself. Similar statements: truth is a semantic category, correctness a syntactic category.
Truth is believable, the rightness is provable but the credible is stronger than the provable. "The dignity of man is inviolable" and similar statements are truths to me. But one cannot prove that they are right.
Although the truth is often defined as accordance between reality and intellect ("Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus"), I see no accordance because reality is only partially logically comprehensible.
The rightness should be embedded in truth and the search for truth should not be independent of the search for that which is correct. To me, rightness appears as a kind of relative truth.
distinguish between first-rate, actual unity and second-rate,
• The first-rate, actual unity may be absolute or relative.
There is only one first-rate unity, in which all relative units are embedded.
Personally, I believe that the unity of a person with God is an absolute unity. This unity contains all the (positive and negative) Relatives, also splits and dissociations. From that standpoint, nothing can separate us from God and there cannot be any kind of dissociation within us because we are always protected and secure in that unity. Therefore, I believe that this is the strongest force against any psycho-pathological division and dissociation because every society and every individual tends to split off the negative, and our human power is often not strong enough to overcome these splits.
This first-rate, actual unity is a kind of `meta-unit´
• In contrast, there are many second-rate, strange "units" that are determined by strange Absolutes (= 'It'). These It and their units are self-contradictory (→ The It as a nine-sided triad), have a contradictory dynamic (see, for example, `Disorder of the person's identity´) and are found in all mental illnesses (e.g., schizophrenia).
distinguish between first-rate, actual safety and second-rate,
• The first-rate, actual safety may be absolute or relative. There is only one first-rate absolute safety with a large number of first-rate, relative forms of safety. One can speak of a `meta-safety´ because it is higher than all relative safeties or uncertainties and compensates these. That means, that in spite of uncertainties, a person might still feel safe at a "higher level".
• In contrast to that, there are many second-rate, pseudo-absolute and strange relative safeties.
The pseudo-absolute safeties have one “over- secure” variant, one opposite too insecure and one zero variant.
Example: Something can cause a person to feel absolutely safe: such as being absolutely sure, to reach a certain goal. However, if this safety is questioned lost, the safety may become a big uncertainty. Anything in-between is missing. Also, there is no awareness of other safeties (zero variant).
a) first-rate, actual causes, which can be first-rate and absolute (“primary cause”), or hereinafter relative (“first-rate relative causes” from R¹).
b) second-rate, strange causes (“strange causes”), which emerge first from sA, or hereinafter from their Relatives (R²).
To be more exact:
• To a) One may think of one first-rate, actual cause with a large number of relative causes from R¹.
Personally, I see the first “primary cause” in God.
A second, “primary cause”, corresponds to the basic attitude of a person, which can be the foundation of multiple other causes. For our topic, it is important, that people do not only see themselves as victims of a complex interplay of conditions and requirements but also as a person who can primarily and independently bring new positive to a system.
• To b) Second-rate, strange causes emerge if relative causes are given pseudo-absolute importance. These are causes for certain behaviors, perceptions, etc., that often not correspond to the actual fundamental attitude of a person. They are products from It/sA or their systems. Those have two opposite parts and one zero part. That means, that the second-rate causes, especially the heteronomous desire, are divided into a pro-part (“I want this”), into its opposite (“I want the opposite”) and into a zero part (“I want nothing”).
The It/sA are typical second-rate causes. They create second-rate worlds/realities, second-rate personal and individual changes (WPI²). Those may become further second-rate causes, especially of illness. The It/sA as second-rate causes have very special characteristics and effects, which will be listed in detail later on (s.`General effects of the Its´). It is worth mentioning that they mainly have indirect and ambivalent effects. They also extend far beyond the original range of action (s. Spreading and compression). They are the cause for vicious cycles. 
hypothesis: The primary causes of a pr occurrence come from
the absolute sphere of a personal subject (`individual´). That
“subject” may be a person, God or ‒A. Put otherwise: The
above-named subjects are able to bring something totally new
into pr systems. So, as said before, the person is not just a
product of some relationships but may add something new to his
own healing process.
2nd hypothesis: In a pr system, any pr cause may have any relative result. That also means, that, put the other way around: Any relative result - negative or positive - (such as health or sickness) may come from every kind of cause. But with very different probability! (Exceptions s. below.) That also means, that any psychical symptom of illness, may have a large number of different causes, even if the probabilities are very different.
E. Bleuler said something similar to that: “It took very long until one realized that a psychopathological disorder can be caused by very different noxas and that one noxa may lead to different disorders.” 
That also means there is no absolute clear interpretation of symptoms, dreams and other kinds of pr phenomena but interpretations may only have high or low validity. (In that context, it is good to mention that opposite interpretations of second-rate realities are more likely than one would assume.)
When it comes to therapy, that means that: There is a great variety of therapeutic possibilities, even if the quality is very different.
3rd hypothesis: Is about an exclusion of the 2nd hypothesis: An absolutely positive cause has no absolutely negative result, and the other way around: An absolutely negative cause has no absolutely positive result.
Expressed in religious terms: There is nothing absolutely negative coming from God but something relatively negative sometimes (something that feels negative, such as sorrow and illness). Also, there is nothing absolutely positive that can come from ‒A but something relatively positive. God focuses on the +A, while the goal of ‒A is the absolutely negative.
4th hypothesis: Results of causes may become causes for other results. These can occur as circular or systemic causes, or as web or bundle of causes.
5th hypothesis: First-rate causes originate from the spiritual sphere.
Although the primacy of a spiritual (or ideational) causation cannot be proved, nor the primacy of material causation, there is presently the danger of one-sidedly searching for causes of mental illness in the material-somatic sphere and, accordingly, of treating them unilaterally (KW Psychotropic drugs).
[Since it is known that traumatizations can cause brain and gene changes that can be inherited, some ideas of heredity are also relativized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_trauma.]
6th hypothesis: If the principles (axioms) are wrong, then their derivatives too.
(Further see `Causes of mental disorders´).
humans, are only total independent when it comes to our absolute
ability of choice. Otherwise, we are more or less dependent. I
believe that only God is absolutely free. We are only free in
relation to the Absolute.
S. Kierkegaard said something similar. Therefore, I believe that the goal of absolute autonomy and independence, that a lot of people and therapists have, is unreal and overexerts us.
I distinguish between first-rate, actual freedom and second-rate “freedoms”.
• The first-rate, actual freedom may be absolute or relative. There is only one first-rate, absolute freedom with a lot of first-rate, relative forms of freedom.
• In contrast to that, there are a large number of second-rate (pseudo-)absolute and relative² “freedoms”. Those are split into one too free, 'libertarian', one strange and one unfree part.
Freedom is first-rate if it is connected with responsibility and embedded in love, in God. Whenever freedom is isolated from responsibility and love and still put as absolute, it becomes a second-rate, strange Absolute.
first-rate quasi celestial freedom also exists, when I can say that I am free, even though I am actually not. Put in other words: I also have the freedom of being dependent/ not free.
The first-rate freedom is stronger than the second-rate freedoms/ unfreedoms.
An important sign of second-rate freedoms is the limitation of choice.
section, I want to contrast forms of being that represent
Relatives (matter, etc.) to those which are close to the more
absolute (spirit, soul, etc.).
I assume that in the first-order reality there are fluid transitions between these entities, without the respective entities losing their own characteristic features. Limitations and divisions only occur in the second-rate realities on account of the sA. That´s why I believe that the human person is only unity in its first-rate reality. But since we also live in a large number of second-rate realities and also exist as such ones, we, like our environment, are more or less torn.
That also means that there are usually splits, contrasts, disassociations (and other sA-results) between spirit and body or within the psyche or the spirit. Put in other words: There is a great variety of forms of being in the first-rate reality but which together form a single entity. In the second-rate realities, however, there are a large number of forms of being, which are partly strange or opposite to each other. Therefore, they might become incompatible and the cause of illness.
They are, however, relativized and integrated by the +A. In other words: if I still feel so torn and broken, I can feel complete and safe in myself at a higher level.
Matter and spirit: Which one is the dominant one? I assume that the spirit is dominant in relation to the matter, i.e., the first-rate spirit determines the matter and not the other way around. As mentioned, spirit and matter are not necessarily opposites, since the matter may be a possible expression or result of the spirit. Surely, the matter can also determine the spirit but only the relative sphere of the spirit, not the absolute spirit. But matter can dominate a person as a strange Absolute. The actual absolute spirit, however, remains free and can be chosen at liberty.
I think of a similar hierarchy when it comes to humans. The hierarchy would be: spirit > psyche > body.
In the best case, there would be no kind of contradiction between those “parts”.
The latest findings of natural science raise doubts about the primacy of the spirit in relation to the matter. But it will probably depend on a person’s belief, what is seen as the primacy. I have little doubt as to the fact that the spirit has the most power (positive and negative).
The following questions are of great relevance when it comes to practical aspects and everyday life:
Is the body more important than the spirit or vice versa? Is the matter more important than the spirit or vice versa? Is the soul more important than the body or vice versa? Is the outside more important than the inside or vice versa? What are the top priorities of therapy and analysis of mental disorders? Are the priorities mostly found in the spirit or in the somatic area?
Can one not be happy, although one's body is “broken”, while it seems to be impossible to be happy when one has a broken soul but a body that is perfectly in shape?
Doesn't the spirit eventually determine the personality and not the genes? Fanatic ideologies that took millions of lives; children of Nazis, such as the son of Nazi Borman and others, who lived in an absolutely different way than their parents, are important examples of the power of negative and positive mindsets, that cannot be explained with the genes alone. 
(See also later on connections of body, soul and spirit).
Life is a
characteristic of the first-rate reality/ world (W¹). In W¹, the
functioning is subordinated to life.
The first-rate reality lives essentially (in the core) on its own accord.
In the second-rate realities, the functioning dominates the life of the individual. If we have the feeling that we are only functioning and not living, then we are in a second-rate, strange reality.
If we continue with the above-mentioned classification, we could say:
distinguish between the following first-rate positive Absolutes:
• God - as the unconditioned, comprehensive, positive personal Absolute - so far as a "definition" is possible at all. (God is, of course, more than the +A. He also includes all the Relatives, also the absolutized Relatives!). +A (God) without the Relative would be absolutistic.
• The absolute attitude of a person towards the +A .
(For more information, see section: "The absolute attitude").
Both of these together express a loving relationship that includes the possibility of free choice. (Such as it is in human relationships.)
This +A (God, love, and the Self) cannot be proven. If it was provable, it wouldn't be absolute. No proof is necessary. They are self-explanatory and self-evident. “I love you!” and not “I love you, because...”. That means that love is basically absolute. It is causeless, unprovable, not disputable. It cannot be 'produced', but wanted and given. It appears by itself. So it is basically very simple but does not mean that you should not put effort into keeping the love. Love, at its core, is something spiritual. (It is also something spiritual and physical - but first and first-rate spiritual.) Love represents something godly and heavenly.
I believe, man was made for love and freedom (God), that is also: the man has the freedom to reject God and love.
Also the universal human rights are not provable but obvious such as love, the Self or God and therefore it may only be believed.
To me, the Ten Commandments, morals, good deeds, etc. would be of relative first-rate positive relevance only in comparison with God, like altogether, all the positive sides of worldly life. Those and other first-rate +Relatives such as +realities, truths, freedoms and so on, create only a peaceful unity with the +A.
As positive Relatives, you could also say: they are also-love, also-in-God.
Important: +A integrates anything Relative and also the strange Absolute (sA).
(See also `Absolute and relative will´and `Right and wrong´.)
One could make the following distinctions:
1. An outer- or supra-personal negative Absolute (which was formerly called the devil).
2. A personal negative Absolute.
About 2): I believe that the personal negative Absolute is a fundamental, unrevoked, destructive attitude of an individual in favor of the absolute evil. I also believe that it is justifiably unforgivable because such an individual does not want forgiveness. In the bible that is called mortal sin.
Unfortunately, a large number of people, theologians included, view some other negative behavior or attitudes as unforgivable, as a mortal sin.
So: No fear of mortal sins, which are not mortal sins.
For details, see: `Right or wrong - To the guilt question´. On the topics: Is there evil at all? And to dualism. See the unabridged German version.
(Note: Although I consider the ‒A to be very important for the development of diseases, I have limited myself mainly to the pathogenic effects of sA in this work, since these are alterable and the former (‒A) is not.)
About the Subject
I am dealing
here above all with the person (P) as a subject.
• We can distinguish between two parts of the first-rate person (P¹) as the subject:
- P¹ as an absolute subject = the absolute
te I-self, with an absolutely free choice of the A and with absolute attributes such as uniqueness and singularity.
- P¹ as a relative subject.
A first-rate subject (P¹, God) compensates or integrates all relative and absolutized objects without becoming identically with them.
• As a second-rate subject, P² is a surrogate-subject because it is determined by an It/sA and acts as such. Therefore, I also call it “Sobject” because it is half subject and half object in its core.
Mentally ill people often see themselves as an object because they are determined by a strange subject (It/sA) as a sign of second-rate personality (P²).
first-rate object, the object can probably not be first-rate
absolute but only first-rate relative.
As second-rate object, it will be controlled by an It/sA , or it is absolutized itself.
P² there is either a subject-object-split, a
subject-object-fusion or a subject-object-negation.
- P¹ is a first-rate subject at its core; otherwise, in its relative sphere, it is subject and object at the same time. Here, there is no subject-object-split, no dualism but only a difference between a subject and object.
That also means, that as long as the subject is connected to +A, it can integrate all objects, even the negative ones, so that it will not come to a subject-object-split or fusion. That is very important for the therapy of psychoses.
However, the subject-object issue is not only relevant for psychiatry but it is also a superordinate problem. Therefore, it is briefly mentioned here because the problem's solution offers practical consequences.
“The subject-object issue is a major problem of epistemology and of the occidental way of thinking in general, which consists of the question, as to determine the, in principle, two-parted relation between the subject and object."
In my opinion, dualisms and monisms prevail in the second-rate realities - but in the first-rate reality, diversity dominates. Because our world is both, first-rate and second-rate, the question of what is dominant can only be answered with regard to a specific situation.
Can I, as a subject, view the world completely objectively? Only in part.
Can one objectify a subject completely? Probably just as little as you can turn an object into an actual subject.
I think objectification of a subject or an object is only relatively easily possible.
And: subjective things can be captured best using subjective methods.
of priority, similar to the one of matter and spirit, is one of
belief and knowledge.
Belief pertains to spirit and knowledge seeks provable facts. The borders between belief and rationality are fluent.
In the first-rate reality, there is no conflict between both of them but rationality and knowledge are subordinate to belief. Every bit of knowledge is based on specific fundamental ideas.
Belief, however, is not based on the fundamentals of knowledge. How absurd would it be if a person were to demand: “Prove to me that you love me; that I am worthy; that I have a basic right to live, etc.?”
Belief moves the heart, the core, the absolute area of a person, more than knowledge. Belief is stronger but not better than knowledge. But: A good belief is better than good knowledge.
On the other side, negative or destructive belief can be much more dangerous than negative knowledge:
The belief in some sort of ideologies, leaders or idols killed innumerable people, more than anything else. Goebbels once said something like: `You don't have to understand the leader (Führer, Hitler) but you do have to believe in him.´ Therefore, inhuman ideologies are the most dangerous.
Why should we not use belief in a positive way if it has so much power?
It seems, that we paradoxically renounce to talk about problems of belief, due to an exaggerated belief in science. It is not only good knowledge that should help our patients but also a good belief, that helps the patients to get better. I experienced that patients have more trust in a believable therapist than in an intelligent one.
Some catchwords referring to that topic:
- Belief and knowledge are like brothers - but belief is the most powerful, the most prolific and is said also to be the most terrifying.
- You may believe anything. Beliefs have a great variety - knowledge is limited.
- Belief contains knowledge but knowledge per se does not contain belief. One can say: “I believe this or that because there is proof.” But one cannot say: “I know this and that because I believe in it.”
- Knowledge is not accessible to everyone but belief is. Example: “The mother is talking to her baby ... and nobody says: 'What are you saying? The baby doesn't even understand anything you say!' But the mother believes that her child understands, even if it does not know what she is saying because the mother imparts the most important: love that you can only believe in.
Similar thoughts in `Adieu Sagesse´ (Daphne Du Maurier); `The Delusions of Certainty´ (Siri Hustvedt).
See also `Trust and knowledge´.
of unilateral attitudes of belief and rationality:
Fideism: Overemphasis of belief associated with the undervaluation of knowledge.
Scientism: “Over-evaluation of science, that makes appear that all ... problems can be solved through science.”
Positivism: Philosophy ... assuming the priority of data of experience … and viewing metaphysical consideration as useless and impossible. (Cit. correspondingly by Schischkoff).
distinguish between first-rate, actual sense/ meaning and
second-rate, strange sense/ meanings:
• The first-rate, actual sense/ meaning can be absolute or relative. There is only one first-rate absolute sense/ meaning and many first-rate relative forms or definitions of sense/ meaning.
It is reasonable, for example, to do good things, to stay healthy and fit (and so on). However, I believe, that these are not of absolute but of relative importance and are embedded in a greater sense/ meaning, which I believe, is the unconditional love of God to us. That love still exists and causes happiness within us, when all the other sense/ meanings seem to be lost.
I call this first-rate sense `meta-sense´ because it is more important than all strange sense/ meanings but integrates them.
• In contrast to that, there are a large number of strange, second-rate, pseudo-absolute and -relative forms and aspects of sense/ meanings. These have two opposite and one zero component.
Example: If success has first-rate meaning for a certain person, then it has a strange, pseudo-absolute meaning and then it also seems reasonable, to fight or oppress other people if those are endangering the success.
Only a few
- We should free ourselves from viewing illness as something solely negative, something that has to be eliminated. Health and illness are only of relative relevance. That means, that illness also has positive aspects and health also has negative aspects. Experience shows the same: illness can have important functions for the protection, resistance, relief or identity of a person.
Although disease is predominantly negative and health
predominantly positive, however, health can be predominantly negative
and disease can be predominantly positive. Therefore, I also use terms
such as "positive depression", "positive psychotic phase", "positive
anxiety" or "positive compulsion".
Examples for positive suffering/symptoms: withdrawal of drugs, surgery, compassion, detachment-processes.
Examples for 'negative well-being': well-being through drugs, symbiotic relationships, of flow experiences.
- There are connections between good/bad and healthy/ill: The good is correlated more with health, and the bad with illness.
- There is a fluent transition between illness and health. There are probably very few people that are completely healthy or completely ill - that also applies to the psychical sphere. We all have something neurotic and potentially psychotic in us.
- If health or illness is taken too seriously (absolutized), distorted theories and therapies may occur.
Against the Absolutization of Health
Our society not only has an idealized perception of health - looking at the WHO definition - but it also persuade us to believe that this ideal can be reached and that everyone is entitled to it. 
If we, as doctors, absolutize health, there will be disorders. Absolutized health can make people ill or charge another high price. If we enforce health at any price, the probability is high that it will disappear. That is a well-known mechanism we also experience on a daily basis. 
There is also the general trend that our society tends to absolutizing the entire worldly life.
(See also: "Role of disease and health" in `Metapsychiatry'.)
mentioned, I distinguish between the following pr units:
[The more absolute unit is mentioned first, then the relative one].
1. All /Nothingness and something
2. God and World
3. People and things
4. I and others
5. Spirit, soul and body
Short: 2-4 = WPI (frequently used abbreviation)
distinguish between first-rate and second-rate all/ everything,
something and nothingness.
I use the terms `all´, 'everything', `reality' and anything that is psychical relevant, as synonyms in this publication. Here about reality.
One hypothesis is: There are a large number of realities: one that is first-rate and many which are second-rate.
So there is one first-rate reality, which is manifold (W¹), and on the other hand, there are many second-rate, strange realities (W²), which are fashioned according to the all-or-nothing principle. That is, the second-rate all/ everything is opposed to the nothingness.
(For details, see later or in the unabridged version).
defined God as the unconditional, positive personal Absolute - provided
a definition is even possible.
From the first rank perspective, it can be said that there is only one God, and with him, an immeasurable diversity of life and being, for God embraces all that is not ‒A.
There is a large number of second-rate things which are taken to be God or stand for God. They can resemble God in parts or be quite dissimilar to God. Unlike the ‒A, however, they do not stand in absolute opposition to him. (That is why I name them `strange Absolutes´).
God is best and directly to be experienced through Jesus. He is thus directly "testable". God permeates the world with the Holy Spirit but he is not identical with it. Unlike other Gods, he lets all of us decide freely if we want to be with or against him.
Therefore, the world is also ruled by other spiritual powers and not solely by God. That is why God is only partial (albeit always) effective, although he is omnipotent.
For further characteristics, see section `+ A '.
specify human existence as follows:
I distinguish between first-rate, actual human existence, and second-rate, strange forms of human existence.
• There is only one first-rate, absolute human existence with many first-rate relative forms.
• In contrast to that, there are many strange, second-rate forms of human existence.
Since, by nature, every human being has the potential to be relatively positive and negative, man encounters problems when he idealizes his relative positive parts or taboos his relatively negative parts because then second-rate personal forms arise and then he lives against his original nature.
But this, I believe, affects more or less all humans. That is, every person has one first-rate as well as many second-rate forms of existence (such as otherworldly forms of existence). The latter are divided into two different or opposite parts and one zero part.
Regarding the question of the unity of body, soul and spirit, this implies, that if those have a first-rate, actual character, they are a diverse entity. But in second-rate forms of human existence, it also means that the human is also split at parts where it is unreal and strange. That kind of splitting does not only occur between body, soul and spirit but can also be found within the body, soul or spirit itself.
Briefly more to the following questions:
Does the human person have free will? Can the human person be the creator of something absolutely new?
I believe so. Otherwise, every new creation, every kind of creativity, every invention would be a combination of old components only. Anything really and completely new would not exist. There would not be anything that is completely one's own. Wouldn't innovation and progress be only a better, new use of something old in that case? Do artists just combine familiar things only in a new way? Are there no real inventions?
Those questions are connected to the individuality of one's personality. Otherwise, everything would only be a new composition of old components (genes). Then, the human person would only be a product.
The Human and the Absolute
The human is designed towards the +Absolute.
(This refers to the + A and its synonyms.)
People definitely need an Absolute. And: people want to be absolute themselves, too. Every person has one or many Absolutes that can be actual or strange. Humans often try to find their Absolute in the Relative. With that, not actual but strange Absolutes are created which elevate a person but also cause the person to break down.
The human is also `AR-dimensioned´ i.e. with absolute and relative parts. However, other than the rest of the world, every human has it's special and specific Absolute, here stated as 'attitude toward an Absolute'. (Look there).
The absolute sphere of a human person has two parts:
1st The mentioned individual choice/ attitude of the Absolute,
2nd The absolute attributes which are given to the human person by God such as first-rate freedom, personal integrity, the right to self-determination, absolute identity and dignity.
The world gives a person just something Relative, and therefore only an ephemeral existence which can be manipulated and suppressed - in my opinion, that is a situation which causes mental disorders. So the human person is only completely absolute in his choice/ attitude of the actual Absolute. That means that a human person is never completely absolute, nor absolutely himself, nor totally identical with himself, nor completely real or true, nor totally consistent, nor absolutely unconditional, nor fully independent, and so on (except 1st). Instead, the human person is always somewhat paradoxical or senseless, a little strange, split, chaotic, fixated, crazy, extreme, uncertain, pseudo-autonomous etc.
What does the human need?
that the human person needs a large number, especially love and
food. But what is more important? I believe that love is more
important for a person than food. People have a great longing
for love. In our earthly sphere, in shape of the search for a
partner; spiritually, in the shape of the search for God. The
experiment of Friedrich II of Staufen is well-known. To find the
primeval language of the human person is, he commanded women to
take care of orphaned children without talking to them. The
children received anything but no love. They died sadly. And
there are still a large number of people nowadays that are
experiencing the same dilemma. They have everything that they
need in their lives, yet they kill themselves. That's why I
believe that man desperately needs love. I believe that our
souls carry the pain of the loss of paradise throughout the
entire life and they are longing for paradise to be back. F.
Nietzsche said: “… all joy wants eternity”.
Modern psychology however, views the human person primarily only as immanent. According to Rudolf, "the goal of the ego's activities is to assert its own interests while at the same time ensuring the necessary social relationships."(p. 67)
The Human and