- Abstract
- Foreword
- M E T A P S Y C H O L O G Y
- Introduction
- The General Psychical Relevant
- Individual Metapsychological Topics
- P S Y C H O L O G Y
- M E T A P S Y C H I A T R Y
- Introduction
- INVERSION - Confusion of the Absolute and Relative
- IT - the NEW STRANGE ENTITY
- EMERGENCE OF STRANGE, SECOND-RATE REALITIES
- EMERGENCE OF THE STRANGE, SECOND-RATE PERSONAL
- DYNAMICS OF STRANGE REALITIES
- P S Y C H I A T R Y
- Causes of mental disorders
- MENTAL DISORDERS FROM THE BIOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVE
- PSYCHOSES
- Remarks about Other Disorders
- M E T A P S Y C H O T H E R A P Y
- P S Y C H O T H E R A P Y
- Definitions of Psychotherapy
- Difficulties in Psychotherapy
- Psychotherapeutic Schools of Thought (Critical Overview)
- `PRIMARY PSYCHOTHERAPY´
- Introduction
- Differences to Other Psychotherapies
- Accordances with other Psychotherapies
- Causal Therapies
- Symptomatic Therapies and
Emergency Solutions
- Contra Symptomatic Therapy
- Pro Symptomatic Therapy
- A) Emergency Solution at the Expense of Other People
- B) Emergency Solution at Your Own Expense by Disease
- C) Emergency Solution with More Old or New Absolutizations
- D) Emergency Solution by Anticathexis or Fewer Absolutizations
- E) Emergency Solution with Psychiatric Drugs
- “Paradoxical" Therapy
- Psychotherapy of Schizophrenia
- Remarks for Patients
- Basic Attitudes
- Unfavorable and Favorable Attitudes in Relationships
- Self-Strength and Ego-Strength
- Adult-Ego and Child-I
- First A then B
- High Jump with or without a yardstick
- The Undoing of the Fixation
- Choosing the Self and God - a Plea
- The Circle Closes
- Systematization:
- Concerning the Dimensions
- Concerning the Differentiations
- Main Differentiations
- Individual Aspects
- 1. Everything (All) , Individual and Nothing
- 2. God and the World (Transcendence, Immanence)
- 3. People and Things
- 4. Me and Others
- 5. Spirit, Soul and Body
- 6. Love and Sexuality
- 7. Peace of Mind and Well-being
- 8. Absolute and Relative Will
- 9. Being and Having
- 10. Strength and Weakness
- 11. Order and Necessity
- 12. Primary Virtue and Morality
- 13. Freedom and Control
- 14. New and Old
- 15. Let and Do
- 16. Trust and Knowledge
- 17. Openness and Reticence
- 18. Values
- 19. Past
- 20. Present
- 21. Future
- 22. Right and Wrong
- 23. Protection and Defense
- Fictitious letter to a schizophrenic person
- Successes of 'Primary Psychotherapy'
- Some Mini-Stories
- Redemption
- The Umbilical Cord
- The Small Child in Us
- Neurotics
- Nobody can Help me - I'm Doing Everything Wrong
- Sadomasochism
- Story of the Slipping
- How Do I Come from the Seesaw?
- Two High-Level Jumpers
- The bread roll story
- The Story of the Big Trap
- Plus 30 or Minus 70 Percent
- The Story of the False Suitcase
- The Story of Missing Thanks
- Rail or Gravel
- The Story of the Conflicting Interpretation
- The Story of the Lost Paradise
- The Story of the Prostitutes
- A Neurotic Story between Myself and my Wife
- Meditations (See unabridged German version)
- Often used abbreviations
- Bibliography of the unabridged german edition
- Net References
- Index
- Author and contact
Abstract
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.[1]
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 meanings take place. Such reversals of
meanings 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 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).[2].
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. [3]
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.
Foreword
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
following reasons:
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. [4] 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. [5]
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”[6] 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.)
M E T A P S Y C H O L O G Y
Introduction
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.
[7]
• 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.
Based on
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. [8]
The General Psychical Relevant
Introduction and Classification
In this chapter, that which is relevant to the psyche is investigated. [9]
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:
•
Differentiations
• Dimensions.
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:
One might say: That which is psychically relevant derives from that which one can say about the reality of a subject-matter (people, environment etc.) and whether it has absolute, relative, or nonexistent meaning.
Classification Levels
I
distinguish the following 3 stages in the classification of
the psychical Relevant
(dimensions and differentiations).
|
DIMENSIONS |
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 (Abbr. BLQC) |
| 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 dimensions. |
3rd stage of differentiation: All terms listed in the overview table, concerning differentiations. |
Note: For the sake of simplicity, I often use only the 1st classification stage (AR0) in order to characterize the absolute, relative or zero meaning of the aspects.
Of the differentiations, I commonly use the 1st and 2nd stage. (More on that later.)
General Differentiations (Analogy Language and the Psychical Relevant)
Language and the Psychical Relevant
“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
psyche itself.
Lévi-Strauss and Lacan had a similar idea, postulating a `homology´
between language and (albeit merely) the unconscious. [10]
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.
First stage of Differentiation
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
table
below shows the resulting psychically relevant
analogues.
|
|
|||
|
|
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 |
||
|
|
nouns |
I. forms of being |
units |
|
verbs |
II. forms of life |
dynamics |
|
|
adjectives |
III. qualities |
qualities |
|
|
syntax |
IV. connections |
connections, |
|
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:
I. Nouns
(N) = being
(= forms of being or pr units)
II. Verbs =
life
(= dynamics)
III. Adjectives = qualities
IV. Syntax
= subjects, objects and their connections.
Abbreviation: (BLQC)
In the
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).|
Second stage of Differentiation
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 |
SINGLE ASPECTS |
|
| I. NOUNS Articles
|
Forms of being = |
Units 1 Everything / Something (Nothingness) 2 God / World 3 People / Things 4 I / Other(s) 5 Personal Spirit/ Soul, Body 6 - / Gender |
| II. VERBS Modal auxiliary verbs
Full
verbs
|
Forms of life =
Modalities
Activities
Times
|
Dynamics (and Modalities) 7 to be 8 to want 9 to have 10 can 11 must 12 should 13 may, be allowed 14 to create 15 to do, to produce 16 to perceive 17 to reproduce 18 to judge 19 past 20 present 21 future |
| III. ADJECTIVES |
Qualities = |
Qualities 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.
The 3rd
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.
Dimensions
"If names be not
correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of
things.
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 [11]
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.]
Explanation and Terms
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
Absolute (A)
• the Relative (R)
[12]
• 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.
Classification Overview
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.)
In this
way, each pr phenomenon can
be classified according to the following
categories:
absolute, relative or null (0); first-rate, second-rate or
null; pro/+, contra/‒ or null, and by its occurrence.
The Absolute
Motto: The ground of things is the unconditioned, the Absolute.[13]
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). [14] Religion? (P. Tillich). Genes?
Pleasure or reality? Ideologies?
The laws of nature? The views
differ. I call it the Absolute (A).
I distinguish
• first-rate, actual Absolute (A¹) [15]
• 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?[16]
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. [17]
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.
Summary
The
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. [18] 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.
The 7 Synonyms of the Absolute (2nd stage of differentiation)
The
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:
1. absolute
2. self
3. actual
4. whole, complete
5. unconditional
6. primary, first-rate
7. independent
The term absolute represents the guiding concept.
Short Systematic Overview
Rank of the Absolute
After
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.[19]
• To the second-rate, strange Absolutes (sA)
- positive/pro
and negative/contra-sA (+sA and ‒sA)
- strange
nothingness (s0 or only 0).[20]
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, Occurrences
• 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.
Overview
and Preview of Important Terms and Abbreviations
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. [21]
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”.
The Relative
The Meaning of the Relative [22]
The
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
independent existence.
The Relative can be proved, the Absolute may only be
believed. [23]
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.
7 Synonyms of the Relative (2nd stage of differentiation)
Just as I named 7 synonyms of the Absolute in the 2nd stage of differentiation, I also name 7 synonyms of the first-rate Relative:The Relative (compared to the Absolute) is:
1. relative, relational
2. different
3. possible
4. partial
5. conditional
6. secondary
7. dependent [24]
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)
|
Absolute |
Relative |
| absolute self actual whole unconditional first-rate (primary) independent |
relative different possible partial conditional secondary dependent |
More about 'The Absolute and Relative in comparison' - see unabridged German version.
Symbols which Show the Relations between A and R
(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.
The Nothingness (0)
I
believe that the actual nothingness is a result of the
negative Absolute.
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´).
General Units/ Systems
Terms/ Definitions
I
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.)
World, Person and the I as they are
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).
Fig. This illustration shows how different systems
are interconnected by equal absolute areas.
For details on the following topics see the unabridged German version:
Basic relations in pr realities / systems.
Relations between spirit, psyche and matter.
Interplay of general language forms and differentiations.
Relations between various pr units.
Human between +A / ‒A and R.
Summary
n the
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.
Summary of the Dimensions and Differentiations and their Classification
|
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
|
|||
|
Comparation (Comparative forms of adjectives) |
absolute / and relative adjectives |
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 |
||||
|
|
MAIN ASPECTS (General Differentiation) |
|||
|
Word class |
Nouns Verbs Adjectives |
Being Life Qualities |
I Units: Spirit / Matter II Dynamics: Life / Functioning III Qualities: abs./ relative Qualities |
|
|
Syntax |
Contexts |
IV Contexts: Subjects/ Objects |
||
|
|
SINGLE ASPECTS (Single Differentiation) |
|||
|
|
NOUNS |
Forms of being |
Units 1 All / something (nothing) 2 God / world 3 People / things 4 I / other(s) 5 pers. spirit / soul, body 6 Gender |
|
|
VERBS Modal auxiliary
|
Forms of life Modalities |
Dynamics (and Modalities) 7 to be 8 to want 9 to have 10 can 11 must 12 should 13 may, be allowed |
||
|
Full verbs |
Activities |
14 to create 15 to do, to produce 16 to perceive 17 to reproduce 18 to judge 19 past 20 present 21 future |
||
|
ADJECTIVES |
Qualities |
Qualities 22 right, wrong 23 negative, positive |
||
Individual Metapsychological Topics
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?
General Hypotheses
In this
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!”)
Regarding the Dimensions
In the
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.
Solutions (a1)
The Absolute
and the Relative were discussed above in `hypotheses' and as
`general conceptions' in chapter `Dimensions'
(1st level).
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´)
Identity, Self (a2)
Identity can
be understood as the 'inner unity of a person' or as 'essential
likeness'.
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”.[25] 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´).
Truth (a3)
"The higher a truth is, the higher you have to look to understand it." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry)I am
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.[26]
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.[27]
Truth and Rightness
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.
Unity (a4)
I
distinguish between first-rate, actual unity and second-rate,
strange “units”.
• 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).
Safety (a5)
I
distinguish between first-rate, actual safety and second-rate,
strange safeties.
• 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).
Causes and Results (a6)
I
distinguish between:
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.[28] 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.
[29]
Six Hypotheses on Cause of Changes of the Psychical Relevant (pR)
1st
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.” [30]
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´).
Autonomy and Freedom (a7)
We, as
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.[31]
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.
Differentiations
The 4 main Differentiations
Forms of Being
In this
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.
[32]
(See also later on connections
of body, soul and spirit).
Life
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.
Qualities
The question of good and evil is one of the most central questions of our lives. Not without reason, we lost paradise after eating the forbidden fruit that promised knowledge of good and evil (or of right and wrong?). If something is good or bad is basically a question of belief. There is a general consensus, that the good and positive benefits a person, while the negative causes harm.Subjectively positive or negative is whatever one feels or defines as positive or negative.
The subjective and objective view of positive and negative may be the same but often, it is different. Sometimes, we make something into our inner or outer enemy, although it is actually something positive (→ Resistance) or it also happens the other way around: We think something is positive and good for us, although objectively, it is something harmful and negative. At times, we love or hate the same thing/ a person too much, even though the “object” is unchanged. Such ambivalences and contradictions are ubiquitous.
Whatever a person labels as good or bad does not only play a big part when it comes to 'peace or war' but is also relevant as 'inner war' for the development of mental disorders. What is thought of evil, devilish, hostile, etc., is usually hated and fought. One cannot identify with it, not integrate it, and, if necessary, splits it off.
The positive, much-loved things are usually loved too much, so that the person over-identifies him-/herself with it.
That which we consider being the absolutely positive (+sA) or negative (‒sA), is split in two opposites. In itself, it is only relatively positive or negative but it is reduced to the two opposing sides: either solely positive or solely negative only. Whoever has idols (+sA), with whom he identifies, also has corresponding devils, enemies (‒sA), which then threaten him.
If we continue with the above-mentioned classification, we could say:
• There is the one, first-rate absolute good / positive (see +A below) and a large number of first-rate relative good/ positives.
And there are many second-rate “good” / positives.
• There is the one, first-rate absolute evil/ negative (‒A) and many first-rate, relative "evils" / negatives.
And there are many second-rate "evils" and negatives.
• The good is not necessarily associated with well-being.
• The +A integrates everything relative negative or absolutized.
+Absolute (+A)
I
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´.)
‒Absolute (‒A)
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.)
Subjects, Objects and Subject-Object-Problem
About the Subject
I am dealing
here above all with the person (P) as a subject.[34]
• 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).
Object
As
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.
- In
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."[35]
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.
Additional questions:
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.
Further Examples
Belief and Knowledge
"Cogito, ergo sum“ or „Credo, ergo sum“?"Nil sapientiae odiosius acumine nimio.” (“Nothing is more hateful to wisdom than too much cleverness.”) Seneca